Road to the Referendum: First Nation chiefs fighting Alberta separatism to preserve way of life

This story is Part 3 of the Road to the Referendum series. Part 1 on regular folks for and against separation can be found here. Part 2 about the border city of Lloydminster can be found here. More on what to expect from the series can be found here.

Surrounded by students practicing a fire drill at Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation’s only school in early May, chief Sheldon Sunshine looks around and sees his nation’s future.

“We’re trying to build these systems so these children have a chance and are always tied to our culture and way of life,” Sunshine said.

Those systems include more cultural and land-based teachings in the Treaty 8 territory community of 1,400 people, located near Grande Prairie in northwestern Alberta.

“We run camps in the summer. We had a moose harvest camp where it was just geared for our students,” Sunshine said.

“We had some of our elders come and discuss about butchering the animal and traditional foods. We have fish camps where the community comes out and learns how to clean fish.”

At a community space built on the land next to where the St. Francis Xavier Residential School used to sit, elders and people with educational backgrounds now meet up and teach other members the Cree language.

“We are going to fight like heck to protect and preserve our way of life for our future generations.”

Part of that fight is pushing back against Alberta possibly splitting off from Canada.

First Nations have won a pair of significant court battles limiting the provincial government’s ability to hold a constitutionally binding referendum.

Sturgeon Lake is one of the First Nations at the forefront of those legal battles over Alberta separation. Indigenous Treaty rights are a central courtroom argument for several different nations.

“Our way of life is out there on the land. It’s harvesting medicines, living off the land, utilizing the fur-bearing animals in a good way to sustain ourselves,” Sunshine said.

“Our people have been living in this territory for millennia and when they signed Treaty, it was to ensure our way of life continued.”

Two different judges have already ruled in First Nations’ favour.

Their reasoning is the province neglected its duty to consult by allowing Stay Free Alberta’s question and petition drive to go ahead.

“Treaty First Nations are the senior partners at the constitutional table,” said Bruce McIvor, a senior partner and founder of First Peoples Law LLP in Vancouver, B.C.

The firm works exclusively on Indigenous rights cases.

Treaty rights are the constitutionally recognized, nation-to-nation agreements signed more than a century ago between the Crown and Canada’s Indigenous peoples.

The lands of five different treaty nations fall within the boundaries of Alberta: the big three are Treaty 8 across northern Alberta, Treaty 6 in Edmonton and central Alberta, and Treaty 7 stretching from south of Red Deer to the Canada-U.S. border.

Small slivers of two other regions also stretch into Alberta: Treaty 10 near Cold  Lake, and Treaty 4 east of Medicine Hat.

McIvor reiterated treaties were signed between First Nations and the Crown, before Alberta became a province in 1905.

Because of that, he argues those agreements supersede any provincial decisions.

“Canada is a constitutional democracy — so it’s a democracy based on a Constitution and the heart of that Constitution are the Treaties,” McIvor said.

“If Alberta wanted to remove itself from Canada, Alberta wouldn’t have any legitimacy because it would break the promise of the Treaties.”

While announcing a separation question is going to a referendum, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith called the most recent court ruling ‘erroneous’ and vowed to appeal it.

Smith said she believe the decision overstates the duty to consult, noting she feels it should only be required in relation to major projects.

“I don’t even know what the court would expect of a citizen initiated petition, to satisfy a bar for duty to consult, before they can even ask a question,” Smith said.

“That’s why I think there’s been an error in law.”

During an annual meeting of western and northern premiers at the end of May, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew spoke out against the referendum.

Smith said she thinks it’s a mistake to expect consultations to be done in relation to citizen-initiated petitions, which prompted Kinew to challenge her.

“That is not correct, a lot of what you just said there, Premier Smith,” Kinew said. “It is not up to the petition gatherers to fulfil the duty to consult.

“It is up to you, as the Alberta government, to fulfil the duty to consult.”

Kinew said he agrees with the judge’s ruling and that creating a new international border around Alberta would certainly impede established treaty rights for Indigenous people to hunt and fish.

Smith responded by saying their disagreement proves the importance of Canada’s court system, adding that she respects the “difference of opinion.”

“I think we’ll wait to see how our court of appeals process goes and see what the courts have to say.”

Chief Sunshine said the new question put forward by the province does not change his approach.

He promises the First Nation will keep up a vocal — and likely legal — opposition to the topic.

“It is my responsibility to ensure that way of life is protected with everything I have, so our children, our grandchildren can enjoy the freedom to practice our way of life,” Sunshine said.

A practice Sunshine envisions continuing as a part of Canada.

— With files from Karen Bartko, Global News and Dayne Patterson and Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press

© 2026 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.