Colin …I have a book “Chronically of Canada”….consisting of newspaper accounts at the time of signing the Plains Indians ceding the land…. ,……….which included Albertan.
A bit off the subject…. but in the event you may need it along the way, the news article is dated August 3 1871…. and states;
“The government also promised to maintain a school on each reserve, if the Indians want one”.
On another article….. it states the Indians WANTED the government to supply schools as part of the ceding.
Sooo….. in spite of what we are hearing in this day and age…. the foregoing is a glimpse back in Canadian history…. especially Alberta. If you need the article… I’d be glad to supply.
Keep up your important resesrch…. but you must,… somehow,…. get the word out to the masses,……..and don’t expect the corrupt media to help you out.
Great article - well written and well thought out!
I appreciate you taking the time to do all the research and write the papers to educate Albertans how possible it is to be our own independent country. Now if we can just get them to read :).
Colin, in one of your well researched articles you laid out ALL the abuses Alberta has been subjected to. What I like about the article is that you reach further back beyond Pierre Trudeau. … not just his pickle headed son Justin “Turdo”….not to mention the final straw…that of Conflicted Carnage.
However, I have to wonder if indeed all the efforts that is going into this movement will crash n the end for the following reason.
A signed contract …. is a signed contract, is a signed contract”
That contract clearly states;
“Plains Indians ceded their lands to Her Majesty and her successors, forever”.
So, how is Alberta going to go about taking something that “doesn’t” belong to the government of that day of separation?
Are you aware that after Kind dork (Charles) was crowned kind,…. a number of Indigenous Chiefs met with him and discussed this very thing. They made a statement afterward that “it wasn’t the end of the matter”. You take that for what it meant.
(Somewhere in the past I read that the land we think our homes sit on is not ours but belongs to “the Crown”.)
Be assured their will be a hell of a lot of roadblocks thrown in the way of Alberta’s independence
so I suggest someone get an answer to the foregoing.
John, you’re raising an important issue that should be part of any serious discussion of independence, but a few facts are worth clarifying to keep the conversation grounded.
First, the numbered treaties were agreements between First Nations and the Crown, not between First Nations and the Province of Alberta specifically. The wording you referenced....ceding land to Her Majesty and her successors forever, means the legal relationship is with the Crown as a continuing constitutional institution, not with whichever provincial government happens to exist at a moment in time. In Canada, that relationship is now protected within the Constitution itself through section 35, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. Those rights are not optional or temporary. They carry constitutional status.
Second, this means treaty rights would not simply disappear or transfer automatically in a separation scenario. Any constitutional change involving Alberta’s status would trigger complex negotiations involving First Nations as rights holders, not just governments. The Supreme Court of Canada has already made clear in the Quebec Secession Reference that constitutional change engages multiple parties and principles.....democracy, federalism, minority rights, and constitutionalism.....and cannot be done unilaterally without negotiation. Indigenous rights and concerns would be part of that framework, not an afterthought.
Third, the idea that the land belongs to the Crown is partly true but often misunderstood. Crown land refers to land held by the state, but treaty relationships also created ongoing obligations, rights, and shared understandings that continue today. Modern law increasingly treats treaties as nation to nation agreements that remain active, not historical one time real estate transactions. That is exactly why contemporary legal decisions and federal legislation repeatedly emphasize that government actions must respect existing treaty rights.
So you are right about one thing, there would be serious roadblocks. But those roadblocks are not simply legal technicalities. They reflect the fact that Indigenous nations are constitutional actors in Canada’s framework. Any independence project that assumes these relationships can be bypassed or simplified would quickly run into legal and political reality.
In short, the question is not whether treaties stop independence outright. The real issue is that any serious separation model would require meaningful participation, negotiation, and likely consent processes involving First Nations whose treaties predate Alberta itself. That is a much more complicated process than most independence articles acknowledge.
True enough, but we do not need a full time defence force..We should have everyone male / female trained in using a gun etc..A reserve force, not full time.
I have a friend who has done some work on this matter as well. I would like to connect the two of you and wondered a couple of things. 1. would you be interested in such a connection 2. for initial private contact what is your preferred method to open the discussion. He is a very practical guy, veteran and active in the Emergency Management profession. Feel free to contact me here on Substack directly or reply here and I would make the introduction if you're interested.
The essay presupposes APP carries their question, then a referendum is held, it passes by a clear majority, the Clarity Act is invoked, treaty negotiations are held with First Nations under current Treaty structure…. Yadayada.
You are living a fantasy as none of those dogs are ever going to hunt. To witter on about Alberta military capability is nothing short of hitting the bong hard.
The referendum act - Bill 14, doesn’t obligate the Govt to go any further than the referendum itself. Smith has picked the APP pockets. She’s given enough rope to let you barking ‘BertaExiteers run around in her big Conservative tent huffing and puffing to save her scrawny 9 seat majority.
Once you are no longer useful, you’ll be shown the door.
Meanwhile you’re a pool of gullible folk that are going to have their grievances monetized to fill the grifting pockets of Rath/Modry et al.
Yes, unfortunately Canada has all the makings of such actions!
There is longer trust, …. not only in government,…. but also the Justice system with its different level for different criminals.
Also, there is the “land back” issue that is taking place…. being directed by the non elected body ….being the United Nations….. including that of ALL. ..properly here in B.C… and eventually ALL of Canada.
The NDP, under the direction of Premier Eby, has “returned” the ownership of the Queen Charlotte Island over to our indigenous brothers and sisters of the land. Not only that but the Cowichan Tribes have made claim,……. and approved by the B.C. Court,….. of land, not “here” in the Cowichan Valley …. but in the Richmond B.C. area.
The separation movement with Alberta is DIRECTLY caused by the “FALSE” assumption that the burning of fossil fuel is causing the planet to warm. That assumption started off with FRAUD within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…. and has turned into “the Gospel TRUTH”….because it’s been repeated over, and over, and over again,……….. and Alberta is unfortunately paying the price.
Civil War? I doubt it, as most Canadians are peace loving and as long as they have a beer to drink and T.V. to watch…. they won’t lift a finger….. as our country crumbles That is of course Albertans, that seem to be fed up…. and are trying to … at least….some something.
Colin, the issue isn’t whether Alberta could create a military structure on paper. Any jurisdiction with resources can do that. The problem is that your argument treats feasibility as the same thing as viability, and those are very different standards.
Your baseline assumption that Alberta would receive roughly 11.6% of Canadian military assets is presented as a reasonable starting point, but in reality, that would be a matter of complex negotiation, not entitlement. Asset division in a separation scenario would be tied to liabilities, existing defence commitments, pensions, contracts, and international obligations. Without that context, the budget math appears cleaner than it would be in practice.
There is also a tension between this article and the broader APP fiscal framing. The APP’s own documents already acknowledge that defence would likely cost several billion annually, plus substantial upfront capital investment. That suggests the challenge is not simply organizing a lean territorial force, but building and sustaining an entire defence ecosystem from scratch....logistics, procurement, training pipelines, cyber capability, and long-term personnel obligations. Those are not small overhead items that disappear because Alberta has no coastline or carrier ambitions.
The comparisons to Switzerland and Singapore also don’t translate as directly as you suggest. Switzerland’s system rests on centuries of institutional continuity, embedded civil-military structures, and a strategic doctrine built around neutrality and terrain. Singapore, meanwhile, is not a light or inexpensive model.....it spends heavily, maintains sophisticated air and naval capabilities, and operates under a very different threat environment. Both examples represent mature defence systems built over generations, not templates that can be rapidly replicated by a newly independent state.
Another core issue is the assumption that continental partnerships would naturally fill the gaps. NORAD and other defence arrangements are treaties between existing sovereign states; they are not automatic inheritances. An independent Alberta would need new agreements negotiated from the ground up, and there is no guarantee that the United States or Canada would structure those relationships on terms that reduce Alberta’s costs or responsibilities. Strategic value helps start conversations, but it doesn’t replace treaty architecture or command integration realities.
Your proposed force structure, a small professional core plus reserves, also appears overstretched relative to the mission list you assign it. Border support, disaster response, cyber defence, airspace monitoring, and alliance deployment are all resource-intensive obligations. A force can be efficient, but it cannot be simultaneously minimal and widely tasked without sacrificing readiness or depth.
The larger point is that the argument shifts repeatedly between symbolic contribution and genuine sovereignty capability. Those are not the same. A country can field a military that looks credible domestically while still relying heavily on external structures for real security guarantees. That dependency is precisely what needs to be acknowledged honestly in discussions about independence.
So the real rebuttal here is simple: the question isn’t whether Alberta could assemble soldiers and equipment. The question is whether it could build a sustainable, sovereign defence architecture without relying on optimistic assumptions about asset transfers, treaty access, and partnership terms that do not yet exist. Until those uncertainties are treated as central rather than peripheral, the military viability case remains more aspirational than demonstrated.
Colin …I have a book “Chronically of Canada”….consisting of newspaper accounts at the time of signing the Plains Indians ceding the land…. ,……….which included Albertan.
A bit off the subject…. but in the event you may need it along the way, the news article is dated August 3 1871…. and states;
“The government also promised to maintain a school on each reserve, if the Indians want one”.
On another article….. it states the Indians WANTED the government to supply schools as part of the ceding.
Sooo….. in spite of what we are hearing in this day and age…. the foregoing is a glimpse back in Canadian history…. especially Alberta. If you need the article… I’d be glad to supply.
Keep up your important resesrch…. but you must,… somehow,…. get the word out to the masses,……..and don’t expect the corrupt media to help you out.
Thanks JGE, I will track down a copy of that one.
Great article - well written and well thought out!
I appreciate you taking the time to do all the research and write the papers to educate Albertans how possible it is to be our own independent country. Now if we can just get them to read :).
Makes a lot of comm9n sense.
Colin, in one of your well researched articles you laid out ALL the abuses Alberta has been subjected to. What I like about the article is that you reach further back beyond Pierre Trudeau. … not just his pickle headed son Justin “Turdo”….not to mention the final straw…that of Conflicted Carnage.
However, I have to wonder if indeed all the efforts that is going into this movement will crash n the end for the following reason.
A signed contract …. is a signed contract, is a signed contract”
That contract clearly states;
“Plains Indians ceded their lands to Her Majesty and her successors, forever”.
So, how is Alberta going to go about taking something that “doesn’t” belong to the government of that day of separation?
Are you aware that after Kind dork (Charles) was crowned kind,…. a number of Indigenous Chiefs met with him and discussed this very thing. They made a statement afterward that “it wasn’t the end of the matter”. You take that for what it meant.
(Somewhere in the past I read that the land we think our homes sit on is not ours but belongs to “the Crown”.)
Be assured their will be a hell of a lot of roadblocks thrown in the way of Alberta’s independence
so I suggest someone get an answer to the foregoing.
Good luck ….. and well done,……Col in da bin!
JGE
John, you’re raising an important issue that should be part of any serious discussion of independence, but a few facts are worth clarifying to keep the conversation grounded.
First, the numbered treaties were agreements between First Nations and the Crown, not between First Nations and the Province of Alberta specifically. The wording you referenced....ceding land to Her Majesty and her successors forever, means the legal relationship is with the Crown as a continuing constitutional institution, not with whichever provincial government happens to exist at a moment in time. In Canada, that relationship is now protected within the Constitution itself through section 35, which recognizes and affirms existing Aboriginal and treaty rights. Those rights are not optional or temporary. They carry constitutional status.
Second, this means treaty rights would not simply disappear or transfer automatically in a separation scenario. Any constitutional change involving Alberta’s status would trigger complex negotiations involving First Nations as rights holders, not just governments. The Supreme Court of Canada has already made clear in the Quebec Secession Reference that constitutional change engages multiple parties and principles.....democracy, federalism, minority rights, and constitutionalism.....and cannot be done unilaterally without negotiation. Indigenous rights and concerns would be part of that framework, not an afterthought.
Third, the idea that the land belongs to the Crown is partly true but often misunderstood. Crown land refers to land held by the state, but treaty relationships also created ongoing obligations, rights, and shared understandings that continue today. Modern law increasingly treats treaties as nation to nation agreements that remain active, not historical one time real estate transactions. That is exactly why contemporary legal decisions and federal legislation repeatedly emphasize that government actions must respect existing treaty rights.
So you are right about one thing, there would be serious roadblocks. But those roadblocks are not simply legal technicalities. They reflect the fact that Indigenous nations are constitutional actors in Canada’s framework. Any independence project that assumes these relationships can be bypassed or simplified would quickly run into legal and political reality.
In short, the question is not whether treaties stop independence outright. The real issue is that any serious separation model would require meaningful participation, negotiation, and likely consent processes involving First Nations whose treaties predate Alberta itself. That is a much more complicated process than most independence articles acknowledge.
Good point about the Crown and the ceding of land.
Why dose Alberta need a military..??.To defend against who..??
No argument with the weapons training idea, it definitely would be a wise plan.
But a defence system wouldn't mean a military use and nothing but: it would also be used for emergency response and for support for allies.
Sounds like a good addition
Every independent country has its own defence force...except Costa Rica, I think.
True enough, but we do not need a full time defence force..We should have everyone male / female trained in using a gun etc..A reserve force, not full time.
Hi Colin,
I have a friend who has done some work on this matter as well. I would like to connect the two of you and wondered a couple of things. 1. would you be interested in such a connection 2. for initial private contact what is your preferred method to open the discussion. He is a very practical guy, veteran and active in the Emergency Management profession. Feel free to contact me here on Substack directly or reply here and I would make the introduction if you're interested.
The essay presupposes APP carries their question, then a referendum is held, it passes by a clear majority, the Clarity Act is invoked, treaty negotiations are held with First Nations under current Treaty structure…. Yadayada.
You are living a fantasy as none of those dogs are ever going to hunt. To witter on about Alberta military capability is nothing short of hitting the bong hard.
The referendum act - Bill 14, doesn’t obligate the Govt to go any further than the referendum itself. Smith has picked the APP pockets. She’s given enough rope to let you barking ‘BertaExiteers run around in her big Conservative tent huffing and puffing to save her scrawny 9 seat majority.
Once you are no longer useful, you’ll be shown the door.
Meanwhile you’re a pool of gullible folk that are going to have their grievances monetized to fill the grifting pockets of Rath/Modry et al.
“Civil Conflict”?
Yes, unfortunately Canada has all the makings of such actions!
There is longer trust, …. not only in government,…. but also the Justice system with its different level for different criminals.
Also, there is the “land back” issue that is taking place…. being directed by the non elected body ….being the United Nations….. including that of ALL. ..properly here in B.C… and eventually ALL of Canada.
The NDP, under the direction of Premier Eby, has “returned” the ownership of the Queen Charlotte Island over to our indigenous brothers and sisters of the land. Not only that but the Cowichan Tribes have made claim,……. and approved by the B.C. Court,….. of land, not “here” in the Cowichan Valley …. but in the Richmond B.C. area.
The separation movement with Alberta is DIRECTLY caused by the “FALSE” assumption that the burning of fossil fuel is causing the planet to warm. That assumption started off with FRAUD within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…. and has turned into “the Gospel TRUTH”….because it’s been repeated over, and over, and over again,……….. and Alberta is unfortunately paying the price.
Civil War? I doubt it, as most Canadians are peace loving and as long as they have a beer to drink and T.V. to watch…. they won’t lift a finger….. as our country crumbles That is of course Albertans, that seem to be fed up…. and are trying to … at least….some something.
Colin, the issue isn’t whether Alberta could create a military structure on paper. Any jurisdiction with resources can do that. The problem is that your argument treats feasibility as the same thing as viability, and those are very different standards.
Your baseline assumption that Alberta would receive roughly 11.6% of Canadian military assets is presented as a reasonable starting point, but in reality, that would be a matter of complex negotiation, not entitlement. Asset division in a separation scenario would be tied to liabilities, existing defence commitments, pensions, contracts, and international obligations. Without that context, the budget math appears cleaner than it would be in practice.
There is also a tension between this article and the broader APP fiscal framing. The APP’s own documents already acknowledge that defence would likely cost several billion annually, plus substantial upfront capital investment. That suggests the challenge is not simply organizing a lean territorial force, but building and sustaining an entire defence ecosystem from scratch....logistics, procurement, training pipelines, cyber capability, and long-term personnel obligations. Those are not small overhead items that disappear because Alberta has no coastline or carrier ambitions.
The comparisons to Switzerland and Singapore also don’t translate as directly as you suggest. Switzerland’s system rests on centuries of institutional continuity, embedded civil-military structures, and a strategic doctrine built around neutrality and terrain. Singapore, meanwhile, is not a light or inexpensive model.....it spends heavily, maintains sophisticated air and naval capabilities, and operates under a very different threat environment. Both examples represent mature defence systems built over generations, not templates that can be rapidly replicated by a newly independent state.
Another core issue is the assumption that continental partnerships would naturally fill the gaps. NORAD and other defence arrangements are treaties between existing sovereign states; they are not automatic inheritances. An independent Alberta would need new agreements negotiated from the ground up, and there is no guarantee that the United States or Canada would structure those relationships on terms that reduce Alberta’s costs or responsibilities. Strategic value helps start conversations, but it doesn’t replace treaty architecture or command integration realities.
Your proposed force structure, a small professional core plus reserves, also appears overstretched relative to the mission list you assign it. Border support, disaster response, cyber defence, airspace monitoring, and alliance deployment are all resource-intensive obligations. A force can be efficient, but it cannot be simultaneously minimal and widely tasked without sacrificing readiness or depth.
The larger point is that the argument shifts repeatedly between symbolic contribution and genuine sovereignty capability. Those are not the same. A country can field a military that looks credible domestically while still relying heavily on external structures for real security guarantees. That dependency is precisely what needs to be acknowledged honestly in discussions about independence.
So the real rebuttal here is simple: the question isn’t whether Alberta could assemble soldiers and equipment. The question is whether it could build a sustainable, sovereign defence architecture without relying on optimistic assumptions about asset transfers, treaty access, and partnership terms that do not yet exist. Until those uncertainties are treated as central rather than peripheral, the military viability case remains more aspirational than demonstrated.
Good points. The armed forces not a big issue but also not a hindrance to independence.
Silly, childish comcern.
🇨🇦 Civil wars don’t start with gunfire.
They start when enforcement feels uneven, when neutrality becomes arguable, and when people quietly begin adjusting their behaviour.
Canada is not collapsing - but the conditions that make collapse possible are no longer theoretical.
https://goodbuzz.substack.com/p/civil-conflict