Does Any Province of Canada Have A Legal Right To Separate?

The answer is no ...

Disclaimer

I personally do not advocate any process or procedure contained in any of my Blogs. Information presented here is not intended to provide legal or lawful advice, nor medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, cure, or prevent any disease. Views expressed are for educational purposes only.

The right of unilateral secession

By William Gairdner [1940-2024]
Aug 26, 2019

Basically, while I understand Alberta grievances – many of which echo those of Quebec – I think we need to shine a light briefly on the deeper issues involved. Among them:
1) Canada is a Confederation, and not a simple democracy in which any part may hold a UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) and decide to leave the federation. Why? …. because:
2) The lines on the map demarcating each of Canada’s ten provinces are lines of provincial legal jurisdiction, and do not indicate ownership of those lands by the people who happen to live there today (but who may leave tomorrow for another province).
3) Alberta (like other provinces) opted into Confederation as part of a constitutional arrangement or contract with Canada, and has no unilateral constitutional right to break the deal. Any referendum question put to Albertans would have to be agreed upon by both parties, as could happen if, say, Canada actually wanted Alberta to separate.
4) The land-area now controlled by Alberta was recognized as falling under Alberta jurisdiction as a province of Canada, and not as a separate country. No one knows what the territorial ramifications of an attempted unilateral separation would be, or in such a case, how much of those lands would be reclaimed by Canada (or by Indian nations).
5) If a “referendum” was ever agreed to by Albertans, it would have to have legal teeth. But no one is absolutely certain what those teeth would, or could, be. In the case of Quebec, for example, its last so-called “referendum” was not a legally-prepared and agreed-upon referendum per se. It was actually just a province-wide plebiscite, with no proper legal basis or widely-agreed formulation of the questions at issue.
6) Canada would have legal obligations with respect to any Albertan-Canadians who might choose not to support a referendum to separate. Suppose a little more than half the 4.3 million Albertans chose to separate? The other two million Albertans would very likely call upon Canada to protect them and their property (as well as all federal property in Alberta).
7) It is likely, as happened in Quebec with the Cree people, that Alberta’s Indians would themselves in turn declare a UDI to separate from Alberta if Alberta declared a UDI, and/or, a right to remain in Canada as Canadian citizens so they could continue to receive their massive tax-free handouts annually. In this case, and using the same democracy logic of majority rule by a part to sever from the whole, Alberta could end up having quite a few separate Indian nations inside a nation called Alberta.
8) Unilateral Declarations of Independence cannot succeed without international recognition of the new “nation” declared. And generally, if ever recognized, such is generally only the case where internationally-recognized oppression, suppression, dictatorship, or other such hardship of all the people is present and is recognized internationally as such. As it happens, Albertans are a wealthy population. in fact, are the highest median income earners in Canada. They cannot succeed in crying “poor”.
9) Canada’s own Supreme Court, after the last Quebec debacle, issued an opinion that a UDI is not possible in Canada. To wit:

“the Constitution does not permit unilateral secession: Canada is a federal state based on constitutional government – and subject to the rule of law. The courts have a duty to uphold that Constitution – and to ensure that no level of government exceeds its powers. Secession would affect the structure and scope of that Constitution – so it would require constitutional amendments,”

All the above would seem to put a heavy damper on the question of any province of Canada ever succeeding with a call to separate. Source https://williamgairdner.ca/does-any-province-of-canada-have-a-right-to-separate/

Help Stop The Lies - No Province or Territory Can Separate From Canada Nor Become The 51st State!

By Nicole Lebrasseur
Mar 30.25

0-5 mins excerpts

Can a province like Alberta, Saskatchewan or Quebec separate from Canada? Do these provinces own the natural resources of these provinces? The answer to that is no. This is why. While secession with consent of the metropolitan state is a right rarely challenged, the alleged right of unilateral secession under international law is laden with controversy.

In the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly in 1960, Section 6 it is stated that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html

This paragraph undoubtedly rejects a right of secession but the formulation is subsequently restricted in the Friendly Relations Declaration adopted by the General Assembly in 1970, Principle 5, Section 7 protects the territorial integrity of states conducting themselves in compliance with the Principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race creed or color. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/202170?v=pdf

The aforementioned formulation is basically repeated in Article 1 of the 1993 Vienna Declaration https://international-review.icrc.org/sites/default/files/S002086040008061Xa.pdf and in Article 1 of the Declaration on the Occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations adopted in 1995, hereafter 50th anniversary Declaration. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/200425?v=pdf

An obvious conclusion drawn from the provision is that territorial integrity is not guaranteed in a case in which a state does not respect the right to self-determination of peoples, discriminating a subgroup through denying its right to internal self-determination.

The territorial integrity of states is limited through its own non-compliance with the right to self-determination of peoples. As determined above, the provision is directed towards states, which means the dismemberment or impairment of state territorial integrity refers to actions of other states. The international community could thereby legally take action if a state grossly violates the internal dimension of self-determination. Such action taken by the international community can be aid or recognition of independence of the discriminated seceding entity, which would otherwise be perceived as Illicit.

One step at a time

Since the planet is under martial rule, rendering our laws silent, how will occupation impact laws in place regarding secession?

With regards to the above is proposed secession being staged? If this is another distraction what’s going on under the radar? https://www.ourgreaterdestiny.ca/p/breaking-x-2-western-coalition-formed

If secession is illegal and pursued, legal costs could be horrendous. Will the majority of Canadians rebut secession or in silence fund more waste?

To chart a new course, each of us is tasked with revealing the truth to those who will listen. Please do your part. TY!

Without prejudice and without recourse
Doreen Agostino
Our Greater Destiny Blog
secession