Letter to the Chair of Legislative Committee Determining the Outcome of the Lukaszuk Petition

A letter was sent by email to MLA Brandon Lunty, Chair of the Legislature’s Select Special Committee tasked to determine how to proceed with respect to Thomas Lukaszuk’s successful Forever Canada petition.

Letter that was sent:

From: Ron Voss
Subject: Thoughts on Your Select Special Committee’s Deliberations
Date: April 29, 2026 at 5:18:33 PM MDT
To: Leduc.Beaumont@assembly.ab.ca
Cc: Calgary.Northwest@assembly.ab.ca, Rimbey.RockyMountainhouse.Sundre@assembly.ab.ca, OldsDidsbury.ThreeHills@assembly.ab.ca

Dear Mr. Lunty,

I understand that the Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee, which you are chairing, will be the first such committee struck under the Citizen Initiative Act.

As such, there is a lot of chatter and confusion as to what the Committee should or should not be doing. In that regard, I would like to offer some thoughts for consideration by the committee.

Mr. Lukaszuk’s Alberta Forever Canada application was approved on June 30, 2025. At the time that Mr. Lukaszuk made his application, the application form had one of two choices, either a legislative/policy proposal or a constitutional proposal. He checked off legislative/policy proposal. The current application form, as was used by Mr. Mitch Sylvestre, allows for a choice of legislative proposal, policy proposal or constitutional proposal. As there was no specific legislation specified in the Lukaszuk application, I am pleased that the mandate for the committee specifies that your committee is asked “to review the Alberta Forever Canada citizen initiative policy (emphasis added) proposal.”

After setting out his motive that he would be upset if there were a referendum on Alberta independence, he described his proposal as follows:
“Therefore, we as represented by the signatory and applicant below propose a referendum on the following question: Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”.
So, in some ways his petition was a pre-emptive attempt to stop a referendum on independence. Lukaszuk was playing games, seeking to create confusion and chaos. The simple fact is that he never wanted a question to go forward as a constitutional proposal.

Noteworthy, while Mr. Lukaszuk in his application clearly indicated that he would like a referendum to be held on his question, he subsequently backtracked, disavowing wanting a referendum and in a recent letter that was sent to you, as the committee chair, he proposed that his question “be voted on by all MLAs in the Legislative assembly of Alberta”.

Now when it comes to the manner in which his successful petition is to be dealt with, I would like to point out that what happens after a successful petition related to a Policy Proposal is determined by the Legislation and not by what Lukaszuk wants or doesn’t want; not determined by Lukaszuk’s changing opinion of what he would like. Accordingly, as per the legislation, the Citizen Initiative Act, what happens after a successful policy proposal petition is spelled out in Section15 of the Act:

Duties re policy proposal
15(1) On receiving a copy of a policy proposal in accordance with section 12(1)(a),
(a)    the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly shall lay the proposal before the Legislative Assembly if it is then sitting, or if it is not then sitting, within 15 days after the commencement of the next sitting, and
(b)    within 10 sitting days after the proposal is tabled under clause (a), the Government shall bring forward a motion to have the proposal referred to a committee of the Legislative Assembly.
(2)  The committee to which a policy proposal is tabled shall within 90 days of the proposal being referred to it if the Legislative Assembly is then sitting or, if it is not then sitting, within 15 days after the commencement of the next sitting, either
(a)    table a report with respect to the policy proposal at the earliest practicable opportunity, or
(b)    table a report recommending that the policy proposal and report be referred to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purpose of c in accordance with the Referendum Act.
(2.1) A report tabled under subsection (2)(b) may include recommendations respecting the form and substance of the question or questions to be put to the electors in a referendum.

Thus, there can be either of two outcomes of the committee’s deliberation, namely, as per 15(2), either, option (a), tabling a report with respect to the policy proposal or option (b), tabling a report recommending a referendum, and , therefore, doesn’t necessarily (and, in my view, shouldn’t) lead to a referendum. As well, there is no mention in the legislation of the matter needing to be resolved by a vote in the Legislature as Lukaszuk has requested.

It is disappointing that Premier Smith, in her musings, has elevated option (b), namely, that is, using Lukaszuk’s question for a referendum. Thus, the Western Standard in an article (“Smith says Lukaszuk’s petition clearly asks for a referendum”) published on April 23rd reported that “Premier Danielle Smith said Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canadian petition calls for a referendum, and Albertans deserve to vote on the question, despite Lukaszuk’s claim otherwise”. You would think that Premier Smith would have a full understanding of her legislation. Lukaszuk’s proposal was a policy proposal, which according to the legislation goes to a committee, and doesn’t necessarily go to a referendum regardless of what Lukaszuk says or doesn’t say.

Noteworthy that regardless of how one votes for Lukaszuk’s question, there is no consequence. His policy proposal question would essentially be an opinion survey, unlike a constitutional proposal intended to bring about constitutional change like the Fall 2021 referendum on equalization payments. Thus, with that understanding it is understandable why the Sylvestre constitutional proposal petition, and not the Lukaszuk petition, was drawn to the court because of clause 2(4) in the citizen Initiative Act.

Accordingly, when the matter of the Lukaszuk question was raised during the hearing on the APP’s first petition attempt, Justice Feasby referred to it as “a nothing burger…a waste of time”, that is, of no consequence whatever way one answered his question. So, while several on the independence side have excitedly speculated that Lukaszuk may have unwittingly opened the door for an Alberta referendum on separation, it is highly unlikely that a nothing burger can be transformed into a something burger, worth the time and effort to be one of the referendum questions in October. You can’t change a policy proposal into a constitutional proposal. His “nothing burger” question certainly would not comply with the requirements of the Clarity Act, and, therefore, cannot be acceptable to the Stay Free Alberta crowd who have tirelessly collected signatures during the winter months for their petition concerning a referendum relating to Alberta independence.

It is worth remembering that Lukaszuk’s proposal was a policy proposal, that is, it was intending to influence the policy of the Alberta government, with the hope that the yes side vote would prevail with his question, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”. Premier Smith has repeatedly stated that she supports a “sovereign Alberta in a united Canada” or more recently in a press conference, saying, “my position is that we should remain in Canada. That’s the position of our government. We believe that we should assert sovereignty within a united Canada. So, that is our policy”. Another reason that doing a survey through Lukaszuk’s question would be “a waste of time” as his was a mere policy proposal intended to reaffirm existing government policy, and, accordingly, is unnecessary.

Noteworthy that under “Description of proposal”, in the new application form (the one used by Mr. Sylvestre and not by Mr. Lukaszuk) it states legislative and policy proposals are to “Provide a statement setting out the subject-matter of the proposed legislative/policy”. By that one would expect a statement as to what policy the petitioners would be seeking the Alberta government to adopt. For example, one would the petitioners to be requesting that the government adopt a policy “that Alberta should remain in Canada”, not ask a question to that effect. Disappointing that Elections Alberta allowed such a flawed description of Lukaszuk’s policy proposal to proceed. Again, another reason that doing a survey through Lukaszuk’s “nothing burger” question would be “a waste of time” as his was a mere policy proposal that reflects existing government policy and, accordingly, is unnecessary.

Interestingly, subsequent to the Premier’s seemingly favorable comments about including the Lukaszuk question as part of referendum day on October 19th at her press conference on April 23rd, Lukaszuk was reported as saying, “If she is so afraid to ask this question in a legislature, then, yes, I am delighted that she’s using our question as the question that will be on the referendum.” That is, he would be happy to have his question on the referendum as “the question”, a “nothing burger”, as opposed to the consequential Stay Free Alberta question.

Accordingly, as per all of the above, then it would seem most appropriate for the committee to land on option (a), namely tabling a report, pointing out that while Mr. Lukaszuk with his petition intended to influence government policy, there is no change in policy to influence; nor does the government wish to change it. Where there is a difference, I don’t expect Premier Smith to anticipate that her policy need be maintained “forever” as trumpeted by Lukaszuk with his “Forever Canadian” initiative.

I would very much appreciate your consideration of my commentary on this matter.

Sincerely,

Ronald H. Voss, Ph.D.

POSTSCRIPT

Will Danielle Smith Try to Make a Something Burger Out of a Nothing Burger?

Calgary Herald journalist Don Braid, speculated that if the upcoming judge’s decision rejects the SFA petition, Smith, faced with a dilemma, may accept Lukaszuk’s question as a substitute “referendum on separation”.
Other posts related to the Alberta independence movement: