After weeks of agonizing, Premier Danielle Smith has come up with her own referendum question.
This weird, unworkable puzzler was unveiled Thursday evening in her speech to the province.
There’s no way to vote a simple yes or no to this question, because it comes in two contradictory parts.
It asks Albertans whether they want to stay in Canada or not, and then asks if we should proceed to yet another referendum, this one a binding vote on whether or not to separate.
Smith’s question is: “Should Alberta remain a province of 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?”
Ponder your vote on that.
Vote yes and you’re agreeing to both parts, even though they’re contradictory.
With a negative vote, you’re saying no to Canada, but also nixing a binding referendum on separation.
It makes no sense at all, unless the question is somehow divided into two parts, with the second response depending on the first.
Apart from that, much of Smith’s speech was powerful and welcome.
For the first time in public, I believe, she said she will vote against separatism.
“I have repeatedly stated that the position of the UCP caucus and UCP government is to build a strong and sovereign Alberta within a united Canada,” she said.
“I have never deviated from that position and I will not do so now.
“I will therefore be voting for Alberta to remain in Canada, while continuing to work each and every day to restore and strengthen provincial rights under the Canadian Constitution.”
Related
She pointed out that she has made great progress in dealing with Ottawa, which is certainly true.
“My fellow Albertans, there can be no doubt that things are a world of difference better for our province than they were under the Trudeau-NDP government.
“Like you, I love this province and our people so much.
“I am so proud to be Albertan.
“But I ask you to please consider joining me to vote for Alberta to remain in Canada, and not give up on our beautiful country just as we’re gaining respect and the tide has turned in our favour.”
She also asked federalists to be careful about “demonizing” separatists.
“Let’s use the power of hope and persuasion — and reject the language of division and demonization.”
She’s not quite saying she’ll be a pro-Canada campaigner, but it’s a start.
And yet, what the heck is going on with the question?
Thomas Lukaszuk delivers a petition with more than 400,000 signatures to the Elections Alberta building for the Forever Canada petition on Tuesday, Oct. 28, 2025 in Edmonton.
For the past month, Smith has hinted that she would accept Thomas Lukaszuk’s clear, simple question: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”
This was the only question not tied up in the courts, they said. It would serve just fine, since it was the flip side of a negative question.
The UCP’s puppet legislature committee tended toward Lukaszuk’s question. Smith herself implied a month ago that she’d accept it.
All day Thursday, commentators were saying that would happen.
But the UCP blinked, it appears, because the hard-line separatists were ferociously opposed to using Lukaszuk’s positive question.
Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the key organizations, said in a statement: “If she does this (accepts Lukaszuk’s wording) hundreds of thousands of Albertans will be forced to mobilize to remove her as leader of the United Conservative Party.
“She will be choosing to pander to people who will never vote for her while betraying 301,620 Albertans whose votes she could actually count on.”
Lawyer Jeffrey Rath with Stay Free Alberta delivered the signature documentation to Elections Alberta headquarters in Edmonton on Monday, May 4, 2026, surrounded by a sea of supporters with Alberta flags.
Rath is on the extreme side of the separatist movement. He can’t motivate a crowd of 301,000 that includes a lot of angry federalists.
But the general sentiment is widespread — separatists are furious at the court rejection of their question and deeply hostile to Lukaszuk’s.
That’s why the UCP spent thousands of spoken and printed words trying to convince people that Lukaszuk — not them — was responsible for that wording.
That didn’t work.
Now we have this strange hybrid question that will probably annoy nearly everyone. It has the feel of a compromise cobbled together in a tense caucus meeting.
At most it would lead to a binding referendum question, someday, that would probably be kicked out of court before it even got rolling.
In her speech, Smith vowed to challenge the court ruling against the separatist question, but acknowledged it could take years.
Setting all that aside — and it takes a big push — much of Smith’s speech was forceful and powerful.
Except for that goofy, confusing, contradictory question.
An entire province will scratch its head on voting day.
Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald