Negotiations are not optional in the event of provincial secession. They are a constitutional requirement.

In its 1998 Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a clear majority voting for independence on a clear question would create a “reciprocal obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes.”

The federal Clarity Act further confirms that a province cannot separate unilaterally. Secession would require a constitutional amendment and negotiations involving at least the federal government and every provincial government.

Yet Forever Canadian leader Thomas Lukaszuk dismissed the Alberta Transition Council’s newly released independence plan as “ridiculous.”

“He is the guy that thinks that he can divorce and then show up the next day and say, ‘What’s for dinner, honey?’” Lukaszuk told CBC News, referring to council chairman Keith Wilson. “Well, it doesn’t work like that. This is a divorce.”

What is Lukaszuk even talking about?

Go Ad Free

Wilson’s transition plan does not propose separating from Canada one day and expecting Ottawa to continue providing everything unchanged the next. It repeatedly identifies negotiations with Canada, other provinces, First Nations and international partners as essential to the process laid out in the Constitution. 

That does not mean Alberta would automatically receive every arrangement proposed in the report. Debt, assets, pensions, pipelines, borders, trade, federal services and Indigenous rights would all have to be negotiated. Neither side could dictate the final settlement.

Quebec’s sovereigntists understood this decades ago. Their 1995 referendum explicitly asked whether Quebec should become sovereign after formally offering Canada a new economic and political partnership.

Quebec’s proposed sovereignty legislation contemplated negotiations over transitional arrangements, economic association, currency, citizenship, treaties and the division of federal debt and assets. The sovereigntist parties’ agreement required Quebec to propose a partnership treaty following a Yes vote.

Alberta’s current referendum is one step further removed. A Yes vote on October 19 would begin the process of holding a later, binding referendum. Only a clear vote for independence would trigger the constitutional obligation to negotiate.

Lukaszuk can argue those negotiations would be difficult or that Alberta might not secure every desired outcome. But portraying the transition plan as an attempt to demand continued services after a unilateral “divorce” ignores both the document and Canadian constitutional law.

The plan is built around negotiations because negotiations are the legally required path.