Last Updated on February 4, 2026
First Nations leaders from Treaties 6, 7 and 8 publicly denounced recent separatist rhetoric in Alberta, arguing they pose a direct threat to constitutionally protected Indigenous treaty rights and the rule of law.
At a press conference in Edmonton on Jan. 29, chiefs reiterated that any movement toward Alberta independence cannot proceed without the consent of Indigenous Nations whose treaties predate the province’s creation.
They also called on Albertans to oppose an active petition campaign that could trigger a referendum on Alberta becoming a sovereign country. The chiefs described the separatist initiative as unconstitutional, crazy, laughable, dangerous and dismissive of their inherent rights.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation Chief Allan Adam sharply criticized Premier Danielle Smith and the United Conservative Party (UCP) government for enabling the citizen-led petition process by amending provincial legislation. In strong language, Adam demanded Smith’s resignation and urged Albertans to reject the referendum push.
In legal filings, Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation argues the approval of the referendum petition process violates Treaty 8 and constitutional law by allowing the province to delegate decision-making power affecting treaty lands to private citizens. The claim asserts such measures lack legal authority and could invite foreign interference.
Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi of Treaty 8 said the province exists on lands ceded under historic treaties with the Crown, and that Alberta has no jurisdiction to alter foundational agreement terms. “[Alberta] is a tenant on this land, not the landlord,” he said in a statement supporting legal action.
“Any talk of separation or so-called provincial sovereignty is not just political theatre; let me be clear: it’s also a proposal to break Treaty. Alberta does not have the authority to ask that question, let alone act on any answer,” he said.
The Indigenous leaders’ critique extends beyond constitutional concerns to pressing social issues. In a separate statement, Mikisew Cree First Nation leaders urged provincial authorities to address long-standing community challenges — including unsafe drinking water, rising healthcare problems, education pressures and homelessness — instead of promoting divisive political agendas. Chief Billy Joe Tuccaro emphasized that “fix what is in your own backyard first” and underlined ongoing systemic failures tied to treaty breaches.
The chiefs’ unified opposition reflects broader tensions between Alberta’s provincial government and Indigenous Nations over sovereignty claims and resource control. First Nations leaders insist that Treaties 6, 7 and 8 remain living, legally binding agreements that cannot be overridden by provincial political initiatives.
“The province exists here only because our Nations entered solemn Treaties with the Imperial Crown, agreeing to share these lands for settlement under clearly defined terms. Alberta did not create that authority, and it does not possess the legal or constitutional power to revoke, alter, or override it,” said Grand Chief Trevor Mercredi.
The debate over Alberta’s political future resonates with earlier constitutional flashpoints in Canadian history — most notably Quebec’s repeated pushes for sovereignty. Quebec held two major referendums on independence in 1980 and again in 1995. Both votes asked Quebecers whether they wanted to pursue a path toward sovereignty outside of Canada; in each case, the proposal was rejected by provincial voters.
During the closely fought 1995 referendum, Indigenous Nations in northern Quebec — particularly the Cree and Inuit — insisted that they would not automatically be included in a separate Quebec state without their consent. Their objections were rooted in treaty rights, territorial agreements and international principles of self-determination.
The Grand Council of the Crees, under Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come, produced detailed legal arguments asserting that any attempt to include Cree lands in a sovereign Quebec without Cree consent would violate international and domestic law. In October 1995, the Crees organized their own referendum in which 96.3 percent of respondents rejected being transferred to a sovereign Quebec and instead chose to remain part of Canada.
Inuit communities in northern Quebec held a similar local vote that same month, with roughly 96 percent voting against Quebec becoming sovereign.
Indigenous objections were not merely symbolic. During the 1995 referendum campaign, Quebec’s sovereignty bill proposed retaining existing provincial borders should a vote succeed, implying Indigenous territories would be swept into a new Quebec state without distinct negotiations. Indigenous leaders rejected this framing and called for recognition of their right to self-determination within any constitutional transformation.
Legal and political responses followed. In the years after the referendum, the federal Parliament passed the Clarity Act, which requires clear questions and clear majority results in secession referendums before negotiations could begin — a legislative framework influenced by the contentious 1995 vote and its unresolved questions about Indigenous rights, territory and participation in constitutional negotiations.
The historical record underscores a consistent legal principle: provincial boundaries and political ambitions do not override Indigenous rights. They argue that any future debate over sovereignty, whether in Alberta or elsewhere, would require direct negotiations with Indigenous Nations as rights-holders, not as stakeholders — a standard they say has not been met.
Across the world right now, Indigenous peoples are facing a renewed assault on their lands, rights, and ways of life.
From extractive industries pushing deeper into ancestral territories, to governments rolling back hard-won protections,
the threat is global—and it is growing.
What makes this moment especially dangerous is how little attention it receives.
Stories like this are disappearing in real time. Mainstream media
barely covers it and the coverage is fragmented. The public is left without the context
needed to understand what is truly at stake.
That is exactly why IC Magazine exists..
For more than 20 years, IC has reported on Indigenous struggles worldwide — consistently, independently, and without compromise.
We don’t follow news cycles; we trace patterns. We don’t sensationalize; we provide context.
And when the world looks away, we stay focused.
But this work is increasingly difficult to sustain.
We refuse to lock our reporting behind a paywall. We don’t sell access through subscriptions.
And we don’t answer to advertisers. IC Magazine survives solely because readers like you choose to
support independent Indigenous journalism.
Please donate today if you can. Every contribution helps us to continue this crucial work.
Thank you,
John Ahni Schertow
Founder and Editor in Chief
