Opinion | Danielle Smith stumbled into a fight with Treaty chiefs. Then, she made it worse

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has finally met a political foe she cannot ignore, ridicule or demonize.

She has found herself in a fight with Indigenous leaders.

Not that Smith would describe things that way — and not that she set out deliberately to pick a fight. But here she is.

In her rush to introduce and pass Alberta’s Sovereignty Act, Smith has infuriated chiefs in Alberta, who see the legislation as an attack on their Treaty rights.

Smith tried to calm the waters this week during a discussion with Treaty Six Chiefs representing First Nations in central Alberta (and Saskatchewan). However, in a post-meeting news release that was as biting as it was brief, the chiefs made it clear they were not impressed: “It was clear from our discussions that Premier Smith does not understand Treaty or our inherent rights nor does she respect them.”

When asked Thursday if they would launch a legal challenge, the chiefs responded, “The position of the Chiefs of Treaty Six remains the same, they are currently in discussions and determining next steps.”

Although the chiefs are not publicly giving many details of their areas of concern, one issue is child welfare on First Nations. Indigenous leaders want the power, as well as the funding from Ottawa, to control their own systems but are concerned the province might try to interfere because child care is usually a provincial responsibility.

A legal challenge would be a complicated, lengthy and expensive process, but Tim Dickson, a lawyer who specializes in constitutional law related to Treaty rights, says Indigenous leaders could pursue one based on the act’s threat to undermine federal laws.

“Federal regulations over federal interests like migratory birds, navigable waters, federal lands like national parks, and Indigenous people are very important to protecting Treaty rights and Aboriginal rights,” said Dickson. And he pointed out that the clause in the act saying it should not be seen as “abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada” doesn’t really carry any weight. Only the courts can make that determination.

It’s similar to how Smith saying her act is constitutional has not magically made it so.

The act has been a problem child since its inception. Within moments of its unveiling on Nov. 29, observers, critics, lawyers and anyone paying attention could see it was deeply undemocratic. To make sure she could do battle with Ottawa at the drop of Stetson, Smith was giving her cabinet the unilateral power to write provincial laws without going through the legislature.

After firmly denying she was doing anything undemocratic, and decrying critics as hysterical, Smith introduced amendments to change the undemocratic bits that she said were never undemocratic. Apparently, we were simply confused and she was helpfully trying to unconfuse us. The government rammed the act through in six legislative days — the blink of an eye, legislatively speaking.

The fight Smith had recklessly initiated with First Nations was the inevitable result of a badly worded and poorly thought-out bill.

Smith’s own Indigenous relations minister, Rick Wilson, admitted the government should have done more consultation.

A senior staffer in Wilson’s department went one step further and told Postmedia that Indigenous Relations was completely shut out of the process from the start.

After Smith realized the level of anger from First Nations, she stood in the assembly this week and did what she seems to do best: make things worse. “The way I’ve described it to the chiefs that I’ve spoken with is that they have fought a battle over the last number of years to get sovereignty respected and to extract themselves from the paternalistic Indian Act,” said Smith. “We get treated the exact same way by Ottawa.”

After Smith realized she had made things worse by comparing her over-wrought rhetorical fight with Ottawa to the generations of systemic racism experienced by First Nations, she did what she did best, again. “If my comments were misconstrued, I absolutely apologize for it because my intention was to demonstrate that we have a common problem with Ottawa,” said Smith in an I’m-sorry-if-you-felt-offended non-apology that managed to offend Indigenous people yet again.

As lawyers, politicians and assorted observers postulate where all of this is headed, one thing seems clear. While Smith intended her Sovereignty Act to be a political cudgel she could use to beat Justin Trudeau over the head, the only politician with a headache so far is Smith herself.

SHARE: