FORM SK-AD5: Character References for the Province of Saskatchewan
PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN
FAMILY DIVISION
FORM SK-AD5: CHARACTER REFERENCES FOR PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENT
Collected in support of Saskatchewan's Application to Adopt North Dakota and South Dakota
REFERENCE #1: PROVINCE OF MANITOBA
Relationship to Applicant: Neighbour (immediately to the east), Fellow Prairie Province, Occasional Rival
Length of Relationship: Since 1905 (Saskatchewan's creation), though Manitoba has been around since 1870 and likes to mention this
Character Assessment:
To Whom It May Concern,
Manitoba is pleased to provide this reference for our neighbour, Saskatchewan, in support of their application to adopt the Dakota Twins.
We have known Saskatchewan for 119 years. In that time, they have been a steady, reliable, if somewhat understated presence on our western border. They are quiet, hardworking, and maintain their property well. Their wheat is acceptable. Their sunsets are admittedly impressive.
Saskatchewan has demonstrated the following qualities relevant to adoption:
- Patience: They have endured decades of being confused with us without complaint.
- Resilience: They survive winters that would break lesser provinces.
- Generosity: They share the Prairies with us without territorial disputes (mostly).
- Stability: They have maintained consistent governance without major scandals.
- Healthcare: They pioneered universal healthcare in Canada. The Dakotas would be well-served.
Regarding their suitability for adopting TWO states simultaneously: Manitoba believes Saskatchewan can handle it. They're used to managing large, empty spaces. Two more won't overwhelm them.
We also appreciate that Saskatchewan insisted on keeping the Twins together. This shows character. We approve.
Signed,
Province of Manitoba
"Friendly Manitoba" (It's on our plates)
P.S. - If the adoption includes Minnesota, we'd like first rights of refusal. We called it first.
REFERENCE #2: PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Relationship to Applicant: Neighbour (immediately to the west), Fellow Prairie Province, Economic Frenemy
Length of Relationship: Since 1905 (we were literally born the same day)
Character Assessment:
To the Court,
Fine. Alberta will provide a reference for Saskatchewan.
Look, we don't always agree with Saskatchewan. They make different economic choices. They have different politics sometimes. They're... quieter than us. But when it comes down to it? They're family. Prairie family.
Saskatchewan has the following qualities:
- Fiscal Responsibility: They manage their resources without our drama. We respect that.
- Agricultural Expertise: They know farming. The Dakotas are farm states. Good match.
- Water Management: They handle the South Saskatchewan River responsibly. Important for the Dakotas and their aquifers.
- Humility: Unlike some provinces (Ontario), they don't make everything about themselves.
Regarding the Dakotas specifically:
- North Dakota has oil. We approve.
- South Dakota has... that mountain with the faces. It's fine.
- Both Dakotas understand resource extraction. They'll fit in.
We support this adoption. It expands the prairies. It adds population (however small). It's better than them going to Ontario.
Signed,
Province of Alberta
Wild Rose Country (with Energy)
P.S. - We're still claiming Texas. That hasn't changed.
REFERENCE #3: NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Relationship to Applicant: Neighbour (to the north), Territorial Sibling
Length of Relationship: Complicated (NWT is technically older, but Saskatchewan became a province first)
Character Assessment:
To Whom It May Concern,
The Northwest Territories observes that Saskatchewan is applying to adopt the two Dakotas.
We find this interesting. Saskatchewan to our south, growing southward. Meanwhile, we remain in the north, waiting. We're not bitter. We're simply noting the pattern.
Saskatchewan has been an adequate neighbour. They do not bother us. They send tourists sometimes. These tourists are polite, if underprepared for actual northern conditions.
Qualities we can attest to:
- Cold Tolerance: They understand winter. Not like we do, but adequately.
- Indigenous Relations: They have been working on reconciliation. There is progress. There is more work to do. (This applies to everyone.)
- Resource Management: They extract resources with reasonable environmental consideration. Reasonable by southern standards.
We have no objection to this adoption. The Dakotas are south of Saskatchewan. This makes geographic sense. It does not affect us.
If Saskatchewan wished to adopt something northern instead, we would have concerns. But they don't. So we don't.
Signed,
Northwest Territories
Spectacular by Nature
P.S. - Nunavut says hello. They are also indifferent to this matter.
REFERENCE #4: STATE OF MONTANA
Relationship to Applicant: Southern Neighbour, American Observer, Slightly Confused
Length of Relationship: We share a border. We've been aware of each other.
Character Assessment:
Um, hi. Montana here.
So someone asked us to provide a reference for Saskatchewan adopting the Dakotas. We're not entirely sure what's happening, but we'll do our best.
We know Saskatchewan. Nice place. Very flat. Their portion of Glacier... wait, that's entirely in us. Never mind. They have... prairies. Like us, but Canadian.
Regarding their fitness as an adoptive parent:
- They seem responsible?
- They have healthcare, which the Dakotas definitely could use.
- They're polite. Very polite. Maybe too polite.
- They'll take good care of the Twins, probably.
About the Dakotas:
- North Dakota: Quiet. Keeps to themselves. We forget they're there sometimes. In a good way.
- South Dakota: More energetic. Has the mountain thing going on. Gets tourists.
- Together: They're fine. Normal states. As normal as any of us.
Look, we don't fully understand why this is happening, but if the Dakotas want to go to Canada, that's their choice. We'll miss them. Kind of. We'll definitely notice they're gone, eventually.
We support this, we guess?
Signed,
State of Montana
Big Sky Country (and now surrounded by Canada on three sides, apparently)
P.S. - Does this mean we need a passport to visit Mount Rushmore now?