Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak says Alberta separatists are "not taking the land with them" and argues any movement toward Alberta independence is "illegitimate" without the consent of First Nations.

But Woodhouse Nepinak is not from Alberta and does not lead an Alberta First Nation.

She is from Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba, previously served as the AFN's Manitoba regional chief and is a Treaty 2 descendant. Today she serves as the elected national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, an advocacy organization representing chiefs across Canada. While she speaks on behalf of the AFN, her comments should not be confused with the position of Alberta's Treaty 6, 7 and 8 nations.

Nor is it accurate to suggest Indigenous Albertans speak with one voice on Alberta independence.

A 2026 Mainstreet Research poll commissioned by Act For Alberta found 46 percent of First Nations respondents supported Alberta becoming an independent country, compared with 36 per cent of Albertans overall.

In other words, First Nations respondents were about 10 percentage points more likely than the general population to support independence. While no poll captures every perspective, the results directly contradict the suggestion that Indigenous Albertans are uniformly opposed to the idea.

Woodhouse Nepinak's comments also omit the language of the numbered treaties themselves.

Treaties 6, 7 and 8, which cover most of Alberta, state that the participating First Nations agreed to "cede, release, surrender and yield up" their rights and interests in the treaty lands to the Crown. Those words form the legal foundation upon which the Crown asserted sovereignty, opened the West to settlement and later transferred control of Crown lands and natural resources to the Province of Alberta.

The federal government itself describes the numbered treaties as agreements under which First Nations ceded large tracts of land in exchange for reserves, annuities and other treaty promises.

That does not mean treaty rights disappeared.

Hunting, fishing, reserve, harvesting and other treaty rights remain protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and governments continue to owe constitutional obligations to First Nations. Many Indigenous leaders and legal scholars also argue the treaties were intended as agreements to share the land rather than permanently surrender ownership, creating an ongoing legal and historical debate about the meaning of the cession clauses.

But that debate does not make Woodhouse Nepinak's statement settled constitutional law.

The Supreme Court of Canada's 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec held that a province cannot unilaterally leave Canada. However, it also held that a clear referendum result would oblige governments to negotiate constitutional change. The Court recognized that Indigenous rights and interests would have to be considered during those negotiations, but it did not rule that a national Indigenous organization or every individual First Nation possesses a constitutional veto over a province holding a referendum or seeking independence.

Nor would Alberta somehow "take the land" if independence were ever achieved. Any negotiated independence agreement would necessarily have to address the continuing status of Treaties 6, 7 and 8, reserve lands, Aboriginal and treaty rights, federal obligations and the constitutional relationship between an independent Alberta and First Nations. Those questions would be resolved through negotiation and, if necessary, litigation—not by political declarations.

Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak is expressing the political position of the Assembly of First Nations—not stating settled constitutional law. She is a Manitoba chief speaking on behalf of a national advocacy organization, not an Alberta treaty nation. The numbered treaties covering Alberta contain explicit land-cession language, even as First Nations continue to dispute the Crown's interpretation of those provisions.