ABSTRACT

Thomas Lukaszuk, seemingly reaching the signatures threshold for his “Forever Canadian” petition, which included the question “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”, has generated a lot of excitement in the pro-independence camp assuming that he has unwittingly opened the door for an Alberta referendum on separation. This blog post examines the possibility that what an Alberta judge had described as “A nothing burger…a waste of time” can actually be a ‘something burger’.

Also, the implications with respect to Alberta’s independence movement of the clause (2(4)) in the Citizen Initiative Act which sent the Alberta Prosperity Project’s independence question to the court are considered.

FULL BLOG

Thomas Lukaszuk’s “Forever Canadian” Petition

On July 30, 2025 Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer approved a petition submitted by Thomas Lukaszuk on June 5, 2025, which included the question “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”

As his petition was submitted as a policy proposal under the old rules, before the introduction of reduced thresholds, it was required to secure 293,976 signatures within 90 days, that is, by October 28th.

On October 28th, it was announced that Lukaszuk’s “Forever Canadian” petition had succeeded in collecting over 456,000 signatures, easily surpassing the 293,976 threshold. The next step is for Elections Alberta to verify the signatures within 60 days, with results of this process expected no later than January 6, 2026. If verified successfully, the petition will then be submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly for consideration.

Meanwhile on July 4, 2025, a constitutional referendum proposal petition, asking the constitutional question, “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become an Independent county and cease to be a province of Canada?”, was submitted by Mitch Sylvestre on behalf of the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP). On July 28, 2025, instead of the expected approval of its petition, the APP learned that its petition will need to get approval from the court before the group can start collecting signatures.

Important to understand that this referral to the court came about as a result of the Smith government including clause 2(4), “An initiative petition proposal must not contravene sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982”, in the amended Citizen Initiative Act. Apparently, Smith’s Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery, inserted this clause at the last minute prior to third reading.  Accordingly, Alberta’s chief electoral officer, Gordon McClure, referred the Alberta Prosperity Project’s proposed constitutional referendum question to the court for a judge to determine whether it violates the Constitution.

At the first court hearing on the matter on August 7, 2025, where the APP unsuccessfully attempted to quash the referral to the court, when reference to Lukaszuk’s petition came up, Court of King’s Bench Justice Colin Feasby called Lukaszuk’s “Forever Canadian” petition “A nothing burger. His question is a waste of time.” Subsequently, while Lukaszuk was in the process of collecting signatures for his petition multiple people on the pro-independence side, used the judge’s characterization to mock Lukaszuk’s activity and petition, dismissing it as a “nothing burger”. For example, at the  October 25th Alberta independence rally at the Alberta Legislature, three days before the announced success of the Lukaszuk campaign, lawyer Keith Wilson assured the assembled crowd that with respect to, “Fabio’s Lukaszuk’s nothing-burger petition”, “Don’t worry about it. Even if he gets his numbers, nothing happens. As the judge said in the Court of King’s Bench matter, It’s a nothing burger.”

However, with the announcement that Lukaszuk petition appears to have actually succeed in reaching its threshold of signatures, remarkably, a groundswell of pro-independence advocates rushed forward to claim that what Lukaszuk unwittingly had accomplished was to trigger a referendum on independence! All of a sudden it appeared that the so-called “nothing burger” had been transformed into a ‘something burger’.

Thus, one found a barrage of statements from the pro-independence crowd on social media excited about the success of the Lukaszuk petition, such as:

• The “Forever Canadian” petition backfired. They may have just accelerated the timeline towards an independence referendum.
• Premier Smith is allowing a referendum to go ahead in 2026.
• The Alberta Independence Referendum is now officially on!
• Lukaszuk misled his supporters and…has now triggered a 2026 referendum on independence.
• Thomas Lukaszuk’s anti-separatist referendum petition has turned into a SEPARATIST REFERENDUM, Premier Danielle Smith confirms.
• It was fun to insult the Forever Canadian folk and make them work so hard so they accidentally triggered the Independence Referendum we wanted!
• His petition, if verified, will lead to a referendum that will allow for Albertans to make their desire clear. It will be a Yes/No question…Late spring, early summer 2026 we’ll be voting.
• Looks like we got ourselves a referendum on separation.
• Lukaszuk literally did the separatists job for them.
• An independence referendum is virtually ensured for Alberta in 2026 now. Nice work Fabio! Thanks!

Several folks were suggesting to mount a NO campaign.

The rush to declare it was so was prompted in large part by Danielle Smith, on September 15, 2025, declaring that Lukaszuk’s petition “is a separatist referendum”. Is that, in fact, the case that Lukaszuk’s petition with its question, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?” necessarily leads to a referendum with that question? It certainly is not apparent when one considers how the Citizen Initiative Act legislation describes what is supposed to happen following a successful petition for a policy proposal, which is what the Lukaszuk petition was classified as.

Note under 3), that the policy proposal is to be referred to a committee of the Legislative Assembly which may either table a report with respect to the policy proposal or table a report recommending that the policy proposal be referred to the Lieutenant Governor for the purpose of a referendum. There certainly is nothing in this language that declares that the only outcome once it goes to a committee is that there is to be a constitutional referendum related to the policy proposal. Nor should it be a back door way to trigger one.

One wonders if Premier Smith is fully aware of the content of her own legislation. Otherwise, by her statements, she clearly would be predetermining what the outcome from the legislative committee would be. While a short clip of Smith’s comments a press conference has been broadly circulated and has gotten may pro-independence people excited, it is important to understand the context and the entire response she gave in that press conference (from 13:32 to 14:35 in video). A journalist asked her to comment on Jason Kenney having spoken out that a sovereignty referendum would destroy families, tear apart communities (noteworthy, the same kind of argument now being put forward by Lukaszuk, contrary to what he wrote in his petition application), and having offered that he’d be willing to take on a public role to combat such a vote if it does come to pass.

After hearing the question, she nodded her head as if in agreement with Kenney, and then said: “Well this is why I am doing everything I can to prevent a vote. Because Mr. Lucaszuk’s vote is a yes no question. It is a separatist referendum. He may be trying to characterize it differently, but if you ask people if you want to remain in Alberta, yes or no, there are implications if people answer no. So, I have been very clear that I believe in Alberta sovereignty within United Canada. I am working with the federal government to try to address what I think are significant and real grievances that have Albertans feeling frustrated. And I’m hopeful that that we’ll be able to have a joint announcement soon and that it will take the temperature down on this”. Accordingly, are folks confident that Smith, who in the same interview said, “I am doing everything I can to prevent a vote”, will ensure that the legislative committee will come to the conclusion to recommend a referendum on Lukaszuk’s question?

Smith has also misrepresented Lukaszuk’s proposal saying that it was the same as the Brexit question. Not so. The Brexit question had two parts.

A policy proposal is intended to influence or change government policy, it is not expected to lead to a constitutional referendum. Interestingly, that the intent of Lukaszuk’s “Forever Canadian” petition essentially aligns with Smith’s current government policy, that is, a “Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada”. So, if the outcome from the legislative committee is simply the tabling of a report (3), then one would expect such a report to say so.

There are other issues to consider that add to the confusion about this whole affair.

For example, if, as declared by Smith, Lukaszuk’s policy proposal, like the APP constitutional proposal, leads to a “separation referendum”, then one can ask why is Lukaszuk’s proposal not likewise being tied up in the court?

As well, according to the Citizen Initiative Act, a “proposal is not (to be) the same or substantially similar to a proposal that is currently underway”. If the Lukaszuk proposal, as per Smith, can lead to constitutional referendum on separation, then the APP proposal should not have been allowed?

Of interest to reflect on what two stalwarts of the independence movement, Dennis Modry and Mitch Sylvestre, recently had to say on the matter at an Alberta Prosperity Project (APP) Town Hall meeting in Edmonton on October 29th.

First, Dennis Modry (from 59:39 to 1:01:47 in the video) examined the expected outcome were a referendum held on Lukaszuk’s question, namely, “Do you agree that Alberta shall remain in Canada?”. He first clarified that that question “can’t change the constitution. It’s a policy question”, whereas the APP’s “question does change the constitution”. He also pointed out that the two questions were distinct, a policy versus a constitutional referendum proposal, in that Lukaszuk’s question was determined not to have to comply with section 1 to 35.1 of the constitution, unlike for the APP’s question according to section 2(4) (An initiative petition proposal must not contravene sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982) of the Citizen Initiative Act. He then pointed out that regardless of how one voted with respect to the Lukaszuk question (“Do you agree that Alberta shall remain in Canada?”), that is, even, “If the answer to that question is no, what happens? Nothing. Nothing. Because it doesn’t change anything. So, it would be a $20 million referendum for nothing.”  Because the premier and the provincial government knows this, he suggested “How they handle this is going to be interesting to see and whether or not we are able to go ahead with our petition question.”

Finally, he pointed out that the premier could take Lukaszuk’s question “to make it compliant with the Clarity Act so that it’s an actual constitutional question” and warned that the Smith government needs to tread carefully as “the UCP will benefit as a result of having a proper question or suffer if they don’t have a proper question”.

Later (2:14:52 – 2:15:45 in the video), Mitch Sylvestre, explained where we are right now with respect to the referendum. He pointed out that the Premier could use Lukaszuk’s question “to actually call a referendum for independence based on a constitutional question if she chooses” and that APP’s objective is to make that happen because the “nothing burger question and that’s according to Justice Feasby is not going to get us anywhere” (as Dennis Modry had said earlier). With respect to Premier Smith’s claim in that video clip from September 15th, which was widely circulated, that Lukaszuk’s question was equal to the APP’s question, he noted, “we can’t allow that to happen because it’s not equal to ours and she fully well knows it’s not equal to ours…Our question is the real deal”.

Noteworthy that lawyer Keith Wilson, while among those declaring that Lukaszuk “has now triggered a 2026 referendum on independence”, three days earlier at the Alberta Independence Rally at the Legislature had declared,  “Don’t worry about it. Even if he gets his numbers, nothing happens. As the judge said in the Court of King’s Bench matter, It’s a nothing burger.”

It is has been interesting that voicing some scepticism about how this will play out generated strong push back from a large segment of the pro-independence crowd. Full disclosure, I, as much as anyone, very much want Alberta to become independent as soon as possible.

Time will tell if this so-called “nothing burger” will meet expectations and reap benefit for the pro-independence crowd by becoming a ‘something burger’.

The APP’s Question Before the Court

With all distraction created by the Lukaszuk question it’s important to return to considering what’s happening with respect to the APP’s petition submission. That petition is now caught up in the court with a decision on what the court has to say to be expected in early 2026.

At the APP Town Hall meeting in Edmonton on October 29th Dennis Modry pointed out (1:04:19 to 1:5:27 in the video) that the Premier and Micky Amery, the Minister of Justice, came out publicly criticizing the referral to the court and saying the question should be approved so that it could go forward.

Accordingly, Modry noted, “So if they want our question to go forward, there’s a simple solution to make that happen…the legislature is sitting now. They could easily remove the statute (that is, 2(4)) in the Citizen Initiative Act so that a question to change the Constitution becomes devoid of that requirement to be compliant with section 1 to 35 of the Constitution”.

Furthermore, he observed that including such a requirement for a constitutional question in the legislation should be viewed as irrelevant, “Because if you think about it, if you have a successful referendum on sovereignty, the Canadian Constitution no longer exists, right?” Indeed, it makes absolutely no sense that an initiative petition concerning a constitutional referendum proposal “must not contravene sections” of the constitution itself. Did none of the sitting MLAs raise objections to the inclusion of this ridiculous clause in the revised Act? So, Modry saw the “simple solution” (which he articulated as well at the Independence Rally at the Alberta Legislature) as being in Smith’s hands, with the APP “looking to see whether or not the provincial government and the Premier have the courage to actually make that modification, which would end the court case” and allow the APP to proceed with the collection of signatures. Smith’s response will also provide an answer if the objections raised by her and Amery to the referral of the APP question to the court was genuine or just a distraction from their responsibility for what occurred.

Later Mitch Sylvestre (2:16:02 to 2:16:49 in the video) also questioned the inclusion of clause 2(4) in the Citizen Initiative Act, viewing it as “they put a loophole in it on purpose. Whoever put that loophole in there is not an accident. Since when Elections Alberta actually determines what the election’s about?…Elections Alberta is there to run elections. That’s their job. Free and fair elections…However, all of a sudden, they’re right in the middle of this thing with their finger on the scale and delaying the whole damn process.”

In an October 29th article, “The Referendum goose is cooked” published in the Western Standard by Bruce Pardy, Professor of Law at Queen’s University, he expressed the view that the inclusion of section 2(4) [“An initiative proposal must not contravene sections 1 to 35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982”] in the Citizen Initiative Act, which sent the APP question on independence to the court, may prevent a vote for genuine independence. In Pardy’s view, “Unless the Alberta government amends its own legislation (amends the Citizen Initiative Act to change or remove section 2(4)), the referendum goose is cooked”. In other words, is it possible that the promise of an independence referendum offered through the Citizen Initiative Act may well turn out to be a nothing burger?

With his comments, Pardy has ruffled some feathers on the legal team for the APP question with Jeff Rath, legal counsel for the APP, snapping back, “As usual your views are neither helpful or correct in the context of Alberta’s inexorable march towards freedom and independence.” To which Pardy graciously responded, “Ok. I hope that you are right, and you prevail in the case”.

Noteworthy, that Rath recently (October 28, 2025) observed that the argument that pursuing a legal process to amend the constitution cannot contravene the constitution itself is a “stupid” argument, which, he explained, is tantamount to saying that an MP wanting to amend the Criminal Code in  parliament would be violating the Criminal Code by bringing forward an amendment to the Criminal Code. In that case, one wonders if the judge, don’t forget a judge appointed by Justin Trudeau, will agree that it is a stupid argument and thereby toss it out as bad law. However, one would have expected that to have happened when the APP had brought its appeal to the Court on August 7, 2025 to have the referral quashed  Otherwise, the concern raised by Pardy, and which I raised in a previous blog post, “Connecting the Dots – Alberta Prosperity Project’s Referendum Question“, is that in order for the APP to get their question past this legal hurdle, the Court “might conclude that such a referendum may be held, but that an independent Alberta must adopt and honour Aboriginal rights and the Charter, as they exist in the Canadian Constitution”.

While the two sides may disagree about the ultimate consequence of clause 2(4), there should be no disagreement that Danielle Smith and her Minister of Justice, Mickey Amery, are responsible for this problem and the setback for the independence movement. Or, as declared by Bruce Pardy, “The villain here is the Alberta statute, and by extension, the Alberta government. Either inadvertently or on purpose, it is leading its own people down the garden path.” Those who are enamoured by Danielle Smith need to understand that.

Furthermore, Pardy noted that “The government and legislature could easily amend the Citizen Initiative Act to change or remove section 2(4)”, the “simple solution” that Dennis Modry alluded to at the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP) Town Hall meeting in Edmonton on October 29th.

One final thought about the possible consequences of this delay imposed on the APP question by the Smith government.

According to the Citizen Initiative Process considering the various steps, the Chief Electoral Officer within 30 days after the date on which an elector applied, or on which the Court gives its decision, determines if the requirements have been met, a  7-day publication period, registering canvassers, the 120-day initiative petition signature period, and 21-day petition verification process, the entire process can take up to 6 months to complete.

As per point #2 below, the completion of the process with submission of the constitutional referendum proposal to the Minister, must occur before one year of the date of the next election, scheduled to be held October 18, 2027, or otherwise, the referendum will not likely be held until 2028. Accordingly, to avoid that, the process would need to be completed by October 18, 2026. Working backwards, 6 months, the worst case situation as the APP may well collect its signatures far sooner than in 4 months, then one would expect that hopefully the court would give its decision, a favourable decision, by about April 18, 2026 at the latest. At this point, one does not know how long the APP question will be tied up in the Court.