Blood Tribe says separation efforts violate treaty law

By ZOE MASON on January 13, 2026.

zmason@medicinehatnews.com

As the citizen-initiative petition on Alberta independence has begun collecting signatures, Indigenous groups across the province are calling for legal changes to prevent separatist efforts, which they say contravene Indigenous rights under treaty law.

The southern Alberta Blood Tribe released a three-page statement Friday expressing their opposition to the separation efforts, as well as the legislation introduced in the fall session that they say weaken protections for Treaty and Aboriginal Rights.

The Blood Tribe is the latest of a number of Indigenous groups to condemn recent separatist action as disregarding Indigenous rights and demand action from the provincial government to intervene in the ongoing citizen initiative.

The Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation is suing the Alberta government for creating the conditions that have allowed the petition to proceed.

CBC News reported last week that SLCN has asked the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta for an urgent interim injunction against the petition. The lawsuit claims that the province has no right to change the treaty relationship with the federal government, and that the passing of Bill 14 fails to recognize this.

The Blood Tribe says it is actively exploring all legal avenues to protect and uphold its treaty rights and traditional territory.

“Out Treaties are sacred and our consent matters. Our rights are not negotiable,” reads the statement released Friday.

The petition asks: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?”

The Chief Electoral Officer initially received the citizen initiative proposal from the Alberta Prosperity Project in July 2025 and referred the question to the courts.

The subsequent court case granted intervenor status to Siksika, Piikani and the Blood Tribe. The status granted Blood Tribe and others the ability to provide perspectives that could help shape the ruling. They submitted oral and written testimony that argued the proposed question contravened the Constitution Act, 1982.

The judge upheld Blood Tribe’s interpretation by ruling the proposal went against Charter and Treaty rights. But the decision came the day after the UCP government introduced Bill 14, which allows proposals that violate the constitution to move ahead.

Bill 14 also removed the ability of the Chief Electoral Officer to ask the court whether a referendum question is constitutional, relocating the power to make this judgement to the Minister of Justice.

Justice Colin Feasby, the judge who ruled on the question, criticized the government for passing legislation that pre-empted the case, which he called disrespectful to the administration of justice.

“The Blood Tribe stands with other Treaty Nations in firm opposition to this petition and all the efforts to undermine and erode the foundations of our Treaty relationship,” read Friday’s statement.

“Alberta cannot even ask a separation question without our consent. The Blood Tribe has made its position known to the Alberta Government.”

Heather Jenkins, press secretary for Minister of Justice Mickey Amery, said Alberta’s government recognizes and honours Treaty rights as recognized by section 35 of the Constitution Act.

“We have been clear that we support a sovereign Alberta within a United Canada. It is the democratic right of every Albertan to participate in a citizen’s initiative process and bring forward a petition asking a clear question for citizens to consider,” Jenkins said in a statement to the News.

When the Referendum Act was updated by the Elections Statutes Amendment Act last spring, a clause was added that ensures nothing in a referendum held under the Act could be construed as abrogating the existing treaty rights of aboriginal people under the Constitution Act.

The further amendments made by Bill 14 in the fall clearly state that if the results of a referendum are binding, the government that initiated the referendum is not required to implement the results if doing so would contravene sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, which includes treaty rights.

21
-20