LYTLE: Forever Canadian, an overachieving petition?

For three generations, my family has owned a rather nondescript, summer-only cabin on a lakeshore in British Columbia. The property is adjacent to an undeveloped provincial park, and that is a mixed blessing. The current form of environmental enthusiasm allows fines to be levied against those who defile nature and use dead wood from the park to feed their bonfires.It was not always like this. About thirty years ago, the Park Superintendent decided to do a controlled burn on parkland to remove the accumulating fuel. The weather was hot and dry on the appointed day, and our concern grew as, out of the smoke and flames, shadowy figures of the Park’s employees could be seen desperately fighting the fire. In the end, it was extinguished mere feet from our foundation.In response to a letter demanding an explanation, the Superintendent gave a bureaucratic non-answer. He suggested that we had “incorrectly” interpreted the out-of-control nature of his prescribed burn and, with no sense of irony, allowed that perhaps they had “overachieved on their objective.” Since then, we have extended our lawn into the park to prevent future overachievements.I thought of this while reading news about the assessment of the Forever Canadian petition currently before the Alberta government. The petition gathered over 400,000 signatures, which is no small thing, even if the collection took place in balmy autumn weather and there was no requirement to verify identification.The more recent Stay Free Alberta signature collection was able to collect 301,000 signatures, and, having participated in that effort, I can attest to the difficulty of obtaining them. Unlike the Forever Canadian petition, however, we needed to verify identification and solicit confirmation data, including address and phone number. And do all this in raging snowstorms. So, the two efforts were not precisely the same. I also doubt that the Forever Canadian signature gatherers had people wistfully say, “I would like to sign, but I am afraid of having my bank account frozen.” I suspect that polls on the support for independence are missing what I call the “shy separatist” vote..Although the two signature collection efforts were done under different legislative versions of the Citizen Initiative Act, the relevant part of the Act was the same.“The application for a petition must include ... a statement of the idea for the initiative or proposed legislation or, for a proposed constitutional referendum, a proposed question.”The Forever Canadian question was, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” In my tiny tot thinking, the question is not about proposed legislation, but is a constitutional question for a proposed referendum. People signed the petition because they agreed with the referendum question, and they anticipated that a successful collection of signatures would lead to a referendum vote by citizens and not politicians.Now, however, Mr. Lukaszuk is demurring on the need for a citizen referendum and argues that, from the beginning, he wanted the Legislative Assembly and not Albertans to vote on his question. So, did Mr. Lukaszuk misunderstand the legislation, or did he overachieve on his objective and is now in the unenviable position of having to tell 400,000 signatories that he was just kidding?I think Mr. Lukaszuk and the Alberta government have a duty to abide by the terms of the legislation and give those signatories what they thought they were signing on to — a constitutional vote on a clear question.

LYTLE: Forever Canadian, an overachieving petition?

Related Stories

FLETCHER: BC’s latest treaty soon set in stone, except for its costs

QUESNEL: British Columbia’s DRIPA experiment is scaring away investment without fixing indigenous poverty

BERNARDO: Saskatchewan’s firearms appraisal service exposes Ottawa’s public safety failure

MACLEOD: If Albertans want independence, we must take back the UCP