Alberta’s Sovereignty Push and the Violation of Treaty Rights

A Wake-Up Call from Treaty First Nations

In recent weeks, Premier Danielle Smith’s government in Alberta has reignited national conversation over provincial sovereignty and the possibility of separation from Canada. While Smith has not explicitly endorsed secession, her introduction of Bill 54, which would ease the path to provincial referendums, including one on Alberta’s independence, has caused concern across the country.

Among the most powerful responses have come from First Nations leaders across Alberta. On May 1, 2025, the Four Nations of the Maskwacis Cree,  Ermineskin Cree Nation, Louis Bull Tribe, Montana First Nation, and Samson Cree Nation, released a letter condemning Bill 54 as “an unmistakable attempt to flirt with the concept of Alberta separation” and “an insult to the spirit and intent of the Treaties.” Just two days later, the Chiefs of Tsuut’ina Nation, Bearspaw Nation, Chiniki Nation, and Goodstoney Nation echoed this message with a joint statement that was equally clear:

“First Nations will not separate.”

Together, these statements make it clear that the conversation about Alberta’s future cannot happen without Indigenous Nations — and certainly not against them.

Why Separation Violates the Treaties

The Treaties between First Nations and the Crown are not provincial agreements, but sacred nation-to-nation relationships with the federal government of Canada. These agreements, such as Treaty 6, signed in 1876, were foundational to the existence of provinces like Alberta. As the Maskwacis Chiefs wrote:

“Alberta would not exist but for Treaties with First Nations.”

Any move toward Alberta’s separation, especially through unilateral referendums or legislative tools like Bill 54, ignores the constitutional and legal standing of those Treaties. The letter highlights how:

• The Treaties are perpetual and binding agreements made with the Crown, not subject to change by provincial governments.

• First Nations never consented to the Natural Resources Transfer Agreement of 1930, which handed mineral rights from Canada to Alberta.

• First Nations never surrendered sub-surface rights to land, making any provincial claims to those resources legally and ethically flawed.

• The Treaties are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, meaning any violation has national legal implications.

A Question of Sovereignty

Alberta’s government claims that Bill 54 and the broader “sovereignty” discussion are about resisting federal overreach. But First Nations leaders strongly reject that framing. As stated in the Maskwacis letter:

“Our SOVEREIGNTY and INHERENT rights to govern ourselves cannot be overlooked, and must be recognized.”

The idea that Alberta could separate, without the free, prior, and informed consent of the Indigenous Nations who never ceded their land, directly undermines their inherent rights and centuries-old agreements. This is not just a political issue; it is a question of jurisdiction, land, and identity.

Legal Reality: Separation Is Not Simple

Under Canada’s Clarity Act (2000), no province can unilaterally declare independence. The Act requires:

• A clear referendum question approved by Parliament.

• A clear majority of support from the population.

• A process of constitutional negotiations involving the federal government, provinces, and Indigenous Nations.

Even in the case of a successful referendum, separation would require constitutional amendment, a process that necessarily involves consultation with Indigenous Nations, whose legal rights are enshrined in Canada’s highest laws.

Treaty Land Means Treaty Responsibilities

As the Chiefs of Maskwacis remind Premier Smith:

“You live and work on Treaty land; govern yourself accordingly.”

For any future conversation about Alberta’s role within or outside of Canada, the starting point must be respect for the Treaties, recognition of Indigenous sovereignty, and inclusion of Indigenous voices. Without that, any path forward is not just politically reckless – it is legally and morally indefensible.