The Danielle Smith show must go on

When the level of chaos ramps up in Alberta, it's a sure sign the Premier is back in town.

After the most lovely week here in Alberta, where Danielle Smith left the country and avoided inserting herself into the news cycle, the Danielle Smith show returned with a vengeance.

On Tuesday, the day after the federal election that saw the Liberals secure a fourth term, Alberta’s Premier made good on her promise to cause a national unity crisis by lowering the bar for citizen-led initiatives. The separatists were overjoyed. Ms. Smith claims she has no idea what petitions will be introduced for Albertans to vote on, and even suggested that they could be used for “left wing” ideas like rent control, and electric vehicle mandates.

The changes Ms. Smith and the UCP are introducing reduce the number of signatures that must be collected for recall petitions from 40 per cent of eligible electors in 90 days to 60 per cent of voter turnout in the most recent election over 120 days. At the 2024 UCP policy convention, members had asked for a reduction to 50 per cent plus one of voter turnout, and an increase to 120 days to collect signatures.

Alberta averages around 60 per cent for voter turnout in provincial elections but only around 35 per cent in municipal, which means that 40 per cent of eligible voters would, in most ridings, fully include everyone who voted. Lowering that requirement to 60 per cent of voter turnout, in municipal elections for example, would effectively allow more people who didn’t vote to override the decision of those who did.

That feels more democratic than it is. I appreciate buyer’s remorse but not “I couldn’t be bothered to show up, but I don’t like who voters chose.”

For the citizen initiatives, not only was the number of signatures required drastically reduced from 20 per cent of eligible electors to 10 per cent of the most recent general election turnout, but the requirement to include signatures from two-thirds of the province’s “three-legged stool” of Calgary, Edmonton, and rural Alberta is also being removed.

There’s no really good reason why anyone working towards a referendum they actually want to succeed would not be trying to get signatures in at least two of the three; it’s just like a political campaign, success requires at least two. Unless success is less important that just getting the question out so people can hopefully move on, or out.

Separation as an exercise in grievance politics

Fun fact: the Parti Quebecois youth leader, Emile Simard, suggested back in January that if the Conservative Party of Canada won the election, coupled with Donald Trump in the U.S., could revive some separatist sentiment in the province over climate change considerations; or, more accurately, lack thereof.

Albertans were the opposite, obviously, grinding their teeth about another Liberal government. I’ve steered clear of Facebook since the election, personally, and I’m probably happier not knowing what my relatives are up to.

In any case, Quebec isn’t separating, and neither is Alberta.

Not because we don’t have a bunch of perpetually aggrieved people here, or because sanity would prevail, but because on the question of a province deciding unilaterally to separate, the answer is “no”.

The Clarity Act (2000) was created out of much legal wrangling after Quebec held its second independence referendum in 1995 (the first was in 1980). It basically put most of the power into the hands of the federal government. We live in a federalist nation, that is also a free country, and if people really, truly cannot get over the fact that Liberals exist, there are a few options around the world where they absolutely do not.

“Never make a threat you can’t keep,” former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said regarding the “charade of separation.” While it was once a real threat — because it had never been tried before — and a real fear that an angry mob could basically snatch your citizenship away, the Clarity Act was created to address both of those considerations, and remove them.

A lot of this separation or independence talk often comes back to Quebec’s “power”.

“They get more money from Ottawa.”

Every level of government provides equalization; the City of Calgary receives less money from the province than it pays. The community of Elbow probably pays more than it gets spent back in its community. Quebec also pays the highest taxes in the country and they like that their provincial government provides a lot of services. Albertans prefer to have “more money in their pockets” and then pay out of pocket for services they “want”.

“They have more power in the House.”

Because of the Bloc. If Alberta had its own Bloc, maybe we could one day hold the balance of power in the House, and get “special treatment,” too.

Instead, as I outlined last month, we send MPs to spend a majority of their time twiddling their thumbs in opposition for $200K a year, and when they do get into government, they are not just MPs for Alberta, they are MPs in the Government of Canada.

Alberta could create its own Bloc for when they want their interests represented in Ottawa, and vote Conservative when it looks like they might win (Quebec sent more Liberals to Ottawa this time). Or just put a Bloc together and hope to be able to have political leverage no matter who forms government.

They would, however, have to give up trying to put Alberta into the government chair. The Bloc does not want to lead the Government of Canada — ever. When they head to Ottawa, they defend Quebec’s interests only. Albertans, who send an undeniable majority of Conservative Party of Canada MPs to Ottawa every single election, have consistently complained outside of every election that they “get no representation in Ottawa”.

So, do something different.

The art of the kneel

Assuredly, Danielle Smith doesn’t want to wear an unsuccessful separation referendum, or have her loyalties to Canada questioned even more than they already are (which is almost daily). However, she seems to have adopted a more deferential tilt of her head, and doe eyes, as her motivations are questioned again. It’s quite a shift from the “strong conservative woman” who will not shut up, nor sit down, and who would not be silenced by conservatives who thought she was hurting Pierre Poilievre’s campaign.

She’s very good at pretending she doesn’t know what’s going on around her, to be sure, and that’s why it’s important for everyone else to look.

The separation game was never about Albertans, though they like to say it is. Separation has always been about Conservatives who whip it up so they can talk tough and get a few more dollars from their donors. We’ve seen how good the Trudeau years were for conservative fundraising.

Though most conservative leaders only like to play with the separatists for a little while and then bottle them back up, Danielle Smith is ready to let them do their worst as her opening act.

Opening up the province to a separation referendum isn’t for the small stage here in Alberta, nor is it a performance for Ottawa; this is an audition for Donald Trump. For a maga-aligned conservative premier who loves to be the centre of attention, a national unity crisis — while a hostile foreign leader is just waiting to grab our country by the Regina — is her dream role.

The Danielle Smith show is back.

It’s free to watch but there may be a surcharge upon exit.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!