Alberta's Sovereignty Ambitions Meet a Fundamental Truth: First Nations Consent

So, Alberta wants to talk about sovereignty, maybe even separating from Canada? It's a conversation that pops up now and again, especially in certain political circles. But here's the kicker, something pretty fundamental that often gets overlooked: the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) has just laid down a very clear marker. Their National Chief, Cindy Woodhouse-Nepinak, recently stated unequivocally that if Alberta ever truly intends to go its own way, it absolutely needs permission from First Nations first.

Now, why would that be, you might wonder? Well, it all boils down to history, inherent rights, and some deeply foundational agreements we call treaties. Think about it: First Nations were here, self-governing and sovereign, long before Canada was even a twinkle in anyone's eye, and certainly long before Alberta became a province. Their relationship, their nation-to-nation bond, isn't with the provincial government or even strictly with the federal government. No, those sacred treaties, like Treaty 6, Treaty 7, and Treaty 8 that cover much of Alberta, were made with the Crown itself. That's a crucial distinction, isn't it?

It means that while provincial and federal governments might administer things on behalf of the Crown, they aren't the original party to these agreements. First Nations hold inherent rights, and their lands were never just 'given' to Canada or Alberta; they were shared or affirmed through these agreements. To simply assume a province could just walk away from Canada, taking all that treaty land and those relationships with it, without the consent of the original peoples? That's just not how it works, according to the AFN.

Woodhouse-Nepinak really hammered this home, emphasizing that First Nations are sovereign nations themselves, not just another group within Canada. They’re partners, not subjects. So, any major constitutional shake-up, like a provincial divorce from the rest of the country, would require direct, nation-to-nation negotiations and explicit consent from these Indigenous peoples. It's a recognition of their enduring status and jurisdiction, something enshrined in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution, mind you.

You see, Alberta's UCP government, under Premier Danielle Smith, has been pretty vocal about wanting more autonomy, pushing legislation like the Alberta Sovereignty Act, and generally looking to carve out more provincial control, often at the expense of federal ties. But what the AFN is saying is that this quest for greater provincial independence cannot just gloss over the original inhabitants and title holders of the land. Imagine the chaos, the legal battles, the absolute fundamental injustice, if a new 'Alberta Nation' tried to form without addressing these foundational agreements and relationships first. It would be, frankly, unworkable.

Ultimately, this isn't just about a political squabble; it’s about respect, historical truth, and the very fabric of what Canada, and any potential future Alberta, stands for. The message is crystal clear: if you’re redrawing the map, physically or constitutionally, First Nations must be at the table, not just as stakeholders, but as sovereign partners whose permission is absolutely non-negotiable. Their consent isn't a suggestion; it’s a prerequisite for any legitimate path forward.