É«É«À²

Their preferred outcomes, however, are very different.

The two questions reflect two very different visions for Alberta’s future, represented by their authors — one a former Progressive Conservative deputy premier who has made no bones about his desire to stay in Canada, the other a leader of an avowed separatist group desperate to chart a path out of Confederation.

When separatist rumblings grew louder after the federal Liberals were re-elected this spring, at least among a small but vocal segment of Albertans, a referendum began to seem inevitable, says Thomas Lukaszuk, the former longtime PC MLA and government minister who has been sharply critical of the more ideological turn Alberta’s conservatives have taken under Premier Danielle Smith. The latter has made a political career out of railing against Ottawa and providing a sympathetic ear to ideas outside the mainstream. She recently she was willing to risk a referendum to give the separatist movement an “outlet” — particularly one that wasn’t a new rival party.

So Lukaszuk moved to beat the separatists at their own game. Under an initiative he is calling “Alberta Forever Canada,” the question he put to Elections Alberta — “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?” — was meant as an unabashed pro-Canadian statement and an attempt to steal his opponent’s thunder.

“It was important to me that it’s a positive question, that it doesn’t promote separatism,” he said.

The question was approved by Elections Alberta and this week, he was given the green light to begin collecting the almost 300,000 signatures required to have his query considered by lawmakers, potentially as a referendum question.

But also as of this week, there’s a second question on the table. This one was proposed by Mitch Sylvestre, the head of the Alberta Prosperity Project, one of the province’s new independence groups: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?” The group’s lawyer called it “fundamentally silly” that someone had tried to to get a pro-Canada question out of the gates first.

Lukaszuk is “making a fool of himself and making a mockery of the entire process,” Jeffrey Rath said in an interview with the Star. Rath remains resolute that his question will prevail.

But both questions still have a long road to travel before they get anywhere near a ballot. It’s not even clear whether this new, second question will get the go-ahead for its advocates to start collecting signatures, as it has to get reviewed by the courts first. But if it does, it will have to clear a lower bar than the first. (Yes, we know this is getting confusing.) 

Here are answers to five of the biggest questions about what, exactly, is going on in Alberta right now:

Why are Albertans putting forward referendum questions all of a sudden?

Alberta has a law that allows citizens to pitch referendum questions ”” by filling out a form and paying $500. (This has arguably been a loophole that has allowed Smith to walk a line on separation — while she has maintained she is not personally in favour of leaving Canada, she has also said she would not stand in the way of a citizen-led effort, and in fact, would make it easier for one to happen.)

While polling suggests Albertans in general are not in favour of leaving Canada, there are surveys to suggest United Conservative Party voters — Smith’s base — are much more likely to be supportive of the idea.

The Citizen Initiative Act was introduced back when Jason Kenney was premier; he argued it would give people “the power to hold this and future governments to account if we do not keep our commitment to stand up for Albertans.” But as Lukazuk puts it, this is the first time the law is being used and, as a result, Elections Alberta is building the plane in the sky. There are lots of questions about how things may play out.

While anyone can propose a question, it must be vetted by Elections Alberta to make sure its clear and, the oversight body says, does not run afoul of the Constitution. If Elections Alberta signs off, then the citizen in question must gather hundreds of thousands of signatures before their question gets considered for a potential referendum to make sure it’s an issue that has the support of a large proportion of Albertans.

Wait, why is only the second question getting reviewed by the courts?

While Elections Alberta signed off on the first question and sent it off to the petition stage, the second question — the more explicitly separatist one — has been sent to the courts to ask for an opinion.

That’s because the first question, which is pro-Canada, is asking Albertans to confirm their support for the status quo, while the second question could have real ripple effects on how they relate to the rest of Canada.

Gordon McClure, Alberta’s chief electoral officer, says he has a duty to make sure the question doesn’t violate the Constitution. In a statement, he said he’s asking the court to provide on opinion on whether this question might infringe on protections such as mobility, democratic and treaty rights before it goes any further.

“This is a serious and significant question, with the potential to have profound impact on all Albertans,” Elections Alberta noted in a news release.

But Rath, the legal counsel for the Alberta Prosperity Project, strongly disagrees that this step is required. He says he’s working on an application to have Elections Alberta’s request struck, calling it “patently unreasonable.” In the event that Albertans vote to separate, there is a legal process by which the province could begin negotiations to leave, he says.

In the meantime, Rath believes, there’s no harm in asking.

“You can’t see on its face how simply asking a question and getting signatures on a petition would offend the Constitution, right?” he said.

Alberta’s leadership is also upset. In a post on X, Smith said Albertans have a right to participate in the citizen initiative process and “shouldn’t be slowed down by bureaucratic red tape or court applications.”

But so far, Elections Alberta is unmoved. In a further statement, McClure noted that the chief electoral officer is non-partisan and independent, and that the law that allows citizen to ask questions also explicitly requires that those questions not “contravene” the Constitution — so he’s just doing his job. 

How many signatures would these questions have to get?

Because of a recent change to Alberta’s law, the two questions actually face different standards.

The pro-Canada question will have to get 293,976 signatures over 90 days to pass to the next stage. That’s 10 per cent of the people who could have voted in the last election. In order to do this, Lukaszuk says his organization has 3,000 volunteers ready to gather signatures, and he plans to have people at major festivals, rodeos and farmers markets across the province. An RV wrapped in a Canadian flag will soon be cross-crossing the province to get more. “We will be using any means possible to give Albertans a chance to sign this petition,” he said.

But the second question — if approved — would only have to get 177,732 signatures, or 10 per cent of the people who actually voted in the last election. (That’s only about 60 per cent of what its competitor requires.) It would also get an extra month to accomplish the task. The reason is that the bill Alberta introduced to make it easier for people to get referendums rolling came into force after Lukaszuk proposed his question, but before the pro-separatism question was filed.

While Lukaszuk says he is confident he can get enough signatures, he said he may challenge the rules anyway, in the interest of fairness.

How much does the wording of the question actually matter?

Whether you’re talking the Quebec referendums or Brexit, the exact wording of a question put to the citizenry is always a matter of debate, notes Daniel Béland, the director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada.

Compared to referendum questions asked in Quebec, Albertans at least will have the advantage of brevity either way. (The 1980 Quebec referendum question ran to a whopping 84 words in English.)

The fact that the pro-Canada side got out of the gate first was a clever tactic, Béland says, but in the end it may be hard for voters to separate the questions from who proposed them, as each question-asker has a clear bias. “I think the source of the question, who came up with the question, will affect the way the question is perceived,” he said.

Likewise, the dueling questions present a political challenge for Smith and other politicians, in terms of whether they’re seen to favour one over the other. But in either case, he says, past referendums have shown that the campaigns will matter.

What happens next?

The pro-separation question must wait for a ruling from the courts and then a final decision by Elections Alberta, which will determine if it will proceed to the petition stage. Meanwhile, Alberta Forever Canada is getting ready to hit the road to drum up signatures for the pro-Canada side.

So are we heading for a showdown between dueling petitions? It’s not clear.

According to rules laid out on the Elections Alberta website, if a citizen referendum or vote fails, there can’t be another on the same or “substantially similar” topic for the next five years. Lukaszuk argues this means that if his petition is successful, it must either by adopted as policy or put to a referendum — halting the second question in its tracks. “So this talk of referendum will end in Alberta for at least five years,” he said. 

Rath disagrees that a decision on the pro-Canada question has the power to knock his question out of consideration. He’s looking to federal law here. After the Quebec referendums — both of which featured lengthier questions that some argued were a bit vague — the federal government passed what’s known as the Clarity Act, which laid out ground rules for any future attempts by provinces to leave the country. It says that any future questions on leaving Canada must be “clear and unambiguous.”

Rath argues that his rivals’ question isn’t pointed enough. In merely affirming the status quo — the desire to remain in Canada — he says the question isn’t obviously about separation — and that makes his question meaningfully different.

“That’s the only legal way to ask the question,” Rath said of his own wording. “Otherwise the question might as well be, ‘Do you believe in Santa Claus?’”

Lukaszuk counters that his question is up to snuff, as it’s “clear, not ambiguous, and asks for either a yes or no answer.”

In any case, from his vantage point in Quebec, Beland notes that referendum campaigns tend to take on a life of their own. “I’m not saying that Danielle Smith is the next David Cameron, but there are actually striking similarities between Cameron and Smith in many ways,” he said, referring to the former British prime minister who held a referendum that led to the United Kingdom quitting the European Union, even though he was personally opposed to the proposal. 

“You have a party and you have a faction within your party that wants something,” he added.

“They are playing with fire.”