Danielle Smith Is Spreading Misinformation About "700,000 Albertans"
Two petitions. Different purposes. One unverified total. The numbers do not add up the way Smith says they do.
Danielle Smith continues to publicly claim that "700,000 Albertans" want a referendum debate on Alberta's future in Canada. The evidence does not support the claim. And the public record strongly suggests Smith knows that.
Smith’s Claim
In her televised address to the province on May 21, 2026, Danielle Smith stated:
“The fact is that between the ‘Forever Canada’ petition requesting a referendum on Alberta remaining in Canada, and the ‘Stay Free Alberta’ petition requesting a referendum on leaving Canada, approximately 700,000 Albertans have signed petitions requesting a vote on this issue.”
The following day, at a press conference, she added:
“Everybody knew where this was going, regardless of what side they decided to sign on. And now we have 700,000 people who expect to have this vote, and we’ll be having it on October 19th.”
The October 19 vote Smith is referring to is a non-binding provincial referendum asking Albertans whether the government should commence the legal process required to hold a future binding vote on separation from Canada.
The 700,000 figure is the sum of two separate petition totals:
438,568 verified signatures from the Forever Canada petition
nonverified signatures claimed by separatist organizers
The problem is that the petitions were not asking for the same thing, the separatist signatures were never verified, and the organizer of the Forever Canada petition publicly rejected the government’s interpretation.
The Forever Canada Petition Was Pro-Canada
The Forever Canada petition was organized to oppose Alberta separation. Its organizer, Thomas Lukaszuk, said so publicly, repeatedly, and before a legislative committee. Elections Alberta categorized the petition as a policy initiative not a constitutional referendum proposal.
Lukaszuk designed the petition to give Smith a opportunity to avoid a referendum — not to trigger one. Elections Alberta categorized the two petitions separately. They were not treated as the same political objective.
The Separatist Signatures Were Never Verified
Elections Alberta publicly verified 438,568 signatures for the Forever Canada initiative. Stay Free Alberta claimed 302,000. Those signatures were never verified — a court halted the process and Justice Shaina Leonard’s May 13 ruling quashed the petition before verification could be completed.
One total is confirmed. The other is a claimed number from an organization whose petition was struck down by a court. Smith presents both as equivalent.
Smith’s “Everybody Knew” Argument Fails on the Evidence
Smith’s public defence — that “everybody knew where this was going, regardless of what side they decided to sign on” — does not hold against the documented record.
Lukaszuk’s application to Elections Alberta stated he wanted the petition because he believed the majority of Albertans “are loyal Canadians opposed to any form of separation.” He travelled more than 7,000 kms collecting signatures and publicly described the exercise as an effort to give Smith an opportunity to avoid a referendum. He explicitly opposed his question being used to trigger one.
The documented record of the Forever Canada campaign does not support the claim that its signatories understood they were endorsing a referendum process. The campaign’s organizer says the opposite, on the record, repeatedly.
Smith Was Told the Claim Is Inaccurate. She Kept Saying It.
Lukaszuk rejected the government’s interpretation of his petition in media interviews, in public statements, and before the legislative committee. Reporters at Smith’s May 22 press conference directly challenged whether Forever Canada signatories wanted a referendum at all. CBC confirmed Smith was asked about this directly and maintained the 700,000 framing anyway.
The UCP-led committee reviewing the Forever Canada petition recommended it trigger a referendum — the opposite of what Lukaszuk asked for — and Lukaszuk publicly objected to that outcome as well.
As premier, Smith also has access to Elections Alberta records, constitutional advice, Justice officials, cabinet briefings, and intergovernmental affairs analysis. The distinctions between verified and unverified signatures, pro-Canada and separatist petitions, and policy initiatives and constitutional referendum proposals would be clearly understood inside government.
The information is also entirely public. CBC, Global News, and Elections Alberta have all documented the petitions’ different statuses and objectives.
There is no realistic evidence-based scenario where Smith is unaware of the differences. She has been corrected on the public record and continues making the claim anyway.
Factsmtr Analysis
Misunderstanding is not a credible explanation here. The information that contradicts this claim is public, documented, and was put directly to Smith before she repeated it. That rules out confusion.
What the record describes is a premier who knows the claim does not hold up, has been told so on the public record, and continues making it because it is politically useful and because, so far, there has been no meaningful consequence for doing so.
That is the more serious problem. Individual false claims by politicians are not new.
The larger concern is what the pattern represents. When a premier can repeat a claim the public record contradicts, be corrected on that record, and face no consequence for continuing, the standard for truthfulness in public decision-making has already shifted.
The October 19 vote is now on the calendar. The justification Smith has offered for it does not match the documented record.
What was said and what the evidence shows are not the same thing. That is not a footnote. And it is the foundation Smith’s decision is resting on.
Verdict: The Evidence Does Not Support the Claim
If you found this analysis useful, share it with someone who should read it. If you think the documented record shows something different, the comments are open.
If this post raised questions about how to verify claims, contact decision-makers, or take civic action on issues like this one, check out the Factsmtr Civic Learning Series. New courses added each month. Available to paid subscribers.
It doesn’t matter how many signatures were claimed by the seperatists. They failed to engage with indigenous nations and their petition was ruled unconstitutional on those grounds. Anything brought forward by the UCP will also be ruled unconstitutional on those same grounds. The treaty people have inherent rights under the constitution as previous precedence has shown. You don’t get to change the law or constitution cause you can’t follow the law.
I suspect that the illegal access of voter lists is just going to muddy this further.
Intervention from the courts & law enforcement is required.
LegitimIsong signatures by ill gotten gains is fraudulent. Smith should be talking about that. Instead, it is normalising the crime. Media just let's it. Doesn't dispute or correct it. Amplifies the LIES. Doesn't follow that story, a much bigger story that would've put this referendum to bed by public pressure. Press Progress and Charlie Angus did but they not msm.