Well said and an interesting perspective from The Alberta Institute.

Yesterday, an Alberta Court of King’s Bench judge issued a ruling that should deeply concern every Albertan who believes citizens should have the right to participate directly in democracy and public debate.

Justice Shaina Leonard - appointed in 2020 by then federal Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti - quashed the entirety of the Stay Free Alberta citizen initiative petition seeking a referendum on Alberta independence.

But the ruling doesn't just affect the separation referendum - it is a dramatic, troubling, and frankly ridiculous expansion of the duty for governments to consult with indigenous people, that will have massive ramifications not just for any future citizens' initiative petition on any issue, but also for every single piece of legislation that any government anywhere in Canada proposes in the future.

It is really, really hard to overstate the massive implications this ruling could have, if it's allowed to stand.

In short, Justice Leonard found that Elections Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer made an “error of law” in approving the Stay Free Alberta petition process by failing to adequately consider indigenous consultation obligations before approving the petition for signature collection.

Previously, courts have ruled that indigenous consultation is only necessary before governments actually implement legislation, and even the act of drafting legislation does not meet that bar.

But this ruling means that indigenous consultation obligations arise not before a referendum is held or before the government implements the results of a referendum, but before ordinary citizens are even permitted to collect signatures requesting a democratic vote in the first place.

To illustrate just how radical a departure this is, consider the following 12 steps that a potential citizens' initiative petition would have to go through to be implemented - and, remember, this applies to any issue, not just separation:

1. Citizens apply to conduct a citizens' initiative petition
2. Elections Alberta approves citizens to conduct the petition
3. Citizens collect petition signatures
4. Elections Alberta verifies signatures and declares the petition successful
5. The government considers the petition
6. The government decides to hold a referendum
7. A referendum is held
8. Elections Alberta verifies the referendum result
9. The government considers the referendum result
10. The government determines a policy response
11. The government drafts legislation to implement a policy
12. The government passes legislation to implement a policy

Traditionally (and, until yesterday, legally), the provincial government would have a duty to consult indigenous people somewhere around Step 11 of the above list.

Justice Shaina Leonard today decided that the duty to consult should actually be somewhere around Step 1 of the above list, and that failing to do so invalidates the entire process.

Consider the implications and contradictions inherent in that ruling.

At Step 1, the government has taken no action whatsoever, other than permitting citizens to exercise their democratic right to organize and gather signatures under Alberta’s existing citizen initiative legislation.

At Step 1, there is no government policy, proposal, legislation, or decision on which consultation can be conducted.

Citizen initiative petitions are not government policy - they are simply a mechanism that allows ordinary Albertans to request that an issue be put before voters.

Under the logic of this ruling, however, is the government supposed to undertake consultation on any topic any citizen considers collecting signatures on, before any signatures have even been collected?

Jamie Sarkonak, a columnist at the National Post, summed up the whole mess in a single sentence:

"The Constitution of Canada forbids you from asking the general public a question without first running it past indigenous people" is not going to go over well.

Because, remember, this ruling is not just about separation - it affects any citizen initiative petition on any issue going forward.

And, it may affect every single piece of legislation any government anywhere introduces.

If consulting indigenous people upon the introduction of legislation is no longer sufficient for legislation related to a citizens' initiative petition, the same would apply to legislation related to anything else.

Don't forget - the NDP-backed campaign collecting signatures to ban coal mining in Alberta’s Eastern Slopes has claimed support from some indigenous communities, but no formal consultation was undertaken before gathering signatures, so that is now presumably invalid.

Similarly, the Alberta Teachers’ Association-backed petition campaign on education funding also proceeded without any kind of comprehensive consultation framework before signatures were collected, so had it received sufficient signatures, it would also have been invalidated.

That is why this decision matters far beyond the specific issue of Alberta's independence.

Whether you support separation, oppose it, or remain undecided is ultimately beside the point.

In a democratic society, controversial political questions are supposed to be debated openly and decided through public participation and votes - not shut down because an Ottawa-appointed judge dislikes the issue being discussed.

Unfortunately, rulings like this increasingly reflect a broader problem within Canada’s judicial system, where courts appear more willing to reinterpret laws according to what certain judges believe the outcome should be rather than what elected legislators actually passed into law.

The role of judges is supposed to be to interpret and enforce legislation, not rewrite it because they disagree with the political consequences that may flow from it.

Premier Danielle Smith has already indicated that the provincial government intends to appeal this decision, which is good, as this precedent cannot be allowed to stand.

And while that appeal process moves forward, the government is also considering another option available to it under Alberta law: placing the referendum question directly on the ballot itself.

Whether you support separation or not, all fair-minded Albertans should support the government doing this.

Hundreds of thousands of Albertans have followed the rules and put in the work to get the question they care about on the ballot.

Even people who strongly oppose Alberta separation should recognize the danger in allowing courts to narrow democratic participation through expansive and politically charged interpretations of the law.

One Ottawa-appointed judge simply cannot be permitted to block the will of those hundreds of thousands of Albertans.

Those who support separation deserve their chance to say Yes, and those who oppose separation will have their chance to say No.

And that's precisely how democracy should work.

At the Alberta Institute, we believe democratic participation should be encouraged, not restricted.

Citizens should have the freedom to organize around issues they care about, collect signatures, advocate for their positions, and bring important questions before voters without activist legal reasoning standing in the way.

If you agree that citizens deserve the right to participate directly in democracy and that courts should not interfere with lawful political participation through judicial overreach, then now is the time to get involved.

You can volunteer with us, join as a monthly member to sustain our work and access member benefits, or make a one-time donation today to support our ongoing fight for democratic accountability, citizen participation, and common sense in Alberta.