Using lawfare, Liberal-appointed judges, and Liberal-funded chiefs to tell the population that they aren't even allowed to express themselves is the riskiest possible option.
It is literally telling 30% (at least) of Albertans that there is no legal democratic solution within our current political system, despite the clear precedent of Quebec.
I can't thing of anything more likely to lead to trouble, including for the First Nations participating in this folly.
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
The status quo is not the one who has to prove their option superior. The ones wanting to turn life as we know it upside down and destroy the coming and split families and friends for generations are the ones who have to justify it and they won’t be able to even agree amongst themselves about the basics like who gets citizenship or what currency is used. It is folly and I think when the NDP wins the next provincial election the folly will become clear to some. At least it will kill the separatist urge for 4 years since they won’t have even a listening ear in the legislator.
I was UCP but stopped my membership and donations because of this. It was the only way to send a message. I will vote for the new Tory party in the next election though as that’s much more palatable than NDp which is a disaster of its own. But I won’t be surprised if NDP wins.
This is a perfectly reasonable position. The problem is that federalists are manifestly unwilling to make the case democratically, and would rather engage in chicanery to prevent the debate.
Which speaks to a certain lack of confidence in the quality of their argument.
This is not chicanery, to say so, is to show a blatant disregard for Alberta’s origins and its founding peoples. Alberta has obligations to the First Nations. It must show that it is willing to acknowledge and meet those obligations and that requires hearing them out.
On top of that, isn’t it ridiculous that a 100k people can force such a massive constitutional question? Is it really fair to the people to bring this to them when that wasn’t even in the UCP’s mandate? If the petition had 2.5 million signatures, I’d be more concerned about suppressing democracy but it doesn’t
Not really, from my perspective you need 50% + 1 to force a constitutional referendum. Alberta’s 5 million people as I recall so 2.5 million should be the number.
On top of that, it really would be better if Danielle Smith had campaigned on this originally. As is, it’s a gross overextension of her mandate.
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
END QUOTE
As someone who lived in Alberta for half-a-lifetime, and who now lives in another part of Canada (not the only place outside Alberta where I've lived, I would add), I find this to be an astonishing statement to make.
Tell me, is it the case that Albertans who engage their fellow citizens elsewhere in Canada feel "disrespected" or treated "indecently"?
Are there frequent and documented cases of such "disrespect" and "indecent treatment"?
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
Very different from Albertans living out of province - nobody objects to them as people in person.
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
END QUOTE
What people? And in what manner is Alberta being "mistreated financially" by other Canadians?
This reminds me of how Trump makes the case for the outrageous things he does ("we're being treated very badly, very badly by [fill in the blank]").
Who needs substantiation and fact when repeated exaggerations and half-truths (or outright misrepresentation of truth) will do?
Would you say that about a different possibly unconstitutional question?
Say some group wants to have a referendum on denying certain people the right to vote. Let's make it more interesting. It gets challenged in court and there's a court order temporarily preventing that from going on the ballot while a court looks into whether or not it would be constitutional?
This is exactly why Smith wrote the law to exclude unconstitutional questions, which the judge is currently misusing. If there were significant public support for something unconstitutional like that, the public should still be able to express it. But there isn't.
The latest reason which may have strengthened the separation movement is the bogus majority Liberal federal government we (Western Canadians in general) have been lumbered with due to eastern voters and 5 unprincipled MPs who essentially disenfranchised those who voted for them and the party whose banner they ran under by defecting to the Liberals. It’s not a good look.
I'm all for the requirement for a by-election if someone wants to cross the floor. I think the current practice is grossly undemocratic. But there is a certain hypocrisy in calling people "unprincipled" because they leave your party, but you have no issues when they come to yours.
David: when they run under one banner, disparage the other party (see Marilyn Gladu) then compromise everything they’ve portrayed themselves as standing for then I think by any definition they are unprincipled. As to those who cross to your party who could possibly trust them.
It's not my party. I have voted for 4 different ones in the last 5 elections. I hate it every time it has happened at any time, to the benefit of any party, for the reasons mentioned. The voters should have the final say. The nonsense that you elect the candidate and not the party is utter nonsense IMHO.
Personally, I think they should go ahead with the Thomas Lukaszuk question, and run the referendum based on that.
Who cares that he personally doesn't want that? IT was his own folly that got him here - he thought he was being SO clever, co-opting the separatist agenda by setting his own preferred question and gathering his signatures first. His intent was to leverage the "only one question on a topic" rule and bar the separatists from even getting started.
It seems to have not occurred to him until after spending his whole summer running around the province gathering signatures... that ANY yes/no question is, for all intents and purposes, a separatism question.
...at which point he pivoted, and asked for his signatures to NOT be applied to a referendum. Suddenly he wanted the Legislature to hold a "purity test" vote on his question instead, as if that would AT ALL calm the waters on the topic.
And now he and his acolytes try very hard to pretend that he never wanted a referendum, ever - which is just objectively untrue. The people who thronged to sign his petition thought they were signing to agree with a referendum question.
So let's hold a petition based on his question. He did submit the paperwork....
I would hope that Smith could frame her own question using Pro canada language that reflects a clear question with a yes no answer, BUT I do not know the legalities of this. I posted a very similar response to yours, before reading all the comments posted! This has always been my preferred approach for her, especially since it neuters Nenshi in the process!
Hahaha. Of course, the hope would then be that the question wasn't clear enough to count. The biggest challenge for the Alberta separatists (given that Canada is going all out to convince Albertans that they will never be respected within confederation) is to get a Premier actually willing to proceed with secession once there is a mandate. Smith is a federalist, and I'm sure she is furious with her allies for pulling these crazy stunts and putting her in the spot. A federalist victory in a referendum makes the whole issue go away: that's what federalists should be working toward.
Can we truly say we live in a democracy if the rules are written or interpreted in such a way that by trying to exercise the right of choice is not permitted?
I think at this point, it's clear that Ms. Smith isn't on the fence. She's a separatist. She's just dishonest about what she wants because if she had campaigned honestly on it, she'd be "former politician Danielle Smith".
Ridiculous. The separatists have no institutional leaders, and are still polling pretty well. If she were a separatist, she could make a speech saying that, in her opinion, Alberta will never receive respect or fair treatment from Ottawa, and that would boost separatist sentiment over the finish line. Then she would become a Prime Minister, not a Premier.
I think so too. I have met her personally (very briefly) and everything I hear would say she is sincere, bright, and caring, but not bloody-minded or ruthless. She would prefer the status quo, but I think has limits to how much she is willing for Albertans to be humiliated.
What if she uses the Lukasuk question and frames a stay in Canada question... people can vote yes or no on that too? The judge ruled on this referendum, not the other one, which was not challenged. Personally I believe this should have always been her strategy! As Premier she needs to maintain a federalist position, this is a winning question for her, the separatist get to vote no, forever canadian people get to vote yes and the indigenous can decide what they want as well!
What I cannot understand is why the efforts made by the official opposition and its leader in Alberta (former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi) appears to have garnered fairly little attention in the news media outside the province.
Has the effort really been so ineffectual?
I also find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister and his crew think that they have to remain silent. Albertans ARE Canadians and many would likely appreciate some indication of support from outside the province for their embrace of that affiliation.
AC, I am a Calgarian and I despise Nenshi; put that down to having had to live under his maladministration of my city. As for Nenshi's "effectiveness" I simply offer the query, what effectiveness? I have heard only noise from him.
As for Carney et al making comment? I simply want them to mind their own business; this is a matter for Albertans to deal with. Oh, you say, but anything that Alberta decides will affect ROC and therefore .... etc. ... well, ROC doesn't seem to want Alberta as anything but a cash cow so, no, non-Albertans are not welcome to participate in the commentary.
I find it surprising to read your view that non-Albertans (people in the rest of Canada) perceive Alberta as "only a cash cow".
Is that what you saw when you read CBC news reporting about the wildfires that consumed much of Fort McMurray a decade ago, or the town of Jasper, that suffered terribly in 2024?
Is that how flooding in Calgary was handled by the CBC and other "Canadian" news agencies?
What about stories regarding Alberta's marvellous cultural attractions (including the amazing theatre scene in Edmonton and Calgary's magnificent new library)?
There is much interest in and appreciation for Alberta outside the province (in the rest of Canada).
- - -
As for the fiscal issues, I would argue that Canadians for the most part are quite clueless about how Equalization (as a policy) is structured and how it has operated over many decades. Indeed, Albertans do appear to be more sensitized, but I would argue that the main reason for that is the decades during which successive Albertan politicians have talked up / developed a certain narrative for political effect.
Which is not to say that Equalization as a policy is perfect or should not be revisited.
But the separatists are not talking about policy change. They are talking about destroying our country.
You can bet that many, many people (both inside and outside Alberta) are emotionally invested in this as a result.
WRT Mr Nenshi, TBH, I also have serious doubts about his political nous. I think the NDP made a dreadful mistake when they selected him as leader.
The party seems to have a habit of making such mistakes... both provincially and at the federal level (although I thought that Rachel Notley was an excellent politician and provincial premier).
We are well past the too far point. @#$% is going to get real the closer we get to October.
For me, the Sovereignty Act is a game of constitutional chicken. Maybe Smith is betting that Ottawa will blink to avoid a crisis and it's a safe bet the Supreme Court will strike it down ASAP. I think. She can simply ignore court rulings which would likely make Andrew Coyne's head explode.
I think Smith has more to gain than to lose. She can direct provincial ministries to ignore the rulings. She doesn't need to win in court to be effective. If Ottawa fires back at Alberta with the political equivalent of caltrops, then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec. She can threaten to ignore federal environmental regulations; Alberta will protect their projects even if Ottawa doesn't.
A final observation is I suspect an adversarial approach from Ottawa is going to energize separatists and fence sitters in Alberta and definitely in Quebec. My gut tells me this is going to be the biggest issue in Canada this summer into fall.
"... then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec ..."
Sean, the feds have FOREVER had different rules for Quebec than for the remaining nine provinces. Therefore, the feds can say things like, "Oh, but this is different ..." when it is not - but that is the game in Ottawa.
As for Ottawa being adversarial, I suggest that that will not occur prior to the referendum so that Ottawa can attempt to sway the referendum vote against separation. If a referendum vote was (sadly!) defeated then, yes, adversarial is highly likely. If, on the other hand, a referendum vote is successful then adversarial is guaranteed simply because ROC is, under federal law, required to negotiate with Alberta.
Using lawfare, Liberal-appointed judges, and Liberal-funded chiefs to tell the population that they aren't even allowed to express themselves is the riskiest possible option.
It is literally telling 30% (at least) of Albertans that there is no legal democratic solution within our current political system, despite the clear precedent of Quebec.
I can't thing of anything more likely to lead to trouble, including for the First Nations participating in this folly.
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
But that would have to be true.
The status quo is not the one who has to prove their option superior. The ones wanting to turn life as we know it upside down and destroy the coming and split families and friends for generations are the ones who have to justify it and they won’t be able to even agree amongst themselves about the basics like who gets citizenship or what currency is used. It is folly and I think when the NDP wins the next provincial election the folly will become clear to some. At least it will kill the separatist urge for 4 years since they won’t have even a listening ear in the legislator.
I was UCP but stopped my membership and donations because of this. It was the only way to send a message. I will vote for the new Tory party in the next election though as that’s much more palatable than NDp which is a disaster of its own. But I won’t be surprised if NDP wins.
This is a perfectly reasonable position. The problem is that federalists are manifestly unwilling to make the case democratically, and would rather engage in chicanery to prevent the debate.
Which speaks to a certain lack of confidence in the quality of their argument.
This is not chicanery, to say so, is to show a blatant disregard for Alberta’s origins and its founding peoples. Alberta has obligations to the First Nations. It must show that it is willing to acknowledge and meet those obligations and that requires hearing them out.
On top of that, isn’t it ridiculous that a 100k people can force such a massive constitutional question? Is it really fair to the people to bring this to them when that wasn’t even in the UCP’s mandate? If the petition had 2.5 million signatures, I’d be more concerned about suppressing democracy but it doesn’t
We don't know how many signatures they have, and we won't know until May 2
If they had a million signatures, would it sway your thinking on how seriously to take this?
(Not saying they have a million signatures, asking "what if"...)
Not really, from my perspective you need 50% + 1 to force a constitutional referendum. Alberta’s 5 million people as I recall so 2.5 million should be the number.
On top of that, it really would be better if Danielle Smith had campaigned on this originally. As is, it’s a gross overextension of her mandate.
QUOTE
It would be so much wiser for federalists to convince Albertans that they should expect and will receive respect and decent treatment as Canadians, within Canada.
END QUOTE
As someone who lived in Alberta for half-a-lifetime, and who now lives in another part of Canada (not the only place outside Alberta where I've lived, I would add), I find this to be an astonishing statement to make.
Tell me, is it the case that Albertans who engage their fellow citizens elsewhere in Canada feel "disrespected" or treated "indecently"?
Are there frequent and documented cases of such "disrespect" and "indecent treatment"?
I can tell you that I have experienced neither.
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
Very different from Albertans living out of province - nobody objects to them as people in person.
QUOTE
Certainly here in Toronto, many many people accept that we are financially mistreating Alberta (indecent) but are quite confident that Alberta will never do anything about it (disrespect).
END QUOTE
What people? And in what manner is Alberta being "mistreated financially" by other Canadians?
This reminds me of how Trump makes the case for the outrageous things he does ("we're being treated very badly, very badly by [fill in the blank]").
Who needs substantiation and fact when repeated exaggerations and half-truths (or outright misrepresentation of truth) will do?
Would you say that about a different possibly unconstitutional question?
Say some group wants to have a referendum on denying certain people the right to vote. Let's make it more interesting. It gets challenged in court and there's a court order temporarily preventing that from going on the ballot while a court looks into whether or not it would be constitutional?
I'll tell you what the ballot question is later.
This is exactly why Smith wrote the law to exclude unconstitutional questions, which the judge is currently misusing. If there were significant public support for something unconstitutional like that, the public should still be able to express it. But there isn't.
The latest reason which may have strengthened the separation movement is the bogus majority Liberal federal government we (Western Canadians in general) have been lumbered with due to eastern voters and 5 unprincipled MPs who essentially disenfranchised those who voted for them and the party whose banner they ran under by defecting to the Liberals. It’s not a good look.
I'm all for the requirement for a by-election if someone wants to cross the floor. I think the current practice is grossly undemocratic. But there is a certain hypocrisy in calling people "unprincipled" because they leave your party, but you have no issues when they come to yours.
David: when they run under one banner, disparage the other party (see Marilyn Gladu) then compromise everything they’ve portrayed themselves as standing for then I think by any definition they are unprincipled. As to those who cross to your party who could possibly trust them.
It's not my party. I have voted for 4 different ones in the last 5 elections. I hate it every time it has happened at any time, to the benefit of any party, for the reasons mentioned. The voters should have the final say. The nonsense that you elect the candidate and not the party is utter nonsense IMHO.
The Liberals are quite happy to add insult to injury.
Personally, I think they should go ahead with the Thomas Lukaszuk question, and run the referendum based on that.
Who cares that he personally doesn't want that? IT was his own folly that got him here - he thought he was being SO clever, co-opting the separatist agenda by setting his own preferred question and gathering his signatures first. His intent was to leverage the "only one question on a topic" rule and bar the separatists from even getting started.
It seems to have not occurred to him until after spending his whole summer running around the province gathering signatures... that ANY yes/no question is, for all intents and purposes, a separatism question.
...at which point he pivoted, and asked for his signatures to NOT be applied to a referendum. Suddenly he wanted the Legislature to hold a "purity test" vote on his question instead, as if that would AT ALL calm the waters on the topic.
And now he and his acolytes try very hard to pretend that he never wanted a referendum, ever - which is just objectively untrue. The people who thronged to sign his petition thought they were signing to agree with a referendum question.
So let's hold a petition based on his question. He did submit the paperwork....
I would hope that Smith could frame her own question using Pro canada language that reflects a clear question with a yes no answer, BUT I do not know the legalities of this. I posted a very similar response to yours, before reading all the comments posted! This has always been my preferred approach for her, especially since it neuters Nenshi in the process!
Hahaha. Of course, the hope would then be that the question wasn't clear enough to count. The biggest challenge for the Alberta separatists (given that Canada is going all out to convince Albertans that they will never be respected within confederation) is to get a Premier actually willing to proceed with secession once there is a mandate. Smith is a federalist, and I'm sure she is furious with her allies for pulling these crazy stunts and putting her in the spot. A federalist victory in a referendum makes the whole issue go away: that's what federalists should be working toward.
Can we truly say we live in a democracy if the rules are written or interpreted in such a way that by trying to exercise the right of choice is not permitted?
I think at this point, it's clear that Ms. Smith isn't on the fence. She's a separatist. She's just dishonest about what she wants because if she had campaigned honestly on it, she'd be "former politician Danielle Smith".
Ridiculous. The separatists have no institutional leaders, and are still polling pretty well. If she were a separatist, she could make a speech saying that, in her opinion, Alberta will never receive respect or fair treatment from Ottawa, and that would boost separatist sentiment over the finish line. Then she would become a Prime Minister, not a Premier.
I think if Ottawa comes at Alberta swinging there is a good chance she might well get off the fence.
I think so too. I have met her personally (very briefly) and everything I hear would say she is sincere, bright, and caring, but not bloody-minded or ruthless. She would prefer the status quo, but I think has limits to how much she is willing for Albertans to be humiliated.
Go ahead. Have your vote. Live with the consequences. I'm so tired of this whining separatist bullshit.
Opinion piece by a shill for unelected corrupt "Liberal" dictatorship and their "useful" corrupt idiots.
What if she uses the Lukasuk question and frames a stay in Canada question... people can vote yes or no on that too? The judge ruled on this referendum, not the other one, which was not challenged. Personally I believe this should have always been her strategy! As Premier she needs to maintain a federalist position, this is a winning question for her, the separatist get to vote no, forever canadian people get to vote yes and the indigenous can decide what they want as well!
What I cannot understand is why the efforts made by the official opposition and its leader in Alberta (former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi) appears to have garnered fairly little attention in the news media outside the province.
Has the effort really been so ineffectual?
I also find it difficult to understand why the Prime Minister and his crew think that they have to remain silent. Albertans ARE Canadians and many would likely appreciate some indication of support from outside the province for their embrace of that affiliation.
AC, I am a Calgarian and I despise Nenshi; put that down to having had to live under his maladministration of my city. As for Nenshi's "effectiveness" I simply offer the query, what effectiveness? I have heard only noise from him.
As for Carney et al making comment? I simply want them to mind their own business; this is a matter for Albertans to deal with. Oh, you say, but anything that Alberta decides will affect ROC and therefore .... etc. ... well, ROC doesn't seem to want Alberta as anything but a cash cow so, no, non-Albertans are not welcome to participate in the commentary.
I find it surprising to read your view that non-Albertans (people in the rest of Canada) perceive Alberta as "only a cash cow".
Is that what you saw when you read CBC news reporting about the wildfires that consumed much of Fort McMurray a decade ago, or the town of Jasper, that suffered terribly in 2024?
Is that how flooding in Calgary was handled by the CBC and other "Canadian" news agencies?
What about stories regarding Alberta's marvellous cultural attractions (including the amazing theatre scene in Edmonton and Calgary's magnificent new library)?
There is much interest in and appreciation for Alberta outside the province (in the rest of Canada).
- - -
As for the fiscal issues, I would argue that Canadians for the most part are quite clueless about how Equalization (as a policy) is structured and how it has operated over many decades. Indeed, Albertans do appear to be more sensitized, but I would argue that the main reason for that is the decades during which successive Albertan politicians have talked up / developed a certain narrative for political effect.
Which is not to say that Equalization as a policy is perfect or should not be revisited.
But the separatists are not talking about policy change. They are talking about destroying our country.
You can bet that many, many people (both inside and outside Alberta) are emotionally invested in this as a result.
WRT Mr Nenshi, TBH, I also have serious doubts about his political nous. I think the NDP made a dreadful mistake when they selected him as leader.
The party seems to have a habit of making such mistakes... both provincially and at the federal level (although I thought that Rachel Notley was an excellent politician and provincial premier).
Will Smith go too far?
We are well past the too far point. @#$% is going to get real the closer we get to October.
For me, the Sovereignty Act is a game of constitutional chicken. Maybe Smith is betting that Ottawa will blink to avoid a crisis and it's a safe bet the Supreme Court will strike it down ASAP. I think. She can simply ignore court rulings which would likely make Andrew Coyne's head explode.
I think Smith has more to gain than to lose. She can direct provincial ministries to ignore the rulings. She doesn't need to win in court to be effective. If Ottawa fires back at Alberta with the political equivalent of caltrops, then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec. She can threaten to ignore federal environmental regulations; Alberta will protect their projects even if Ottawa doesn't.
A final observation is I suspect an adversarial approach from Ottawa is going to energize separatists and fence sitters in Alberta and definitely in Quebec. My gut tells me this is going to be the biggest issue in Canada this summer into fall.
"... then it's a precedent that would have to apply to Quebec ..."
Sean, the feds have FOREVER had different rules for Quebec than for the remaining nine provinces. Therefore, the feds can say things like, "Oh, but this is different ..." when it is not - but that is the game in Ottawa.
As for Ottawa being adversarial, I suggest that that will not occur prior to the referendum so that Ottawa can attempt to sway the referendum vote against separation. If a referendum vote was (sadly!) defeated then, yes, adversarial is highly likely. If, on the other hand, a referendum vote is successful then adversarial is guaranteed simply because ROC is, under federal law, required to negotiate with Alberta.