Give Albertans a poll offering independence, 51st state, or a new Liberal government as the only options. How confident are you that number 3 is a majority?
If Smith campaigns against number 3?
If Carney goes ahead with the emissions cap? And no new pipelines?
If Trump makes Alberta a generous trade offer should they secede?
All of my ifs seem highly likely in the event of a Liberal win.
People who think we in Ontario can safely go on abusing Alberta forever are dreaming.
Independence (not being part of Canada or the US) is not an option and you know it. It’s a binary choice.
So the real poll is “would Alberta join the US” not some mythical independence (Alberta would have its own currency, its own army?)
US annexation would look more attractive if statehood were offered (not territory status a la Puerto Rico). Still don’t think it would push that 15% up to majority territory.
Decarbonization is dead for 5 years regardless of whether Carney wins or Poilievre. I’ll eat my words if a Carney LPC government tries to keep the oil and gas hard cap or the Impact Assessment Act in its current (“no-more-pipelines act”) form.
It’s a shame because climate change doesn’t give a shit about our politics and more and more of Alberta will burn in wildfires every year. But I guess maybe in 5-10 years things will be bad enough that we can start to take it more seriously.
Climate change doesn't actually care about anything Canada does.
If Smith offers independence in a referendum, it's an option. Sure, maybe Canada, having just given Alberta a huge middle finger, could convince Albertans it's a bad or unrealistic option.
15-20% isn’t exactly a tiny minority. It’s about the same as the number that support the NDP nationally. And it’s way more than the Greens, which I *do* consider truly a tiny minority but everyone seems to think are the true conscience of Canada nonetheless.
Still doesn’t mean that the “likely consequence” of another LPC government is Alberta secession. As much as Premier Smith wants to hold that up as a threat.
In any case other than the name on the masthead, seems to me that the LPC has gone rightward rapidly in their new platform. To the point where CPC supporters are accusing them of stealing all the Poilievre team’s ideas.
I think regardless of who ends up forming government, the next few years are going to look a lot more right-wing than under the Trudeau years (which were historically anomalous even for the Liberals … the party went hard left compared to where they were under eg Chretien and Martin)
You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The CBC article was referring to the number of people who want to join America.
...but that's not the only way Alberta could secede, is it?
Alberta separation has been bubbling along at just under 30% popularity in the sporadic polls on the subject over the past several years - and that was when Albertans had a reasonable belief that Trudeau would eventually wear out his welcome and Poiievre would get a chance to course-correct Canada.
It would be silly to expect that number to NOT explode if Carney wins this election. And really, all it has to do is double, and we're in majority territory.
Because Carney is going to pivot right back to the Liberal agenda the day after the election if he wins (and he will flee back to corporate life VERY quickly if he loses).
He is mouthing Conservative talking points to strategically back Poilievre into a corner - but if you actually believe he will do ANY of these things, I have a lovely bridge you may be interested in....
Yes, it is the only way Alberta could secede. Thinking it could exist as some independent state is just as delusional as Quebec thinking it could. Maybe even worse because despite the oil and gas wealth, it’s completely landlocked. The binary choice that will be on offer is does Alberta want to be part of Canada or part of Trump’s USA.
Regardless of going as far as an independence referendum, another Liberal government is likely to drive more division. Carney has sent mixed signals. For example, he says he supports pipelines, but he also supports an unfair emissions cap. He has made huge spending promises. I fear 1980 is about to repeat.
My reasoning is that, before divorcing a spouse of many years for good cause, it is important to make clear to them what they are doing wrong and that it is important. Relationships 101.
Ontario can "force" a government on no one. It is the decisions of individuals in 343 separate election ridings throughout Canada that determines the outcome.
Please don't indulge in such unhelpful (and deliberately divisive) analysis.
Yes. It's important because it is, in fact, likely. Voters ought to be warned, because if Carney is elected and the country disintegrates, his voters will, one and all, say "if only we had known this would happen".
Oh, well, that settles it then. Everyone go home, we don’t need to have an election. Only one party is allowed to form the government this time, otherwise Alberta will stomp its feet and refuse to play ball anymore.
Listen to yourself? These childish threats are as likely to backfire as they are to have the impact you’d want?
The point is that voters in every riding will make decisions regarding who to support based on their individual assessments. They won’t be voting to “force” something on people in other ridings in any other riding (or province).
First off everyone seems to think that you vote for independence and go.. Far from it. Almost all the land in Alberta is crown land and it belongs to Canada because Canada bought and paid for it when HBC sold Rupert's Land to Canada. We then created Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.
Sorry buds, you don't just get to walk away with that. So how much you get will be negotiated, how much you have to pay to break up and what happens to first nations who don't want to go with you.
And that is only if you can come up with a fair question and you get a majority. Unlikely
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but if I put myself in the shoes of the then-caretaker government of Justin Trudeau during the recent Liberal leadership, I would probably and similarly echo Smith’s message to the US administration: that it should put a pause on things until a Canadian election was held. Canada’s active capacity to meaningfully negotiate with the US was obviously knee-capped the moment Trudeau announced he prorogued parliament and was stepping down. It’s been clear as day that Canada can’t have meaningful or concrete engagements with anyone until a parliament and government with a mandate is eventually elected. So the notion of a US pause against Canada until Canada is ready to engage is not at all unreasonable. As for Smith’s opining on potential cross-national relationship probabilities with Trump: that’s all it is — opining! If the Trump administration or Canadians want a better understanding of those relationship possibilities, that would be best informed by the leaders themselves holding direct dialogue with Trump. Last I checked, none of the leaders have had such direct dialogue. Until that happens, everything on that front is entirely speculative.
Danielle Smith speaks for the majority of Albertans and her approach in tackling Trumps tariffs is both reasonable and responsible. She is sticking up for Conservative, not MAGA, values and kudos to her for this. Contrast Smith with Doug Ford in Ontario who is supposed to be Conservative but has little of these attributes and will do what ever it takes to survive regardless of values.
She really doesn't speak for the majority of Albertans. Not even close. And mostly what she's doing is trying to distract from the rank corruption her government has been up to. Sadly, it's working. Hopefully a smoking gun is found at some point, and Albertans will wake up to how poorly they've been governed by essentially the same group of oil industry sellouts for the better part of a half century.
Actually, she's premier of the province. As such, she speaks for all Albertans. Doesn't mean all Albertans agree with everything she says all the time. Putting aside personal political party preferences and partisanship, she's defending Alberta's interests vis a vis federal interference in provincial matters and outright sabotage of our oil and gas industry by the federal Liberals and she is attempting to mitigate the Trump tariff threats on behalf of Alberta and to some extent Canada. I would expect Nenshi, if he was premier, would be doing something similar but in his own way and while I don't support him or his party, I would agree with him doing his best to defend our provincial interests.
Only a third of Albertans support her approach in tackling Trumps tariffs, a third neutral, a third opposed. Last I checked, a third was not a majority of Albertans.
Put another way, only 36% of Albertans disagree with Smiths handling of Trumps tariffs, and that is probably down to the NDP vote. Thanks for the article, Marcel, interesting reading.
A couple of points about the article. Carney is not up for “reelection” as PM. He was chosen as Liberal leader by party members and acquired PMship by default due to Justin’s final act of cowardice but has not yet been elected to anything beyond boardroom chairmanships.
To accuse Premier Smith of supporting Polievre without mentioning Doug Ford’s shameless toadying to whomever the Liberal PM is at the time, is a bit over the top. And the Liberal party’s abject bootlicking of the 4 million or so old stock Quebec French so they don’t leave home has shown that saying the words “ constitutional crisis” has Canadian governing elites scurrying back in their Mary Jane flats to Ottawa to issue more Federal debt to pay this week’s ransom installment
I asked a relative in the US oil patch (upper management who attended some conference where Smith was also a speaker recently) about Smith's recent comments. He said it was obvious that the US and Alberta share common ground certainly about energy and can work together to further its future role and improve relations between the two countries as a benefit. And make a lot of money! He thought it was important for everyone - especially other Canadian politicians only too willing to undermine that shared interest for temporary political gain - to recognize that this is really important common ground. He also said the comments she made refreshingly undermined what he and his colleagues hear all the time about typical Canadian sentiment, trumpeted by so many federal politicians and the media that reports it, of blowhard anti-Americanism. Thee key word was 'refreshing', as in someone who gets it versus so many north of the border who do not.
In his opinion, she's considered a "reasonable" Canadian involved in this important industry and her words as Premier carry weight. When I asked him if he or his colleagues thought if Smith were asking for US political interference for one party over another, he laughed and said there was more than enough interference already and less would probably be a lot better for everyone. When I asked what he thought about Smith's opinion about a more receptive or friendly time for the US (petroleum industry) working with Poilievre over Carney as PM, he said it's like a neighbour you consider friendly and knowledgeable suggesting someone he or she prefers for working on this or that and getting something done, a recommendation merely of who might be easier to work with. Nothing more. Generally and in his opinion only (but one he thinks is fairly widely held in his circles), Smith is considered the only Canadian political leader who is real. I thought that was interesting.
Smith is a loose cannon on any deck. Her words have been a gut punch to Polievre. Mind you I can't argue with her assessment of him. He's the one who copied many approaches used by the MAGAs. He is back peddling fast now.
Smith can be remarkably clueless and she's getting bad advice. There is an element of the Conservative maga bloc who are doubling down right now. Looks like they are whispering in her ear.
Danielle Smith has tasted power and enjoys the taste. Her fawning visit with Trump and her threats to blow up confederation if her Alberta centric demands are not met, must be of concern to all Canadians. Pretending her actions won’t influence Canadas election simply illustrate her simplistic view of the world around her.
Danielle Smith has got questionable political judgement, with one particularly high profile example being her attempt to roll the Wildrose Party into Jim Prentice's Progressive Conservatives when she was party leader in 2014. She was confident that she'd created a fait accompli, but in the end only managed to cross the floor with a total of 9 members and was subsequently punished by voters in the next election. Based on this sort of history, it would not be surprising if Smith is acting based on similar miscalculations about support for her approaches and the favorability of MAGA politics in Alberta.
Good column, Rob. Agree with almost all of it...but...
...are you certain that Danielle Smith does NOT have national political aspirations?
I think she does.
She's been actively crafting a national, even international profile for months, which looks to me like she's playing the long game for a national political run.
Serious question, Rob - your statement on this in the column was pretty declarative. You were a colleague of Danielle's for many years - did you gain some insider insight of her lack of interest in a national political run?
Breakenridge could easily insert Doug Ford's name in this column. Smith is standing up for Alberta's interests, and in doing so, Canada's energy economy. Breakenridge's anti-Smith position parrots the Corus radio AM talk show host in consistently taking the opposite view from Smith, on any topic. Neither offer a better or alternative position, just that Smith's position is wrong. Where is Dave Rutherford?
Like many of her more controversial comments, a few additional clarifying words would have moderated Smith's comments:
-she could have said that the Conservatives would be more aligned with American objectives to increase continental energy security, and a focus on economic issues
-she could have said that thrusting Canada into trade debates during an election is inappropriate and the Admin should wait until after the election
It has been suggested that Ms. Smith is a closet, AB separatist. While this seems unlikely, having a LPC government might suit her. Mr. Nenshi can easily be tagged as LPC, he is certainly no 'deeper. A spot provincial election, a few months into an LPC government, in order to benefit from voter anger but under the guise of needing approval of a new mandate would not be a surprise.
The "duty" gene does not exist and all politicians are in it for themselves. Ms. Smith is no exception.
It's very important that Smith point out that the likely consequence of Ontario forcing another Liberal government on Alberta is secession.
Support for Alberta joining the US might be high in The Line comments section but in the real world it’s still a tiny minority (no more than 15-20%)
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7490806
Give Albertans a poll offering independence, 51st state, or a new Liberal government as the only options. How confident are you that number 3 is a majority?
If Smith campaigns against number 3?
If Carney goes ahead with the emissions cap? And no new pipelines?
If Trump makes Alberta a generous trade offer should they secede?
All of my ifs seem highly likely in the event of a Liberal win.
People who think we in Ontario can safely go on abusing Alberta forever are dreaming.
Independence (not being part of Canada or the US) is not an option and you know it. It’s a binary choice.
So the real poll is “would Alberta join the US” not some mythical independence (Alberta would have its own currency, its own army?)
US annexation would look more attractive if statehood were offered (not territory status a la Puerto Rico). Still don’t think it would push that 15% up to majority territory.
Decarbonization is dead for 5 years regardless of whether Carney wins or Poilievre. I’ll eat my words if a Carney LPC government tries to keep the oil and gas hard cap or the Impact Assessment Act in its current (“no-more-pipelines act”) form.
It’s a shame because climate change doesn’t give a shit about our politics and more and more of Alberta will burn in wildfires every year. But I guess maybe in 5-10 years things will be bad enough that we can start to take it more seriously.
Climate change doesn't actually care about anything Canada does.
If Smith offers independence in a referendum, it's an option. Sure, maybe Canada, having just given Alberta a huge middle finger, could convince Albertans it's a bad or unrealistic option.
I would rather play it safe and back Poilievre.
15-20% isn’t exactly a tiny minority. It’s about the same as the number that support the NDP nationally. And it’s way more than the Greens, which I *do* consider truly a tiny minority but everyone seems to think are the true conscience of Canada nonetheless.
Sure.
Still doesn’t mean that the “likely consequence” of another LPC government is Alberta secession. As much as Premier Smith wants to hold that up as a threat.
In any case other than the name on the masthead, seems to me that the LPC has gone rightward rapidly in their new platform. To the point where CPC supporters are accusing them of stealing all the Poilievre team’s ideas.
I think regardless of who ends up forming government, the next few years are going to look a lot more right-wing than under the Trudeau years (which were historically anomalous even for the Liberals … the party went hard left compared to where they were under eg Chretien and Martin)
You're looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The CBC article was referring to the number of people who want to join America.
...but that's not the only way Alberta could secede, is it?
Alberta separation has been bubbling along at just under 30% popularity in the sporadic polls on the subject over the past several years - and that was when Albertans had a reasonable belief that Trudeau would eventually wear out his welcome and Poiievre would get a chance to course-correct Canada.
It would be silly to expect that number to NOT explode if Carney wins this election. And really, all it has to do is double, and we're in majority territory.
Because Carney is going to pivot right back to the Liberal agenda the day after the election if he wins (and he will flee back to corporate life VERY quickly if he loses).
He is mouthing Conservative talking points to strategically back Poilievre into a corner - but if you actually believe he will do ANY of these things, I have a lovely bridge you may be interested in....
Yes, it is the only way Alberta could secede. Thinking it could exist as some independent state is just as delusional as Quebec thinking it could. Maybe even worse because despite the oil and gas wealth, it’s completely landlocked. The binary choice that will be on offer is does Alberta want to be part of Canada or part of Trump’s USA.
And we have seen lately that polls can change pretty quickly.
Regardless of going as far as an independence referendum, another Liberal government is likely to drive more division. Carney has sent mixed signals. For example, he says he supports pipelines, but he also supports an unfair emissions cap. He has made huge spending promises. I fear 1980 is about to repeat.
My reasoning is that, before divorcing a spouse of many years for good cause, it is important to make clear to them what they are doing wrong and that it is important. Relationships 101.
Unfortunately this is like a 19th century divorce. The feds can just ignore you.
Ontario can "force" a government on no one. It is the decisions of individuals in 343 separate election ridings throughout Canada that determines the outcome.
Please don't indulge in such unhelpful (and deliberately divisive) analysis.
Liberal policy is what's divisive. People warning about the outcome are just warning voters.
That’s not what you stated in your very first comment.
QUOTE
It's very important that Smith point out that the likely consequence of Ontario forcing another Liberal government on Alberta is secession.
END QUOTE
Yes. It's important because it is, in fact, likely. Voters ought to be warned, because if Carney is elected and the country disintegrates, his voters will, one and all, say "if only we had known this would happen".
Oh, well, that settles it then. Everyone go home, we don’t need to have an election. Only one party is allowed to form the government this time, otherwise Alberta will stomp its feet and refuse to play ball anymore.
Listen to yourself? These childish threats are as likely to backfire as they are to have the impact you’d want?
The Libs didn't have to choose a net zero zealot front man for the Butts/Telford clique as leader. But they did.
The point is that voters in every riding will make decisions regarding who to support based on their individual assessments. They won’t be voting to “force” something on people in other ridings in any other riding (or province).
Lol.
First off everyone seems to think that you vote for independence and go.. Far from it. Almost all the land in Alberta is crown land and it belongs to Canada because Canada bought and paid for it when HBC sold Rupert's Land to Canada. We then created Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Northwest Territories.
Sorry buds, you don't just get to walk away with that. So how much you get will be negotiated, how much you have to pay to break up and what happens to first nations who don't want to go with you.
And that is only if you can come up with a fair question and you get a majority. Unlikely
You're kidding, right? What's Canada gonna do about it? Send troops? Then Alberta appeals to Trump for aid. Sue? In what court?
This isn't like Quebec, that's used to money from Canada. Alberta pays our bills. We'd be lucky to get them to take a share of the federal debt.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, but if I put myself in the shoes of the then-caretaker government of Justin Trudeau during the recent Liberal leadership, I would probably and similarly echo Smith’s message to the US administration: that it should put a pause on things until a Canadian election was held. Canada’s active capacity to meaningfully negotiate with the US was obviously knee-capped the moment Trudeau announced he prorogued parliament and was stepping down. It’s been clear as day that Canada can’t have meaningful or concrete engagements with anyone until a parliament and government with a mandate is eventually elected. So the notion of a US pause against Canada until Canada is ready to engage is not at all unreasonable. As for Smith’s opining on potential cross-national relationship probabilities with Trump: that’s all it is — opining! If the Trump administration or Canadians want a better understanding of those relationship possibilities, that would be best informed by the leaders themselves holding direct dialogue with Trump. Last I checked, none of the leaders have had such direct dialogue. Until that happens, everything on that front is entirely speculative.
Danielle Smith speaks for the majority of Albertans and her approach in tackling Trumps tariffs is both reasonable and responsible. She is sticking up for Conservative, not MAGA, values and kudos to her for this. Contrast Smith with Doug Ford in Ontario who is supposed to be Conservative but has little of these attributes and will do what ever it takes to survive regardless of values.
She really doesn't speak for the majority of Albertans. Not even close. And mostly what she's doing is trying to distract from the rank corruption her government has been up to. Sadly, it's working. Hopefully a smoking gun is found at some point, and Albertans will wake up to how poorly they've been governed by essentially the same group of oil industry sellouts for the better part of a half century.
Actually, she's premier of the province. As such, she speaks for all Albertans. Doesn't mean all Albertans agree with everything she says all the time. Putting aside personal political party preferences and partisanship, she's defending Alberta's interests vis a vis federal interference in provincial matters and outright sabotage of our oil and gas industry by the federal Liberals and she is attempting to mitigate the Trump tariff threats on behalf of Alberta and to some extent Canada. I would expect Nenshi, if he was premier, would be doing something similar but in his own way and while I don't support him or his party, I would agree with him doing his best to defend our provincial interests.
The UCP enjoy a 51% approval rate in Alberta. In late 2024 Danielle Smiths approval rate within the UCP was 91.5%.
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/albertans-evenly-split-danielle-smith-tariffs-poll
Only a third of Albertans support her approach in tackling Trumps tariffs, a third neutral, a third opposed. Last I checked, a third was not a majority of Albertans.
Put another way, only 36% of Albertans disagree with Smiths handling of Trumps tariffs, and that is probably down to the NDP vote. Thanks for the article, Marcel, interesting reading.
A couple of points about the article. Carney is not up for “reelection” as PM. He was chosen as Liberal leader by party members and acquired PMship by default due to Justin’s final act of cowardice but has not yet been elected to anything beyond boardroom chairmanships.
To accuse Premier Smith of supporting Polievre without mentioning Doug Ford’s shameless toadying to whomever the Liberal PM is at the time, is a bit over the top. And the Liberal party’s abject bootlicking of the 4 million or so old stock Quebec French so they don’t leave home has shown that saying the words “ constitutional crisis” has Canadian governing elites scurrying back in their Mary Jane flats to Ottawa to issue more Federal debt to pay this week’s ransom installment
I asked a relative in the US oil patch (upper management who attended some conference where Smith was also a speaker recently) about Smith's recent comments. He said it was obvious that the US and Alberta share common ground certainly about energy and can work together to further its future role and improve relations between the two countries as a benefit. And make a lot of money! He thought it was important for everyone - especially other Canadian politicians only too willing to undermine that shared interest for temporary political gain - to recognize that this is really important common ground. He also said the comments she made refreshingly undermined what he and his colleagues hear all the time about typical Canadian sentiment, trumpeted by so many federal politicians and the media that reports it, of blowhard anti-Americanism. Thee key word was 'refreshing', as in someone who gets it versus so many north of the border who do not.
In his opinion, she's considered a "reasonable" Canadian involved in this important industry and her words as Premier carry weight. When I asked him if he or his colleagues thought if Smith were asking for US political interference for one party over another, he laughed and said there was more than enough interference already and less would probably be a lot better for everyone. When I asked what he thought about Smith's opinion about a more receptive or friendly time for the US (petroleum industry) working with Poilievre over Carney as PM, he said it's like a neighbour you consider friendly and knowledgeable suggesting someone he or she prefers for working on this or that and getting something done, a recommendation merely of who might be easier to work with. Nothing more. Generally and in his opinion only (but one he thinks is fairly widely held in his circles), Smith is considered the only Canadian political leader who is real. I thought that was interesting.
Smith is a loose cannon on any deck. Her words have been a gut punch to Polievre. Mind you I can't argue with her assessment of him. He's the one who copied many approaches used by the MAGAs. He is back peddling fast now.
Smith can be remarkably clueless and she's getting bad advice. There is an element of the Conservative maga bloc who are doubling down right now. Looks like they are whispering in her ear.
You have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.
I’m not saying Smith should fold her tent and go home but use some judgment regarding when to speak and when not to…..
Danielle Smith has tasted power and enjoys the taste. Her fawning visit with Trump and her threats to blow up confederation if her Alberta centric demands are not met, must be of concern to all Canadians. Pretending her actions won’t influence Canadas election simply illustrate her simplistic view of the world around her.
Danielle Smith has got questionable political judgement, with one particularly high profile example being her attempt to roll the Wildrose Party into Jim Prentice's Progressive Conservatives when she was party leader in 2014. She was confident that she'd created a fait accompli, but in the end only managed to cross the floor with a total of 9 members and was subsequently punished by voters in the next election. Based on this sort of history, it would not be surprising if Smith is acting based on similar miscalculations about support for her approaches and the favorability of MAGA politics in Alberta.
Good column, Rob. Agree with almost all of it...but...
...are you certain that Danielle Smith does NOT have national political aspirations?
I think she does.
She's been actively crafting a national, even international profile for months, which looks to me like she's playing the long game for a national political run.
Serious question, Rob - your statement on this in the column was pretty declarative. You were a colleague of Danielle's for many years - did you gain some insider insight of her lack of interest in a national political run?
Circle the wagons and shoot in!
Breakenridge could easily insert Doug Ford's name in this column. Smith is standing up for Alberta's interests, and in doing so, Canada's energy economy. Breakenridge's anti-Smith position parrots the Corus radio AM talk show host in consistently taking the opposite view from Smith, on any topic. Neither offer a better or alternative position, just that Smith's position is wrong. Where is Dave Rutherford?
Like many of her more controversial comments, a few additional clarifying words would have moderated Smith's comments:
-she could have said that the Conservatives would be more aligned with American objectives to increase continental energy security, and a focus on economic issues
-she could have said that thrusting Canada into trade debates during an election is inappropriate and the Admin should wait until after the election
Perhaps this was written before we learned that the AB Premier will appear in Florida with Ben Shapiro by the end of this week? https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/braid-danielle-smith-pro-annexation-podcaster-calls-canada-silly-country
It has been suggested that Ms. Smith is a closet, AB separatist. While this seems unlikely, having a LPC government might suit her. Mr. Nenshi can easily be tagged as LPC, he is certainly no 'deeper. A spot provincial election, a few months into an LPC government, in order to benefit from voter anger but under the guise of needing approval of a new mandate would not be a surprise.
The "duty" gene does not exist and all politicians are in it for themselves. Ms. Smith is no exception.