Alberta separatist groups claim of advancing Indigenous rights has little substance, says prof

A leader in the Alberta separatist movement is scratching his head over First Nations resistance to an independent state. Jeff Rath, co-founder of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), says First Nations would be free of federal restrictions and see their profits jump – like the rest of the province under his group’s plan. “I would like chiefs and communities to realize they’re so much better off with a constitutionalized resource revenue-sharing agreement with the province of Alberta that would see their community revenues quadruple,” he says. “Because if we’re not sending $15 billion to Quebec anymore, the money’s going to stay in Alberta.” Rath, an Alberta lawyer who specializes in treaty and Indigenous rights and environmental law, is referring to the taxes Alberta pays the federal government that are distributed via equalization payments to provinces with less revenue. Alberta doesn’t directly pay Quebec, which the federal Finance Department shows received a $13 billion share in 2024-25. Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan are the three provinces that pay into the program. Alberta Prosperity Project CEO Mitch Sylvestre speaks at a June 6 event in Peace River, Alta. Photo courtesy the Alberta Prosperity Project The federal taxes are a major irritant for the APP, which is advocating for a referendum next year on Alberta leaving Canada to become the 51st American state or an American territory. “There’s lots of time to educate people on the benefits of not having to pay any more federal income tax, not being subject to any more federal regulations – other than the ones that make sense – etcetera, etcetera,” Rath says in an interview. He suggested a new Alberta would benefit just about everybody, including First Nations, who have been cool to the idea and worried about their inherent and treaty rights legally recognized by the Crown (and represented by the federal government). The APP – unlike other separatist groups – won’t be “erasing” Indigenous rights so everybody “can be equal”, says Rath. “That’s a complete non-starter and complete lunacy,” he says. “That’s why I got involved with APP because I wanted to make sure there was an independence group that … actually had the rights and interests of Alberta’s Indigenous people as part of its core mission. “Not only would there be a new and enhanced treaty relationship with an independent Alberta … ,” he adds, “(but) whatever obligations are owed by Canada won’t go away just because Alberta decides to reorganize itself politically.” People listen to a speaker at the June 6 Alberta Prosperity Project event in Peace River, Alta. Photo courtesy the Alberta Prosperity Project Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has said she is not in favour of Alberta leaving Canada, but would support a referendum if enough voters want one. She has appealed to First Nations leaders in her province to support provincial sovereignty and promised to protect their rights, according to a letter to chiefs obtained by APTN News. Rath insisted that First Nations treaty rights would remain with the Crown unaffected by separation, noting he speaks from legal experience. “My entire career has been spent advancing the rights and interests of the Aboriginal nations of Alberta, British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in Canada,” he says. “I’ve argued and won treaty and Aboriginal rights cases at the highest courts in the country, including the Supreme Court of Canada.” But Gina Starblanket, a Cree-Saulteaux associate professor in Indigenous Governance at the University of Victoria, says the treaties would not survive separation. “(The treaties) established a distinct political relationship with the … Dominion of Canada – the government – and after Confederation the federal government was given the responsibility for maintaining that distinct relationship ….” she says. “That means the federal government has legislative authority over (Indigenous Peoples). “The provinces never actually made treaties with First Nations and they’re not a party to those treaties.” The former Canada Research Chair in the Politics of Decolonization at the University of Calgary feels provincial separation would create ambiguity in the federal structure around the obligations to First Nations. “They would be taking different governmental measures that would impact our Aboriginal and treaty rights that they have not yet entered into those treaties,” she adds. “What that means is that the province has no ability to guarantee or oversee the implementation of that relationship.” Read More: Alberta premier pens letter to chiefs appealing for support of provincial sovereignty Still, Rath claims an independent Albterta would offer First Nations a better deal. In 2005, he won a Supreme Court decision in favor of the Mikisew Cree in northern Alberta that set a national precedent for development on treaty land. The court ruled the federal government failed to adequately consult the nation about building a road through a park. “I won the Mikisew Cree (of northern Alberta) decision which literally led (to) billions and billions of dollars of resource development, pipeline ownership, Aboriginal participation in resource projects,” he says. “That was all as a result of my work.” Under the APP’s “Aboriginal rights component”, he says First Nations wouldn’t need provincial approval for a casino licence or special tax-exempt cards, to name but two. “We would see Indigenous communities as having complete jurisdiction over all of their affairs on Indigenous lands,” he say.“The proposals that APP are putting forward – from an Aboriginal rights perspective – are a very radical advancement of the current constitutional structure in Canada.” But Starblanket says First Nations have jurisdiction over their lands and business partnerships now. “That statement has very little substance to it,” she says of Rath’s ‘radical advancement’ claim. In fact, she says, living and operating in an independent Alberta would create more complications for First Nations that are legally recognized governments with constitutional status. “To me, there’s no clear or even implied benefit to change; we’re not excluded from those (development and partnership) conversations now. In fact, the provinces and federal governments actively seek to consult with and partner with First Nations.” What could happen instead, she suggested, is Alberta entering into modern day treaty-making with First Nations as British Columbia has been doing. “They would have to strike a new treaty-making process flowing from the Royal Proclamation principles,” she says, “and enter into new treaties or figure out a way that the provinces are going to become a party to First Nations treaties with the federal government. “There’s always a possibility for those (original) treaties to be revisited and renewed.” Meanwhile, Rath has denied professional misconduct allegations made by the Law Society of Alberta. On its website, the Society claims Rath threatened criminal charges – including for murder – “to gain a benefit for a client.” The allegations that have not been proven and a disciplinary hearing has been set for next year. In a separate case, the Mikisew successfully sued Rath over his multi-million dollar contingency payments for representing them in two cases not related to the Supreme Court file, according to a May 4 statement from the band. Continue Reading