I’m against Alberta separation. I think it’s economically reckless, constitutionally chaotic, and driven more by alienation than by a serious governing vision.
But I’m increasingly unconvinced by the argument that the way to defeat separatism is through procedural containment rather than open political defeat.
Danielle Smith openly campaigned on expanding citizen-led referendum mechanisms. The petition process was lawful. The threshold was reached. At that point, I don’t see how refusing to let the question proceed strengthens democratic legitimacy. In fact, it risks validating the separatist narrative that certain political conclusions are institutionally forbidden no matter how much public support they gather.
Your piece repeatedly slides from “this is dangerous” to “therefore it should not be allowed.” But danger alone is not a democratic principle. If lawful democratic mechanisms only apply to questions respectable elites are comfortable with, then they are not really democratic mechanisms at all.
And I think the “foreign interference/MAGA” framing weakens your argument more than it strengthens it. Alberta alienation did not begin with Trump, ibots, or American influencers. It predates all of that by decades. COVID resentment, equalization grievances, pipeline obstruction, the Emergencies Act, and cultural contempt toward Alberta are overwhelmingly domestic phenomena. Foreign actors may opportunistically amplify existing tensions, but amplification is not causation.
Invoking foreign influence too heavily starts to sound less like analysis and more like a way of psychologically externalizing a genuinely Canadian political rupture.
The deeper irony here is that the original separatist petition gets struck down before voters can even weigh in, and then a federalist petition becomes the vehicle for a referendum anyway. The whole process now risks looking improvised, managerial, and outcome-directed rather than principled.
I don’t think Canada survives because dangerous questions are procedurally blocked. I think it survives if those questions can be openly asked, openly debated, and openly defeated without citizens concluding the system would never permit certain answers in the first place.
My fundamental position on this is that if separatists are serious -- and have a serious plan and vision -- then they should go about it in a serious way. Stand a party. Run candidates. Win power via an election. That's what precedent demands; that's what's required to run a referendum with legitimacy.
What's happening here isn't serious or legitimate. It's just another tactic against a series of tactics in order to salvage a fundamentally broken political project (the UCP.)
It also happens to be dangerous, yes. But I'd be much more fine with danger if we had chosen that danger collectively and legitimately. JG
I think your clarification is stronger than much of the original piece, and I like that alternative world better than the one we are in. If separatists are serious, forcing them to build a governing project first, run candidates, publish a plan, survive scrutiny, and win an explicit mandate is a healthy democratic discipline. That process alone could puncture a lot of the romanticism driving the movement.
But I still can’t get past this: Alberta lawfully created a citizen initiated referendum mechanism, Smith openly campaigned on expanding it, and the threshold was reached through a lawful process. The higher standard you’re now articulating was not really articulated before the result became politically alarming.
From the perspective of alienated Albertans, the sequence now looks like this: the lawful petition gets struck down, courts intervene early, the premier is expected to contain the process, and commentators explain why the question itself falls outside what democracy may legitimately entertain.
Even if the legal reasoning is defensible, that perception matters. Once people conclude certain political conclusions are institutionally impossible regardless of support, every future defeat risks becoming evidence the system is managed rather than responsive.
So I think there are actually two separate claims here. “Separatists should demonstrate serious governing competence before pursuing this” is a strong argument. “Therefore this lawful process lacked legitimacy and needed to be stopped” still requires a clearer principle than “the outcome became dangerous.”
“and the threshold was reached through a lawful process.”
The Separatist’s petition has not been verified by a hobbled Elections Alberta, and given the shenanigans with Centurion and the Voter’s List, I for one seriously doubt that it’s legitimate. One of the most significant parts of a scam is to get people acting before they have time to really consider what’s happening- sound familiar?
“and the threshold was reached through a lawful process.”
The Separatist’s petition has not been verified by a hobbled Elections Alberta, and given the shenanigans with Centurion and the Voter’s List, I for one seriously doubt that it’s legitimate. One of the most significant parts of a scam is to get people acting before they have tome to really consider what’s happening- sound familiar?
If I’m way out to lunch they win 3. Keep in mind where this vote lives. It’s on the right of the UCP base. Thats the other problem, they have to split the Conservative vote if they run as separatists. We’ve seen that movie before in AB - the math doesn’t work.
Here’s the other thing Sean, I’ve been around the block long enough to know people love to talk about fighting - right up until the moment it get real and the potential consequences become apparent. How many business owners are willing to risk everything they’ve built up- along with their lifestyles for a pipe dream? How many middle class people with 2 ATV’s in the garage and a toy hauler parked beside it? Make no mistake, when the crowd behind the ramble rousers understands they may end up punched in the face if this fight happens - you’ll see them slowly fade away into the background, or quietly switch sides back.
I'm curious: should Alberta have the same deal in confederation as Quebec? (I grew up in Calgary when my family moved there in 1980. I've been around the block as well.)
You may be right about them slowly fading away. For me, it isn't going away. The NEP is embedded in the fabric of the province. I would be curious to learn the number of people on the separatist side who lived through the NEP. It destroyed people's lives and crushed the economy in Alberta. It was deliberate wealth transfer from Alberta to Ottawa as I remember.
Another element is that Alberta was demonized by Katy Perry's BF. For a decade. There is anger in the land. The world changed since pandemic and I think we are now solidly in the realm of 'buckle up".
Lots of viewpoints. I don’t have a dog in this fight except to the extent that successful attacks on freedom anywhere encourages additional and stronger ones. And Canadians seem to be quite content being ruled by unaccountable elites. And having seen Canadian freedoms of my youth destroyed by commie Quebec French carpetbaggers in government at least a free Alberta would be ruled by homegrown elites and not central Canada Laurentians who are essentially foreigners holding alien values and imposing these on the subjects.
Jen, thank you for calling it out so clearly. The hardcore separatists (the ones who really want to leave, not just build their political clout) have no intention of going through a generation of Clarity Act and First Nations treaty negotiations. They just want Trump to declare that the U.S. is recognizing Alberta and take it by force.
They know Alberta will never be an independent country. They want to join Trump’s USA.
I think this really could happen, and it should keep us all up at night.
My logic is: there is no way Alberta can actually stand as an independent country, and this is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature Fahrenheit who thinks about it deeply.
The Alberta separatist leaders, while I may hate them for what they’re trying to do to the country, are certainly not dumb, and have certainly studied the problem. So they must know that the endgame is US annexation. And are pursuing this path anyway.
Bolivia, Switzerland, Chad, Nepal, and Mongolia all seem to be independent countries, and you can make a case for Luxembourg. Why is it so obvious that Alberta can't?
Bolivia, Chad, Nepal, and Mongolia are not anything any sane person currently living in AB wants to emulate. Luxembourg is in the EU, and Switzerland is in everything but name (and has a long and storied history as a neutral European power who plays all sides). Both euro countries are pursing more integration with their neighbors - not less.
Bolivia's economic growth has been severely stunted since it lost coastal access in its war with Chile. There's a reason 80% of Switzerland's exports take the form of low-volume, high-value products like watches and precious stones. Mongolia is dominated by China. Nepal is dominated by India. 45% of the citizens of Chad live below the poverty line.
Geoff is correct. If Alberta secedes, the only realistic play is annexation by the United States. The separatism movement relies on a critical mass of people who lie about this or don't understand this to manage the minimal popularity it's got.
“ Alberta separatist leaders, while I may hate them for what they’re trying to do to the country, are certainly not dumb, and have certainly studied the problem. So they must know that the endgame is US annexation. And are pursuing this path anyway.”
I agree with everything you have said except this. They are. Truly. Trust me. You are 100% on point - AB cannot/will-not survive as an independent nation. But there will be no one more surprised to that reality than AB’s separatist leaders. They are not MAGA operatives, just delusional dimwits.
Can I remind you Jen, that it's not only Alberta that is unhappy with with how our Eastern brothers and sisters have been governing the country for the past 100+ years. The federal government has no intention of changing the way things are constitutionally right now in Canada. Why would they? If the 'Laurentions' haven't started a dialog by now, to address the issues that we feel need to be addressed, it ain't happening. Thank God we have Alberta leading the charge!
The AB Separatists need to take a look at Quebec and what happened to business investments there during periods of legal uncertainty. AB Separatists think that money will flow into the province after separation, but they are delusional. Corps will actually move out, at least on a temporary basis, until uncertainty lessens.
This whole movement is just destroying the trust and stability of the province so some grifty losers who haven't accomplished anything since high school student counsel.
Well, we have the precise wording on the referendum question:
"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?"
Clearly, Danielle Smith has shown that she really, really is a federalist and not whatsoever a separatist. The question is a really weird one in so many ways.
This is such a muddied question so that when you go to vote on it, you don't know what it means to vote "yes" and you don't know what it means to say "no". So, if you vote yes because you want Alberta to remain in Canada, what does the "or" mean? In other words, when you vote yes have you told the government to start the process for a referendum and so forth? Alternatively, if you vote no because you want to separate, what does the first part mean? The folks in the provincial government are not fools; they know that this is incredibly confusing. And that seems to be their aim: confuse the electorate so that the government can take any result and ignore it.
Oh, yeah, and this is a vote to potentially hold another vote.
All of this is so unclear that there is no way that this can be called a clear question as required by the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference decision.
The futility of this question has me thinking that it is so meaningless that I probably will not vote on this question because I don't know what it means. And if I don't vote on this question perhaps I won't vote at all in this referendum.
The truth is, this is such an underhanded way of dealing with this that I can see the separatists boycotting it and continuing to agitate for separation.
Well, Ken, I have much sympathy for your views and your exasperation. The only thing that will make the situation worse is if aboriginals or others run off to court to challenge the vote process or impede its implimentation. And I can only imagine the deluge of US influence that will be exerted, whether it is "legal" or not. Which is to say: what can realistically be done to prevent the US from financing the Alberta "freedom fighters" as they will undoubtedly be portrayed. It will be a big mess.
US movie stars and other glitterati are not in Canada as they were when they were pushing woke causes. The US capitol, both parties are consumed with other things. Do you have any evidence that the US parties are doing anything other than listening politely when an unelected person from Alberta shows up?
I have no evidence of any particular action of the US. But having worked my way therough the enquiry commission on foreign interference, I was persuaded that there would not be much that Canada could do about it, even
if there were interference. By the US or China or Russia or whomever.
Presumably the choice will be "a or b". The too-clever-by-half federalists have created a situation where the question isn't clear but the risk of voting for secession is lowered. Unfortunately for them, and Canada, I think any pro-secession result will create unstoppable momentum.
This isn’t the question on the forever Canadian petition. It was clear. Something like do you agree that Alberta should remain part of Canada. Not this word salad that Smith is proposing.
They should have that exact question with the only answers "yes" and "no" with no further clarification. If asked, just say "the question is clear". Over and over. The result would probably be just over 50% one way or the other. Then after the fact decide what "yes" and "no" mean. Perfection.
I agree it’s a muddled question with weasel words. Leaving interpretation of whatever the answer turns out to be to the ruling elites. So you now have Alberta weasels dealing with Laurentian and French Quebec civil service weasels. Political, media, legal, consultant, and Indian chief six and seven figure salaried jobs are guaranteed for a few years. And Canadian industry will continue to operate with 20th century technologies since nobody will invest is such a goat rodeo.
I might add: it is important, though, that the question be framed in way such that the "yes" or "no" is clear and leads unambigously to a result. The compound nature of the question may be troublesome, despite my reference below to the perils of further court involvement.
Well, Richard, the question is simply unanswerable as written and both yes and no can be interpreted to mean (simultaneously) the same thing or the opposite thing. Or whatever.
It is truly an abomination of a question.
The ultimate result can be interpreted in any way that the federalist side chooses. There is no way that the separatist side can win with that question. For that reason, I suspect that the separatists may call for a boycott and, if such a boycott were successful, it would very much call into question any result and probably damage the federalist cause.
A format or instruction of "check box A or B to signify your choice," would probably sort out any ambiguity. The possible problem of "foreign interference" by the US, Russia, Chiina or whomever, is potentially more troublesome, since there is not an easy way to prevent it or to penalize penalize for it. A cynic might suggest that it is intentionally framed to raise issues under the "Clarity Act" (i.e. not a clear question). Or it could be just inept. I decliine to speculate.
I don’t think you’re understanding. It has to be a yes or no answer. And the 2 questions are contradictory no matter what you want. It’s as poorly written as the other questions. Which is already planned to not answer because there patently dumb.
No, the grammar is unclear. There are 2 questions with different answers. If you answer the first question one way you’re answering the other question in the opposite way. It doesn’t make sense. (But most of the petition questions don’t.)
I may not vote if that’s the actual question. If enough people don’t vote that also means the clarity act really comes into play as it doesn’t reflect a majority of voters. Though it won’t pass on the clarity question alone.
Gosh I wish the 2027 election was here. Can’t wait to kick the UCP out of government.
Kickin' piece Jen, thank you. Was raised in Alberta and well-aware of legitimate grievances but I'm tired of citizens and politicians who rely on divisiveness to get attention, and waste untold resources in the process.
This situation was brought about primarily by Eastern Canadian boomers choosing to mistreat and disrespect Alberta over an extended period. We had our chance to step back from the brink last year, and decided that giving Trump, and our fellow Canadians in Alberta, the finger, felt better.
The federalists didn’t do any such thing. The First Nations launched a lawsuit, the courts decided. Federalists may have cheered that outcome, but they didn’t cause it.
(Okay, go ahead, argue that Section 35 and treaty rights are just part of the same Cathedral as the Laurentian Canadians or whatever.)
An Ottawa-funded band, cheered on by federalist media, put the question to a federalist judge, who made an outcome-oriented choice that would get her lionized among the people she cares about. And the federalists all gloated. Oopsie.
So now the other side gets to gloat.
This is the inevitable outcome of "living constitution" thinking.
What are you on about— ACFN are not federalists, they’re looking out for themselves. Also on what grounds do you say the judge was a “federalist”. The decision seems pretty clearly based in neutral law to me. Secession breaks the Treaty rights that are guaranteed by S.35.
You can claim that S.35 needs to change, maybe, but it’s there right now and the judge had to rule according to our Constitution. If not Canadian law, on what basis should the decision be made?
Federalists gloating has nothing to do with the decision itself, you’re just getting emotional over it.
You’re just doing the “everyone I disagree with is part of some giant woke Laurentian Cathedral Indigo Blob” thing. It isn’t a logical argument.
How do you think the legal system is cheating? Votes have to be legal to be democratic. But the separatist movement hasn’t actually done anything democratically. They sent unelected representatives to the US to supposedly negotiate with the US, claim to have secured a promise of a loan from Trump, and more. All without having elected a single separatist. Thats not democracy and there is no reason to believe that Alberta would remain a democracy if it separated.
Also, the government isn’t behaving democratically - the forever Canadian petition was filed in a way designed not to go to referendum but have the legislature vote on it instead. And the citizen referendum act requires the question that is going to be asked is word for word. So Smith is not following the actual democratic rules by making up her own question and then claiming it’s what the forever Canadian signers wanted.
I wonder what happens if all the people who signed to stay in Canada contact elections Alberta to withdraw their name and then it falls below the threshold. I plan to find out.
Let's all think back to the article last week where the author waved a court ruling in everyone's face as "peace in our time and also nyah nyah fuck those guys". As I predicted, this did less than nothing to resolve the separatism issue and only made things worse.
You can't defeat mass anger and resentment by denying it expression through procedure. Even lavish Canadian procedure that seems so well-reasoned and high-minded at every stage, while also putting its thumb on the scale to assure the "correct" outcome.
Eastern Canada is going to face the consequences for what they did in 2025. I'm not sure how bad those will be, but we aren't going to avoid finding out through legal machinations.
"Now the only tool remaining to call a secession referendum is the Referendum Act. But the Referendum Act is a top-down tool: only the provincial government can use it to call a referendum, at the provincial government’s sole discretion. There’s no populist movement of grifters, turncoats, and useful idiots to hide behind.
Danielle Smith has to do it herself."
And here's the thing, dude: she didn't do it. She called a referendum about having a referendum instead. She has chosen to force separatists to win a referendum just to initiate the preparation for scheduling a real referendum. They're calling for her head.
Separatism's best shot at secession died last week. This is a much worse Plan B.
This is way worse than having them lose in a clear referendum. This won't do anything to put the issue to bed.
As others including Jen Gerson have pointed out, a non-binding referendum runs the risk of unserious 'protest votes' actually putting the thing over the top and making separatists believe they have more support than they do.
This referendum also presents the federalists with a tough choice: campaign as if it will lead to secession, or campaign as if it could only lead to a future referendum?
But I have zero sympathy for them: this is the inevitable result of using procedural tricks to prevent a clear democratic consultation.
Most of the federalists think there is a very substantial risk of a referendum voting for secession, which is why they support any possible move to prevent a referendum - they feel that's safer.
"Peace in our time and also nyah nyah fuck those guys" could replace "peace, order, and good government" or "A mari usque and mare" as our real national motto.
The federalists just won, dude. There was going to be a referendum on separation in October that, if the separatists had won it, would have obliged the rest of Canada to come to the negotiating table to discuss secession.
That referendum is still dead, replaced with a referendum about whether to have a referendum. There's a reason Jeffrey Rath is furious at Danielle Smith right now.
I find it fascinating that Jen and so many commentators cannot see the 'patriotic' hypocrisy hard at work here but hidden behind 'procedure'. For all the invective aimed at 'Alberta separatists' brimming with righteous indignation for procedural respect, there's the not so tacit support for the same tactics used by the 'federal government'. In other words, if the same arguments were applied equally between Alberta and the federal ruling parties not for procedure but patriotic fervor of effects, we would see the same invective arguments highlighting the same 'unrighteous' disdain and criticism.
But we don't.
"Democracy requires our elected officials tell us what they actually believe and what they plan to do before putting those beliefs into action."
Come on; when applied to the federal level, this is just way too funny to let pass. The most recent example is Bill C22 where Jen's - and every Canadian's - digital privacy is being raped and she hasn't a peep of similar outrage about electioneering on it. Or giving away sovereignty to 'indigenous tribes'... often in secret... often involving non elected indigenous activists... creating a non-platformed co-government political arrangement. Nothing to see here. But some Albertans wanting a different arrangement? Deranged, apparently.
Or, "simply holding the vote opens the whole country up to an unpredictable cauldron of economic and political consequences, in addition to God-knows what foreign interference."
And this is somehow far more reprehensible than sliding the federal government from minority to majority status by backroom dealings (not bribery, of course, never that, with nary a thought about nation-breaking corruption versus those dastardly public separatists and oh-so-selfish Albertan Bigwigs who REALLY threaten the country, donchaknow) with dramatic consequences like ending the public's view of various investigative Committees. And we do not talk about the economic and political effects of Carney's wife in her professional role, now do we? Shhh.. Because this anti-democratic power grab is procedurally permitted, we're good with it. Because, as Jen has patiently explained, it's a really important procedural right of parliamentarians to have some political sway.... versus the lesser elected sway of the rest of Canada, I guess. Procedure must carry the day. .
Or how about spending vast sums of public money we don't have on all manner of economically dubious 'investments'. Batteries? A sure thing for how many billions? Procedurally correct investment. Are we tired of all that house building yet? How about all that national infrastructure building, faster, stronger, higher than ever? Swallow it all, people, and feel the patriotic bulge settle somewhere around the middle; we'll call it 'muscle' because that's procedurally allowed.
Diverting attention from national crumbling with glowing words seems to be the new and improved role of media these days and making sure nothing gets fixed has us standing on guard for thee. Procedure, baby. But, hey, what's a few hundred million more between treaty friends in 'Canada', a few billion more here and there for our national leaders to appear important in European eyes than we really are in practice? Let's even toy with membership to the EU. Can we get our Air Force General - fitting all the diversity boxes, of course - appointed to head up NATO defense? Procedurally it must looks great when we can't even hit recruitment targets or buy military planes - you know, things that once flew combat sorties? - for the New and Improved CAF. Nothing to write about, of course, with anywhere near the same level of righteous invective.
But the huge discrepancy between Albertan separatism and the post's "God-knows what' foreign interference? Oh my. While the country opens its doors to a vast and growing network of known Chinese interference? We'll call this version a 'strategic partnership'. But the dastardly Americans who have security skin in our losing game? Intolerable. Questionable procedures. And we can't have that.
God forbid we hold those who see a country unable in practice to legally affect or curtail massive 'foreign money' laundering, that cannot get meaningful convictions on cartel and gang activities involving billions of lethal doses of illegal drugs to explain why should be a part of that? But Alberta separation? THERE'S the real threat to economic and political stability and ripe with foreign interference! Are you kidding me? But sure, a good rant or two will surely help. It's a good procedure for one's mental health. It's the target I'm questioning.
When the PQ won the provincial election in '76, the G&M cartoonist had a depiction of a quizzical M. Levesque over the caption "Everyone, just take a Valium". Everyone, just take an Valium.
It wasn't long ago that the Mr. Lukaszuk, author of the Forever Canadian petition, was being lauded by federalists for taking the initiative. Including The Line. How is that working out? At the time it was pointed out that he was taking a knife to a gun fight. His question is a freebie for disgruntled Albertans, as a vote against remaining isn't, formally, a vote for leaving.
The separatists do not seem to have much of a plan. Same for the federalists. Ms. Smith has a plan, and all this plays into her Sovereign Alberta within Canada idea. Not that different from M. Levesque's "Sovereignty-Association" idea.
Keep it up. Really great work here, your original discovery of the election list leak, and your follow-up commentary and analysis. Your analysis of relative silence of Conservative MPs from Alberta would also be of interest.
Say what you will about Rene Levesque, at least he was honest about his intention — even if his referendum question was a muddled mess to make Danielle Smith proud. Actually, let me rephrase that, at least Rene Levesque *had* intentions.
For the sake of Alberta, hopefully sanity will return before every credible investor has fled. As for separatism itself, judging by Quebec that malaise is permanent, and judging by the UK the supporters of separatism will never care how utterly self-defeating it is.
This is political suicide for Danielle Smith. I’m surprised she doesn’t realize it. Even my mom in rural Alberta is viewing her as a separatist now. Which means the scene is ripe for the Tories to move in and take leadership away from the UCP. (Or really any viable party.)
Agreed. The thesis of my article the other day essentially amounted to "after that court decision, Danielle Smith can no longer ride two horses". She kept trying to do so this week, and now she's probably riding none. The separatists are furious with her for making the referendum non-binding, and she's won over zero federalists by going ahead with a secession referendum at all, non-binding or not.
I’m against Alberta separation. I think it’s economically reckless, constitutionally chaotic, and driven more by alienation than by a serious governing vision.
But I’m increasingly unconvinced by the argument that the way to defeat separatism is through procedural containment rather than open political defeat.
Danielle Smith openly campaigned on expanding citizen-led referendum mechanisms. The petition process was lawful. The threshold was reached. At that point, I don’t see how refusing to let the question proceed strengthens democratic legitimacy. In fact, it risks validating the separatist narrative that certain political conclusions are institutionally forbidden no matter how much public support they gather.
Your piece repeatedly slides from “this is dangerous” to “therefore it should not be allowed.” But danger alone is not a democratic principle. If lawful democratic mechanisms only apply to questions respectable elites are comfortable with, then they are not really democratic mechanisms at all.
And I think the “foreign interference/MAGA” framing weakens your argument more than it strengthens it. Alberta alienation did not begin with Trump, ibots, or American influencers. It predates all of that by decades. COVID resentment, equalization grievances, pipeline obstruction, the Emergencies Act, and cultural contempt toward Alberta are overwhelmingly domestic phenomena. Foreign actors may opportunistically amplify existing tensions, but amplification is not causation.
Invoking foreign influence too heavily starts to sound less like analysis and more like a way of psychologically externalizing a genuinely Canadian political rupture.
The deeper irony here is that the original separatist petition gets struck down before voters can even weigh in, and then a federalist petition becomes the vehicle for a referendum anyway. The whole process now risks looking improvised, managerial, and outcome-directed rather than principled.
I don’t think Canada survives because dangerous questions are procedurally blocked. I think it survives if those questions can be openly asked, openly debated, and openly defeated without citizens concluding the system would never permit certain answers in the first place.
My fundamental position on this is that if separatists are serious -- and have a serious plan and vision -- then they should go about it in a serious way. Stand a party. Run candidates. Win power via an election. That's what precedent demands; that's what's required to run a referendum with legitimacy.
What's happening here isn't serious or legitimate. It's just another tactic against a series of tactics in order to salvage a fundamentally broken political project (the UCP.)
It also happens to be dangerous, yes. But I'd be much more fine with danger if we had chosen that danger collectively and legitimately. JG
I think your clarification is stronger than much of the original piece, and I like that alternative world better than the one we are in. If separatists are serious, forcing them to build a governing project first, run candidates, publish a plan, survive scrutiny, and win an explicit mandate is a healthy democratic discipline. That process alone could puncture a lot of the romanticism driving the movement.
But I still can’t get past this: Alberta lawfully created a citizen initiated referendum mechanism, Smith openly campaigned on expanding it, and the threshold was reached through a lawful process. The higher standard you’re now articulating was not really articulated before the result became politically alarming.
From the perspective of alienated Albertans, the sequence now looks like this: the lawful petition gets struck down, courts intervene early, the premier is expected to contain the process, and commentators explain why the question itself falls outside what democracy may legitimately entertain.
Even if the legal reasoning is defensible, that perception matters. Once people conclude certain political conclusions are institutionally impossible regardless of support, every future defeat risks becoming evidence the system is managed rather than responsive.
So I think there are actually two separate claims here. “Separatists should demonstrate serious governing competence before pursuing this” is a strong argument. “Therefore this lawful process lacked legitimacy and needed to be stopped” still requires a clearer principle than “the outcome became dangerous.”
“and the threshold was reached through a lawful process.”
The Separatist’s petition has not been verified by a hobbled Elections Alberta, and given the shenanigans with Centurion and the Voter’s List, I for one seriously doubt that it’s legitimate. One of the most significant parts of a scam is to get people acting before they have time to really consider what’s happening- sound familiar?
“and the threshold was reached through a lawful process.”
The Separatist’s petition has not been verified by a hobbled Elections Alberta, and given the shenanigans with Centurion and the Voter’s List, I for one seriously doubt that it’s legitimate. One of the most significant parts of a scam is to get people acting before they have tome to really consider what’s happening- sound familiar?
How many seats would a separatist Alberta party win in a provincial election ?
Two would be a stretch - probably zero.
What if you're wrong?
If I’m way out to lunch they win 3. Keep in mind where this vote lives. It’s on the right of the UCP base. Thats the other problem, they have to split the Conservative vote if they run as separatists. We’ve seen that movie before in AB - the math doesn’t work.
Here’s the other thing Sean, I’ve been around the block long enough to know people love to talk about fighting - right up until the moment it get real and the potential consequences become apparent. How many business owners are willing to risk everything they’ve built up- along with their lifestyles for a pipe dream? How many middle class people with 2 ATV’s in the garage and a toy hauler parked beside it? Make no mistake, when the crowd behind the ramble rousers understands they may end up punched in the face if this fight happens - you’ll see them slowly fade away into the background, or quietly switch sides back.
I'm curious: should Alberta have the same deal in confederation as Quebec? (I grew up in Calgary when my family moved there in 1980. I've been around the block as well.)
You may be right about them slowly fading away. For me, it isn't going away. The NEP is embedded in the fabric of the province. I would be curious to learn the number of people on the separatist side who lived through the NEP. It destroyed people's lives and crushed the economy in Alberta. It was deliberate wealth transfer from Alberta to Ottawa as I remember.
Another element is that Alberta was demonized by Katy Perry's BF. For a decade. There is anger in the land. The world changed since pandemic and I think we are now solidly in the realm of 'buckle up".
Lots of viewpoints. I don’t have a dog in this fight except to the extent that successful attacks on freedom anywhere encourages additional and stronger ones. And Canadians seem to be quite content being ruled by unaccountable elites. And having seen Canadian freedoms of my youth destroyed by commie Quebec French carpetbaggers in government at least a free Alberta would be ruled by homegrown elites and not central Canada Laurentians who are essentially foreigners holding alien values and imposing these on the subjects.
Probably none based on recent by-elections where they ran candidates.
God, I love your writing, Jen.
Jen, thank you for calling it out so clearly. The hardcore separatists (the ones who really want to leave, not just build their political clout) have no intention of going through a generation of Clarity Act and First Nations treaty negotiations. They just want Trump to declare that the U.S. is recognizing Alberta and take it by force.
They know Alberta will never be an independent country. They want to join Trump’s USA.
I think this really could happen, and it should keep us all up at night.
10 downvotes.
Nothing is as well suited to scare voters as a giant straw man.
My logic is: there is no way Alberta can actually stand as an independent country, and this is obvious to anyone with an IQ above room temperature Fahrenheit who thinks about it deeply.
The Alberta separatist leaders, while I may hate them for what they’re trying to do to the country, are certainly not dumb, and have certainly studied the problem. So they must know that the endgame is US annexation. And are pursuing this path anyway.
Bolivia, Switzerland, Chad, Nepal, and Mongolia all seem to be independent countries, and you can make a case for Luxembourg. Why is it so obvious that Alberta can't?
Bolivia, Chad, Nepal, and Mongolia are not anything any sane person currently living in AB wants to emulate. Luxembourg is in the EU, and Switzerland is in everything but name (and has a long and storied history as a neutral European power who plays all sides). Both euro countries are pursing more integration with their neighbors - not less.
Bolivia's economic growth has been severely stunted since it lost coastal access in its war with Chile. There's a reason 80% of Switzerland's exports take the form of low-volume, high-value products like watches and precious stones. Mongolia is dominated by China. Nepal is dominated by India. 45% of the citizens of Chad live below the poverty line.
Geoff is correct. If Alberta secedes, the only realistic play is annexation by the United States. The separatism movement relies on a critical mass of people who lie about this or don't understand this to manage the minimal popularity it's got.
Because Bolivia, Switzerland, Chad, Nepal and Mongolia aren't Alberta. Context, history, culture, none of that aligns. Your examples are irrelevant.
Ah yes, Alberta is sui generis, which is why it will be uniquely unable to maintain its independence. Ok.
“ Alberta separatist leaders, while I may hate them for what they’re trying to do to the country, are certainly not dumb, and have certainly studied the problem. So they must know that the endgame is US annexation. And are pursuing this path anyway.”
I agree with everything you have said except this. They are. Truly. Trust me. You are 100% on point - AB cannot/will-not survive as an independent nation. But there will be no one more surprised to that reality than AB’s separatist leaders. They are not MAGA operatives, just delusional dimwits.
>> They just want Trump to declare that the U.S. is recognizing Alberta and take it by force.<<
Force? Well Canada is already being hit by America's economic power. The only thing left, I guess, is to invade Alberta and take it for their own.
That's a pretty deep insinuation. What would have to exist to believe otherwise?
Can I remind you Jen, that it's not only Alberta that is unhappy with with how our Eastern brothers and sisters have been governing the country for the past 100+ years. The federal government has no intention of changing the way things are constitutionally right now in Canada. Why would they? If the 'Laurentions' haven't started a dialog by now, to address the issues that we feel need to be addressed, it ain't happening. Thank God we have Alberta leading the charge!
The AB Separatists need to take a look at Quebec and what happened to business investments there during periods of legal uncertainty. AB Separatists think that money will flow into the province after separation, but they are delusional. Corps will actually move out, at least on a temporary basis, until uncertainty lessens.
This whole movement is just destroying the trust and stability of the province so some grifty losers who haven't accomplished anything since high school student counsel.
What are the solutions, in your view, that would end this?
Danielle Smith is going to end up making David Cameron look like a genius.
Well, we have the precise wording on the referendum question:
"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?"
Clearly, Danielle Smith has shown that she really, really is a federalist and not whatsoever a separatist. The question is a really weird one in so many ways.
This is such a muddied question so that when you go to vote on it, you don't know what it means to vote "yes" and you don't know what it means to say "no". So, if you vote yes because you want Alberta to remain in Canada, what does the "or" mean? In other words, when you vote yes have you told the government to start the process for a referendum and so forth? Alternatively, if you vote no because you want to separate, what does the first part mean? The folks in the provincial government are not fools; they know that this is incredibly confusing. And that seems to be their aim: confuse the electorate so that the government can take any result and ignore it.
Oh, yeah, and this is a vote to potentially hold another vote.
All of this is so unclear that there is no way that this can be called a clear question as required by the Clarity Act and the Supreme Court reference decision.
The futility of this question has me thinking that it is so meaningless that I probably will not vote on this question because I don't know what it means. And if I don't vote on this question perhaps I won't vote at all in this referendum.
The truth is, this is such an underhanded way of dealing with this that I can see the separatists boycotting it and continuing to agitate for separation.
Well, Ken, I have much sympathy for your views and your exasperation. The only thing that will make the situation worse is if aboriginals or others run off to court to challenge the vote process or impede its implimentation. And I can only imagine the deluge of US influence that will be exerted, whether it is "legal" or not. Which is to say: what can realistically be done to prevent the US from financing the Alberta "freedom fighters" as they will undoubtedly be portrayed. It will be a big mess.
US movie stars and other glitterati are not in Canada as they were when they were pushing woke causes. The US capitol, both parties are consumed with other things. Do you have any evidence that the US parties are doing anything other than listening politely when an unelected person from Alberta shows up?
I have no evidence of any particular action of the US. But having worked my way therough the enquiry commission on foreign interference, I was persuaded that there would not be much that Canada could do about it, even
if there were interference. By the US or China or Russia or whomever.
Presumably the choice will be "a or b". The too-clever-by-half federalists have created a situation where the question isn't clear but the risk of voting for secession is lowered. Unfortunately for them, and Canada, I think any pro-secession result will create unstoppable momentum.
This isn’t the question on the forever Canadian petition. It was clear. Something like do you agree that Alberta should remain part of Canada. Not this word salad that Smith is proposing.
That's a ridiculous question. "Do you agree that nothing should happen" - for how long? A week? A year? Until the sun dies? What's the alternative?
They should have that exact question with the only answers "yes" and "no" with no further clarification. If asked, just say "the question is clear". Over and over. The result would probably be just over 50% one way or the other. Then after the fact decide what "yes" and "no" mean. Perfection.
I agree it’s a muddled question with weasel words. Leaving interpretation of whatever the answer turns out to be to the ruling elites. So you now have Alberta weasels dealing with Laurentian and French Quebec civil service weasels. Political, media, legal, consultant, and Indian chief six and seven figure salaried jobs are guaranteed for a few years. And Canadian industry will continue to operate with 20th century technologies since nobody will invest is such a goat rodeo.
I might add: it is important, though, that the question be framed in way such that the "yes" or "no" is clear and leads unambigously to a result. The compound nature of the question may be troublesome, despite my reference below to the perils of further court involvement.
Well, Richard, the question is simply unanswerable as written and both yes and no can be interpreted to mean (simultaneously) the same thing or the opposite thing. Or whatever.
It is truly an abomination of a question.
The ultimate result can be interpreted in any way that the federalist side chooses. There is no way that the separatist side can win with that question. For that reason, I suspect that the separatists may call for a boycott and, if such a boycott were successful, it would very much call into question any result and probably damage the federalist cause.
A format or instruction of "check box A or B to signify your choice," would probably sort out any ambiguity. The possible problem of "foreign interference" by the US, Russia, Chiina or whomever, is potentially more troublesome, since there is not an easy way to prevent it or to penalize penalize for it. A cynic might suggest that it is intentionally framed to raise issues under the "Clarity Act" (i.e. not a clear question). Or it could be just inept. I decliine to speculate.
I don’t think you’re understanding. It has to be a yes or no answer. And the 2 questions are contradictory no matter what you want. It’s as poorly written as the other questions. Which is already planned to not answer because there patently dumb.
I think it's obvious as long as there are two option boxes and you have to pick one. Okay, maybe add an I don't care box.
No, the grammar is unclear. There are 2 questions with different answers. If you answer the first question one way you’re answering the other question in the opposite way. It doesn’t make sense. (But most of the petition questions don’t.)
I may not vote if that’s the actual question. If enough people don’t vote that also means the clarity act really comes into play as it doesn’t reflect a majority of voters. Though it won’t pass on the clarity question alone.
Gosh I wish the 2027 election was here. Can’t wait to kick the UCP out of government.
I cannot wait to vote no and put an end to this nonsense. Gone on for too long now
This was always the only honest way to defeat secession.
Absolutely 100%
Kickin' piece Jen, thank you. Was raised in Alberta and well-aware of legitimate grievances but I'm tired of citizens and politicians who rely on divisiveness to get attention, and waste untold resources in the process.
So you are basically tired of politics
lol when you put it like that —yeah I suppose so!
Boo hoo. That's what the federalists get for trying to cheat their opponents out of a democratic vote. Serves them right.
TLDR: who do those people think they are?
This situation was brought about primarily by Eastern Canadian boomers choosing to mistreat and disrespect Alberta over an extended period. We had our chance to step back from the brink last year, and decided that giving Trump, and our fellow Canadians in Alberta, the finger, felt better.
Elbows Up!
The federalists didn’t do any such thing. The First Nations launched a lawsuit, the courts decided. Federalists may have cheered that outcome, but they didn’t cause it.
(Okay, go ahead, argue that Section 35 and treaty rights are just part of the same Cathedral as the Laurentian Canadians or whatever.)
An Ottawa-funded band, cheered on by federalist media, put the question to a federalist judge, who made an outcome-oriented choice that would get her lionized among the people she cares about. And the federalists all gloated. Oopsie.
So now the other side gets to gloat.
This is the inevitable outcome of "living constitution" thinking.
What are you on about— ACFN are not federalists, they’re looking out for themselves. Also on what grounds do you say the judge was a “federalist”. The decision seems pretty clearly based in neutral law to me. Secession breaks the Treaty rights that are guaranteed by S.35.
You can claim that S.35 needs to change, maybe, but it’s there right now and the judge had to rule according to our Constitution. If not Canadian law, on what basis should the decision be made?
Federalists gloating has nothing to do with the decision itself, you’re just getting emotional over it.
You’re just doing the “everyone I disagree with is part of some giant woke Laurentian Cathedral Indigo Blob” thing. It isn’t a logical argument.
Did the feds appoint the judge? Where does ACFN get its money?
How do you think the legal system is cheating? Votes have to be legal to be democratic. But the separatist movement hasn’t actually done anything democratically. They sent unelected representatives to the US to supposedly negotiate with the US, claim to have secured a promise of a loan from Trump, and more. All without having elected a single separatist. Thats not democracy and there is no reason to believe that Alberta would remain a democracy if it separated.
Also, the government isn’t behaving democratically - the forever Canadian petition was filed in a way designed not to go to referendum but have the legislature vote on it instead. And the citizen referendum act requires the question that is going to be asked is word for word. So Smith is not following the actual democratic rules by making up her own question and then claiming it’s what the forever Canadian signers wanted.
I wonder what happens if all the people who signed to stay in Canada contact elections Alberta to withdraw their name and then it falls below the threshold. I plan to find out.
Infantile response.
Let's all think back to the article last week where the author waved a court ruling in everyone's face as "peace in our time and also nyah nyah fuck those guys". As I predicted, this did less than nothing to resolve the separatism issue and only made things worse.
You can't defeat mass anger and resentment by denying it expression through procedure. Even lavish Canadian procedure that seems so well-reasoned and high-minded at every stage, while also putting its thumb on the scale to assure the "correct" outcome.
Eastern Canada is going to face the consequences for what they did in 2025. I'm not sure how bad those will be, but we aren't going to avoid finding out through legal machinations.
This is what I wrote:
"Now the only tool remaining to call a secession referendum is the Referendum Act. But the Referendum Act is a top-down tool: only the provincial government can use it to call a referendum, at the provincial government’s sole discretion. There’s no populist movement of grifters, turncoats, and useful idiots to hide behind.
Danielle Smith has to do it herself."
And here's the thing, dude: she didn't do it. She called a referendum about having a referendum instead. She has chosen to force separatists to win a referendum just to initiate the preparation for scheduling a real referendum. They're calling for her head.
Separatism's best shot at secession died last week. This is a much worse Plan B.
This is way worse than having them lose in a clear referendum. This won't do anything to put the issue to bed.
As others including Jen Gerson have pointed out, a non-binding referendum runs the risk of unserious 'protest votes' actually putting the thing over the top and making separatists believe they have more support than they do.
This referendum also presents the federalists with a tough choice: campaign as if it will lead to secession, or campaign as if it could only lead to a future referendum?
But I have zero sympathy for them: this is the inevitable result of using procedural tricks to prevent a clear democratic consultation.
Most of the federalists think there is a very substantial risk of a referendum voting for secession, which is why they support any possible move to prevent a referendum - they feel that's safer.
"Peace in our time and also nyah nyah fuck those guys" could replace "peace, order, and good government" or "A mari usque and mare" as our real national motto.
The federalists just won, dude. There was going to be a referendum on separation in October that, if the separatists had won it, would have obliged the rest of Canada to come to the negotiating table to discuss secession.
That referendum is still dead, replaced with a referendum about whether to have a referendum. There's a reason Jeffrey Rath is furious at Danielle Smith right now.
I find it fascinating that Jen and so many commentators cannot see the 'patriotic' hypocrisy hard at work here but hidden behind 'procedure'. For all the invective aimed at 'Alberta separatists' brimming with righteous indignation for procedural respect, there's the not so tacit support for the same tactics used by the 'federal government'. In other words, if the same arguments were applied equally between Alberta and the federal ruling parties not for procedure but patriotic fervor of effects, we would see the same invective arguments highlighting the same 'unrighteous' disdain and criticism.
But we don't.
"Democracy requires our elected officials tell us what they actually believe and what they plan to do before putting those beliefs into action."
Come on; when applied to the federal level, this is just way too funny to let pass. The most recent example is Bill C22 where Jen's - and every Canadian's - digital privacy is being raped and she hasn't a peep of similar outrage about electioneering on it. Or giving away sovereignty to 'indigenous tribes'... often in secret... often involving non elected indigenous activists... creating a non-platformed co-government political arrangement. Nothing to see here. But some Albertans wanting a different arrangement? Deranged, apparently.
Or, "simply holding the vote opens the whole country up to an unpredictable cauldron of economic and political consequences, in addition to God-knows what foreign interference."
And this is somehow far more reprehensible than sliding the federal government from minority to majority status by backroom dealings (not bribery, of course, never that, with nary a thought about nation-breaking corruption versus those dastardly public separatists and oh-so-selfish Albertan Bigwigs who REALLY threaten the country, donchaknow) with dramatic consequences like ending the public's view of various investigative Committees. And we do not talk about the economic and political effects of Carney's wife in her professional role, now do we? Shhh.. Because this anti-democratic power grab is procedurally permitted, we're good with it. Because, as Jen has patiently explained, it's a really important procedural right of parliamentarians to have some political sway.... versus the lesser elected sway of the rest of Canada, I guess. Procedure must carry the day. .
Or how about spending vast sums of public money we don't have on all manner of economically dubious 'investments'. Batteries? A sure thing for how many billions? Procedurally correct investment. Are we tired of all that house building yet? How about all that national infrastructure building, faster, stronger, higher than ever? Swallow it all, people, and feel the patriotic bulge settle somewhere around the middle; we'll call it 'muscle' because that's procedurally allowed.
Diverting attention from national crumbling with glowing words seems to be the new and improved role of media these days and making sure nothing gets fixed has us standing on guard for thee. Procedure, baby. But, hey, what's a few hundred million more between treaty friends in 'Canada', a few billion more here and there for our national leaders to appear important in European eyes than we really are in practice? Let's even toy with membership to the EU. Can we get our Air Force General - fitting all the diversity boxes, of course - appointed to head up NATO defense? Procedurally it must looks great when we can't even hit recruitment targets or buy military planes - you know, things that once flew combat sorties? - for the New and Improved CAF. Nothing to write about, of course, with anywhere near the same level of righteous invective.
But the huge discrepancy between Albertan separatism and the post's "God-knows what' foreign interference? Oh my. While the country opens its doors to a vast and growing network of known Chinese interference? We'll call this version a 'strategic partnership'. But the dastardly Americans who have security skin in our losing game? Intolerable. Questionable procedures. And we can't have that.
God forbid we hold those who see a country unable in practice to legally affect or curtail massive 'foreign money' laundering, that cannot get meaningful convictions on cartel and gang activities involving billions of lethal doses of illegal drugs to explain why should be a part of that? But Alberta separation? THERE'S the real threat to economic and political stability and ripe with foreign interference! Are you kidding me? But sure, a good rant or two will surely help. It's a good procedure for one's mental health. It's the target I'm questioning.
When the PQ won the provincial election in '76, the G&M cartoonist had a depiction of a quizzical M. Levesque over the caption "Everyone, just take a Valium". Everyone, just take an Valium.
It wasn't long ago that the Mr. Lukaszuk, author of the Forever Canadian petition, was being lauded by federalists for taking the initiative. Including The Line. How is that working out? At the time it was pointed out that he was taking a knife to a gun fight. His question is a freebie for disgruntled Albertans, as a vote against remaining isn't, formally, a vote for leaving.
The separatists do not seem to have much of a plan. Same for the federalists. Ms. Smith has a plan, and all this plays into her Sovereign Alberta within Canada idea. Not that different from M. Levesque's "Sovereignty-Association" idea.
Plus ça change...
Keep it up. Really great work here, your original discovery of the election list leak, and your follow-up commentary and analysis. Your analysis of relative silence of Conservative MPs from Alberta would also be of interest.
Say what you will about Rene Levesque, at least he was honest about his intention — even if his referendum question was a muddled mess to make Danielle Smith proud. Actually, let me rephrase that, at least Rene Levesque *had* intentions.
For the sake of Alberta, hopefully sanity will return before every credible investor has fled. As for separatism itself, judging by Quebec that malaise is permanent, and judging by the UK the supporters of separatism will never care how utterly self-defeating it is.
What does a 'Yes' even mean? Stay or Go?
This is the neutron bomb for investment though...
Yes means yes, of course! Do you even need to ask? Gosh.
This is political suicide for Danielle Smith. I’m surprised she doesn’t realize it. Even my mom in rural Alberta is viewing her as a separatist now. Which means the scene is ripe for the Tories to move in and take leadership away from the UCP. (Or really any viable party.)
Agreed. The thesis of my article the other day essentially amounted to "after that court decision, Danielle Smith can no longer ride two horses". She kept trying to do so this week, and now she's probably riding none. The separatists are furious with her for making the referendum non-binding, and she's won over zero federalists by going ahead with a secession referendum at all, non-binding or not.