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.<\/p>\n
Smith\u2019s question is: \u201cShould 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?\u201d<\/p>\n
Ponder your vote on that.<\/p>\n
Vote yes and you\u2019re agreeing to both parts, even though they\u2019re contradictory.<\/p>\n
With a negative vote, you\u2019re saying no to Canada, but also nixing a binding referendum on separation.<\/p>\n
It makes no sense at all, unless the question is somehow divided into two parts, with the second response depending on the first.<\/p>\n
Apart from that, much of Smith\u2019s speech was powerful and welcome.<\/p>\n
For the first time in public, I believe, she said she will vote against separatism.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI have never deviated from that position and I will not do so now.<\/p>\n
\u201cI 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Related<\/p>\n
She pointed out that she has made great progress in dealing with Ottawa<\/a>, which is certainly true.<\/p>\n \u201cMy 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.<\/p>\n \u201cLike you, I love this province and our people so much.<\/p>\n \u201cI am so proud to be Albertan.<\/p>\n \u201cBut 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\u2019re gaining respect and the tide has turned in our favour.\u201d<\/p>\n She also asked federalists to be careful about \u201cdemonizing\u201d separatists.<\/p>\n \u201cLet\u2019s use the power of hope and persuasion \u2014 and reject the language of division and demonization.\u201d<\/p>\n She\u2019s not quite saying she\u2019ll be a pro-Canada campaigner, but it\u2019s a start.<\/p>\n And yet, what the heck is going on with the question?<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n For the past month, Smith has hinted that she would accept Thomas Lukaszuk\u2019s clear, simple question<\/a>: \u201cDo you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The UCP\u2019s puppet legislature committee tended toward Lukaszuk\u2019s question.<\/a> Smith herself implied a month ago that she\u2019d accept it.<\/p>\n All day Thursday, commentators were saying that would happen.<\/p>\n But the UCP blinked, it appears, because the hard-line separatists were ferociously opposed to using Lukaszuk\u2019s positive question.<\/p>\n Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the key organizations, said in a statement: \u201cIf she does this (accepts Lukaszuk\u2019s wording) hundreds of thousands of Albertans will be forced to mobilize to remove her as leader of the United Conservative Party.<\/p>\n \u201cShe 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Rath is on the extreme side of the separatist movement. He can\u2019t motivate a crowd of 301,000 that includes a lot of angry federalists.<\/p>\n But the general sentiment is widespread \u2014 separatists are furious at the court rejection of their question<\/a> and deeply hostile to Lukaszuk\u2019s.<\/p>\n That\u2019s why the UCP spent thousands of spoken and printed words trying to convince people that Lukaszuk \u2014 not them \u2014 was responsible for that wording.<\/p>\n That didn\u2019t work.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n At most it would lead to a binding referendum question, someday, that would probably be kicked out of court before it even got rolling.<\/p>\n![\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/7738150d0e8d4acdefd234097416299e.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n![\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/8aa4d655d98b92f03edfa035709d5bca.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n