Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s recent introduction of Bill 54, which would lower the threshold for citizen-led referendums in the province, has sparked renewed concerns about Alberta separatism. While the Premier denies being a separatist, First Nations leaders across the province are sending a clear message: any path to separation must recognize that their treaties are with the Crown, not the province.
Brooks Arcand-Paul, an Alberta NDP MLA for Edmonton-West Henday, who is Cree, passionately addressed the issue at the Alberta Legislature this week.
“In a fit of political rage, the premier introduced a bill that would make it easier to launch Alberta into a separatist crisis, as if threatening to break up Canada was just another wedge issue,” Arcand-Paul stated. “Why now? Why in the middle of rising costs and global instability would this premier choose the path of chaos? Separatism creates uncertainty. It drives away investment, it hurts workers, it hurts the oil and gas sector just like Trump and his reckless tariffs.”
Further reading:
Arcand-Paul emphasized the fundamental issue that makes separatism legally problematic: “First Nations must consent to any talk of separation full stop. Our inherent right and jurisdiction over these lands predates the creation of Alberta. We are signatories to Treaty 6, 7, and 8 made with the Crown, not with the province.”
He concluded with a powerful declaration: “I will never ever vote for separatism. Because this is and always will be Indian land.”
Premier responds to Indigenous treaty concerns
In a press conference held Thursday afternoon at the Premier’s office in Edmonton, Danielle Smith defended the legislation when questioned about potential treaty rights violations.
“The Citizen Initiative Act I think is the purest form of democracy we have, and it gives all Albertans an opportunity to play a direct role in the democratic process by inviting them to have a direct say on issues their fellow citizens want to put to the people,” Smith stated.
She insisted her government respects treaty rights: “My government respects all of the treaties that are enshrined in the constitution under Section 35.”
When pressed about the risk to the province’s relationship with First Nations, Smith dismissed the concern as hypothetical: “Right now this is just enabling legislation so that any citizen is able to go out garner signatures and if they’re successful then I guess you can ask me the comment on what is actually on the table, you’re putting forward a hypothetical that doesn’t exist.”
Asked directly to address First Nations leaders’ concerns, Smith notably avoided speaking to them directly, instead criticizing media characterization of the bill: “Well, I can see that the media is trying to describe this legislation as something it’s not, it’s a citizen initiative change that any petition can come forward.”
She compared the initiative to California’s referendum system, noting it’s a “very left wing jurisdiction” that has seen petitions for issues like rent control and cannabis legalization. “I would just encourage people to not look at this from an ideological lens. If you’ve got an issue that’s important to you, that you think can garner the support of your fellow citizens then get out there and start a petition campaign once this legislation has passed.”
Treaties predate Alberta’s existence
The controversy comes in the wake of the federal election, which saw Mark Carney’s Liberals win a fourth consecutive mandate. A day after the election, the Alberta government introduced Bill 54, which proposes lowering the threshold for a citizen-led referendum to 10 per cent of people who voted in the last election, down from the current 20 per cent of eligible voters. The bill would also extend the signature-gathering period from 90 to 120 days.
While Premier Smith maintains, “I believe in Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada,” she also acknowledges the referendum process could theoretically be used for separation questions. This ambiguity has First Nations leaders concerned.
Alberta’s provincial status only dates back to 1905, while the treaties that govern the relationship between First Nations and the Crown were signed decades earlier:
– Treaty 6 (1876): Covers central Alberta, including areas around Edmonton and extending into Saskatchewan.
– Treaty 7 (1877): Encompasses southern Alberta, including Calgary and Lethbridge, and was signed by members of the Blackfoot Confederacy, Stoney Nakoda, and Tsuut’ina Nation.
– Treaty 8 (1899): Covers northern Alberta and extends into parts of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.
These treaties collectively cover nearly the entire landmass of what is now Alberta and establish rights to hunting, fishing, trapping, land reserves, payments, education, health support, and guarantees of peaceful coexistence.
Chief Sheldon Sunshine of Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and Chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro of Mikisew Cree First Nation took direct action by sending joint letters to both Premier Smith and Prime Minister Carney.
In their letter to Premier Smith, they were unequivocal: “You are attempting to manufacture a national unity crisis – by enabling a referendum on separatism and a fanatical cell of individuals – at the exact moment when Canadians need to unite against Donald Trump’s America.”
The Chiefs reminded the Premier of the legal standing of treaties: “The province of Alberta is on Treaty lands. Please be advised that your irresponsible statements and actions are in breach of Treaties No. 6, 7, and 8. We demand that you immediately stand down from this conduct.”
Their position is clear: “Our Treaties are sacred covenants and are to last forever. Alberta did not exist when our ancestors agreed to share the land with the Crown. The province has no authority to supersede or interfere with our Treaties, even indirectly by passing the buck to a ‘citizen’ referendum.”
They concluded their letter with a pointed suggestion: “If you or any Canadians are not happy living on Treaty lands, they are free to apply for citizenship elsewhere.”
Simultaneously, the Chiefs sent a direct message to newly elected Prime Minister Carney:
“Congratulations on your election as Prime Minister. Unfortunately, we have no time for pleasantries. We are enclosing our letter to Premier Danielle Smith for your urgent attention.”
The letter to the Prime Minister emphasized the foundational nature of Treaty relationships: “As you know, Canada is founded on Treaties that were sacred covenants between the Crown and our ancestors to share the lands. We are not prepared to accept any further Treaty breaches and violations. We respectfully ask that you get the province of Alberta in line.”
The Chiefs concluded by stating, “We look forward to working with your new government as Treaty partners,” reinforcing that their relationship is with the federal Crown, not the provincial government.
Legal and constitutional hurdles
If Alberta attempted to separate, it could not inherit the treaty relationships established with the Crown. First Nations would have strong constitutional and international law arguments to reject inclusion in an independent Alberta, assert independent rights, or maintain their relationship with Canada.
Under international law, particularly the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (which Canada supports), Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. This means First Nations could demand autonomy, remain with Canada, or negotiate new terms directly.
Political columnist Graham Thomson, who has covered Alberta politics since the late 1980s, characterizes Alberta separation as “a pipe dream” that politicians use to inflame rhetoric against the federal government. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that no province can unilaterally separate, and any path to separation must include meaningful negotiations with First Nations.
As tensions rise between Alberta and Ottawa following the federal election, First Nations leaders continue to assert that their consent would be required for any separatist agenda to proceed legally. The treaties established before Alberta became a province represent binding agreements that must be respected, regardless of provincial political ambitions.
