Smith was pressed on why Albertans are not being given a clear definition of what the government considers a strong mandate before they cast their ballots.

“I think people know that I want these nine [proposals] to get an endorsement," she said. "I don’t want to prejudge the outcome, but I’ve made it pretty clear that I would like to proceed on these nine issues.

"We heard about it through the Alberta Next Panel, but I want to hear from Albertans to make sure that they agree that this is the right direction to go."

Over $100 M expected to be spent over the entire "Referendum", Albertans wonder why the UCP and the Premier cannot answer a simple question about what is the point of this exercise? How do we even get a result?

Yes, the Alberta Separation "Referendum" is a sham. Danielle Smith lets the cat out the box/bag, revealing there is no threshold at all when it comes to these citizen petitions. Alberta Separation is whatever we want it to be. Well, in that case, Smith and the UCP may have intended to foist the Alberta Separatists as a scapegoat. In a grotesque nod to the legendary dystopian novel of 1984, Canadians are left to engage in a two minutes of hate on this sacrificial and hopeless scapegoat of separation.

As Former PM Harper already pointed out, for argument's sake, there's no one capable of even operating a country such as Alberta if separation was to even happen. Yet, we're all forced to engage because even neglecting to do so has such terrible implications. No one is able to even set this sham aside as the circus it is.

So Danielle Smith really is foisting a box in front of all of us, but the problem is she doesn't want to acknowledge what's in the box. Is it Alberta Separation? Is it the Separatists themselves, served up neatly for the public to just hate on collectively? We just have to wait until Christmas to peek in the box, children.

https://kopitalk.net/c/canada@kopitalk.net/p/920512/danielle-smith-in-the-estranger

In December 2025, Canadians will remember that the CEO for Elections Alberta had already submitted a problem to the courts for an opinion. You see, the Citizen Initiative Act s. 2(4) initially required that petitions not violate the Constitution Act of 1982. And, as you might expect, there was a concern that a petition for Alberta to separate from Canada sounds like it would violate the Constitution Act of 1982.

From the Chief Electoral Officer of Alberta v. Sylvestre, 2025 ABKB 712, Justice Colin Feasby provided a detailed opinion. Essentially, did the Citizen's Initiative Act petition by Mitch Sylvestre not contravene the Constitution Act 1982 or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The short of it was the court came back with the answer of yes, the petition does lead to violations of both the Constitution Act, s. 35, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

What also made the Sylvestre case so remarkable was Danielle Smith and the UCP's attempt to legislate their solution to this issue by trying to cut out the Judicial Branch of government while the court was still receiving submissions.

[250] Late yesterday afternoon, Alberta wrote to the Court to advise that Bill 14: Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025 (“JSAA 2025”) had just been tabled in the Legislative Assembly. JSAA 2025, amongst other things, seeks to amend the CIA to repeal s 2(3) which requires legislative proposals to be within the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly, s 2(4) which is the section at issue in the present case, and s 2.1 which gives the CEO the power to state a special case to the Court as was done in the present case. JSAA 2025 s 71.1(3) provides that any existing “special case is discontinued without costs to any party....” Alberta’s letter explains that “once this legislation takes legal effect, this Action will be discontinued.” The legal consequence of discontinuing this proceeding prior to a decision would be to silence the Court. Legislating an end to litigation is extraordinary. Even the Referendum Proponent who stands to benefit from Alberta’s actions wrote to the Court last night expressing concern that “the Legislature is interfering in a duly convened judicial process.”

Justice Feasby went on to say:

[253] Legislating to pre-emptively end this court proceeding disrespects the administration of justice. We are in an age of scarce government resources that is as evident in the court system as it is anywhere. Alberta set up a process pursuant to CIA s 2.1 that conscripted the Court to determine a question of public importance and this case was given priority over the needs of other justice system participants. Only after the parties, intervenors, and the Court invested many days inside and outside of the courtroom to bring this case to an expeditious conclusion, did Alberta decide to change the law. Alberta’s cavalier disregard for court resources and lack of consideration for the parties and First Nations intervenors who participated in this proceeding in good faith is disappointing to say the least.

[254] Contrary to the pending JSAA 2025 s 71.1(3), this case cannot be discontinued, and the Court cannot be silenced because the case has been decided. These reasons are delivered despite the anticipated change to the law because reason giving is democratic. This case concerned a matter of importance to the public and these reasons are the product of the significant investment of the diverse group of stakeholders who participated in this proceeding. The public is entitled to the fruits of this process that has been conducted largely at their expense so that if they are asked to vote on Alberta independence, they have a tool that may help them make sense of the legal dimensions of the secession of Alberta from Canada.

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abkb/doc/2025/2025abkb712/2025abkb712.html

Bill 14 wasn't just crazy with its timing - as if getting sanctioned by court to be disrespectful to the administration of justice wasn't bad enough. Bill 14 also made changes to the Legal Profession Act that made Justice Minister/Attorney General Mickey Amery immune from sanctions from his Law Society of Alberta. You might wonder why? Well Bill 14 also switched the decision-making for which Citizen Petitions proceed from the Elections Alberta CEO to the Justice Minister.

By May 2026, after the UCP and Danielle Smith's legislative amendments, Elections Alberta returns to the lime light. But, this time, the Justice Minister is in the driver's seat. In Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation v Alberta 2026 ABKB 375, Elections Alberta was challenged for approving the petition for Alberta independence.

I'd encourage anyone to read the case itself. In summary, the UCP's legislative amendments were not interpreted to mean that unconstitutional questions were permitted to proceed to a referendum. Also, Justice Shaina Leonard found that the Elections Alberta CEO remained obliged to consider the Sylvestre decision that the first proposed petition would have violated s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Lastly, Justice Leonard submitted that the petition triggered the Province's Duty to Consult with affected First Nations.

https://www.oktlaw.com/court-quashes-bid-for-alberta-independence-referendum-in-favour-of-first-nations-treaty-rights/

We're wasting money and time, all to cover up from the UCP's Corrupt Care scandals, and resulting Ethical failures.

But worse, the UCP expanded the role of the Justice Minister, and interfered with how the Law Society of Alberta manages the profession by making the Minister immune to any sanctions. Alberta paid a heavy price to even have this "petition", and it's incredibly bizarre to call it a "referendum".