Still running
What's the opposite of calling the question? Welcome to your 2026, Alberta
(I’m hosting a live show in Toronto on June 20 at Hugh’s Room Live, and you’re invited. Details here:)
What you think about Danielle Smith’s 14-minute speech to Albertans on Thursday night will have much to do with whether you think it’s every Albertan’s duty to help her outlast Jason Kenney as leader of the United Conservative Party.
By my count, Smith needs to hang on until late October to tie Kenney’s longevity record. He was ousted by people who thought he wasn’t Albertan enough, is how I guess I’d phrase it, applying their own peculiar definition of Albertan. She’d like to do better, and by “do better” I’m now quite sure I mean nothing more than “last longer.” If you live in Alberta and you think her ability to stay ahead of the province’s separatist-populist-nativist clique’s efforts to hound her out is your struggle too, then I’m sure you’ll be delighted that her speech Thursday night conscripted you into her cause. If not, not.
The referendum question she proposed adding to the previous nine is a kind of exquisite annoyance. Here it is:
“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
In its phrasing or construction, I don’t think it’s particularly outrageous. I mean, its two parts are easy to understand and I know how I’d vote. Thursday night on Substack Notes, people were asking how the hell you’re supposed to answer it, because it’s not a yes-or-no question, but to me it’s easy enough to have one box marked “Remain a Province” and another marked “Start the Process,” and most people would easily understand which box reflected their preference.
If most Albertans vote, and I believe every eligible Albertan should, the “Remain a Province” option should get a comfortable majority. And that would be the end of that, for some time to come. If the Process-Starters managed to get a majority, a long process would indeed start. Its outcome would be years of arguing, followed, perhaps, by some future referendum which the pro-Canada side should also normally expect to win. My impression is that the question is designed to produce a Remain majority. Everything about it says so. Even the length and amount of Latin content in the two clauses. “Should Alberta [five simple words] or should the Government of Alberta [24 long words]?”
Let’s get rid of a red herring: the Clarity Act would have very little to do with this question. Few people ever read the Clarity Act, but it’s quite narrow: it doesn’t seek to limit any provincial government’s ability to ask any referendum question it wants. It demands only that Parliament determine whether a question clearly measures voters’ desire to leave the country. But Danielle Smith’s question doesn’t purport to seek Albertan’s opinion on whether they should leave. It asks their opinion on whether they’d like to be asked. See “exquisite annoyance,” above.
Let’s look at how well Smith’s proposed question satisfies the interests of various Albertans.
Federalists: Probably dissatisfied. If you want Alberta to remain a province, you know this goal is best addressed by letting Alberta remain a province. No referendum is needed, certainly not from a premier who didn’t run on holding a referendum.
Separatists: Probably dissatisfied. If you want Alberta to separate from Canada, you’d like to get started. We will see whether the purported leaders of this movement seek revenge on Smith for thwarting them, and whether they have the cards, but I’m pretty sure they feel thwarted.
People who want to help Danielle Smith last longer as UCP leader than Jason Kenney: Probably OK with all this.
I’m just not sure the third group is as large as the first two. In fact I’m quite sure I ranked them correctly here, [federalists]>[separatists]>[fans of preserving Smith’s political hide.]
I can’t work up too much anger over all this. Even if it somehow led to a Yes vote to secession on some distant day… look, at some point, a country that could manage to step on that many rakes is one whose descent into bickering would be hard to mourn. But it’s a bit pathetic, isn’t it? This behaviour of Danielle Smith’s, I mean. All this stalling and hedging. A leader could have said, “I want no part of this pointless adventure. You want to take Alberta out of Canada and deliver it to the United States, you’re going to have to go through me.” A leader of a very different kind could have said, “To hell with this country, we’re out, let’s go.” The person who says, “Please just let me hang on for a few more months” is… not leading.
This whole scenario is a debacle on Danielle Smith’s head. . Comes at a terrible time when the country is shifting dramatically out of necessity and working hard to build resilience. I am furious that US political interests are supporting the intended chaos of a traitorous small cabal of ill informed separatists -and Danielle Smith’s weaselly leadership - who are undermining a lot of good work for Alberta and Canada. What a
waste of time and energy.
Hard to disagree with your conclusion: "A leader could have said, “I want no part of this pointless adventure. You want to take Alberta out of Canada and deliver it to the United States, you’re going to have to go through me.” A leader of a very different kind could have said, “To hell with this country, we’re out, let’s go.” The person who says, “Please just let me hang on for a few more months” is… not leading."