Canada's Politeness Toward Alberta Separatism Undermines National Sovereignty
EDMONTON — In the late 19th century, Canada faced a violent rebellion in the West led by Louis Riel, who was executed for treason after the military intervened to crush the uprising. This decisive action by Sir John A. Macdonald's government demonstrated how a serious nation, led by resolute leaders, addresses existential threats to its integrity. As a fledgling country less than two decades old at the time, Canada could not have survived without asserting its sovereignty, even though the repercussions of Riel's execution in 1885 continue to resonate, particularly in the divisions between Canada's founding peoples.
Contrasting Historical Resolve with Modern Indecision
Today, Canada presents a starkly different picture. A surprising number of citizens express uncertainty about the country's very existence, a sentiment that predates contemporary debates over settlers. While it is natural for even peaceful democracies to harbor separatist movements, Canada has taken the extraordinary step of legislating an orderly process for its own potential dissolution through the Clarity Act of 2000.
Originally designed to manage Quebec sovereigntists by requiring a clear question and a clear majority in any independence referendum—followed by negotiations rather than immediate statehood—the Clarity Act has inadvertently solidified the notion that breaking up the country is legitimate through a provincial vote alone. This stands in sharp contrast to historical precedents where threats to national unity were met with firm resistance.
The Role of the Supreme Court and Constitutional Ambiguity
The Supreme Court of Canada has played a pivotal role in this shift. In its 1998 secession reference, the court acknowledged that while no right to secede exists under the Canadian Constitution or international law, a clear vote for separation would oblige the federal government and other provinces to enter negotiations. This ruling transformed what could have been a purely political issue into a constitutional expectation, effectively endorsing the possibility of dissolution.
This position has been strangely embraced by Parliament, the Supreme Court, and much of the intellectual elite in Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal, where it is often treated as an accepted given. As critics note, no other peer nation explicitly permits its own demise through such mechanisms, making this a uniquely Canadian innovation—one that risks normalizing separatism.
Alberta Separatism and Current Implications
Recent events, such as petition drives in Calgary where volunteers waved flags to support Alberta separatism, highlight how this permissive attitude has emboldened movements seeking to challenge national unity. Unlike the past, where leaders like Macdonald acted with dutiful determination, today's approach risks undermining sovereignty by treating separatism as a legitimate political option rather than a threat to the country's foundation.
The long-term effect of policies like the Clarity Act is to create a framework where the fantasies of separatists are indulged, potentially leading to fragmented national identity. In contrast, historical actions against rebellions remind us that serious governments must prioritize preservation over politeness when facing existential challenges.
