Separatism Faces Long Odds
The smart money is against Question 10’s success, but bettors piled in against the UK’s Brexit referendum of 23 June 2016 as well. In that case, voters across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland surprised nearly everyone on both sides of the Atlantic by voting for the “leave” campaign, which eventually resulted in the UK leaving the European Union.
David Cameron was the UK’s prime minister at the time. To placate his Conservative Party’s Euroskeptic base, he agreed to hold the referendum and then campaigned against it by leading the “remain” campaign. His side lost, and Cameron resigned not long after.
Danielle Smith, 55, is the premier of Alberta. Her United Conservative Party of Alberta forms the majority government of the western, oil-rich province, with 47 of the 87 seats in the Alberta Legislature.
Nationally, the New Democratic Party has been reduced to a rump by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberal Party. Provincially, the NDP retains a significant minority of 38 seats in Edmonton.
Smith now finds herself in a similar role to the UK’s Cameron and has been asked about the comparison directly. The tricky politics of this referendum could affect her hold on party and province.
Smith’s UCP membership likely has a bare majority in favor of leaving Canada. But polling of provincial voters also finds the separatist option to be a distinctly minority opinion at this point in time.
What a “Separate” Vote Would Settle
The same puzzlement was put to Smith in many different ways by seemingly surprised journalists at a 22 May presser. Roughly, the line of questioning went: “Why put this before voters now, in a non-binding way, if you are just going to campaign against it?”
In reply, Smith kept repeating a statistic: 700,000 Albertans. That is how many people from the province of just over five million people signed one of two different but overlapping petitions asking for a separation referendum.
Smith said that while she disagrees with those signers and will argue that other voters ought to disagree right along with her, the separatists have worked hard, organized and deserve to have this referendum.
While a “separate” vote would not be binding on her government in a legal sense, Smith made the additional point that she would feel bound by it. The premier is stumping now to make her argument for a strong Alberta within Canada.
That could change. If a majority of Albertans come back saying they would be stronger without Canada, thank you, Smith will oversee a binding referendum to make that happen. And in that event, she will not be trying to talk them out of it.
Giving Albertans Constructive Options
Smith is betting that it will not come to that. She has important tools to help make her case to voters. These tools are in the form of several questions that the Canadian press is mostly glossing over while reporters focus on the five-alarm fire separation issue.
Brexit blew up on Cameron because it was a binary choice that voters faced: in or out? Alberta voters will have many more options when they go to the polls on 19 October. Here is a list of the first nine subjects they will address before they get to the separation question:
1. On immigration: Should the province decrease it, screen for skills and give Albertans hiring preferences?
2. On healthcare, education and social services: Should the province reserve those for long-term Albertans and newcomers legally allowed to reside there?
3. On those with non-permanent immigration status: Should they have to reside for one year in Alberta before they qualify for provincially funded programs?
4. Alternatively, should those non-permanent residents be charged a “reasonable fee or premium” for access to Alberta’s education, healthcare and other social services?
5. Should voters have to provide ID or proof of citizenship to cast ballots in Alberta’s elections?
6. Should Alberta “and other willing provinces” push for national legislation to have provincial governments appoint most judges? (This one may be practically a layup, as an adverse court ruling kept a binding referendum on separation from being offered to voters for the time being.)
7. Should Alberta “and other willing provinces” push for legislation to abolish Canada’s unelected national Senate?
8. Should Alberta “and other willing provinces” be allowed to opt out of national programs that “intrude on provincial jurisdiction” without losing the money attached to the programs?
9. Should Alberta “and other willing provinces” push for legislation that gives more weight to provincial laws when provincial and national laws conflict?
Smith is urging a “remain”, or no, vote on the tenth question while at the same time urging voters to seriously consider voting yes on questions one through nine.
What she and her government are holding out to Alberta’s voters is the possibility of having a more devolved and self-determined government within the current national setup that is technically called confederation. One example of this sort of arrangement would be the UK setting up a Scottish Parliament to convince Scots to stay.
There is a precedent for at least some of these changes on North American soil as well. The government of Quebec enjoys what is arguably more autonomy and national funding than many of the English-speaking provinces of Canada, because of Quebecers’ persistent threats to separate from the whole.
Boosting Alberta, Come What May
The Alberta premier’s position could be somewhat analogous to the efforts of another UK prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, within the EU. Thatcher wanted her country in the EU for trade- and security-related reasons but worked to minimize the UK’s costs and commitments. She represented herself as working for the best deal possible at any given time for her country.
Up until her taking a side in this referendum vote, Smith had faced persistent charges of playing footsie with Alberta separatists. An obvious reason for those suspicions is her frequent agitations against the actions of Ottawa when she believes the national government’s stance is not in the best interests of her province.
For instance, the national government and other provinces responded to the Trump administration’s tariffs with counter-tariffs and a range of other measures aimed at minimizing business with the US. Smith balked at some of those measures and met with Trump himself to make the case against tariffs on Alberta’s energy resources.
She has regularly pushed and prodded the national government of Canada for a better deal and argues this has mostly paid off. Many things have worked out well for Alberta’s interests on Smith’s watch.
Though the Liberals have remained in charge in Ottawa, they jettisoned Justin Trudeau for Carney, an Albertan, tossed out a national carbon tax and started planning an oil pipeline through British Columbia while they were at it.
High Risk, What Rewards?
This could all blow up in Smith’s face, of course. The “separate” vote could win, as improbable as that looks at the moment. And then things would become much more frantic as the national government works very hard to have the eventual binding vote go in the other direction while she sits on her hands, at best.
Slightly more likely would be a high turnout by provincial separatists in a low-turnout vote. That could produce a large enough result – say 35%–40% in favor of separation – that the issue becomes a much more important part of Alberta politics going forward.
Then there is the most likely scenario, which is that Albertans overwhelmingly vote to stay in confederation. There is a good chance that they will at the same time vote for a different deal within that structure – one that pushes for more independence in the land of the maple leaf.
Normally, Smith does not appear to care if other Canadians mutter about her, as it simply means she is being the squeaky wheel. Yet some goodwill could strengthen her negotiating position after 19 October when and if she becomes the most improbable thing of all: a fiercely independent Albertan who worked to save Canada.
