An Alberta group advocating for provincial sovereignty and eventual independence has released a discussion paper outlining what a future independent Alberta could look like. In a 54-page paper called Foundation of Freedom, the Alberta Prosperity Project proposes a directly elected president, a constitutional right to carry firearms and strict limits on taxation and government spending. The document is not being presented as a finished constitution. Instead, the group says it is meant to put ideas in front of Albertans ahead of what it envisions as a constitutional conference following independence. Mitch Sylvestre, leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project, says it could eventually be used as “one of many sources of ideas” at such a conference, while acknowledging that significant issues remain unresolved. “It’s designed to get people talking, it’s designed to get people thinking and it’s also designed to get people’s input back.” Sylvestre says the feedback process is already underway, with the group saying dozens of people responded within hours of the document being released. “There are ideas there that we want people to consider that will eventually lead to a constitutional conference at which the people will decide what the rules are.” Among its proposals are four branches of government, including an elected Oversight Branch, a president who would serve as both head of state and head of government, and a two-chamber legislature made up of a Legislative Assembly and Senate. The 18-section paper goes on to propose an Alberta passport provided to every citizen at no charge, an income tax capped at 10 per cent and consumption taxes capped at 10 per cent. It would also constitutionally restrict the government’s ability to accumulate debt and spend money. A different model of government The proposed system would represent a significant departure from Alberta’s current parliamentary form of government. The president would be elected directly by Albertans and would have the power to veto legislation, including through a line-item veto. The legislature could override a veto with a two-thirds vote in both chambers. The Legislative Assembly would have no more than 90 members, while a proposed Senate would have 40 elected members representing 20 regions. The paper also calls for term limits meaning a president could serve a maximum of two four-year terms, while members of the Legislative Assembly would also be limited to two terms. Citizens could also recall elected officials with a petition signed by three per cent of registered voters in the relevant constituency. The same three per cent threshold would allow Albertans to initiate binding referendums on matters within the legislature’s authority. The proposal also creates an Oversight Branch, described as an independent elected body consisting of an Elector General, Auditor General, Inspector General, Solicitor General and Attorney General. It would have broad powers, including compelling government documents, conducting investigations, auditing government agencies, investigating complaints and conducting elections and referendums. The branch could also remove public officials from office following an investigation and could convene randomly selected citizens’ grand juries to investigate alleged wrongdoing. Sylvestre says the branch is intended to strengthen government accountability. “An oversight branch to oversee government and be able to hold government accountable if they break the law is going to be fundamental to the new path, I believe.” Cory Morgan, founder of Pathway to Independence, another group involved in advocating for Alberta independence, says the document provides a useful starting point – though he believes some of its proposals go too far. “I think it’s all in all not a bad basis for a discussion document,” Morgan said. “I think there’d be a lot of room to work on things with a respective real constitution, though if Alberta ever became independent – but you have to start somewhere.” Morgan added that he favours a more decentralized system and questioned whether the proposed Oversight Branch would add unnecessary bureaucracy. “I don’t know if that would be a feasible sort of thing to apply,” he said. “It already has three levels of government going on within it that allows for some degree of oversight and checking, and that could really just clog things up to make a government dysfunctional.” Guns, taxes and individual rights One of the most notable proposals in the document is a constitutional right for law-abiding Albertans to possess and carry firearms, either openly or concealed, for self-defence and lawful purposes. The proposed right could only be restricted for people convicted of a violent indictable offence or those determined by a court to lack mental competence. The document also gives significant emphasis to individual liberty, including property rights, freedom of speech and religion, parental authority, privacy, bodily autonomy and the ability to choose or refuse health-care treatments. Morgan said some of those principles could form an important part of any future Alberta constitution, but argued the document sometimes crosses the line from constitutional principles into specific policy. “It’s getting a bit too detailed for what’s a constitutional document,” he said. “Those are policy positions rather than structural, and I don’t think they necessarily belong in a constitution.” Morgan specifically pointed to the proposed gun provisions and tax limits. “I believe in the right to bear arms but getting as far as whether we want open carry or not, that’s a separate discussion,” he said. The proposed constitution would cap annual income tax at 10 per cent of net income and consumption taxes at 10 per cent. Tax increases would require approval through a referendum. Government spending would also be capped, while borrowing would generally be limited to capital infrastructure projects and would require both legislative approval and a public referendum. Supporters and critics offer sharply different visions Tanya Clemons, co-lead of Let Alberta Decide, says she has not yet reviewed the paper, but believes constitutional proposals could eventually become an important part of the independence debate. “Although we think that it’s a bit premature, once we get to that point in time, it will absolutely be a very important part of the conversation.” Clemons says other groups have also proposed constitutional frameworks, with significant differences between them. “Ultimately, it’s up to Albertans to decide – and that’s the really exciting part, is that Albertans get to choose what we want and what we value our constitution to be.” Meanwhile, Thomas Lukaszuk, a former Alberta deputy premier and leader of the Forever Canadian movement, takes a dramatically different view of the document. He says he was pleased the independence movement had put its ideas into writing but strongly disagrees with many of the proposals. “I am really glad that separatists finally revealed what their vision of the future of Alberta would look like,” Lukaszuk said. “And it is a vision that I imagine would scare the vast majority of Canadians.” Lukaszuk characterized the proposed system as overly focused on individual rights and firearms, while arguing it could undermine broader community interests. However, several of his strongest criticisms go beyond what the document itself explicitly states. For example, the paper says citizens are equal under the constitution and would be protected from discrimination based on “race, ethnicity, gender, lawful sexual orientation or religious belief.” Lukaszuk interpreted the wording around lawful sexual orientation as potentially restricting LGBTQ rights. “So being gay is illegal?” he said, describing that as the implication of the wording. The document itself does not explicitly state that homosexuality would be illegal, but it does use the term “lawful sexual orientation” without defining it. Sylvestre said he couldn’t define what ‘lawful sexual orientation’ means, but added how people identify is “of little to no concern to me.” “They can do whatever they feel is fit for them. So that’s my personal stance on that. I don’t judge people based on any of that,” he said. The paper also proposes English as Alberta’s only official language, with government and court proceedings conducted in English. Lukaszuk called the overall proposal a “scary vision” and compared elements of it to what he described as the “wild west.” He says he believes the document should, nonetheless, be widely examined. “This document should be actually in every school across Alberta,” he said. “We should be reminded daily that if we are not vigilant, if we don’t protect our democracy, if we don’t protect our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if we don’t vote, if we don’t participate in this upcoming referendum, this is what our life may look like.” What happens to Indigenous treaties? The paper acknowledges that independence would raise major questions involving Indigenous nations and existing treaties. It says Treaties 6, 7 and 8 would be recognized and affirmed, while also proposing nation-to-nation negotiations with Indigenous nations, which could choose whether to join an independent Alberta. The document says those outcomes should not be assumed or imposed in advance. It also says Canadians normally residing in Alberta at the time of independence, including Indigenous people, would become Alberta citizens. The question of Alberta’s relationship with Canada, however, is not resolved by the document. The paper assumes independence as its starting point rather than setting out the legal or political process that would be required to achieve it. A starting point, not a final constitution Morgan says that distinction is important. “I believe, again, it’s a starting point – but there’s a lot of room for improvement within it,” he said. He also argued the final constitutional framework would need to give more authority to local communities rather than concentrating power in a central government. “This particular document actually is very centralized in keeping everything within a provincial government and takes power away from even the municipal level,” Morgan said. “I think it has to be looking at the differences between Grande Prairie, Edmonton, Lethbridge, Calgary.” The Alberta Prosperity Project says it wants Albertans to review the document and provide feedback. Sylvestre says critics of the proposal should also take part in that process. “The people of Alberta are going to decide what the rules are, and I think that’s the purpose of it.” “So, if they’re talking about it, if Mr. Lukaszuk is not happy with it, well, he should participate in the process and make sure that he puts his input in, and he’ll have as much voice as anybody else.” For Morgan, the value of the exercise is less about adopting the document word for word and more about beginning a conversation about what an independent Alberta could look like. “Documents like this help fill some of the questions that people have,” he said. “It gives something to reference towards that we may be considering as we go towards it.” However, he cautioned that constitutional proposals may have limited influence on the broader public debate over independence. “The real campaign is going to be based more on specific policy issues or higher-level discussions on personal freedoms or government overreach,” Morgan said. The Prosperity Project’s document ultimately leaves many of those questions open, acknowledging that further debate would be required before Albertans could arrive at a final constitution. For now, The Foundation of Freedom represents one proposed vision of what an independent Alberta could become — and an invitation to debate how much power that future government should have, and how much power should remain with its citizens.
