In the thousands of pages of negotiations that would surely result if Alberta were to secede from Canada, at least one chapter would likely be dedicated to the Town of Banff.
This tourist mecca is already a jurisdictional anomaly: situated on federal parkland that the town has leased for $550,000 a year since it incorporated in 1990. Residents own their homes but not their land; that’s also leased from Ottawa.
The province operates the local hospital and schools, but the federal government has veto power over most bylaw changes.
In short, governance is complicated. And with Oct. 19 approaching — when Alberta will vote on, among other questions, whether to hold a referendum on separating from Canada — many of those who live in this mountain resort town are worried about the future.
The Town of Jasper, roughly 300 kilometres northwest of Banff, faces similar issues, given it’s also based in a federal park in Alberta.
But it’s the questions raised particularly in Banff, which has almost twice the population of Jasper, that indicate the scale of the seismic shift should a province secede.
Even if Albertans eventually voted to leave federation, they cannot legally do so without Canada’s agreement, according to a 1998 Supreme Court decision that provides a framework on separation.
Negotiations over how to divide assets and debts could take years, according to political science professor Tom Urbaniak, based on the few comparables, such as the dissolution of Czechoslovakia or signing of the Nisga’a Agreement — which took a decade of negotiations between British Columbia and the involved First Nations.
“Separation means that everything is an open question,” said Urbaniak, director of Cape Breton University’s Tompkins Institute, adding that he hopes the concept remains hypothetical.
In Banff, the core questions are about belonging. Would Alberta — as Quebec separatists have asserted through the indivisibility principle — claim all land within its current borders, regardless of whether it is federal or provincial? What would it have to trade for Ottawa to agree?
Or would the town of roughly 8,000 people become a tiny piece of Canada isolated within a new country?
“This is what makes separation so perilous and, just from an objective perspective, so irresponsible [because it’s not] a simplistic option,” Urbaniak said. “The give and take of resources, payment of money, assumption of debt, renegotiation of treaties, compensation to the rest of Canada — all of this is on the table.”
A plea from Banff’s mayor
Banff’s mayor has urged Albertans to vote against a referendum.
Ottawa has been a partner for decades, Corrie DiManno said, collaborating on major portfolios, including conservation management, wildfire prevention and housing.
The questions sparked by separation have created anxiety for her constituents, she said in a recent interview with CBC’s The Sunday Magazine.
DiManno keeps hearing from businesses worried about potential secession deterring visitors — last year, 4.5 million tourists went through Banff National Park — or what it might mean for those who live in Banff but work elsewhere in the Bow Valley.
“People have talked about, you know, am I going to need a passport to go to Canmore,” she said, referring to another mountain hub a 20-minute drive southeast on Highway 1, but outside of the federal park.
“We really haven’t had any formal conversations and, frankly, I really hope that we don’t need to. I’m hoping that Albertans come out and finish this conversation once and for all to say that we will stay in Canada.”
Banff Mayor Corrie DiManno is officially sworn in as a member of council during a swearing-in process on Oct. 28, 2025. DiManno is urging Albertans to keep the province in the federation. (Greg Colgan/CBC)
Her comments echo her May 25 Instagram post, which received widespread support — with hundreds of commenters thanking her for standing up for their community, for Alberta and for Canada.
In it, DiManno emphasized the law of the land runs deeper than municipal or provincial governance.
“Banff is on Treaty 7 territory and this treaty predates both Banff National Park and the province of Alberta,” she said. “We all share a responsibility to respect the spirit and obligations of the treaties that created Canada.”
A sacred place
For centuries, the Stoney Nakoda Nations have referred to Tunnel Mountain, which overlooks Banff on the town’s eastern edge, as the Sacred Guardian Buffalo Mountain. The mountain and the area’s hot springs are sacred to the surrounding Indigenous communities and are both included in the 149-year-old Treaty 7 agreement.
What that means is “not only would Indigenous nations have to have a seat at the table [in negotiations], if a treaty is being cancelled or significantly altered — but the consent of the affected Indigenous nations would be required for this all to be legal and constitutional,” Urbaniak said.
A coalition of First Nations has already launched a legal challenge against the question of separation being put to a referendum.
The calls for separation to be put to a vote were initiated by the citizen group Stay Free Alberta, which claimed in the spring to have more than 177,800 signatures backing its push.
A judge annulled the petition in May, saying the province had failed in its duty to consult with First Nations. But Premier Danielle Smith then announced Alberta would appeal that decision and went ahead with the referendum on whether to hold a vote on separation.
Though Smith’s office has since maintained it wants Alberta to remain in Canada, pundits have noted the decision to hold the referendum was made to appease hardline separatist factions in her voting base.
When asked about the premier’s vision for Banff should Alberta separate, Smith’s press secretary responded in an email that the United Conservative Party and caucus are committed to unity.
“We remain focused on our work to restore Albertans’ hope in our country by building a stronger Alberta within a united Canada,” Sam Blackett wrote in the statement.
Parks Canada did not directly answer questions about what would happen in the case of a separation, saying the federal government “respects the democratic process taking place in Alberta” and that it works “in collaboration with provinces, territories, Indigenous groups and communities” to protect “national historic sites and national parks.”
‘We are home’
Stoney Nakoda elder Alice Kaquitts scoffs at the idea of land ownership, noting that the area’s First Nations have been part of Banff’s stewards “since time immemorial” and have a deep and sacred connection to the area.
Kaquitts recalls how, as a girl, she and her parents would drive to Banff to sell crafts, with family pointing out landmarks and their connection to her culture along the route; how, as they drove into the park and the mountain rose up, her parents would pull over and get out of their vehicle to pray.
Stoney Nakoda Nations elder Alice Kaquitts says her people have been stewards of the Banff area since time immemorial. (Andrea Hoang/CBC)
“They would tell that sacred guardian, ‘We’re home, we are home,'” she told The Sunday Magazine.
“That sacred connection to this area is something that I’ve never lost.… I can drown the town out, I can drown out urbanization in my mind, and I can hear my ancestors.”
She notes the idea of land as a possession is a colonial concept and does not align with her traditional beliefs; instead, she believes in preserving a relationship with her natural surroundings.
It’s why she is thankful, she said, that Indigenous leaders advanced the legal challenge against the question of separation.
“From a First Nations perspective, we viewed the treaties as a peace treaty — and what that entailed was ‘We’ll share the land with you,'” she said.
“That agreement was made with the Queen, not the province. We didn’t sign a treaty with Alberta to give up this land.”
