Question 10: What do the new referendum separation questions really mean and what happens if Albertans vote for option 1 or option 2?

Summary

• The referendum question on separation sets out two options – one for Alberta to remain a province of Canada and one for the Alberta government to start the legal process required to hold a further, binding referendum on separation.

• The option to remain a province of Canada is clear.

• The option to commence a process required to hold a further referendum likely refers to the requirement that the Alberta government must undertake consultations with Indigenous persons before holding a referendum on separation.

• If Alberta is successful in its appeal currently before the Alberta Court of Appeal, this second option will be meaningless because the government argues there is no legal requirement to undertake consultations with Indigenous persons before holding a referendum on separation. Further, if the Alberta government is successful in its appeal, it will be required to hold a second referendum proposing separation, even if the vote on the first referendum this October rejects separation.

• The Alberta government is not bound to respect the decision of the voters on the first referendum. If a second referendum is held on the separation petition, the government will not be required to respect the decision of the voters on that referendum either, because the court has found that separation contravenes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

Analysis

Typically, a referendum question is structured to require either a “yes” or a “no” answer. That is true of the first 9 questions that the Alberta government has set for the vote on October 19. However, the 10th question – the one relating to separation – has been structured not as a “yes” or “no” question, but rather as a choice between two options. Elections Alberta has set out the choice as follows:

Option 1: Alberta should remain a province of Canada.

Option 2: The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.

This unusual structure reflects a choice made by the Alberta government in the face of competing petitions under the Citizen Initiative Act about whether Alberta should stay in Canada or leave Canada.

The Stay Petition

The first petition was proposed by Thomas Lukaszuk in June 2025, asking the question:

Do you agree Alberta should remain in Canada?

On December 1, 2025, the Chief Electoral Officer certified that this petition had been successful, having secured in excess of 400,000 signatures. (See our article What Happened to the Forever Canadian Petition? for more about the process.) Ultimately, a committee of the legislature recommended to the full legislature that this question be put to the people of Alberta by way of a referendum. Rather than waiting for the legislature to consider this recommendation, the government decided to act on its own and introduce a referendum question with an option for Albertans to vote to remain a province of Canada. The wording of this option is slightly different from that of the Lukaszuk question but to the same end.

The meaning of this option is clear.

The Leave Petitions

The second petition was proposed by Mitch Sylvestre in July 2025, asking the question:

Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?

On December 5, 2025, Justice Feasby of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench ruled that this petition contravened the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. Three days later, the Chief Electoral Officer rejected this petition, based on the existing language of the Citizen Initiative Act and this decision of the court.

Later that month, the Citizen Initiative Act was amended to remove the requirement that a petition must not contravene the Constitution. Mitch Sylvestre then proposed a further petition, asking the question:

Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?

The Chief Electoral Officer approved this second petition. On May 4, 2026, Sylvestre delivered the signature sheets to the Chief Electoral Officer, claiming that he had secured over 300,000 signatures in favour of this petition. However, nine days later, Justice Leonard of the Alberta Court of King’s Bench quashed the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer to approve this petition, finding that:

• as Sylvestre’s first petition had been rejected by the Chief Electoral Officer, it could not be resubmitted as a second petition;

• the Alberta government had a duty to consult with Indigenous persons before the Chief Electoral Officer could approve this petition; and

• the proposal in this petition would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights, as earlier found by Justice Feasby.

This decision put an end to the second Sylvestre petition, at least for the time being.

Both Sylvestre and the government of Alberta have appealed this decision. The Alberta Court of Appeal ruled that the Chief Electoral Officer could undertake the verification process on the signature sheets that had been delivered, pending the results of the appeal. On July 24, 2026, the Chief Electoral Officer advised that it had verified 222,597 signatures, in excess than the 177,732 signatures required for a successful petition. However, the decision of Justice Leonard striking this petition remains in place unless and until it is ultimately overturned by the Court of Appeal.

Rather than waiting for the decision of the Court of Appeal on the merits of the appeal, the Alberta government decided to act on its own and include on the October 19 ballot an option to commence the process for a referendum leading to separation. As Justice Leonard determined that the government is required to undertake consultations with Indigenous persons before setting a referendum question proposing separation and as the Alberta government has not undertaken those consultations, it posed the option that:

The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.

Unlike Option 1, the meaning of Option 2 is not clear.

What does Option 2 mean?

There are at least two questions here.

First, what is the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on separation?

The Canadian Constitution does not expressly set out a legal process required for a province to hold a binding referendum on separation. In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a decision in the case of Reference re Secession of Quebec on the trigger for constitutional negotiations in the event a referendum on a clear question achieves a clear majority in favour of separation. Following that decision, the federal government passed the Clarity Act, setting out the process for the federal government to determine whether a referendum question is clear. However, other than the decision of Justice Leonard respecting the Sylvestre petition, there is little or no case law on the legal process required by the Canadian Constitution to be undertaken by a province before a referendum is held on separation. And while the decision of Justice Leonard specifies a requirement to undertake consultation with Indigenous persons, it does not specify the nature or extent of consultations required or the result if those consultations are unsuccessful.

Here is where things get tricky.

In its argument before Justice Leonard, the Alberta government argued that the duty to consult is not triggered until after the referendum. The government is repeating that argument in its appeal of Justice Leonard’s decision. If the government is right, then there is no “legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on separation”. In other words, the government has posed a referendum option to undertake a required legal process that the same government argues does not exist.

Further, the Chief Electoral Officer has determined that the second Sylvestre petition received the required number of signatures to trigger a referendum. If the Alberta government successfully appeals the decision of Justice Leonard, it will be required to hold a referendum on the separation question set out in the second Sylvestre petition, as provided in Section 16(1) of the Citizen Initiative Act. The Minister of Justice will have some limited discretion to recommend changes to that question to ensure that it will result in a clear expression of the will of electors and is “otherwise suitable to be put to the electors”. However, if the Alberta government succeeds in its appeal in setting aside the decision of Justice Leonard, Albertans will be faced with another referendum on separation. And this further referendum will be required, even if Albertans on October 19 the majority of Albertans select Option 1 to remain in Canada.

Second, Option 2 refers to a “binding” provincial referendum. What does that mean?

It is important to understand that when the Alberta government added these options to the October 19 referendum, it specified it will not be bound by the decision of the voters. If more votes are cast for Option 2 (commence the process leading to binding referendum on separation) than Option 1 (stay in Canada), the government could still decide not to commence the process of consultation with Indigenous persons required to hold a referendum. If more votes are cast for Option 1 than Option 2, the government could still take steps towards separation.

Under the rules established by the Alberta government when it set the referendum question, it will be bound only if:

• Option 2 prevails over Option 1

• the government then chooses to commence the process of consultation and completes that process

• the government then chooses to hold a referendum on separation, and

• that referendum is successful.

Even then, the Alberta government may not be bound to do anything.

Section 4(2) of the Referendum Act says that if the results of a referendum are binding, the government must take any steps within its competence that it considers necessary or advisable to implement the results of the referendum. However, that is qualified by Section 4(3) of the Referendum Act which states that the government is not required to implement the results of the referendum if doing so would contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. That is further qualified by Section 8.11(3) of the Referendum Act which states that nothing in a referendum is to be construed as abrogating or derogating from constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. And Justice Feasby has already determined that separation would contravene both the Charter and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights. That means that in this case, the Alberta government would not be bound by a binding referendum.

Further, even if the Alberta government were to take steps to implement a successful referendum vote in favour of separation, Alberta does not have the right on its own to separate from Canada. Separation can only occur following negotiations with the governments of Canada and the other provinces. Engaging in a process of negotiation around separation does not necessarily mean that separation will occur or, if it occurs, that it will occur under any specific terms.

So where does this leave us?

In setting these options for the October 19 referendum, the Alberta government has jumped the gun.

With respect to Option 1 (stay in Canada), the Alberta government didn’t wait for the legislature to determine how to deal with the successful petition brought by Thomas Lukaszuk, as the Citizen Initiative Act contemplates. Rather, it decided on its own to bring forward a referendum question proposing that Alberta stay within Canada. That question, at least, is clear.

With respect to Option 2 (commence the process for a referendum to leave Canada), the Alberta government didn’t wait for the results of the appeal of the decision of Justice Leonard. Option 2 proposes that the government undertake a required legal process while arguing before the Alberta Court of Appeal that there is no such required legal process. If the Alberta government prevails on its appeal of Justice Leonard’s decision, Option 2 will be meaningless. Further, if it prevails on its appeal, the government will be required to hold a second referendum on separation, even if the Alberta electors were to choose Option 1 over Option 2. And after all of that, even if that second referendum were to be successful, the Alberta government is not bound to pursue separation because separation has been held to contravene both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and constitutionally protected Indigenous rights.

Confused? So are we.

Our View

We are voting for the clear option to remain in Canada.