Damn the 75%.

Still seething.

cbc.ca/news/canada/br…

#albertaindependence

Changing or repealing the Indian Act is almost as difficult as making any other changes to Canada's Constitution.

Here's a timeline of Canadian politicians talking repeal/reform of the Indian Act.

1951 – St. Laurent Liberals
Major rewrite after consultation. Centralized the tus rules, kept the paternalistic core. Reform, not repeal. Still the framework we have.

1969 – Trudeau Sr./Chrétien's White Paper
Full repeal. End status, end treaties, dump federal responsibility onto the provinces, make everyone “equal” citizens. Assimilation dressed up as progress. First Nations told them to pound sand. Withdrawn by 1971.

1994 – Ron Irwin (Chrétien Liberal)
Straight-up said in the House they were “committed to devolving and getting rid of the Indian Act”
Manitoba Framework Agreement as a pilot. Died. Then Bill C-79 (optional tweaks). Also died.

2002 – Chrétien again (Bill C-7)
First Nations Governance Act. More band powers, less Ottawa oversight, “self-government lite"
Chiefs hated it. Died on the order paper.

2014 – Rob Clarke (Conservative MP, First Nations)
Private member’s bill C-428. Scrapped some ancient garbage (residential school sections, etc.) and forced the minister to report yearly on replacing the whole thing. Passed. Symbolic, not a real exit.

Today - Wab Kinew + Mark Carney (Chretien still alive and in the background somewhere)
Kinew (holding up his status card): “Time to abolish the Indian Act.” Carney calls it racist and anachronistic, says he’s open to reform or abolition… as long as First Nations co-develop it. Same old song. No timeline, no replacement, chiefs still divided.

It's the same pattern every 10–20 years: Ottawa floats “getting rid of it”. First Nations say “not without protecting rights/treaties" nothing fundamental changes.

The Act is still here because nobody agrees on what comes next. The First Nation want self determination.... but they also want the cash.

You're either independent or dependent.

As an Alberta sovereigntist, I can’t help but feel a little envious watching Quebec’s leadership go toe-to-toe with Ottawa.

I hope one day Alberta has a leader who fights for our interests with that same backbone.

J’ai pris note aujourd’hui de la nouvelle offre de Mark Carney d’obtenir le droit de m’assoir à sa table d’honneur à titre de spectateur, sans droit de parole ni droit de négocier au nom du Québec. Cette proposition revient à demander au Québec de rentrer dans les rangs, avec la sibilisation du Québec que cela implique, en échange d’obtenir de meilleurs sièges de spectateurs pour regarder la partie. Comme premier ministre, je refuserai toujours que le Québec soit réduit au rôle de spectateur lorsqu’il s’agit de représenter et protéger les intérêts économiques et politiques des Québécois.

La réalité est que nous sommes devant une stratégie de marginalisation du Québec sur la scène internationale et de subordination des champs de compétence du Québec à la volonté du fédéral. Je note à cet effet que tous les chefs de partis de l’Assemblée nationale ont indiqué hier que s’ils étaient dans la position de premier ministre et devant un tel sommet sur le territoire du Québec, ils s’attendraient à prendre la parole et à participer à part entière. À Ottawa, le chef de l'opposition officielle ainsi que le chef du Bloc Québécois ont également appuyé notre demande.

J’ai donc pris la plume et j’ai écrit aux représentants de l’Union européenne pour leur rappeler que des ententes qui impliquent l’Europe et le Québec doivent forcément passer par le gouvernement du Québec, et à plus forte raison si le sommet se tient sur notre territoire. Le refus de nous donner la parole à titre d’hôte pour souhaiter la bienvenue à nos invités y est également mentionné.

Je lance donc l’invitation pour une discussion bilatérale dans un meilleur contexte qui permettrait au Québec de ne pas être exclu. À ce titre, j’enverrai le diplomate en chef du Québec, Pascal Paradis, pour ouvrir ces canaux de discussion pour la suite.

My letter to Rob Smith of the @Alberta_UCP

Dear Mr. Rob Smith,

In response to your letter to the UCP membership, I wish to humbly offer the following statement:

You cannot hijack a citizen initiative referendum, use its questionable data to consolidate power, tell your members to get in line or find another party, advance the Covid vaccine and expect unity.

Unity is based on a common vision that is larger than the party or the leader of the party.
The UCP once had a vision of a Sovereign Alberta that I could get behind. Now that the goal posts have been moved to “a stronger Alberta in a united Canada, it seems that the vision of the party has been reduced to “just beat the NDP.” That’s not leadership—that’s insecurity.

Rob, I believe in a vision of a Sovereign Alberta, where we develop our people, our resources and infrastructure outside of Ottawa’s chokehold.
If that cannot be achieved by the UCP, then Alberta Independence becomes the only way forward.
The UCP has lost the vision of a Sovereign Alberta and is forced to align itself with a federal vision of joining the EU, resulting in the restrictions of our resources and out-of-control immigration.
I can also foresee carbon taxes on Alberta’s resources, making our products too expensive to export, followed by mass layoffs.
This is Alberta’s future under both UCP and NDP.

May the Lord grant us Divine foresight, wisdom and intervention to save our beautiful and beloved province.

Respectfully,

John F. Huizing

If you’re Albertan and you voted to stay in Canada you went along with this.

Clips from TIPA's AGM in Red Deer
How the option 2 campaign failed and how it can be improved. By Ron Robinson.

This comes as the UCP is now requiring candidates for its provincial Board of Directors to sign a pledge agreeing to abide by the referendum result, raising concerns that Alberta independence advocates are being pushed out of the party’s leadership.

Friends, in just two days, Christians were murdered on two continents.

On Friday, gunmen opened fire on a funeral at St. George’s Greek Orthodox Church in Karak, Jordan, and killed nine people. On Saturday, armed men attacked Orthodox churches and homes in Oromia, Ethiopia, and killed more than forty.

These are not statistics. They are our brothers and sisters, members of the mystical Body of Christ. When Saul set out to destroy the Church, the risen Jesus asked him, “Why are you persecuting me?” The Lord is still being persecuted in these victims of anti-Christian violence.

Christianity is by far the most persecuted religion in the world today. Those of us who worship in comfort have to ask what the deaths of these martyrs demand of us. At the very least, they demand that we pray for them, learn their names, press our leaders to act, and refuse to look away.

The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.

Finally (6 full days later), @ElectionsAB is claiming 100% of polling stations reported.

Prior to this, Question 10 Option 1 was over 1.5M and Option 2 was over 500K, for a total of over 2M votes cast. Now both are at least 100,000 votes lower for a total under 1.9M.

What the ere, @ElectionsAB?

One voice I’ve always appreciated in the Alberta independence movement is @CoryBMorgan.

His pragmatic, level-headed perspective and ability to see a realistic path forward are invaluable, especially when things get messy.

And some of that US taxpayer money comes back through multiple laundry machines to fund political campaigns in America, which is why you see some politicians caring more about Ukraine than America!

What’s actually going on in Ukraine is that there is a massive incentive difference between the elites and the people.

The former have grown very rich off the hundreds of billions flowing to Ukraine, while the latter’s children are conscripted to die in trenches.

WHAT IF WE ONLY NEEDED FIVE?

The Balance of Power — A Strategy for Alberta Independence

What if the path forward for Alberta independence isn’t winning a provincial election, but winning just five seats?

The referendum revealed something interesting. Although Option 2 lost approached or exceeded 50% in five constituencies:

Rimbey–Rocky Mountain House–Sundre: 50.9%
Central Peace–Notley: 50.4%
Drumheller–Stettler: 48.4%
Grande Prairie–Wapiti: 46.9%
Taber–Warner: 46.3%

These are unofficial referendum figures, not projections of how people would vote for an independence party.

But consider this.

Under our first-past-the-post electoral system, a candidate doesn’t need 50% of the vote to win. They only need more votes than any other candidate.

In a three-way race, 40% could be enough. Sometimes even 35%.

Now imagine a future Alberta Legislature with 89 seats:

UCP: 42
NDP: 42
Independence Party: 5

Neither major party has a majority. Those five independence MLAs could potentially hold the balance of power.

This isn’t unprecedented. In 2017, just three BC Green MLAs helped determine which party would govern British Columbia through a confidence-and-supply agreement.

What could five independence MLAs accomplish?

Think about the objections we heard throughout the referendum campaign:

“What about policing?” Negotiate concrete steps toward establishing an Alberta provincial police service.

“What about pensions?” Push for an independently verified Alberta Pension Plan proposal, including costs, benefits, and transition arrangements.

“What about Indigenous treaties?” Establish meaningful government-to-government discussions with Indigenous nations to address treaty rights and constitutional obligations.

“Is independence even legal?” Commission serious constitutional and legal analysis, identifying the actual requirements, obstacles, and possible negotiating pathways.

“What about federal transfers and finances?” Demand transparent financial modelling showing what Alberta would gain, lose, and need to replace.

“What about trade and being landlocked?” Pursue interprovincial trade agreements, transportation access, and legal clarity around existing trade corridors.

“What about federal jurisdiction?” Identify which responsibilities Alberta could assume under existing law and which would require negotiations or constitutional change.

We wouldn’t resolve everything.

But imagine entering the next referendum campaign with several of these questions already investigated, negotiated, or partially resolved.

That’s the advantage of incremental progress.

And there’s another important consideration: vote splitting.

A new independence party running candidates across Alberta could divide the conservative vote and help elect an NDP government.

But what if it contested only five carefully selected constituencies?

That wouldn’t eliminate vote splitting, particularly within those five ridings. However, it would substantially limit the number of constituencies exposed to that risk.

We would need to study the new electoral boundaries, local voting patterns, and candidate viability before deciding where to run.

Still, imagine five dedicated independence MLAs able to negotiate policy commitments in exchange for supporting a minority government.

Not demanding immediate separation.

Not pretending we can overturn the referendum result.

But to advance policies, address concerns, and build a strong foundation for whatever Albertans decide in the future.

We received ~25% support, and nearly 50% in some constituencies.

I still support Alberta independence. I accept the referendum result. And I believe we should seriously consider what comes next.

Perhaps the next step isn’t trying to win the whole province.

Perhaps it’s finding five ridings where we can win a seat and earn a voice.

Alberta independence received ~25% of the vote, and already we’re being told the movement is dead, that we’ve been defeated, and that it’s time to shut up and move on.

Really?

Over the last 10 Alberta elections, the NDP averaged roughly 20% of the popular vote. At their lowest, Yet they never abandoned their principles, never stopped organizing, and eventually formed government, reaching 44% of the vote.

And good for them! That’s how democracy is supposed to work.

I don’t agree with the NDP on much, but I respect their determination to keep advocating for what they believe in.

Why should Alberta independence supporters be expected to do anything different?

We now know our baseline. Roughly one in four voters supported our position. We’ve built organizations, established networks, and brought a conversation into the mainstream that was once considered unthinkable.

I accept the referendum results. I respect those who voted differently. But accepting defeat in one vote doesn’t mean abandoning your convictions.

To those celebrating our defeat, remember that democracy doesn’t end when your side wins.

The NDP never gave up. Why should we?

This isn’t the end of the conversation. It’s the end of the beginning.

I genuinely hope I’m wrong. I hope everything will be okay.

I still believe in Alberta independence, and I will continue to peacefully advocate for it. But I also accept the results of the referendum and respect the decision of my fellow Albertans.

My support for independence nting Canada to fail. Quite the opposite. I want what’s best for Alberta, for Canada, and for the people who call this country home.

I’ve expressed serious concerns about Canada’s future. I’ve warned about the erosion of our rights and freedoms, growing government overreach, the possibility of increasingly authoritarian policies, Canada’s potential integration with the European Union, and the possibility of our country gradually becoming something resembling a dystopia.

I sincerely hope every one of those fears proves to be unfounded.

I hope Canada really is stronger together. I hope our freedoms are protected, our governments become more accountable, our economy improves, and future generations inherit a country better than the one we have today.

I don’t want revenge. I don’t harbour resentment toward those who voted differently. And I certainly don’t want things to get worse just so I can say, “I told you so.”

I hope those who oppose independence can extend that same goodwill to those of us who continue to believe in it.

We don’t have to agree politically to respect one another. We all have the right to hold different opinions, express them openly, and peacefully advocate for the future we believe in.

The referendum may be over, but my concerns remain, as does my commitment to Alberta.

If I’m wrong about where Canada is heading, nobody will be happier than me.

For all our sakes, I genuinely hope I am.

God bless Canada. God bless Alberta.

If Albertans had been asked Question 10 two years ago (2024), what percentage do you think would have voted for Option 2 — to begin the process toward an Alberta independence referendum?

The UCP faces a political dilemma.

Exclude separatists, and risk creating a new party that splits the conservative vote.

Include separatists, and risk losing moderate conservatives to the NDP.

Either way, the NDP could benefit.

Which scenario worries you most?