This is a sharp, sobering piece. The author is right: there are two kinds of separatists. The loud, discredited ones (Rath, Sylvestre) made separation easy to dismiss. The quiet, credible ones — Keith Wilson, K.C. — make it hard to dismiss.
Wilson concedes that unilateral secession is unlawful. He builds instead on the 1998 Secession Reference: a clear majority on a clear question does not break the country, but it triggers a constitutional duty on Ottawa and the other provinces to negotiate in good faith.
That is real law. It is the strongest foundation any Canadian separatist has ever had.
But the author is also right about the trap. The Secession Reference binds that negotiation to four principles: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities. The fourth principle is not decorative. It drags Section 35 and the treaty geometry to the table.
One hundred percent of Alberta sits within the boundaries of a numbered treaty. The Athabasca oil sands — the revenue engine that makes separation arithmetically conceivable — sit in Treaty 8 territory. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was among the plaintiffs who killed the APP petition on Section 35 grounds.
Wilson's cleaner path does not avoid that wall. It relocates the collision from the front door to the negotiating table. And at the table, the wall is higher, because the Secession Reference makes minority protection a precondition of legitimacy.
The author puts it perfectly: "The better lawyer reaches the same wall. He simply reaches it later, and with more dignity."
What This Means for the Prairie Key Act
The Prairie Key Act does not ignore Section 35. It begins with treaty recognition. With land back. With the Crown's unfulfilled obligations acknowledged before any other condition is set.
The Act cannot simply say "condition resources for peace" as if those resources belong to Alberta to condition. They are on traditional territories. The nations whose territories they are must be at the centre of any condition.
The author is right to watch the new organization forming around Wilson. The questions that separate credible from compromised are the same as last time: who leads it, who funds it, does it disclose.
Follow the money. Never surveil the citizen who signs.
The Bottom Line
Wilson is credible. His legal case is real. But his own case imports the obstacle that defeats it. The corner stones were already placed. The best lawyer in the province cannot move them.
The Prairie Key Act offers a different path: stay inside Canada. Condition your resources for peace. Keep the peace dividend at home. Honour the treaties. Respect Indigenous jurisdiction.
What is the separatist plan for Section 35? Not "negotiate later." A plan.
An accurate assessment of Messr. Wilson and his position. He is a credible practitioner who by all accounts does a credible job for his clients. Taking the position he is taking is, as you note, making the best case he can for his client(s). The essential question is however, who is the client?
The lawyer advises the client; the client instructs the lawyer. That's how it works. If he is doing this on his own, there is a saying within the profession: "He who represents himself has a fool for client."
In any case, by the law he is accepting, as I understand it, the provincvial government must undertake a process of consultation with first nations and aboriginal peoples and it is only after that process is completed that a petition can even by presented to the public for consideration. The next step then is obtain a decision (from the SCC) whether there is a clear majority in support of separation. I suggest that would be, at a minimum 2/3 voting for separation. If that is found to be the case, that triggers the Constitutional negotiations, and there is no guarantee that would end in an amendment to the Constitution to enable lawful separation.
Just getting to the negotiating table will take years and a boatload of money.
And to what end? This is not an intellectual exercise. The outcome will affect every Canadian (win or lose), and the impact on Albertans will be felt for years. This is where Mr. Kenney's position does have significance. I would think the federal government, and the other provinces and territories are entirely within their rights in such negotiations to say: 'Show us your detailed plan for what you will do (and how you will do it) if you separate that will benefit Albertans, but also all other Canadians." That would be starting point for negotiations; if they cannot/will not do that, how can there be any negotiations? All there can be are demands.
You’d mentioned Alberta’s grievances with Ottawa. I’m sure you’ve done so. But I think it would be worth itemising again the falsity of the grievances. Because it’s the main driver of this whole dangerous issue. And I for one believe that we can’t put it out too much. Repeat ad nauseum until people start shrieking they get it. Could start with Justin Trudeau. There will be huge backlash I’m certain. But please keep on it. I am SO SICK of the Ottawa bashing. Could include bona fide grievances to get a true picture out there. With my great thanks.
Show me the plan. Lay it out. Show me the money - the sources, the amounts. His “credibility” such as it is, does not extinguish the danger he poses. This was awesome! Thank you.
This is a sharp, sobering piece. The author is right: there are two kinds of separatists. The loud, discredited ones (Rath, Sylvestre) made separation easy to dismiss. The quiet, credible ones — Keith Wilson, K.C. — make it hard to dismiss.
Wilson concedes that unilateral secession is unlawful. He builds instead on the 1998 Secession Reference: a clear majority on a clear question does not break the country, but it triggers a constitutional duty on Ottawa and the other provinces to negotiate in good faith.
That is real law. It is the strongest foundation any Canadian separatist has ever had.
But the author is also right about the trap. The Secession Reference binds that negotiation to four principles: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and the protection of minorities. The fourth principle is not decorative. It drags Section 35 and the treaty geometry to the table.
One hundred percent of Alberta sits within the boundaries of a numbered treaty. The Athabasca oil sands — the revenue engine that makes separation arithmetically conceivable — sit in Treaty 8 territory. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation was among the plaintiffs who killed the APP petition on Section 35 grounds.
Wilson's cleaner path does not avoid that wall. It relocates the collision from the front door to the negotiating table. And at the table, the wall is higher, because the Secession Reference makes minority protection a precondition of legitimacy.
The author puts it perfectly: "The better lawyer reaches the same wall. He simply reaches it later, and with more dignity."
What This Means for the Prairie Key Act
The Prairie Key Act does not ignore Section 35. It begins with treaty recognition. With land back. With the Crown's unfulfilled obligations acknowledged before any other condition is set.
The Act cannot simply say "condition resources for peace" as if those resources belong to Alberta to condition. They are on traditional territories. The nations whose territories they are must be at the centre of any condition.
The author is right to watch the new organization forming around Wilson. The questions that separate credible from compromised are the same as last time: who leads it, who funds it, does it disclose.
Follow the money. Never surveil the citizen who signs.
The Bottom Line
Wilson is credible. His legal case is real. But his own case imports the obstacle that defeats it. The corner stones were already placed. The best lawyer in the province cannot move them.
The Prairie Key Act offers a different path: stay inside Canada. Condition your resources for peace. Keep the peace dividend at home. Honour the treaties. Respect Indigenous jurisdiction.
What is the separatist plan for Section 35? Not "negotiate later." A plan.
I will wait.
An accurate assessment of Messr. Wilson and his position. He is a credible practitioner who by all accounts does a credible job for his clients. Taking the position he is taking is, as you note, making the best case he can for his client(s). The essential question is however, who is the client?
The lawyer advises the client; the client instructs the lawyer. That's how it works. If he is doing this on his own, there is a saying within the profession: "He who represents himself has a fool for client."
In any case, by the law he is accepting, as I understand it, the provincvial government must undertake a process of consultation with first nations and aboriginal peoples and it is only after that process is completed that a petition can even by presented to the public for consideration. The next step then is obtain a decision (from the SCC) whether there is a clear majority in support of separation. I suggest that would be, at a minimum 2/3 voting for separation. If that is found to be the case, that triggers the Constitutional negotiations, and there is no guarantee that would end in an amendment to the Constitution to enable lawful separation.
Just getting to the negotiating table will take years and a boatload of money.
And to what end? This is not an intellectual exercise. The outcome will affect every Canadian (win or lose), and the impact on Albertans will be felt for years. This is where Mr. Kenney's position does have significance. I would think the federal government, and the other provinces and territories are entirely within their rights in such negotiations to say: 'Show us your detailed plan for what you will do (and how you will do it) if you separate that will benefit Albertans, but also all other Canadians." That would be starting point for negotiations; if they cannot/will not do that, how can there be any negotiations? All there can be are demands.
Thank you for your reply. You had me at This is not an intellectual exercise lol
You’d mentioned Alberta’s grievances with Ottawa. I’m sure you’ve done so. But I think it would be worth itemising again the falsity of the grievances. Because it’s the main driver of this whole dangerous issue. And I for one believe that we can’t put it out too much. Repeat ad nauseum until people start shrieking they get it. Could start with Justin Trudeau. There will be huge backlash I’m certain. But please keep on it. I am SO SICK of the Ottawa bashing. Could include bona fide grievances to get a true picture out there. With my great thanks.
Show me the plan. Lay it out. Show me the money - the sources, the amounts. His “credibility” such as it is, does not extinguish the danger he poses. This was awesome! Thank you.