An independence advocacy group has published a proposed constitution. That gives Albertans something to debate. It gives that group no authority to impose its proposals on everyone else.

That distinction matters when reading James Keeley’s September 29 Calgary Herald column, which examines two Alberta Prosperity Project documents, The Value of Freedom and The Foundation of Freedom.

Keeley questions proposed immigration screening, municipal financing, elected judges, firearm rights and constitutional restrictions on taxes and spending. Those are legitimate subjects for scrutiny.

But what status do these proposals actually have?

A discussion paper, with Albertans having the final say

The opening of The Foundation of Freedom explicitly explains that it presents ideas for discussion. APP says the document could become “one of many sources of ideas” at a constitutional conference and calls for a constitution produced through that conference to be ratified by Albertans. It also acknowledges unresolved issues requiring further discussion. 

Keeley acknowledges the draft’s discussion status. His column nevertheless leaves readers contemplating its controversial provisions without explaining that proposed conference and ratification process.

That is consequential context. 

Go Ad Free

APP’s own introduction envisages Albertans deciding what makes the final document.

Even clauses labelled unamendable within the proposed constitution remain proposals today. Their wording does not prevent Albertans from rejecting or rewriting them during the drafting process.

October’s ballot does not adopt either document

Question 10 asks whether Alberta should remain a province of Canada or whether the government should commence the legal process required to hold a binding referendum on separation. It contains no endorsement of APP’s constitution, fiscal plan, immigration proposals or judicial model.

Choosing Option 2 would therefore provide no blanket approval for APP’s policy wishlist.

Disagreement is part of the process

Albertans can favour independence while opposing elected judges, particular immigration rules or rigid budget restrictions. Support for sovereignty does not establish agreement on every policy a future country should adopt.

Keeley’s concerns about judicial independence, protections for non-citizens and constitutional rigidity deserve answers. Calling a document a draft does not exempt its authors from criticism.

It does, however, mean the debate remains open.

Publishing a plan invites public scrutiny. It does not confer a mandate.