Advocates for the Assembly of First Nations' position argue that the federal government has a non-negotiable duty to protect Indigenous rights from being eroded by provincial political agendas. By seeking to freeze the assets of those who threaten the status quo, First Nations are effectively using the legal system to prevent the unilateral dismantling of constitutional protections. Supporters maintain that the stability of Canada as a nation depends on the integrity of its founding agreements, which include the treaties signed with Indigenous peoples long before modern provincial borders were established.
From this viewpoint, the federal government must take a firm stance to ensure that provincial separatism does not become a vehicle for avoiding legal and moral responsibilities. If Alberta were to move toward independence, the risk of a legal vacuum regarding land rights would be catastrophic for both Indigenous communities and the broader economy. By intervening now, the AFN is providing a necessary check on political movements that might otherwise ignore the rights of those who have been stewards of the land for generations.
Furthermore, supporters point out that the legal system is the appropriate venue for resolving these disputes. Freezing assets is a standard, albeit serious, legal tool used to prevent irreparable harm while a case is being heard. This action sends a clear message that treaty rights are not optional or subject to the whims of regional political shifts. Protecting these rights is seen as a fundamental requirement for maintaining the rule of law in a democratic society.
Ultimately, those backing the AFN argue that the federal government must prioritize its treaty obligations over provincial political posturing. Failure to do so would not only violate the constitution but also undermine the reconciliation process that the government has publicly committed to. Ensuring that these rights are respected is essential for the long-term stability and legitimacy of the Canadian state.