logo
ACFN Condemns Attempt to Silence First Nations in Alberta Secession Case: "We Will Not Be Erased"

ACFN Condemns Attempt to Silence First Nations in Alberta Secession Case: "We Will Not Be Erased"

Cision Canada7 days ago
FORT CHIPEWYAN, AB, Aug. 6, 2025 /CNW/ - The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (ACFN) is demanding a halt to efforts to undermine constitutional rights and silence Indigenous voices as Alberta navigates a reckless and unlawful push toward secession from Canada.
The Chief Electoral Officer has asked the Court of King's Bench in Edmonton to rule on whether a proposal for Alberta to secede from Canada violates the constitution. This process – which was made law to ensure that citizen petitions do not propose to violate rights – is now under direct attack by the Alberta Prosperity Project and its leadership. Mitch Sylvestre – one of the APP's leaders and the person who brought the secession petition on its behalf – is asking for the Chief Electoral Officer's case to be thrown out. Mr. Sylvestre is seeking to strike the stated case and shut down the process before it begins. This would scrap the constitutional review entirely and block interveners – including ACFN – from participating altogether.
This follows statements last week from the Alberta Minister of Justice and Premier Danielle Smith which publicly pressured the Chief Electoral Officer to withdraw the stated case and abandon the constitutional review. The Minister of Justice called the process "red tape".
"This is a blatant attempt to silence Treaty First Nations and bulldoze through a radical secessionist proposal without scrutiny," said ACFN Chief Allan Adam. "Let us be absolutely clear – Treaty 8 was signed with the Crown in right of Canada, not with Alberta and certainly not with any separatist fringe group. We will not allow our Treaty to be trampled by political extremists."
Despite the public pressure from the Premier and Alberta Justice, the Chief Electoral Officer has persisted in referring the matter to the courts. The parties are due to appear
in court on Thursday, August 7, at which time the Chief Electoral Officer will be proposing the Court order a public notice plan and timetable to allow interested parties to apply to intervene, and for amicus curiae to be appointed, so that the Court can have a comprehensive hearing on this fundamental issue at a later date. In stark contrast, the lawyers appearing for Mr. Sylvestre and the APP will argue that the case should be struck then and there, without hearing from any other impacted parties.
ACFN's legal team will be in court on Thursday to oppose Mr. Sylvestre's motion and support the implementation of a public notice plan and schedule that would allow First Nations and other concerned parties to formally intervene. "It is a matter of natural justice that the First Nations of Alberta – who have lived here from time immemorial – have an opportunity to be heard on this proposal to secede from Canada" says Kevin Hille, legal counsel for ACFN. "ACFN is going to be there to support the Chief Electoral Officer in creating a process that will give First Nations a genuine opportunity to participate."
To ACFN and other First Nations, the secession petition represents a grave threat to the foundational relationship between Treaty Peoples and the Crown in right of Canada. Treaty 8 was signed in 1899 – before Alberta even existed as a province – and guarantees ACFN's rights to hunt, fish, trap and live according to their traditional ways. These rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and cannot be erased by provincial whim or populist politics.
Alberta was not a signatory to Treaty 8 and did not gain provincial status until 1905. Even then, Canada retained ownership of natural resources in the province until 1930. Alberta's authority over resources was only constitutionally entrenched in 1982. These facts underscore that ACFN's primary Treaty relationship is – and always has been – with the federal Crown.
"This is not just a courtroom battle – it's a fight for our people, our lands, and our future," said Chief Adam. "If Alberta secedes, we would see artificial borders cut across our Nation, our kin divided, and our Treaty protections stripped away. We will not stand by while others try to erase our rights in secret."
ACFN has consistently defended federal jurisdiction and the constitutional framework that upholds its rights – including at the Supreme Court of Canada. That fight now extends to this courtroom, and this case.
"We are not going anywhere – and we are not backing down," said Chief Adam. "Canada must uphold its constitutional promises. We will fight this petition with everything we have."
ACFN urges all Albertans, legal advocates, and Indigenous Nations to stand in solidarity against this dangerous and unlawful attempt to hijack democracy, suppress Indigenous voices, and dismantle Canada's constitutional order.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ontario youth climate case to be put to the test again in December
Ontario youth climate case to be put to the test again in December

CTV News

time2 hours ago

  • CTV News

Ontario youth climate case to be put to the test again in December

Protesters take part in a climate protest march in Ottawa, on Sept. 21, 2024. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby TORONTO — Ontario's climate plan is set to be put to the constitutional test again in December. A lawyer for a group of young climate activists says their historic constitutional challenge is set to be heard for a second time in Ontario Superior Court on Dec. 1 and 2. The new hearing comes after Canada's top court dismissed the province's request that it weigh in on the case. Lawyers for the group have argued Ontario's 2018 decision to replace its climate target with a weaker one committed the province to dangerously high levels of greenhouse gases in violation of their Charter rights. After the first full hearing in 2022, an Ontario Superior Court judge agreed the target fell 'severely short of the scientific consensus' of sufficient action but ultimately ruled it wasn't a violation of the constitution. But on appeal, Ontario's highest court issued a favourable ruling for the young climate activists and sent the case back to the lower court for another hearing. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 12, 2025. Jordan Omstead, The Canadian Press

Local climate activism leads to ‘remarkable' gains, report shows
Local climate activism leads to ‘remarkable' gains, report shows

National Observer

time3 hours ago

  • National Observer

Local climate activism leads to ‘remarkable' gains, report shows

This story was originally published by Grist and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration What do an offshore wind farm in New York, a campaign to install 275,000 heat pumps in Maine and the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline have in common? They were all the result of 'community-based strategies' with involvement or leadership from local grassroots groups. Advocates say this is a powerful and relatively cheap way of driving climate action, especially as the Trump administration rolls back as much progress as it can. A new report is the first to put hard numbers to that effectiveness in the United States and Canada. The analysis quantifies how much carbon a given law, protest movement, or clean energy project will keep out of the atmosphere. It also calculates the amount spent on the local efforts advancing each campaign to determine the cost of preventing each metric ton of CO2 equivalent from being released. (CO2 equivalent is a measurement that considers other greenhouse gases like methane.) 'The numbers really did show that these had meaningful impacts and a good return on investment,' said Sam Greenberg, a director at Redstone Strategy Group and a coauthor of the report. 'The benefits are not limited just to the quantifiable carbon impact — even though that's what we were focusing on — but also understanding the full picture of all the other co-benefits we saw coming out of this.' That wind farm in New York, for instance, will keep 7.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent out of the atmosphere by 2030, at a philanthropic cost of just 3 cents per ton, the report notes. A solar farm on the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Nevada will avoid 4.2 million metric tons in the same period, costing 12 cents per ton. Both are slowing climate change and reducing the air pollution that usually comes out of coal or natural gas power plants. That, in turn, brings the added benefit of improving human health. The report considered the supply side of things as well. The Keystone XL pipeline would have ferried crude oil from Canada to refineries in the United States. But after 10 years of legal battles and fearsome opposition by environmentalists, Indigenous groups, and farmers along the route, the developer abandoned the project in 2021. The victory means that between 52 million and 105 million metric tons won't be released by 2030, the report finds. The local advocacy efforts cost $2.6 million, or 2 to 5 cents per ton. 'You can make a solid argument that both the supply-side efforts and the renewable energy development can both have a meaningful impact,' Greenberg said. Community activism for state policies, too, are majorly slashing emissions. In 2023, Maine blew past its goal of installing 100,000 heat pumps two years ahead of schedule. Now it wants to install another 175,000 by 2027. Because the devices run on electricity, the state can power them with renewable energy, avoiding 1.2 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030, according to the report. Heat pumps are a good example of climate action not necessarily being branded as such. People might want to adopt the appliances because they're more efficient, or to avoid burning toxic gas in a furnace. Advocates can also pitch renewable energy projects like wind and solar farms as job creators. 'The additional benefits of climate action, those are usually the motivating factors for people,' said Dan Jasper, senior policy advisor at Project Drawdown, a climate solutions group that wasn't involved in the report. 'Things like employment, health, less pollution — these are the things that people most fundamentally agree on, and it helps to move conversations beyond the political deadlock.' Advocates say that "community-based strategies" driven by grassroots groups are a powerful and relatively cheap way of driving climate action, especially as the Trump administration rolls back as much progress as it can. With a lack of sufficient leadership on climate even before Donald Trump took office again, it's been up to states to set their own policies. In 2019, New York passed the landmark Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act after years of organizing and campaigning by the coalition NY Renews. It commits the state to 100 percent clean electricity by 2040. But even before that, the report notes, by 2030 the law will have canceled 58 million to 120 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent. With $10 million spent on local philanthropic efforts, the cost comes to between 8 and 17 cents per ton. Cities, too, are crucibles for climate action. The report notes that in 2019, San Jose, California, became the biggest city in the U.S. to mandate that all new single-family homes, duplexes, and multifamily homes of three stories or less be built without natural gas hookups. That means occupants will be running conventional electric or induction stoves and heat pumps, all electrified with ever more renewable power on the grid. The philanthropic support for the effort cost $1 million, avoiding 887,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2030. 'It's kind of remarkable how much mitigation you can get from community-based, grassroots-promoted activities,' said Rhea Suh, president and CEO of the Marin Community Foundation, which collaborates with donors and nonprofits. (Redstone prepared the report for them, as well as the MacArthur Foundation and Equation Campaign.) 'It is clear that policies that were created from the ground up tend to last longer than the top-down policies.' That's due to increased engagement, Suh adds. Whereas the federal government dictates broad policies across the whole country, mayors and governors are more in tune with what their people actually want. By working on a more granular level with communities, organizers and politicians can collaborate with residents, not dictate. 'The durability comes from just the equity sweat that is put into these things,' Suh said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store