• GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 days ago

    This headline made me laugh so hard. “Hey, guys, could you, um, give up some of your legally enshrined rights and privileges so we can harvest more resources without oversight from anyone else and the profits can go to the companies doing this and not the people the land belongs to? No? Okay. Well, good talk.”

    Alberta leaving Canada does nothing to help them and will certainly harm them. Did she offer some glass beads while she was at it?

  • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    So this whole, ablerta sovereignty not being legally allowable due to treaties with first nations was the first time I’d heard that.

    Is there not the same issue at play in all the other provinces, especially Quebec, or is there something special about the treaties in Alberta?

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      No not every province is covered by treaties. All of the prairies. And it’s complicated let’s say the chiefs decide to go with Alberta what happens when America takes over they are not going to honour the treaties. I don’t see a seperate Alberta be sovereign for long.

      Also Canada spends a lot of money on first Nations so why do we still have all these problems? There seems to be mismanagement somewhere along the line.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        No not every province is covered by treaties

        Ah, okay then that makes sense

        what happens when America takes over

        Assuming the chiefs ever agreed I imagine the agreement would need to include its guarantee and any joining with the US (assuming it’s not annexing) would need to be honored or the deal couldn’t go through.