The public statements and political record of @MaximeBernier, along with the People's Party of Canada's Indigenous policy, raise serious concerns for me about what his proposed changes would mean for First Nations. Bernier has called for dismantling all human rights tribunals. He has opposed Indigenous land acknowledgments, described residential-school genocide as a "hoax," and recently suggested that equality before the law no longer applies in Canada following a Supreme Court decision involving Indigenous sentencing principles. He also publicly endorsed Option 2 in Alberta's separation referendum. As a First Nations person whose family survived residential schools, I find his dismissal of that history deeply troubling. Our experiences are not political inventions, nor are our constitutionally protected rights special privileges. The PPC proposes replacing the Indian Act, exploring individual property rights on reserves and changing how Indigenous programs and services are delivered. Although its platform refers to respecting the Constitution and treaties, it provides little detail about how collective land rights, treaty obligations and Section 35 protections would be safeguarded under these changes. That is my concern. Bernier advocates significant changes to institutions, laws and policies affecting Indigenous peoples, yet I have found no comprehensive explanation of how his proposals would ensure those rights remain protected and enforceable. Indigenous peoples are not simply another interest group whose rights can be reconsidered according to political preferences. We are rights-holding peoples with constitutionally recognized Aboriginal and treaty rights. Freedom of expression, individual liberty and equality before the law are important principles. But they do not override Section 35 or eliminate Canada's constitutional obligations to First Nations. If Bernier intends to dismantle existing institutions and restructure laws affecting Indigenous peoples, he should explain precisely how their rights, lands, treaties and legal protections would be respected. Truth and Reconciliation cannot move forward when the documented experiences of residential school Survivors are dismissed and the rights of Indigenous peoples are treated as obstacles rather than constitutional obligations.

I spent months researching Alberta independence, reading source documents and asking questions. This is my perspective on what remains unresolved for First Nations.

Using “woke” as an excuse to dictate how Indigenous peoples identify themselves is a textbook example of a colonial mindset. Any political strategy that seeks to abandon the term “First Nations” and revive colonial-era language like “Indian” is not taking a principled stand against “left-wing language.” It is a deliberate attempt to preserve colonial power and dismiss the right of Indigenous peoples to define themselves. “First Nations” is not a “woke” term. It is a formal, legal, and respectful term for Indigenous peoples in Canada who are neither Métis nor Inuit. Weaponizing the word “woke” to undermine Indigenous self-determination is simply a way to disguise regressive politics behind a rhetorical smokescreen. Forcing an outdated colonial label onto communities that have explicitly rejected it is not fighting a culture war—it is behaving like a modern-day colonist trying to rewrite history on their behalf. @KerryLynneFindl @Conservative_BC @bcndp @AFN_Updates

The Alberta Prosperity Project’s own summary admits there would be $22.7–31.6B in annual costs just to replace federal services, plus $2.8–5.7B in one-time setup costs, also claiming Alberta could scrap income tax and GST and count $23.4B from an APP as revenue.

That is not an “impossible standard.” If someone is claiming Alberta would clearly be financially better off after separation, they need more than a rough, optimistic estimate and a pile of assumptions.

Alberta is mostly covered by Treaties 6, 7, and 8 (plus small areas of 4 and 10), yes. But “permanently ceded” in the English text doesn’t mean “no ongoing rights or issues”, treaties are still living agreements, and interpretation/implementation is still disputed.