First Nations in Alberta, Saskatchewan vow to oppose any efforts to separate Alberta from Canada
On Friday, following on the heels of several other First Nations who have expressed opposition to the idea, the Chiefs of four Calgary-area First Nations also issued a statement saying that 'any efforts to separate will be met with our full opposition.'
While the Chiefs express some sympathy with the 'deep frustration echoing across Alberta and much of the Prairies,' saying as leaders 'we too often feel unheard,' they also insist that 'First Nations will not separate.'
The Chiefs said that large swaths of Alberta are governed by 'sacred treaties' between First Nations and the 'Imperial Crown,' including treaties 6, 7 and 8, and those areas 'are held in trust by the Crown for the benefit of the Treaty First Nations, not as property of the provincial government.'
Story continues below advertisement
The statement adds that those treaties also predate Alberta's entry into Confederation in 1905.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
The statement is endorsed by Chief Roy Whitney of the Tsuut'ina Nation, Chief Darcy Dixon of the Bearspaw Nation, Chief Aaron Young of the Chiniki Nation and Chief Clifford Poucette of the Goodstoney Nation.
View image in full screen
First Nations' Chiefs say that treaties that cover a large swath of Alberta pre-date the province's entry into Confederation and they are vowing that any efforts at Alberta separation 'will be met with their full opposition.' Global News
Late Thursday, the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations, which represents 74 First Nations in Saskatchewan, also issued a statement expressing its 'serious concern over Alberta Premier Danielle Smith's recent actions to facilitate a potential referendum on Alberta's future in Canada.'
'We are the first peoples of these lands and waters,' said FSIN Chief Bobby Cameron. 'Those that want to leave are free to do so but all the lands, waters, and resources are First Nations.'
'Any process of separation that fails to honour the true spirit and intent of our treaties would violate both constitutional and international law,' added Chief Cameron.
Story continues below advertisement
Following Monday's federal election, Smith's United Conservative Party government proposed legislation that would make it easier for citizens of Alberta to call for a vote to secede from Canada.
Smith responded to claims she is stoking the fires of separation by saying she supports a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada.
— with files from The Canadian Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Cision Canada
6 hours ago
- Cision Canada
Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke condemns federal budget cuts as racialized austerity
KAHNAWAKE, QC, Aug. 5, 2025 /CNW/ - The Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke (MCK) is raising urgent concerns over Canada's Bill C-5 legislation, which mandates sweeping 15% budget reductions across federal departments, including Indigenous Services Canada (ISC). Ohén:ton Í:rate ne Ratitsénhaienhs Cody Diabo addressed media earlier today, stating that this decision represents more than flawed public policy, it constitutes a direct violation of human rights and constitutional guarantees - a sentiment that reflects a growing outcry across Indigenous communities regarding Bill C-5 and its broader implications. "While provincial transfer payments are being shielded to safeguard essential services for everyday Canadians, these same protections are not extended to First Nations communities," Diabo said. "Slashing federally funded services provided through ISC creates a dangerous disparity, amounting to racialized austerity and placing the burden of economic restraint squarely on Indigenous peoples already battling systemic underfunding." The Council emphasizes that the budget cuts jeopardize vital programs in health care, education, infrastructure, and community development, and undermine Canada's commitment to truth, reconciliation, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In response to the legislation, the MCK is initiating steps to recover losses and safeguard the interests of our people. To start, the implementation of tolls on major highways is being explored. Further, the MCK calls upon the federal government to: Reverse proposed budget cuts to ISC. Affirm its legal and moral obligations under treaty law and UNDRIP. Engage in meaningful dialogue with Indigenous leadership before implementing decisions that impact their communities. To access the full statement from Ohén:ton Í:rate ne Ratitsénhaienhs Cody Diabo, click here.
Calgary Herald
10 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Letters for Aug. 5
Cars, cars and more cars Article content Article content Devin Dresheen is right. Let's take the tiny percentage of Calgarians who use the bike lanes to commute downtown every day and get them in a big truck on the roads instead. I think all of our commute times will improve with 26,000 new cars cramming their way into the core each morning. Article content Article content We might even be able to add enough parking spaces to fit them all if we concrete-over the green space south of the Peace Bridge and start calling it Prince's Island Park-ing lot. Article content Article content Article content After enduring the disgraceful freedom convoy in our own country, followed by the offensive circus act south of the border, this is a time to rally as proud Canadians. Instead, the UCP is putting us through an expensive, divisive and grossly biased separation referendum. Article content The list of provincial government failures is growing longer every day. Whether it's mismanagement of our Heritage Trust Fund, the 'federal fire' in Jasper, the clawback of critically needed federal disability funding, the measles outbreak and COVID vaccine fiasco, the pro-plastic and pro-carbon emission stance, provincial police stalking non-UCP politicians, etc, etc. Article content Article content It's time to come together and celebrate Canada and the long list of federal contributions to our province. It's definitely not the time to reward incompetence of the provincial government. Article content Ian Wishart, Calgary Article content Article content Obfuscation, procrastination and bafflegab. Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada is going to be an 'energy powerhouse.' So far, nothing! Article content A group of entrepreneurs should announce immediately that they are going to build a twined oil and natural gas pipeline to Churchill, Manitoba. There, they will construct a new LNG facility and oil refinery, plus all the necessary infrastructure to handle exports of these products to Europe and beyond. At the same time, they will announce a new rail line from Winnipeg to Churchill to handle all the construction materials required to build this new economic giant on Hudson's Bay. A real energy giant would have the permits to proceed in 90 days – think Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. Article content Canadian oil and gas companies already produce the cleanest and most environmentally safe fossil fuels in the world; however, this compelling project will never happen. By the time our politicians, our bureaucrats, our green protestors and First Nations have their collective 'say', the project will be dead on arrival.
CBC
10 hours ago
- CBC
How Frank Calder and the Nisga'a influenced modern treaties in Canada
Many First Nations across the country are warning that new infrastructure bills to fast-track build projects may be infringing on their rights — rights that received a huge boost more than 50 years ago, thanks to the pioneering efforts of a hereditary chief of the Nisga'a Nation in B.C. Frank Calder led a case out of B.C.'s northwest coast that would result in the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledging Indigenous rights and title for the first time — and, in turn, contributed to modern treaties and Indigenous self-governing agreements across the country, as it opened the door for Indigenous people to negotiate land claims with the government. Chiefs in B.C. are citing Calder, and other cases that affirmed Indigenous rights and title, at a time when many say their rights aren't being respected. In Ontario, nine First Nations have taken the province and Canada to court over Bill 5 and Bill C-5, which aim to fast-track projects, and chiefs in B.C. are also saying more court challenges are to come. The bills come as Canada experiences economic uncertainty because of tariffs, and Indigenous people are concerned that the environment and their rights are taking a back seat. As Indigenous people gear up for court, previous rights and title cases are top of mind as Canada pushes for "shovels in the ground." With Indigenous people citing the Calder case, and their rights and title, what does that mean? Indigenous rights and title In a 1982 amendment to the Constitution, Section 35 recognized and affirmed the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Indigenous people in Canada. It defines "Aboriginal peoples of Canada" as Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples. Treaty rights are defined in each negotiated treaty. But there is no definition of "Aboriginal rights and title" in the Constitution for Indigenous communities in Canada that didn't sign a treaty — and this has led to debate, controversy and several court cases. Many of the significant cases that aimed to define Aboriginal rights and title took place in B.C., paving the way for First Nations across the country to have a better hand at negotiating tables. One of the earliest is the Calder case, filed by the Nisga'a on B.C.'s northwest coast. The Government of Canada credits Calder for shifting the treaty negotiation process in the country to a rights-based approach. The Calder case Calder was a hereditary chief of the Nisga'a Nation and, alongside others, took B.C. to court in 1967 in an attempt to get his nation's land back and to have Nisga'a rights and title protected in the Nass Valley. The Nisga'a pursued the case, arguing that its rights under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 had been violated because, like most Indigenous communities in B.C. at the time, they had never signed a treaty. The proclamation, still in place today, states that all land in Canada is considered Indigenous land until ceded by treaty, and further, that Aboriginal title existed before settlement, and only the Crown can purchase land from First Nations. The Calder case caused a split decision at the Supreme Court of Canada, with three judges voting in favour of the Nisga'a and three voting in favour of the province. The court's two other judges recused themselves from the case. The seventh judge dismissed the case on the technicality that First Nations needed permission from the government to sue the government, and the Nisga'a didn't have it. Although the case was dismissed, for the first time in Canadian history, the Supreme Court judges who voted in favour of the Nisga'a acknowledged the existence of Aboriginal title. First Nations from unceded territories now had a better hand at negotiating tables and started being invited to them. 'A whole different world': Nisga'a negotiator The Calder case laid the groundwork for modern treaties in Canada. The very first — the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement — was signed two years later. It took longer for the Nisga'a, who signed their treaty in 2000, after 113 years of negotiations. Matthew Moore was on the negotiation team for 16 of those years and remembers how B.C. kept turning them away. "Every time I went to the provincial government, I would get refused with the comment that you guys aren't Canadian citizens, you're wards of the federal government. You have to talk to the federal government," he said. "It was really humiliating and frustrating to go through that." Following Calder, Moore says that Nisga'a members asked then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau if the government was open to negotiating a treaty, or if they wanted to go back to court. "Our people got a response back that the federal government did not want to go back to the Supreme Court of Canada. They wanted to explore negotiations," said Moore. Canada and many First Nations call the period from the 1970s onward the modern treaty era. Saskatchewan impact Among those participating in the modern treaty process is a nation in Saskatchewan that wasn't allowed to sign a numbered treaty between 1871 and 1921. Darcy Bear, chief of the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, told CBC News the Dakota territory spans from the United States to Canada, and negotiators from the government labelled Chief Whitecap and his people as "American Indians," and so, didn't allow him to sign. The Whitecap Dakota signed its self-government treaty with the Crown in 2023. "The self-government treaty recognized Whitecap Dakota Nation members as Aboriginal peoples of Canada with section 35 rights, something they never did before," said Bear. Bear says that it was important for his people to be governed by their own Dakota laws, instead of being governed by the Indian Act — a policy still in place today, enacted in 1876 that changed Indigenous governing systems to the chief and council system. Bear says that his community researched modern treaties and self-government agreements in B.C. and the United States before requesting a negotiation process with the Crown. Yukon impact Another area of Canada that was settled without a treaty is the Yukon. Dave Joe, a member of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations and the first native lawyer in the territory, says that before modern treaties "it was a dark period in history" for First Nations people in Canada. "It was a period of restrictions about whether or not we could own the land, whether or not we could pursue a land claim, whether or not we could pursue court action." He was involved in creating the Umbrella Final Agreement, the template used to negotiate all land claim settlements for Yukon First Nations. Joe says that the Calder case with the Nisga'a, the civil rights movement in the United States, and another rights and title case pursued by the Tlingit and Haida nations in Alaska, all inspired First Nations in the Yukon to pursue their land claims. "Those were the three sorts of backdrops to Yukon First Nations, saying that hey, we have a valid claim here as well." He says that the Calder case initiated the modern treaty era in Canada. "And so [the Nisga'a] had a good case going forward. That recognition, I think, prompted Pierre Trudeau to accept our proposal to negotiate rather than proceeding with court action." And even as the Calder case was influential in Canada, according to the University of British Columbia, it has also been referenced in Australia and New Zealand.
