Alberta secession movements (illegal)
2. Alberta Prosperity Project / Alberta separation question – chronology
Here’s the story in simple chronological order, from the formulation of the question to the current status and next steps, based on what’s publicly available as of now.
(a) Formulation of the question and initial push (spring–summer 2025)
May 12, 2025 – Question publicly presented
Lawyer Jeffrey Rath, for the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), publicly unveils the group’s proposed referendum question:
“Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province of Canada?”
The plan is to get the Alberta government to hold a referendum by the end of 2025.
April–May 2025 – Bill 54: making citizen-initiated referendums easier
The UCP government passes Bill 54 (Election Statutes Amendment Act), which:
Lowers the threshold for a Citizen Initiative Petition (CIP) to about 10% of votes cast in the last election.
Extends the signature-gathering period from 90 to 120 days.
This change is explicitly discussed as making separation / sovereignty referendums easier to trigger.
July 5, 2025 – CIP application filed
Mitch Sylvestre, on behalf of APP, files a Citizen Initiative Petition with Elections Alberta under the Citizen Initiative Act, using essentially the same wording:
“Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”
Media and constitutional commentary note that the question is being treated as a direct bid for Alberta independence.
(b) Referral to the Court of King’s Bench for constitutional review
July 2025 – Chief Electoral Officer refers the question to court
Chief electoral officer Gordon McClure refers the question to the Court of King’s Bench of Alberta to determine whether it contravenes the Constitution Act, 1982, particularly ss. 1–35.1 and s. 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights, as required under the then-existing Citizen Initiative Act.
August 14, 2025 – Attempt to quash review fails
APP applies to quash the review and have the question approved without judicial scrutiny.
Justice Colin Feasby of the Court of King’s Bench refuses, holding that a full review of constitutionality is needed and benefits democracy.
This is widely reported as a setback for both APP and Premier Danielle Smith, who had criticised the referral as premature “gatekeeping.”
(c) The November hearings
November 19–20, 2025 – Court hearings (“Day 1” and “Day 2” updates)
APP issues public updates titled “Day 1 Court Update: The Fight for Alberta’s Voice Begins” and “Day 2 Court Update: Justice Engages Deeply – Sovereignty Rights Affirmed in Court.”
APP confirms the exact question before the court:
“Do you agree that Alberta shall become a Sovereign Country and cease to be a province in Canada?”
The court hears argument on whether such a question is unconstitutional, particularly due to its implications for Charter and treaty rights.
First Nations, especially the Confederacy of Treaty 6, Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 leadership, intervene or express strong opposition, insisting that such a referendum cannot override treaties.
(d) December 2025 ruling – question unconstitutional
Early December 2025 – Feasby J’s ruling in Chief Electoral Officer v. Sylvestre
Justice Feasby rules that the proposed referendum question is unconstitutional. Key elements reported:
The referendum as framed would infringe constitutional rights and is therefore not permitted under the citizen-initiative legislation.
One central concern: the question proposes a fundamental constitutional change but does not identify what constitutional rights (Charter, Aboriginal, treaty) would exist in an independent Alberta, so voters cannot know whether guaranteed rights would continue.
The ruling is hailed by First Nations as a defence of treaty rights.
News outlets frame it as “Alberta judge rules proposed separation referendum question unconstitutional.”
(e) Bill 14 (Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025) and APP’s spin
December 4, 2025 – Bill 14 tabled / passed
Around the same time, the UCP government introduces Bill 14 (Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2025), which among other things amends the Citizen Initiative Act.
Coverage notes that Bill 14 removes the specific “contravention of the Constitution” test under which the question had been reviewed, and narrows judicial gate-keeping over citizen-initiated referendum questions.
APP’s reaction: “Game on” and “roadmap, not roadblock”
APP immediately publishes two key pieces:
“APP Declares ‘It’s Game On’ as Bill 14 Clears Path for Alberta Sovereignty Referendum” – presented as a breakthrough for direct democracy that clears the way for their referendum.
“Alberta’s Path to Independence: Court Ruling Provides a Roadmap, Bill 14 Clears the Way” – analysis of Chief Electoral Officer v. Sylvestre. APP argues:
The ruling strikes down only the original petition question under now-repealed sections of the Citizen Initiative Act.
Since Bill 14 repealed those provisions, they say the decision is effectively moot.
They claim the decision plus Bill 14 actually give them a “blueprint” for how to move forward without court interference.
They heavily promote the idea that the ruling does not limit the provincial government’s power to call an independence referendum on its own initiative; it only affected the citizen-initiative pathway.
(f) Current status & next steps (as APP describes them)
From APP’s own materials and recent coverage:
APP insists that Alberta’s path to an independence vote is still very much alive, if not closer than before.
They say they will re-file a revised citizen initiative petition starting early 2026, under the post-Bill-14 rules, and then seek at least ~177,000 signatures (10% of voters from last election).
Their internal propaganda now targets an October 2026 referendum window, in line with APP’s video / messaging about “Bill 14 and the October 2026 referendum.”
So, in your terms:
Stage 1 – Question drafted and weaponised (Rath / APP, May 2025).
Stage 2 – Question submitted as a Citizen Initiative Petition, triggering a statutory constitutional review (July–Aug 2025).
Stage 3 – Court refuses to rubber-stamp; instead holds full constitutional review (Nov 2025 hearings).
Stage 4 – Court rules the question unconstitutional, especially vis-à-vis Charter and treaty rights (Dec 2025).
Stage 5 – The province simultaneously weakens judicial oversight with Bill 14; APP declares the ruling “moot” and promises a new petition and independence push, now pointing toward 2026.