Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation shares facts about Alberta secession and Treaties
Reproduced here in The Missive newsletter (with example of the disinformation being spread by separatists)
My Scottish/Irish ancestors were immigrants who travelled by ship to the east coast of so-called “Canada” in the late 1700’s or early 1800’s and were part of several waves of genocidal colonization of the Indigenous people on Turtle Island. We arrived uninvited on the traditional unceded territory of the Wəlastəkewiyik (Maliseet) whose ancestors along with the Mi’Kmaq / Mi’kmaw and Passamaquoddy / Peskotomuhkati Tribes / Nations signed Peace and Friendship Treaties with the British Crown in the 1700s. Growing up, I knew little about the true history and we didn’t really discuss this in my family. As a child in the 1970’s, my parents moved west to work in the oil sands industry and I grew up in the Nistawâyâw (Cree) Ełídlį Kuę́ (Dene) - Fort McMurray area within Treaty 8 territory, which his home to six First Nations and six Métis communities. Today, I am grateful to be writing this newsletter from Moh’kinsstis, and the traditional Treaty 7 territory of the Blackfoot confederacy: Siksika, Kainai, Piikani, as well as the Îyâxe Nakoda and Tsuut’ina Nations. This territory is also home to the Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 3 within the historical Northwest Métis homeland. I recognize that the land I grew up on and the place where I now work and live was stolen from Indigenous people (truth) and I support giving the land back as an act of reconciliation. Lands inhabited by Indigenous peoples contain 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity. Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge systems are critical to creating a more harmonious future for all.
The Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation has published a fact sheet to clear up some of the claims made by Alberta separatists. This was originally posted to Facebook, Feb. 3, 2026 and I am reproducing it here in its entirety.
ALBERTA SECESSION – FACT SHEET
First Nation consent is required for Alberta to secede.
True.
In December 2025, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench held that an Independent Alberta would unilaterally change the party to the Treaties. Consent from First Nations was required for secession under the Treaties. Alberta was created by legislation in 1905, and the Treaties came into effect in 1876 (Treaty 6), 1877 (Treaty 7) and 1899 (Treaty 8). Alberta is not a party to the Treaties. Further, under the Clarity Act, secession can’t happen until “Government of Canada has addressed, in its negotiations, the terms of secession that are relevant in the circumstances, including the division of assets and liabilities, any changes to the borders of the province, the rights, interests and territorial claims of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the protection of minority rights.” Specifically, Section 3(2) of the Clarity Act sets out that negotiations are required with First Nations.
Alberta can unilaterally secede.
False.In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada held in Reference RE: Succession of Quebec, that Quebec does not have a right to secede, let alone a right to secede unilaterally. Under international law, only oppressed and colonized peoples have that right. Albertans are not oppressed or colonized, collectively or individually. Neither Alberta nor Albertans have the right to secede under international or Canadian law, unilaterally or otherwise. They have the right to negotiations.
First Nations would be “better off” in an independent Alberta.
False.
This is a unilateral assertion from the Separatists and not a position supported or advanced by any First Nation. First Nations have not been consulted or engaged in separation efforts.
First Nations have three options in an Independent Alberta.
False.
The so-called three options are another unilateral assertion from the Separatists and are not supported by the law. First Nations have NOT been consulted or engaged and do not consent or agree on any of the three options. First Nations must consent to secession and they do not.
The land is “permanently ceded and surrendered”.
False.
First Nations maintain that under Treaty, territories were to be shared not ceded and surrendered. Further, Alberta is not a party to the Treaty and only the Parties to the Treaty can change it. Alberta is not a Party and cannot make changes to the Treaty relationship.
What is meant by the potential for foreign interference?
The potential for foreign interference in the petition and the referendum process is foreseeable and real risk. It will come in the form of disinformation/misinformation, and foreign funding. It could result in recognition from the US before, during or after a referendum. We already see interference in the form of disinformation on Treaties, secession and racism.
This information is intended to make everyday Canadians who live in Alberta believe that separatism is more popular than it is and consider supporting the creation of a separate Alberta, which will be under American control, as a vassal state or a 51st state. The US’s stated policy is to engage in resource imperialism and hemispheric dominance – some Trump officials have specifically eyed Alberta for this purpose. If the US recognizes an independent Alberta, at any time, negotiations won’t matter and the law will be disregarded.
Current legal actions
There are currently three separate legal actions launched by First Nations, all challenge the validity of the hasty removal of the requirement in the Citizen Initiative Act that all petitions be constitutional.
Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation have launched a lawsuit against Alberta, Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer and Canada asserting that the enactment of Bill 14 is unconstitutional. They have also made an Application for Injunction to suspend the section in Bill 14 that removed the requirement that Petitions must be constitutionally compliant.
Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation have submitted an Application for Judicial Review of the Chief Electoral Officer’s decision to approve the Petition and the part of Bill 14 that claims to make this lawful. Siksika Nation, Piikani Nation and the Blood Tribe have, collectively, submitted a similar application.
Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation will have hearings April 7, 8, 9 2026, which means the petition and/or referendum process could be successfully paused if they obtain the remedies in relation to Bill 14.
No Chiefs or First Nations have expressed support for separatism.
What are Alberta and Canada saying?
Alberta’s lawyers have so far taken positions that are aligned with or identical to the separatists. When asked if they would agree to pause the calling of a referendum, Alberta referred to the legislation they just changed twice (in May and December) in requiring them to hold a referendum before the next election in October 2027.
Canada appears to be turning a blind eye. This is evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding they recently entered into with Alberta. Canada has indicated no plan for dealing with the national security threats.
You can find the original letter here on Facebook. And both pages are below:
Example of disinformation/misinformation shared on X.com recently by an account promoting separatism (@RiseofAlberta):
The point about consent being constitutionally required is critical. I've seen similar dynamics where majoritarian groups try to sidestep consultation requirements, treating Indigenous sovereignty as procedural rather than substantive. The Clarity Act explicitly naming Indigenous territorial claims as negoiation requirements shows this isn't optional, yet the fact that Alberta's lawers are aligned with seperatists is concerning. The foreign interference angle also adds another layer that most people probably aren't tracking.
Very straightforward and useful, thanks for sharing!