Alberta separatists are in denial about the treaty rights of First Nations

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-23

[00:00:06]Welcome to the Breach Show featuring sharp analysis on politics and social movements in Canada. I'm your host Desmond Cole. A referendum asking if Alberta should separate from Canada hit a major roadblock last week. A judge in that province ruled, among other things, that the government failed to consult First Nations about the petition calling for a referendum. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is pressing on, saying she'll appeal the court's decision. What can we learn from this clash between provincial separatism and First Nations treaty obligations? Joining me to discuss all this is Matt Wildcat, a member of the Minskin Cree Nation and an assistant professor and the director of indigenous governance in the faculty of native studies at the University of Alberta. Welcome to the show, Matt.

[00:00:59]>> Yeah, thanks Desmond. I'm I'm happy to be here with you.

[00:01:02]>> Likewise. And as we get started, just a reminder to our audiences to please like and subscribe if you want more bold journalism for transformation.

[00:01:12]Matt, there is a lot to discuss and I want to start with the broader Alberta separatist movement itself.

[00:01:20]>> We know that this movement isn't new.

[00:01:23]Ever since, you know, 1980 when Pierre Elliot Trudeau enacted the National Energy Program and sought to control more of Alberta's oil, uh, separatism has been an undercurrent for many Albertans. But as this movement exists today, what does it tell us about how Canadians understand ownership of the lands that they're on?

[00:01:45]>> I like I don't want to give too much uh credence to the the separatist movement, but I will say there is some diversity of thinking about um treaty rights and and aboriginal rights within the movement, right? And so you have someone like, you know, Bruce Party wrote a Substack in the fall. Uh there was some reporting from Daniel Parites uh on it which was really good. And and you know, Bruce's position is essentially the same position that Canada held um up until uh the 1970s, which is that a policy of assimilation that um Aboriginal people would no longer exist as distinct political and legal entities in the country, right? And um you know, and he lays out that um you know, and in uh the rule of law should be based on equality between peoples and that there should be no distinction in and how the law applies to everyone, right? I I it's hard to know how widespread that position is within the Alberta separatist movement, but it's, you know, it's it's not a it's not a unified movement, right? It it has multiple centers of of power within it, uh multiple uh points of of influence. And so certainly there's an an assimilationist bent um within it. But you also have someone like Jeffrey Wrath uh who's been uh all you know although it's it's a very uh kind of uh troubled history but but has been a lawyer for First Nations on many different uh files before and has a real uh understanding of of Aboriginal and treaty rights and and so someone like Jeffrey Wrath has said that even under an independent Alberta there would actually be um room for First Nations to continue their relationship with the crown, right? And so these treaties signed between the British crown uh and first nations would persist and that uh Alberta would negotiate its role uh an ind you know an independent Alberta would negotiate its role and all that. I I don't know what that looks like, but but you know, this is the claim that he's made. You know, also when in January when um you know, at Baska Chipuon and the Blackfoot uh nations uh launched their court case and and Sturgeon Lake had a a separate one that got treated somewhat separately. You had a spokesperson from the Alberta Prosperity Project. I came out and said, you know, um one of the ways in which we could deal with this is that um First Nations reserves would remain part of Canada. So if Alberta was to separate, First Nations reserves would stay as part of Canada uh and we would figure it out from there. So one what strikes me about them is uh they're never um concerned about having a dialogue with indigenous peoples, right? So they it's always about um what uh the separatist movement um thinks would be beneficial for indigenous peoples or even an understanding of what First Nations people deserve from their perspective, right? And but that's not indigenous people's understanding of treaties. I think the the simplest way to describe indigenous people's understanding of treaties from the standpoint of it being a relationship or a partnership is what treaties are meant to do is to figure out how we live on the land together, how we share the land in order to ensure mutual flourishing, right? And so the the purpose the groundwork of treaties is meant to ensure mutual flourishing between both parties in perpetuity forever, right? And and until you know something else uh comes along. That's a very helpful overview.

[00:04:57]>> Now, apart from how separatist movements and First Nations and indigenous people more broadly may view these treaty obligations, the courts have obviously also spoken and uh including this recent decision that we saw about whether or not this referendum can go ahead as planned.

[00:05:16]>> Uh and the courts have also spoken about obviously separatism in places like Quebec where this has obviously come up before. In your understanding broadly, what have courts said in the past about separation and indigenous treaty rights?

[00:05:30]>> Yeah. So, this is a really interesting question. So, we have uh from the late '90s uh the Quebec secession reference and and this asks um you know what was put to the Supreme Court was um is separation legal like can it occur and can it occur under Canadian law and can it occur under uh international law? The short answer of what the court said is that um this is beyond what we can rule on. Uh and so what the court said is that if there was a clear vote um what should happen is that it compels all the parties to come to the table uh under the duty to negotiate. It creates a legal obligation on all the parties to negotiate that this duty to negotiate uh and and the court is was mostly interested in um washing its hands like of of not being involved. Then the court wanted to draw a line where it thinks of separation as a political issue rather than a legal issue. Right? And so it's it pushes us back to uh political leaders to to figure out the terms of of what would happen. So between the secession reference I I feel like it happened in '96 or 97, you know, just shortly after the 1995 Quebec referendum. So you know this is 30 years of jurisprudence has happened and in uh 19 uh you know 96 97 the duty to consult had not been defined by the Canadian court system. Right. I I believe it was uh the H highaid court case in the early 2000s, 2003 or 4 where the duty to consult was really outlined in uh Canadian law and and so this is built on a number of you know like really um going back to the 1973 Calder decision uh you know 30 40 years of of legal reasoning uh in Canada where Aboriginal rights are defined the Canadian court starts to think about is there any way in which Aboriginal rights can be infringed upon on how are they to be protected or infringed upon and then the duty to consult comes about to try to um put some definition around okay when the crown or you know Canadian governments make decisions that might infringe on Aboriginal rights what obligations do they owe to indigenous peoples in that instance how must they consult indigenous peoples right so it actually doesn't abs like Canadian you know the Canadian state can still infringe upon a rights but they have justified.

[00:07:55]>> Understood.

[00:07:57]Now, when we come to this particular ruling from last week, uh Justice uh Shaina Leonard uh said that the process uh didn't have the proper amount of uh consultation of First Nations leading up to this referendum. In your understanding, Matt, what kind of consultation with First Nations was supposed to happen in the leadup to this October referendum that did not happen?

[00:08:21]>> Yeah. Well, there's zero consultation.

[00:08:23]So, that, you know, that makes that makes it very easy for the judge in this instance, right? And and so the separatist movement has has um made an assumption or maybe has hoped that consulting with ainal peoples can occur after a positive referendum vote. So, I I think what they were hoping is that it could be a secondary issue which gets dealt with afterwards. I, you know, I think there's quite an awareness within the separatist movement that will have to be dealt with in some sort of way.

[00:08:51]But I, you know, I I wonder if there also there was a bit of a hope that, you know, if you had a a positive separation boat that there's they're obviously in a a better position of leverage, right?

[00:09:04]like there you know you there's been a you know the so the other big piece in the Canadian law is the clarity act uh from the late '90s which laid out uh details through which a secession question could be asked uh and it you know it says there has to be a clear uh question posed to a group of people right and so uh I think what what flows from that is that um or or part of the clarity act rather is is that um if there's a clear expression of on behalf of a a people of a province.

[00:09:36]Um that it sets in motion all of these uh discussions that then have to occur, these these political discussions where people have to figure it out. The clarity act is also very clear even though it predates the duty to consult that Aboriginal people must be consulted. Um if there was, you know, a clear expression of will on behalf of a people of a province, you know, to want to secede from Canada. Um, but yeah, I I suspect that they will, you know, the separatist movement was hoping to do that from a position of strength cuz I I'm at this point it's pretty obvious that the position of First Nations is that there should be no secession question ever. Like there there should never be we should never even consider it. There's no ability to think about it. And so politically, First Nations have been unanimous uh in saying this is illegal. And then there's been some work to lay out from an indigenous legal standpoint with the the legality of secession and and here so you have someone like Leroy Little Bear saying who you know who has uh laid out for us well indigenous people's understanding of property is that you know humans can't have full you know dominion over land because we share we share the land with plants and and animals and so as first nations people when we made treaties with uh newcomers um what we were doing is we were making an agreement to share the land which we then had to share with other aspects of the natural world, right? And so there's no way to to you know further divide it up because we would have to then bring into consideration our relationships with with the natural world into these deliberations. And so um you know until all of that was was dealt with there would be no ability to you know further divide jurisdiction over over the land.

[00:11:17]And so it you know and you know you can see how uh unless you had like I think in from an indigenous legal standpoint the only way in which you could have separation is a groundup like overwhelming consensus amongst both first n like indigenous and non-indigenous peoples to change jurisdictional boundaries. Uh and that this overwhelming consensus would have to be listened to because that was the will of the people. Right. But like a a truly kind of transformational mindset, I think is the only way um within indigenous legal thinking that a secession uh could occur. And we're far far away from that.

[00:11:57]It's just so interesting because I think it presents a situation which we see in Canadian politics and law a lot where uh indigenous peoples who don't think that this process even should be happening nevertheless have to essentially hope that courts like this one are going to rule in a way that is favorable to them and that allows more collaboration and conversations like you're talking about to continue because otherwise there's a possibility to just get legally steamrolled by a process that you don't consent to.

[00:12:29]>> Totally. Yeah. And so, you know, so going back to the, you know, this ruling, it it's done a very specific thing, which is prevent the ratification of um this petition that's gone around, right? So, the there's no ability for the chief electoral officer of Alberta to go and and uh assess the veracity of of the 300,000 signatures that have been collected. And then as such that prevents the petition from going forward to an actual vote. The Alberta government can still call a vote and and in fact um I uh have heard that uh Premier Smith is planning a major press conference for tomorrow and in fact may call a vote. Uh anyways, there's the possibility uh as I heard suggested that this vote will actually be the vote from the forever Canada position petition led by Thomas Lucas um which asked if people want to remain in Canada. You know the um the conference um I was at yesterday held by the the center for constitutional studies at uh the University of Alberta. Um, you know, someone suggested you rarely have a referendum to affirm the status quo, right? Referendums are typically done in order to seek a transformation in in or you know, a change in society in some sort of manner. And so, you know, I there there's a very real possibility that if if we had a referendum around should Canada or should Alberta remain uh part of Canada that it actually might um the Clarity Act might kick in and the federal government might intervene and say, you know, that this is a this is very this will muddy the waters if um we're asking people to affirm the status quo. Like what is the purpose? What is the point of that? It also gives frankly is is to the advantage of the separatist movement because they get two kicks at the can, right? So they get to test out what people might think about that question and then they might still go and press to have an actual vote on uh separation. And so it's, you know, just having the forever Canada vote is not necessarily a good thing for First Nations people and for other Albertans and and Canadians too because that, you know, like the like this will this will have impacts for the rest of Canada also, right? for Al Alberta um to leave >> what you're saying here about Daniel Smith potentially calling this press conference tomorrow. We're going to have to we're going to have to stay monitoring this. There aren't going to be many boring days it sounds like coming up in your province anytime soon.

[00:14:54]But let's talk more a little bit more about Premier Danielle Smith because um she did say that she plans to appeal this ruling uh that that says no petition can be accepted as does the group stay free Alberta who collected the signatures demanding the referendum in the first place. There's this really interesting interplay Matt between Premier Smith who claims that she does not support separation outright and stay free Alberta who are obviously campaigning on it. How do you see this relationship and this interplay between the premier and this group?

[00:15:27]>> Yeah. So, you know, for the um the the political, you know, the the political wonks out there. So, State Free Alberta is um essentially an arm of the Alberta Prosperity Project, which is, you know, probably has become the most organized of all the the separatist groups. And so that um you know uh this stay free Alberta they had to um because of there was some policy reason why they why it couldn't be the Alberta Prosperity Project which led the petition uh itself but they're they're essentially overlapping uh groups. So, you know, the leaders of the Alberta Prosperity Project and also of, you know, the separatist movement at large have called on people to join the UCP party. And part of that joining of the UCP party is to exert influence and and you know, as as a a show of organization to try to, you know, in a shadow way control the party. So, you know, um, >> of course, this is Premier Smith's ruling party in Alberta. Just for >> That's right. The United Conservative Party. Yes. Thank you. And >> um and so you know one of the really interesting things is when the Quebec referendums were brought they were brought by the party Quebec law and the party Quebec law campaigned in a provincial election on having a separation vote, right? And so there was already a popular expression of will that there was you know that people wanted uh you know to have have a referendum on secession. And so within Alberta, the United Conservative Party did not campaign on this. And in fact, um, Premier Daniel Smith, um, you know, when when she first came in, she replaced, uh, Jason Kenny near the end of his term, right, in in in the middle of his office. And then when she ran, uh, you know, uh, a a general election, she did not campaign on uh, separation.

[00:17:14]This is, you know, so this is it's distinct from Quebec in in those aspects, right? So what a lot of people have compared Danielle Smith to is is in fact uh the the the position that she's in within um you know within Alberta is the Brexit movement and the way in which uh David Cameron uh initiated the uh the Brexit vote right and so there you had within the conservative tent in in Britain a group of you know uh people refer to them as euroskeptics you know people who wanted to see Britain leave the European Union and then you had a more moderate uh wing of the of the Conservative Party and and so David Cameron felt you know what if we just like put this question out to the open uh get it over with the euroskeptics can uh you know com you know complain and articulate their views and um you know and try to uh bring people over to their side surely they're going to lose cuz you know the polling actually looked very similar to what it looks like in Alberta only like you know kind of 30% of of uh Britain's population actually wanted to leave the European Union but as we know uh from uh David Cameron calling uh for this referendum to when the vote actually happened uh they were able to pick up all uh you know the additional 20% of the popular vote that they needed in order to uh trigger a series of events which led to Britain leaving the European Union. And so will that happen in Alberta? You know, probably not. But I I think at the end of the day, it's incredibly unlikely that a uh a popular vote will occur, which causes uh Alberta to, you know, to leave um the country. And and so I, you know, even though I'm I have a great deal of urgency around responding to this problem, I don't want to be anxious about it either because I I think at the end of the day, there needs to be a a bit of self-confidence that um things will will almost certainly remain as they are. And so what is possible for it to happen rather is that a vote um could see that percentage of Albertans who express a desire to leave Canada which is hovering around 25 to 30% potentially look like 35 or 40% under a popular vote if the leave camp or you know if the if like um seeing an independent Alberta um you know the the leave vote um be you know get enlarged through the process right and That is very possible. Like you don't know who runs a better campaign. So it's sometimes it's easier for campaigns to really stoke fears uh and anxieties in people which could cause people to migrate towards wanting to see an independent uh Alberta. I also, you know, one of the like I I hate to use a sports analogy here, but it's not a sevename series, right? It's it's a single vote. And so you might also just have a really bad week. if it was a best of seven, I feel very very confident that uh you know over the course of seven referendum votes that uh that people would certainly want to stay in Canada, but you never on you know on a single day you never know what kind of shifts will happen uh and people's opinion because of you know critical events leading up to to an event and and so um you know uh like so all of these things are they they put Daniel Smith in a position where her like the primary part of her base really wants to cause uh this referendum vote to happen and she she needs to appease them in some sort of way in order to remain in power.

[00:20:46]Uh at the same point, in order to keep the United Conservative Party together, she can't become an an outright uh separatist party because it will probably cause, you know, somewhere from like 20 to, you know, maybe even more uh 40 maybe even 50% of her party to leave and to form a different political party.

[00:21:05]>> You've engaged all of our Montreal Canadians fans with your game say seven game series comparisons there. Um, sticking with Premier Smith for a minute, she did something I think a little sneaky in reaction to the court decision, which was that she said that it was unfair of the court to expect a citizens group um, like Stfree Alberta to have to consult with First Nations.

[00:21:30]She said, quote, I have no idea how the court would expect a citizens group to be able to meet the duty to consult.

[00:21:37]That was just made up in that judgment.

[00:21:41]But that's not exactly what the court said, is it Matt?

[00:21:46]>> You know, that's You know what? I actually haven't heard that before and I'm going to have to go um look at her her position there. So So my I'm assuming that the the court said that it's the responsibility of the Alberta government to to uh to lead the duty to consult. Is that is that correct? Or >> that that's what that was my understanding. I was curious was yours on yours also because I thought I thought that that was such a weird statement from the premier. Absolutely.

[00:22:11]You know, and um I think this is where, you know, a little bit we're kind of making things up as we go, right? So it's, you know, one, so one of the ways in which Daniel Smith has walked this tight rope of like wanting to appease her separatist base while also wanting to uh keep her, you know, the United Conservative Party uh together as a whole, you to not fully alienate people who are not separatists within her party. um is that she's made this a matter of procedural fairness. Right?

[00:22:42]The the point of all of these legislative changes uh that they've made in order to make it easier for a citizen-led uh referendum to occur is a is a matter of procedural fairness. We live in a representative democracy where there's like some assumption that you know when you vote uh you know members of the legislative assembly in Alberta or members of parliament or you know like when you vote for for representatives that they have the responsibility then to lead you know legislative and and political um changes and and so you know Daniel Smith has been really keen on direct direct democracy that you know the the best the most like just way of running a democracy is to you know do you directly poll people on issues of importance uh to them right so again like there is like this it is there's kind of these all unique elements of Alberta separation because typically when a government is in is you know putting forward a position it's cuz they believe in that policy position they believe that this is the right thing to do and then they're asking you know the the wider population the you know the wider citizenry is are you are we correct are we getting it Right. But in this instance, that's not what's happening. They're they're saying, "Well, actually, you know, Daniel Smith's line is uh I believe in sovereign Alberta within United Canada."

[00:24:05]Uh, and you know, she she really sticks to it. She kind of gone away from it a little bit um more recently, but you know, this is kind of her um position.

[00:24:13]And so if you know if we take her at face value there, why is she doing all of making all of these moves in order to like you know what seems to cause a you know a separation referendum?

[00:24:26]>> Well, right. It's as if she's saying I don't necessarily believe in the proposal, but I believe to the death and everyone's right to make the proposal.

[00:24:33]That's right. And and she's going even further than that by suggesting and I want to get your feedback on this too.

[00:24:40]Danielle Smith actually said after the ruling that she may use the notwithstanding clause to get around it.

[00:24:48]And of course, that clause allows provinces to temporarily bypass charter rights. Matt, I've read several legal experts who say that the notwithstanding clause does not apply to this situation.

[00:24:59]Do you have a view on that?

[00:25:01]>> So, I I don't I I you know, it's a little bit beyond my um my legal reading or my legal expertise. um in in this situation to to understand the kind of the legal reasoning behind why the duty to consult would apply in this situation. But what she can do is she can make a cabinet order to cause a referendum and she can you know so one of the things we might hear tomorrow is that the referendum is going to happen.

[00:25:27]and it's going to happen on October 19th where she's already laid out these kind of like nine questions largely around immigration which takes these like really awful, you know, and uh it it has all of these there's they're just such um leading questions that would cause, you know, an an uncritical exorter to think that um people who are coming to Alberta are taking advantage of all of our systems, right? Uh, and so, you know, we have all these kind of these anti-immigrant questions already on the ballot for October 19th. And then everyone's belief is that she'll she'll round it there's nine of them. She'll round it out to make it an even 10. And the last question will be on Alberta uh separation. So, she could do that through an order in cabinet and then what would be required is the um Alberta government would be required to then lead the duty to consult with First Nations. I think it's worth mentioning also as you talk about all the proposals for immigration on this uh referendum in October that Danielle Smith actually wanted to substantially increase immigration I only a few years ago like that was her push and now she has done a complete reversal presumably because of popular opinion and im immigration falling out of favor uh in Canada. Um, I want to ask you about the fact that even as Premier Smith is fighting for this separatism vote, >> she's also been partnering with Mark Carney, as we saw recently, uh, to keep moving forward this plan for a new pipeline to the Pacific Ocean.

[00:27:01]Given the opposition to such proposals from many First Nations in British Columbia where this pipeline has to go through, >> do you see this evolving pipeline plan between Carney and Smith as another potential confrontation on indigenous treaty rights?

[00:27:19]>> Yes. No. Almost certainly. And you know, part of the way in which that's going to play out is that you can't be suing somebody in over one thing and then try to be their business partner on another like that. Like that is just common sense, right? And um you know obviously in Alberta there's a there's many first nations which are pro oil and gas development and um in order for the TMX to get built they had to generate a fair amount of support and legitimacy within I'll you know I'll qualify this I mean not within First Nations at large but within um the elected leadership of First Nations right and and so you know that was uh a lot of work that was uh done even though there's still kind of I think you widespread skepticism amongst First Nations people for a lot of these developments. And you know, it's it's hard to know how you can have a a um a policy position where you're trying to fight against climate change on the one hand and then on the other hand be building pipelines, right? Like there like there has to be some significant efforts to want to um reduce our dependency on on oil and gas uh moving forward. And so, you know, for all of these reasons, I think, you know, First Nations people are as a whole are skeptical. But, you know, at the end of the day, you know, um, the elected leadership, people who are, you know, authorized to speak on behalf of First Nations, there was a lot of work done to, you know, to bring people on board and to, um, you know, in order to get the TMX built. I don't see any way in which this pipeline is going across northern BC. I just think the um the amount of resistance that is up there to another oil and gas pipeline would be impossible. And so even if you you know you had some support in Alberta, it would be impossible in BC. But you know even let's say you just increase the capacity along the existing TMX uh that you know the Trans Mountain pipeline um route where you already have you know uh some buy in um from First Nations. Why would uh First Nations in Alberta agree to go along with something when you're actively trying to deny our rights through the use of the notwithstanding clause in another realm of our relationship.

[00:29:42]Right. it like it's just it just is you know it it's an indication um that there is really very little consideration that Daniel Smith makes about uh indigenous peoples and and she's really done this all the way along from her early statement where she compared the treatment that Alberta receives from the federal federal government to the treatment that first nations receive under the Indian Act uh you know which is a federal piece of legislation and and so you you can just see all the way along you know she had another um kind of uh you know what I what I found to be an outrageous statement uh around uh first nations and our early settlers and first nations taming a shared frontier and I was like no the frontier was a term you used to denote space that was controlled by white people you know by by white settlers from space that was still controlled by indigenous peoples and so um you know all the way along there's just been um very little attention paid to first nation I found it so shocking because under the pro uh the progressive conservative governments, you know, led by uh Ralph Klene uh and and you know, the progressive conservative party which ruled for I think 40 years or well over 30 years. Um for well over a decade um you had uh a First Nations uh person who was the minister of Aboriginal affairs for the province. Like you had a deep amount of knowledge within previous governments of First Nations people. And so it seems like such a um a walk back of of you know if not policy at least knowledge and understanding of of First Nations in the province.

[00:31:21]>> I want to end with this Matt. Um Rob Lion wrote a really interesting piece for Marxist.ca where he said that there are basically two Western alienations among Canadians in Alberta. One western alienation would be from the corporate elite who want they want bigger profits, they want fewer taxes, they want fewer regulations on industry. But then the other uh alienation that Rob Lion described was of the working class, people who feel like they're not getting the services that they should be having in Alberta, that they're not getting the environmental protections or the political influence that people in Alberta Alberta deserve with Ottawa. And I wonder, do you see any future potential for collaboration among working-class Canadians in Alberta and First Nations who also have obviously, as we've been talking about this whole conversation, their own historical and present- day grievances with provincial and federal governments?

[00:32:21]Can these groups find a way to forge a common political agenda together? And if so, how might that happen? I know it's a huge huge question, but >> No, it is. You know, I No, I love I love the question. Actually, I I was thinking about this a little bit yesterday. So you've seen from often very uh upper middle class, you know, welleducated progressive Albertans this kind of grabbing on to treaty as a as a life uh you know vest in some sort of way during this time like we cannot possibly separate because the treaties make it impossible uh to separate, right? And so you have this, you know, I think a a very progressive, wealthy, educated aspect or, you know, part of the Alberta population who is who is really thought of as First Nation or really thought of First Nations as as being saviors in this instance, right, from um this kind of emboldened uh separatist movement. But if people are really believe in that, then it it has to cut both ways. is like first nations can't just be used instrumentally in this situation to you know maintain the status quo of of Canada. Uh if you really believe in treaties then what you believe in is that you know we're partners who are you know trying to share the land together in order to ensure mutual flourishing. But if if people are really uh you know believe in this idea of mutual flourishing part of what has to happen is then we have to discuss the terms of what mutual flourishing means right and that necessarily gets into questions of the economy and it starts to ask big questions like okay how do we define wealth and how do we produce it right how do we labor over our creation of wealth in this country and how do we distribute it so all of these questions around uh creating wealth in order to ensure mutual flourishing are not just an obvious questions around like you know having uh a huge GDP or you know the you know being able to like see return on investments and and all of these things. They get down to fundamental questions of how do we even define wealth to begin with and and how do we produce it and and uh and arrange its its goods, right? And you know, how do we labor and how do we distribute uh over wealth? And if we want to be really serious then about you know being being treaty partners to ensure mutual flourishing, it means that indigenous peoples have to have a substantive say in generating a shared understanding of of what it does mean to to create mutual flourishing. So I think that yes, ultimately there probably is uh the ability for uh for labor and and for um you know other people who are not necessarily uh advantaged in uh society um to find you know a common cause and and to create what I would say there the goal is to create a shared identity but I think there has to be points of shared understandings Right. And so I do think all of those things are are possible, but they're I think we know that they're really not easy and that they're, you know, we still have uh big questions, other uh structural questions around how issues of race uh and gender and colonialism also shape the way in which people can have uh conversations and generate shared understandings with each other. And we're, you know, um, unfortunately it feels like we've been set back a little bit from centering questions of, uh, race and and gender and colonialism within our, uh, discussions over the last few years, uh, due to the push back on, you know, wokeness. But I think obviously those questions are going away. And I believe that we have the capacity over time to be creative and finding ways to help people talk across difference and and to work together uh across difference cuz you know at the end of the day I think ultimately um all people have higher level principles within them and it's just a matter of finding ways to pull out those higher level principles around wanting to live in a world where we believe we treat each other well uh and that we can take care of each other. Matt, we were hoping for a stimulating discussion on these issues and you have not disappointed us. Thank you so so much for joining us and sharing your insights today.

[00:36:50]>> Awesome. Thanks, Desmond.

[00:36:52]>> If you like what you've heard on the Breach Show, please subscribe to the podcast. And if you would like to support our work, please become a sustaining member to help us produce more journalism for transformation. And you can do that by going to breachmedia.ca/support.

[00:37:10]Thanks for listening.