4 days ago
Alberta has something to learn from some unexpected opponents to provincial separatism
If there's one piece of advice I find myself giving more and more these days, it's that progress is not linear — it's spiralic.
In each generation, we find ourselves revisiting issues we thought were long-ago resolved. The lesson to draw from this is not that things are hopeless and we can never 'win.' Instead, we should draw strength from our cyclical struggles — we aren't in this alone, and it's not all on our shoulders. We step into a long interconnected chain of those who came before, and those who will come after, all of us working for a better world.
It can be useful to revisit similar moments of struggle to put current events into context. The United Conservative Party's sly flirtation with fringe separatist factions within Alberta is not rooted in the same historical, cultural, and political conditions of Québec — but Indigenous resistance to these movements has in fact remained stable and consistent. Take these two quotes, nearly 30 years and thousands of kilometres apart.
'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.' Chief Sheldon Sunshine, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation & Chief Billy-Joe Tuccaro, Mikisew Cree First Nation, 2025.
'A unilateral declaration of independence by the government of Québec would undemocratically change or terminate our relationship with the government, Parliament, and people of Canada. [It] would attack our fundamental right as a people to determine our own political future; it would constitute fundamental breach and repudiation of the terms of the James Bay and Northern Agreement of 1975; and it would be in violation of fundamental principles of democracy, consent and human rights.' Matthew Coon Come, former Grand Chief of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee, 1996.
Let me take you back to 1995. Québec had just a few months previously elected the Parti Québécois, whose mandate was to hold a referendum on independence during its first year in office. This was the culmination of centuries of sustained effort that began to peak during the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s before coming to a head in 1980 with Québec's first unsuccessful referendum on the matter.
True to their promise, October 30th saw Québeckers turn out in historic numbers to vote. The rest of Canada held its collective breath.
But just a week before and unbeknownst to most Canadians, an equally momentous mobilization played out in the vast northern portion of the province as the Cree nation held a referendum of its own.
At no point during any of the political organizing around separation, were the opinions sought, or rights considered, of the eleven Indigenous nations that have Québec's borders scrawled across their territories. A reckless move when just 20 years before, Québec's massive James Bay hydro project was ground to a halt by the determination of a relatively small population of Indigenous people. That mobilization resulted in the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, considered Canada's first modern treaty. Encompassing 1,061,900 square kilometres of land — 68.8 per cent of the entire province — the agreement was made between the federal and provincial governments, and the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi nations.
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
But how to reach the Cree citizens? October is the middle of the hunting season in Eeyou Istchee — Cree territory in northern Québec. From September until spring, the communities emptied out, and families trekked across land to spots unconnected by any road or telephone service. The conditions were less than ideal to launch a response to Québec's bid to pull itself out of Confederation.
John Henry Wapachee and Robbie Dick knew they had to pull out all the stops. They chartered three helicopters to visit more than 100 bush camps to reach families on the land and spread the word. Other Cree travelled hundreds of kilometres through wintery conditions back to their fly-in communities, to gather at polling stations, schools and meeting halls. Cree living outside Eeyou Istchee made their way to stations set up in Montréal, Val d'Or, Ottawa, North Bay, and Senneterre.
The question posed?
'Do you consent, as a people, that the Government of Quebec separate the James Bay Crees and Cree traditional territory from Canada in the event of a Yes vote in the Quebec referendum?'
The answer was 96.3 per cent against. Eeyou Istchee would not be following Québec if it managed to become independent and good luck to whomever had to redraw that map.
This Cree referendum made international news at the time, though in my research I haven't come across much evidence that the Parti Québécois acknowledged the outcome or that it swayed the final vote — and it very well may have had no impact on the vote itself. Nonetheless, Cree opposition to secession would have severely impacted the ability of Québec to follow through with independence had they been successful.
The Cree weren't the only ones to speak out. Farther north in Nunavik, Inuit held a separate referendum, voting 96 per cent against Quebec separation. A Parliamentary research paper published in 1996 found that provincially, 95 per cent of Indigenous people who participated in the Québec referendum voted no. Chiefs in Québec and the Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Ovide Mercredi were also very vocal in their resistance to 'the forcible inclusion of aboriginal people in a new, independent state, arguing that it would be contrary to international law.'
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW
Nor has sentiment shifted. In 2014, the Parti Québécois once again sought a mandate to bring a third sovereignty referendum forward. Grand Chief Michael Delisle of Kahnawake responded plainly: 'We'd never be part of Quebec or cede out of Canada because we don't believe we are Canadians to begin with. Our ties are to the land.'
Just two weeks ago in front of the Legislature in Edmonton, Treaty First Nations in Alberta voiced similar sentiments. Those who gathered were united in opposition to talks of separation, which Confederacy of Treaty 6 First Nations Grand Chief Greg Desjarlais characterized as a 'violation of Treaty, natural law and the land itself.'
Those few Albertan separatists who flat-out ignore Indigenous treaty rights seem to think that Indigenous nations are their natural allies — after all, don't we all chafe under the oppression of the federal government? The answer is provincial governments have a host of wrongs to answer for. I would remind Albertans that Alberta's Sterilization Act was in effect from 1928 to 1972 and specifically targeted Indigenous women. any of the institutions that have been repeatedly found by Canadian inquiries, inquests, reports and commissions to be motivated by systemic racism against Indigenous Peoples are provincial — not federal. But that's not even the point.
Most disturbing to me is the recent resurgence of harmful stereotypes about Indigenous Peoples in public discourse as a method of ignoring treaty rights. Racist and dehumanizing comments once more flood social media claiming Indigenous people are freeloaders who contribute nothing, pay no taxes, get everything for free, or were flat out conquered and thus can have no rights worth discussing. I've spent the last ten years writing against these stereotypes and trying to debunk myths, only to see the same tired narratives being operationalized to justify a new wave of colonial land theft. Our communities are exhausted trying to assert Indigenous humanity — and if our dehumanization is necessary to this separatist movement, then let's bring that into the light and be honest about it.
The real issue, the one that First Nations and Métis within the province have been very clear in articulating, is what it has always been: our lands are not yours to take.
Alberta is covered by five treaties: 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (though treaties 4 and 10 have no First Nations communities within this province's borders). Portions of Alberta are also within the Métis Nation's Homelands. It isn't some sort of loyalty to Parliament that holds Indigenous nations to these constitutionally recognized agreements — but as Chief Delisle put it nearly a decade ago, Indigenous Peoples are tied to the land. Alberta does not have the ability nor the right to alter that relationship through secession — the only right Alberta has to its existence at all is because of that relationship.
If Albertans are serious about working together with Indigenous Peoples to improve the treaty relationship, it cannot happen under the threat of separation. Whatever political points the UCP hopes to gain by encouraging a doomed movement, even as it issues statements denying involvement, the damage being done to relationality in this province cannot be worth it. Albertans need to reaffirm their commitment to being treaty peoples by educating themselves and shutting down this kind of foolishness. In the end, no matter what happens, the answer from Indigenous Nations to separation on terms other than our own? It remains a resounding 'no.'
