Colby Cosh: Alberta separatists admit their petition is symbolic

Jeffrey Rath, the lawyer for the Alberta Prosperity Project, before an Alberta independence speaking event in west Edmonton, Tuesday Jan. 27, 2026. Photo by David Bloom/Postmedia

Article content

Scenes from the Alberta separatist struggle dep’t: last week the Edmonton Journal’s mighty Jonny Wakefield captured an interesting scene from the courtroom battle over a citizen petition to make Alberta “an independent state.” Two individual First Nations and the Blackfoot Confederacy (representing three more bands) are suing to block the petition launched by Bonnyville sporting-goods vendor Mitch Sylvestre, which would be deemed “successful” if the separatists behind it can get it signed by 177,732 Albertans. The separatists have until May 2 to submit the petition for certification, but representatives have said they’ve already passed the threshold (which represents 10 per cent of the votes cast at the most recent Alberta general election).

Article content

Article content

On April 10, King’s Bench Justice Shaina Leonard issued an injunction that allows the separatists to continue collecting signatures — anyone who gets around much in Alberta has seen little groups of secessionists huddled around tables in freezing parking lots — but that stops them from filing early while she entertains the merits of the First Nations case.

Article content

Article content

Article content

An important point, as Leonard pointed out in her April 10 decision, is whether a successful petition would lead inevitably to a referendum, or whether it is a pure matter of citizen consultation without any necessary legal implications. Jeffrey Rath, the legal mastermind of the separatist movement, insisted in court (perhaps surprisingly) that there is actually no requirement for the government to act on Sylvestre’s petition. To quote our Jonny:

Article content

“Rath, an Indigenous law lawyer, piqued Leonard’s curiosity by suggesting Alberta’s referendum legislation does not require the government to hold a vote if a petition reaches the required threshold of signatures. He made the remarks as part of a larger argument that any court challenge is premature.

Article content

Article content

“Using an earlier example given by another lawyer, Rath said the government could choose not to hold a referendum on a clearly ‘offensive’ question like doing away with Indigenous constitutional protections.

Article content

“Leonard said she was under the impression the government had no option but to hold a referendum if a certain number of signatures were validated by the chief electoral officer.

Article content

“ ‘Wrong,’ Rath said. ‘They (the nation’s lawyers) completely misstated the law in that regard.’ ”

Article content

Leonard is expected to deliver a ruling on the First Nations’ arguments within a few weeks, and she’ll have to unsnarl the interaction between Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act (CIA) and its Referendum Act, which are both at play here. The CIA distinguishes between three kinds of citizen’s initiative proposal: legislative, policy and constitutional. The Sylvestre separatist petition claims to fall under the “constitutional” heading, logically enough: you can check for yourself and see his bold “X” next to the corresponding box on the form.

Article content

The CIA, in the section headed “Duties re constitutional referendum proposal,” positively requires the responsible minister to refer the proposal directly to the Lieutenant Governor for a referendum. But it also allows the minister to recommend “changes to the form or substance” of the petition text in order to guarantee that the referendum “will result in a clear expression of the will of the electors” and that “the question is otherwise suitable to be put to the electors….”