Alberta Separatists Ignored the Power of Treaties. Take Heed, Carney

Wednesday’s court ruling blocking Alberta separatists’ efforts to hold a secession referendum this fall is a reminder that treaties are foundational to Canada’s existence.

The decision affirmed the claim by two First Nations that treaties signed with the Crown cannot be ignored and undone by forces seeking to pull a province out of the federation. The separatists, ruled the judged, failed in their duty to consult with First Nations before beginning to gather signatures for their petition.

Had they been consulted, most certainly First Nations would have rejected the separatists’ aims. As Sturgeon Lake Cree First Nation, one of 39 nations which signed a treaty with Canada in 1899, argued in its court filing:

“Alberta has treated [Sturgeon Lake] as though they are chattel on the land, merely an afterthought in forced negotiations, not the first step in any potential secession. Alberta has no right to secede from Canada and no right to take Treaty No. 8 territory.”

So Canadians have been reminded of the value of treaty. But Canada cannot only lean on treaty selectively to protect nationalist aims, since those aims are often at the expense of Indigenous peoples and lands.

Alberta is not a treaty partner

Alberta separatism is fueled by long-standing resentments toward distant politicians in Ottawa seen to be making decisions that curtail Alberta’s ability to profit from oil and gas resources. What this view obscures is that treaties between Indigenous Nations and the Crown laid the groundwork for a sharing of lands that provinces were not party to (Alberta became a province 38 years after Canada was formed and well after most of the numbered treaties were negotiated).

Some history is useful here. Following the end of the Seven Years’ War between Britain and France, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 established the Crown’s interest in and understanding of the requirements for entry into Indigenous lands. It situated nation-to-nation treaties between governments as a prerequisite for access to Indigenous territory. Alberta separatists are unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge their own history and have now paid a legal price.

Alberta did not claim jurisdiction over natural resources until the 1930s and the Natural Resources Transfer Agreements struck between the provinces and Canada. Alberta First Nations argue that these agreements violated treaty rights and have ample ground to pursue court challenges to that effect, buoyed by the recent court decision quashing the referendum.

Alberta separatism, rooted in resentment over the province’s inability to freely exploit natural resources, relies on the ongoing denial of treaty.

Resisting Maple MAGA

It is unsurprising that many Alberta separatists find inspiration in Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and its effort to recover a nostalgic and fantastical golden era that erases the colonial and racist dispossession and violence that shaped both Canada and the United States.

Alberta separatists have met with Trump officials and there are growing concerns over both U.S. and Russian interference in the referendum process. Alberta separatism is both a homegrown and external threat to Canada. Both Indigenous people and immigrant communities have reported increases in racism since the separation question has gained traction in public discourse

Both Prime Minister Mark Carney and Naheed Nenshi, leader of the Alberta NDP, have endorsed the court’s decision to stall the separatist referendum and named the importance of upholding Indigenous and treaty rights.

And yet both leaders support fast-tracked development projects that trample those very same rights.

Moreover, Carney and his government have demonstrated only partial and sluggish movement towards amending the second-generation cut off that denies First Nation status to some Indigenous people with a non-status parent and grandparent (another mechanism intended to legally eliminate Indigenous people in their homelands). All levels of government need to honour treaty in practice as well as they claim to do in rhetoric.

Treaties are always vital, not just in crisis moments

Treaties play a vital role in Canada’s constitution. They have also made Canada a more liveable place by prefiguring the nationalized health care that distinguishes the country from the United States. When Indigenous treaty partners successfully pursued a “medicine chest” clause in Treaty 6 to protect against the diseases accompanying settlement, they introduced notions of mutual wellness and aid that preceded universal health care in Canada (though First Nations continue to receive uneven care due to systemic racism).

Treaties are meant to enable the mutual flourishing of treaty partners. And as we’ve seen with this week’s court ruling, when treaties are honoured they can remake Canada into a place worthy of defense from internal and external threats.

There is a long history of Canada looking to treaty rights in the face of national crises, figuring centrally in responses to the 1973 Calder and 1997 Delgamuukw Aboriginal title cases, in the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (established after the Oka Crisis), and as a lever to mitigate Quebec separatist sentiments.

Once again, treaties are helping stem another separatist threat. Likewise, Carney’s Liberals are trying to foster Indigenous partnerships to expedite resource development in response to tariff and sovereignty threats from south of the border.

Alberta separatists and Carney’s Liberals both share a desire to maximally extract Canada’s resources. Treaties offer a pathway to different lifeways, grounded in reciprocity and responsibility towards the lands, waters, and beings that sustain human life.

Everyone who makes their home in today’s Canada, including those seeking to leave it while squatting on Indigenous lands, has a responsibility to learn about the history of treaties that govern the lands they so readily lay claim to.