How Did We Get to a Referendum Question on Separation? Mapping the Legal Journey of the Citizen Initiative Petitions in Alberta

This article serves as Part I of an explainer on the legal developments surrounding the various Alberta separatism petitions that have dominated headlines in recent months. Part I covers the timeline of Mr. Sylvestre’s petitions, the Forever Canadian Petition, and the relevant amendments that have been made to the law governing citizen petitions in Alberta, the Citizen Initiative Act. Subsequently, Parts II and III will dissect Justice Leonard’s May 13, 2026, decision in Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 375.

Introduction: The Frenzy under the Surface

Over the past two years, separatism in Alberta has transformed from a shadow underneath the surface of political discontent into a frenzy of citizen initiative petitions. The conversation stirred by these petitions and the constitutional questions they pose has led to the Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, announcing a referendum on whether to “commence the legal process required … to hold a binding provincial referendum” on Alberta’s secession from Canada. For many Albertans who have not been following the complex ins and outs of the related legislative and judicial processes, these developments may seem to have come out of thin air. However, the law rarely, if ever, acts with the speed and surprise of a sneak attack.

Like the anticipatory, two-note “Jaws” score, this article is focused on the slow build and eventual emergence of something that has long dwelled under the surface of Alberta politics: the separatism movement. Amid a swirl of headlines about citizen petitions and judicial decisions, this article seeks simplicity by presenting relevant developments in chronological order. The story told consists of four main players: Mitch Sylvestre’s two separation petitions, Thomas Lukaszuk’s “Alberta Forever Canada” petition, and the Citizen Initiative Act (“CIA”)[1] that underpins it all.

The Inciting Incident

Given the longstanding existence of Alberta’s separatism movement, a more workable starting point for the timeline is April 7, 2022 — the date the CIA came into force. The CIA provides Albertans with a pathway to initiate their own petitions on proposed legislative or policy changes or a proposed constitutional referendum question.^[2] Importantly, absent the government’s enactment of the CIA, citizens’ petitions for referendums would lack the legal validity they currently hold as a method of political activism.

When the CIA was first introduced, the Premier at the time, Jason Kenney, expressed that the legislation was part of efforts to give Albertans a greater voice in the management of their province.^[3] Notably, this rationale is in some ways reminiscent of the logic underpinning Alberta separatism, which is similarly fueled by a desire for Albertans to have a greater voice and, in particular, by the perceived power and interference of the federal government in matters of provincial jurisdiction (e.g. resource extraction).[4]

The CIA outlines the legal process a citizen-initiated petition must follow, though that process has been tweaked by numerous amendments. At a high-level, the CIA requires a proponent to submit a notice of intent and, later, an application for the issuance of a petition to the Chief Electoral Officer (“CEO”).[5] The CEO reviews the application for compliance with the CIA’s requirements and, if satisfied, will issue a petition for signature collection.[6] After the signature collection period elapses, the proponent submits the signatures to the CEO for verification.[7] If the number of verified signatures meets the legislated threshold, the petition is deemed successful.[8] At this point, the pathway taken by the different initiatives diverges. A successful legislative or policy petition will be submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, who puts the proposal before the Legislative Assembly to be reviewed by a committee of members.[9] A successful constitutional referendum petition, by contrast, will be submitted to the designated Minister and, ultimately, the Lieutenant Governor in Council for the purpose of triggering a referendum.[10]

2025 Petition Frenzy

Although the creation of the CIA laid the foundation for the petition frenzy we saw in 2025, it was a series of amendments passed by the Legislative Assembly of Alberta in May 2025 that truly unlocked the potential of the Act. Three of these amendments, which were contained in Bill 54, are particularly important for our purposes.^[11]

First, the signature threshold for successful initiative petitions was amended to be equal to “10 per cent of the number of eligible voters who voted in the previous general election,” regardless of the type of initiative.[12] For constitutional referendum questions, this was a significant decrease from the previous requirement of 20% of registered voters.[13] Second, the regional distribution requirement in the Act — i.e. the requirement that the 20% threshold for constitutional initiatives be met in two-thirds of Alberta’s electoral divisions — was removed.[14] And third, the signature collection period for all initiatives was extended from 90 to 120 days.^[15] These three amendments came into force on July 4, 2025, creating significant implications for the petitions that followed.

Put concretely, changes to the signature threshold decreased the required number of signatures for constitutional initiatives from roughly 600,000 to 177,000.[16] While the same change also applied to legislative and policy proposals, it was not as dramatic for those initiatives because the previous requirement was 10% of registered voters (representing a decrease in the required signatures from around 290,000 to 177,000.)[17]

1. The Forever Canadian Petition

The application for Thomas Lukaszuk’s “Alberta Forever Canada” petition (“Forever Canadian Petition”) was submitted on June 5, 2025, making it the first of the separatism-related initiatives made under the CIA.^[18] The question submitted by this petition asked: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”^[19] According to Mr. Lukaszuk’s application, the motivation for the petition included the active discussion of Alberta separatism, a desire to have an objective question in light of the perceived imminence of a referendum on separation, and a belief that the majority of Albertans oppose separation from Canada.^[20] 

Crucially, the Forever Canadian Petition was not intended to call for a referendum. When Mr. Lukaszuk submitted his application, the CIA application form required citizens to select whether their proposed petition was a “legislative or policy proposal” or a “constitutional referendum proposal.”^[21] Mr. Lukaszuk’s application selected the “legislative or policy proposal” option, meaning it was intended to be put in front of the members of the Legislative Assembly for a vote, rather than requesting a constitutional referendum.^[22]

The CEO issued the Forever Canadian Petition on July 30, 2025.^[23] Because Mr. Lukaszuk’s application was submitted before Bill 54 came into force, it was not subject to the amended requirements of the CIA. Following a 90-day signature collection period and validation process, the Forever Canadian Petition was deemed successful on December 1, 2025.^[24] The petition easily passed its required 293,976 signatures (calculated based on the formula prior to the Bill 54 amendments: 10% of 2,939,762 electors on the post-election day List of Electors from the 2023 general election), as 404,293 signatures were verified using a “random statistical sampling method applied with a 95% confidence level.”[25] 

2. The Sylvestre Proposal: Round One

On July 4, 2025, the same day Bill 54’s amendments to the CIA took effect, Mitch Sylvestre of the pro-independence Alberta Prosperity Project submitted an application for a constitutional referendum petition (the “First Proposal”). The question proposed by Mr. Sylvestre’s application was: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”^[26] Unlike the Forever Canadian Petition, this application was subject to Bill 54’s amendments. Accordingly, the signature threshold was set at 177,732 and the collection period for 120 days. However, because the application was eventually deemed to be unlawful under the terms of the CIA, it was rejected and the petition was never issued (more on this below).

Unlike the question of the Forever Canadian Petition, Mr. Sylvestre’s proposed question caused the CEO to issue a reference to the Court of King’s Bench, seeking an advisory opinion under the authority of section 2.1(1) of the CIA. The CEO’s reference asked whether Mr. Sylvestre’s proposed question complied with section 2(4) of the CIA, which stated that a constitutional petition question could not contravene sections 1–35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982.^[27] Importantly, sections 1–35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include all the rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) and Aboriginal and Treaty rights under section 35.^[28]

In response to the CEO’s reference, Mr. Sylvestre brought a motion to strike, which results in a legal process being stopped if the applicant demonstrates that the action has no “plain and obvious” merit.^[29] On August 14, 2025, Justice Feasby of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench denied Mr. Sylvestre’s motion on the basis that he failed to demonstrate a lack of merit.^[30] Justice Feasby’s decision stated that it was clear the CEO’s reference, which questioned whether the First Proposal’s question on separation would contravene constitutional rights (and would therefore be in breach of section 2(4) of the CIA), deserved to be fully heard.^[31] 

3. Eleventh Hour Amendments: Changing the Playing Field with Bill 14

If the timeline has not been too confusing yet, buckle up.

The CEO’s reference was heard in the Court of King’s Bench in Edmonton on November 19 and 21, 2025, and in Calgary on December 5, 2025.^[32] On December 4, 2025, the day before the hearing concluded, the Alberta Minister of Justice tabled Bill 14 to remove sections 2.1(1) and 2(4) from the CIA.^[33] Consequently, these amendments would allow citizen-initiated petitions to propose questions that contravene the Charter and/or Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and would remove the authority of the CEO to send a reference to the Court of King’s Bench to confirm whether an initiative contravenes those sections of the Constitution.[34] Because the CEO’s reference question specifically asked whether the First Proposal conformed to section 2(4) of the CIA, the introduction of Bill 14 threatened to render the legal issues in the Sylvestre reference moot.

Nevertheless, immediately following the hearing on December 5, 2025, Justice Feasby read aloud his decision and reasons from the bench. In short, Justice Feasby held that Mr. Sylvestre’s proposed referendum question contravened sections 1–35.1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and therefore did not comply with section 2(4) of the CIA.^[35] Justice Feasby reasoned that if Alberta were to become independent, it would require its own constitution, and it could not be guaranteed that the replacement constitution could provide for the Charter rights “in the sense” guaranteed by the Constitution Act, 1982.[36] Indeed, even if the level of protection offered by the replacement constitution remained consistent, secession would necessarily strip Albertans of protections under the Canadian Constitution and, by extension, their right to access the Canadian courts to enforce those rights. Additionally, Justice Feasby highlighted that an independent Alberta would also contravene Aboriginal and Treaty rights, as there would be a negative effect on First Nations’ mobility rights and Treaty rights if Alberta and Canada were to be two sovereign states.[37]

Based on Justice Feasby’s ruling, the CEO rejected Mr. Sylvestre’s first petition application prior to the coming into force of the amendments in Bill 14.^[38] Bill 14 passed into law just a few days later, on December 11, 2025,^[39] and Mr. Sylvestre filed his second application for a constitutional referendum proposal on Alberta independence (the “Second Proposal”) that same day.^[40]

D.    The Sylvestre Proposal: Round Two

Following an eventful December, 2026 began with the CEO’s decision to approve and issue a referendum petition for Mr. Sylvestre’s second application.^[41] The question of the Second Proposal was nearly identical to the first, asking: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be part of Canada to become an independent state?”^[42] However, this petition promised to attract a different outcome because the CIA’s section 2(4), which required compliance with the Charter and Aboriginal and Treaty rights, and section 2.1(1), which enabled the CEO to submit a reference to the courts, had been repealed by Bill 14. The petition was also subject to the procedural amendments introduced by Bill 54, implementing a lower signature threshold and a longer signature collection period.

While Bill 14 removed the CEO’s authority to ask a reference question, it did not stifle the causes of action of affected parties. In direct response to the CEO’s decision to issue the Second Proposal, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation (“ACFN”) and the Piikani Nation, Siksika Nation, and Blood Tribe (“the Blackfoot Nations”) made separate applications to the Court of King’s Bench, requesting judicial review of the CEO’s decision to issue the petition on the basis that the decision misinterpreted relevant law, failed to consider the precedent of Justice Feasby’s ruling, and failed to comply with the duty to consult Indigenous peoples before undertaking action that potentially impacts their rights. The applicants also sought a stay of the CEO’s decision, requesting a pause on the petition until the Court decided on the legality of the CEO’s actions.   

On April 10, 2026, Justice Leonard of the Court of King’s Bench granted a stay on the CEO’s ability to certify the petition signature sheets collected for the Second Proposal until the Court ruled on the applications of the ACFN and the Blackfoot Nations.^[43] Justice Leonard was very clear that the stay did not apply to the collection of the signatures, which was free to proceed.^[44] 

Finally, on May 13, 2026, Justice Leonard released her judgment regarding the ACFN and the Blackfoot Nations’ applications for judicial review.^[45] Ultimately, Justice Leonard quashed the CEO’s decision to approve the Second Proposal on a number of different grounds, including the CEO’s misinterpretation of sections of the CIA and the Crown’s failure to comply with its constitutional duty to consult Indigenous peoples.^[46] The second part of this explainer series on the separatism petitions will dive into Justice Leonard’s reasoning.

Back to the Present

As required by the CIA, a legislative committee was appointed to discuss the successful Forever Canadian Petition. On May 26, 2026, the Committee released its final report, in which it recommended that the question in the Forever Canadian Petition be put to Albertans in the upcoming October 19 referendum.[47] Notably, this recommendation directly contradicts Mr. Lukaszuk’s intention in filing his application, as he purposefully indicated that the petition was for a policy or legislative initiative, rather than a constitutional referendum question.[48]

Meanwhile, the decision to quash Mr. Sylvestre’s petition leaves only two options for moving forward: either the parties behind the Second Proposal commence an appeal to challenge Justice Leonard’s conclusions, or the Alberta government must discharge its duty to consult impacted First Nations. By mid-June 2026, both Mr. Sylvestre and the Alberta government had filed appeals of Justice Leonard’s decision.^[49]

Despite the ongoing uncertainty surrounding both citizen-initiated petitions, Premier Danielle Smith added the following question to the ballot for the province’s scheduled October 19 referendum:

Should Alberta remain a province in Canada, or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?^[50]

Though this question was met with dissatisfaction from Albertans on both sides of the issue, the Premier has attempted to justify it with the claim that 700,000 Albertans have expressed a desire to vote on Alberta remaining in or leaving Canada.[51] The claim of 700,000 signatures combines the verified 400,000+ signatures of the Forever Canadian Petition with the unverified 300,000 signatures that Mr. Sylvestre’s Second Proposal is claimed to have received.[52] Notably, those numbers have additional nuance, as at the time Premier Smith cited the 300,000 signatures under the Second Proposal, they had not yet been verified due to court processes, and it is a stretch to say that the over 400,000 Forever Canadian signatures support a referendum when Mr. Lukaszuk’s application was for a legislative or policy proposal.[53]

Conclusion

The key takeaway from this timeline is perhaps that a petition need not have fully completed the legal steps required by the CIA in order to compel a government response, given that the government has discretion on whether to call a referendum outside the CIA process. The timeline also reveals that the Alberta government’s amendments to the CIA repeatedly benefitted and facilitated the success of the Second Proposal (as the final number of signatures would not have been enough under the old, Kenney-era rules). This reminds us, above all, that petitioning citizens are actually only peripheral players in the independence drama, despite being billed as the stars by the CIA. In reality, everything hinges on what the government does, and on the legislative choices that they make at critical moments in time.

***

Kiera Fisher is a 3L law student at the University of Alberta and worked as a Centre for Constitutional Studies Summer Student in 2026

[1] Citizen Initiative Act, SA 2021, c C-13.2 [CIA].

^[2] See Government of Alberta, “Citizen Initiative Act” (1 May 2026), online (website): <open.alberta.ca/publications/c13p2> [perma.cc/D64Q-NUJ4].

^[3] Staff, “Alberta government introduces bill for citizen-initiated petitions on law, policy, Constitution”, Global News (16 March 2021), online: <globalnews.ca/news/7700930/alberta-bill-petitions-ucp-kenney/> [perma.cc/2SFC-JESP].

[4] Jacob McLean, Emily Laxer & Efe Peker, “Taking Alberta Back: Faith, Fuel, and Freedom on the Canadian Far Right” (2024) 15:10 Religions 1250.

[5] CIA, supra note 1, ss 1.1(1), 2(1).

[6] Ibid, ss 2.2(1), 3(2).

[7] Ibid, s 6(1).

[8] Ibid, s 6(2).

[9] Ibid, ss 12(1)(a), 14(1), 15(1).

[10] Ibid, ss 12(1)(b), 16(1).

^[11] Bill 54, Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, 1st Sess, 31st Leg, Alberta, 2025 (assented to 15 May 2025), SA 2025, c 7. See Government of Alberta, “Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2025” (last modified 4 July 2025) at 1, online (pdf): <alberta.ca/system/files/jus-election-statutes-amendment-act-2025.pdf> [perma.cc/4Z8B-8RAN] [Government of Alberta, “Amendment Explainer”].

[12] Ibid at 12.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

^[15] Ibid.

[16] Jason Markusoff, “How a UCP bill renewed Alberta separatist bid to force referendum, after court shot it down”, CBC News (last modified 13 December 2025), online: <cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-separatism-referendum-bill-14-analysis-9.7014578> [perma.cc/NCV5-4LNU].

[17] Government of Alberta, “Amendment Explainer”, supra note 11 at 12.

^[18] Elections Alberta, “Application for Citizen Initiative”, online (pdf): <elections.ab.ca/uploads/2025-CIP-04-Application_Redacted.pdf> [perma.cc/QUU6-3JLF] [Elections Alberta, “Lukaszuk Application”]; Elections Alberta, “Past Citizen Initiative Petitions”, online (website): <https://www.elections.ab.ca/recall-initiative/initiative/past-citizen-initiative-petitions/> [perma.cc/R23U-36A5].

^[19] Elections Alberta, “Lukaszuk Application”, supra note 18.

^[20] Ibid.

^[21] Ibid.

^[22] Ibid.

^[23] Elections Alberta, “Past Citizen Initiative Petitions”, supra note 18.

^[24] Ibid.

[25] Ibid.

^[26] Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v Sylvestre, 2025 ABKB 476 at para 22 [Sylvestre 1].

^[27] Ibid at para 25.

^[28] The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, ss 1–35.1.

^[29] Sylvestre 1, supra note 26 at para 31.

^[30] Ibid at para 94.

^[31] Ibid.

^[32] Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v Sylvestre, 2025 ABKB 712 [Sylvestre 2].

^[33] Ibid at para 250. See Bill 14, Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025, 2nd Sess, 31st Leg, Alberta, 2025 (assented to 11 December 2025), SA 2025, c 22.

[34] Sylvestre 2, supra note 32 at para 250.

^[35] Ibid at para 244.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid at para 231.

^[38] Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 375 at para 17 [Athabasca Chipewyan].

^[39] Ibid at para 18.

^[40] Ibid.

^[41] Elections Alberta, “Current Citizen Initiative Petitions”, online (website): <elections.ab.ca/recall-initiative/initiative/current-initiative-petitions/> [perma.cc/TR76-YZ7H].

^[42] Athabasca Chipewyan, supra note 38 at para 18; Elections Alberta, “Application Form: Citizen Initiative Petition”, online (pdf): <elections.ab.ca/uploads/2025-CIP-10-Bill-14-Application_Redacted.pdf> [perma.cc/NNX4-RTUF].

^[43] Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABKB 278 at paras 31–32.

^[44] Ibid at para 31.

^[45] Athabasca Chipewyan, supra note 38.

^[46] Ibid at para 245.

[47] Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Select Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee, Report on the Review of the Alberta Forever Canada Citizen Initiative Policy Proposal (May 2026) (Chair: Brandon Lundy).

[48] CTV News, “‘I thwarted their plan’: Lukaszuk on Forever Canadian petition | Alberta Primetime” (3 December 2025), online (video): <youtube.com/watch?v=dV4f0XO4WfE> [perma.cc/S3PJ-DZXX] at 00h:01m:49s. 

^[49] Jack Farrell, “Alberta government files appeal on court decision to throw out separatist referendum petition”, CBC News (last modified 11 June 2026), online: <cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-government-appeal-referendum-petition-9.7232328> [perma.cc/GU7V-5BJY].

^[50] Elections Alberta, “Referendum”, online (website): <elections.ab.ca/elections/referendum/> [perma.cc/4XTF-8ZXV].

[51] Alesia Fieldberg, “‘Angered people on both sides’: Many Albertans unhappy with separation referendum plan”, CTV News (22 May 2026), online: <ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/angered-people-on-both-sides-many-albertans-unhappy-with-separation-referendum-plan/> [perma.cc/CEQ8-9EGG].

[52] CBC News, “Fact check: Did 700,000 Albertans want a referendum on separation?” (27 May 2026), online (video): <cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7214358> [perma.cc/YV32-5KHS] at 00h:00m: 09s.

[53] Ibid at 00h:00m:37s. But see Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta (Chief Electoral Officer), 2026 ABCA 216 at para 77, where Justice Woolley ruled that the CEO may commence counting the signatures collected by Mr. Sylvestre’s Second Proposal. The final verified count conducted by Elections Alberta in July 2026 confirmed 222,597 signatures for Mr. Sylvestre’s Second Proposal: see CBC News, “Elections Alberta verifies signatures for petition calling for independence referendum” (last modified 25 July 2026), online: <cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/elections-alberta-separation-petition-verified-9.7283199> [perma.cc/ZCA7-JM88].