These Lands were never ceded, nor surrendered.” What he meant by “internationally binding”wasn’t clear, and he certainly wasn’t correct about cessation. Treaty land is by definitionceded land — it was surrendered in exchange for benefits provided by the Crown.
Various Indigenous leaders have complained vocally about Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s roundabout way of engaging with the province’s separatist movement by making it easier for organized citizens to arrange for referendums.
But the moment they have me nodding along in understanding, they pull their own sovereigntist card: arguing that the numbered treaties situated in Alberta are a higher, purer form of authority; that secession talk violates treaty rights; and that treaty land is literally their property and thus untransferable.
We get statements like the one by Grand Chief Greg Desjarlais of Treaty 6, who wrote that Smith’s referendum-friendly amendments were a “direct violation of the Treaty relationship that exists between our Nations and the Crown,” adding, “Our Treaties are internationally binding, solemn covenants and cannot be broken by any province or political party…. These Lands were never ceded, nor surrendered.”
For the rest of this column: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-treaties-cant-be-relied-upon-to-stop-alberta-from-leaving