Notwithstanding frequent protestations to the contrary, it gets harder by the day to believe Premier Danielle Smith and a significant portion of her cabinet and caucus are not fully committed to severing Alberta’s ties one way or another with the rest of Canada.
At least, if they’re not, they’re playing an extremely dangerous game to keep a lid on their party’s angry anti-Canadian MAGA base.
Yesterday, the premier and her justice minister, Mickey Amery, tried to bully Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure into dropping his plan, announced Monday, to ask the courts to determine if a referendum question ginned up by a separatist group that appears to be working hand in glove with the premier violates Canada’s Constitution.
The question, submitted on July 4 (perhaps symbolically) by Mitch Sylvestre of the so-called Alberta Prosperity Project, would ask Albertans: “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?”
This, obviously, is precisely what Ms. Smith and Mr. Amery want the referendum they plan to hold next year to ask.
Having learned of Mr. McClure’s plan on Monday, Ms. Smith and Mr. Amery quickly published statements on social media complaining about his decision to refer the matter to the Court of King’s Bench and urging him pointedly to withdraw it immediately.
“The recently passed amendments to the Citizen Initiative Act are intended to be broadly permissive and to allow Albertans the opportunity to launch a referendum petition without needless bureaucratic red tape or court applications slowing the process,” Mr. Amery said on Twitter/X in a post labelled “Statement: Response to Citizen Initiative process.”
Tellingly, this supposedly official statement does not appear on the government’s official website.
“As it is the Government of Alberta that ultimately decides how or if to implement any referendum result, those government decisions will ultimately be subject to constitutional scrutiny,” Mr. Amery continued – obviously tendentiously, since the concept of a fait accompli is well understood. “We encourage Elections Alberta to withdraw its court reference and permit Albertans their democratic right to participate in the citizen initiative process.”
Then Ms. Smith weighed in, also disingenuously, on Facebook: “Although I believe in Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada, Minister Mickey Amery is right. Albertans have a democratic right to participate in the citizen initiative process. They shouldn’t be slowed down by bureaucratic red tape or court applications.”
Mr. McClure’s response in a news release yesterday was, in effect, drop dead.
“The Chief Electoral Officer is an independent, non-partisan Officer of the Legislature,” his news release began. “The Citizen Initiative Act permits important questions that have constitutional implications to be put to a referendum.”
The proposed question, he explained, “is a serious and significant question, with the potential to have profound impact on all Albertans.”
Mr. McClure specifically asked the court if the question contravened the constitution’s Charter rights, democratic rights, mobility rights, rights to life, liberty and security of the person, equality before the law, enforcement of rights, and recognition of existing treaty rights. Needless to say, for the UCP’s separatist program, that approach is likely to open a proverbial can of constitutional worms.
Yesterday’s release ended with a reminder of its opening: “In seeking the opinion of the Court, the Chief Electoral Officer is fulfilling his duty under the Citizen Initiative Act in an independent, neutral and non-partisan manner.”
It is, of course, utter nonsense for Mr. Amery and Ms. Smith to suggest that a referral to the courts of a question on the constitutionality of a proposed referendum question amounts to “red tape.”
This statement illustrates their deep contempt for the rule of law, and a troubling inclination to ignore even the UCP’s own legislation the instant it becomes inconvenient.
Back on April 29, when her government announced a number of changes to various laws governing democratic processes, many of them intended to tilt the electoral playing field in favour of the UCP and its allies, Ms. Smith was quoted in the government’s news release saying “I believe that democracy thrives when people trust the process.” Her goal, she claimed, was protecting the integrity of votes and “ensuring confidence in the outcomes.”
Proceeding without the court’s examination of Mr. Sylvestre’s question, which is worse even than the one that led to the Brexit catastrophe in the United Kingdom, will surely not strengthen democracy in Alberta or ensure confidence among its citizens.
It must be noted that when Ms. Smith talks about “Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada,” her notion of sovereignty is completely incompatible with the idea of a united country.
Under the what we might call the “Alberta model” of provincial sovereignty, Alberta’s government would be able to invade the jurisdiction of the federal government and exert jurisdiction over the territory of any province at will, with no reciprocal rights for the other jurisdictions. The concept, obviously, is untenable, and intended to be so.
The intervention of the chief electoral officer, who was appointed last fall by a UCP led Legislature committee, is an interesting and unexpected wrinkle. One wonders if someone in the Premier’s Office is now grumbling, “Will no one rid us of this turbulent electoral officer?”
If Smith moves to remove the chair of Elections Alberta with someone more compliant and supportive of her and her base’s sovereigntist idiocies, then the gloves must come off.
While the long history of liberal-democracy has operated with little opposition, those who still believe in it are living in trying times. The MAGA/MapleMAGA affront to Canada’s sovereignty and independence is an existential threat, it’s time its defenders grow up and realize that they are at war with the Queen Danielle and her knuckle-dragging minions. Honestly, the sooner they accept they are at war, the better off they will be.
What is required is an act of preemption to deal with this threat. One need only to have watched the livestream of the candidates’ forum in Battle River-Crowfoot to see that the sovereightist gang were out in full force and Skippy Poilievre is about to band together with these crazies for the sake of saving what’s left of his political career.
So, Mark Carney should call upon the connections I’m sure he’s secured during his tenure at the Bank of England and employ the more destructive elements of Canada’s national security state. Personally, I want all these Alberta troglodytes lives to be completely ruined. Judging by their crass and addle minded behaviour, these idiots need to completely and fully destroyed. I will be cheering on their demise.
Mo’popcorn.
It seems kind of odd to me that Smith is in such a hurry to have a separatism referendum that she is so impolitely trying to push the Chief Electoral Officer out of the way in the rush to do so. Why such the big rush?
My guess is likely one of two things. Either she wants this to happen soon as an ongoing continuing political distraction from other issues, such as her health care scandals and related problems, or the mood for separatism is waning and becoming weaker as time goes on.
It is also possible there is some other dispute with the Chief Electoral Officer unknown to the public at this point and this is issue is being used as a pretext to pressure or try punish him for something else.
I suppose this will win or shore up some support for Smith from the big separatist faction of her party, but I don’t feel most Albertans are really in such a hurry to have a separatism referendum.
In any event, this is another example of Smith trying to throw her weight around excessively and use her power against anyone who seems to get in her way. She seems well on her way to becoming another populist autocratic want to be, of which there are too many in the world right now.
Dave: you’re absolutely right that Smith throws her weight around. She can’t shut up, and she can’t stop breaking the boundaries of her legal authority.
Smith is a classic example of the “type four” personality: energetic and stupid. Never work around an obstacle if you can bash your head agaisnt it.
I suspect that both of your guesses are factors in what Smith does instead of thinking. The CorruptCare scandal will not go away, no matter how much dirt Smith shovels on top of it. The sore-loser separatists got a big boost when their boy Pierre got punted to the sidelines, last election. A 10% jump in the “It ain’t fair, we want out” sentiments was the immediate result.
Despite the MSM refusal to talk to Naheed Nenshi, the NDP are still going after Smith over the whole CorruptCare debacle; the measles outbreak is not helping the Smith-LaGrange “break up AHS” campaign, either. Eventually, you’d hope that even the most rabid anti-vaxxers would begin to realize their kids are sick because there’s not enough free doctors and free hospital beds to go around. (They’ll never, never, NEVER admit it might be their own fault for not vaccinating their kids. “MMR vax causes autism,” you know.)
Worse for Smith, Sylvestre, Davies et al is the way Mark Carney is NOT being ritually despised in Oilberduh. “Hey, he promised us pipelines! How cool is that?!” The knee-jerk “F—k Trudeau” reflex has faded a little. The “get me outta Canada” noise is, I suspect, fading more than S,S,D+ want to admit.
The more pressing question in my mind is: who will rid us of this idiotic premier?
Has anyone noticed that this scandal du jour has completely eclipsed the Tylenot scandal, perhaps as intended? However, this is not simply any scandal-o-rama. This is much bigger. Was our premier promised the role of governor of the 51st state/forsaken territory on one of her trips to D.C.? Is she vying with Doug Ford to see who will be Canada’s Antichrist (could be a name for a reality TV series)? Let us await the revelation in due course.
Speaking of Dougie, have you seen that a court has struck down his overreaching attempt to force the City of Toronto to rip up perfectly serviceable bike lanes? The grounds were a Charter appeal based on Section 7: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” The court found that removing bike lanes endangered lives and limbs and so was a breach of S. 7.
No sooner than this ruling came down than DoFo declared he would appeal, and claimed that “elected politicians” had to be given deference by “unelected judges”. It’s classic populism that disrespects the legal guardrails that put limits on the tyranny of the majority, and offensive to the rule of law.
Jerry: It’s important to note that the court struck down the decision not because cyclists have a fundamental right to bike lanes, as some have reported, or even that the decision put cyclists at risk, but that it not only put cyclists at risk but was not based on data or sound research and there is no evidence that it will improve traffic flows. https://www.thetrillium.ca/news/municipalities-transit-and-infrastructure/court-strikes-down-planned-toronto-bike-lane-removals-11012328 Even so, I thought when I first read this that an appeal was to be expected and probably would have been made by any provincial government, even one more sympathetic to cycling and cyclists than the members of the Ford Family. As we saw with the Harper Government’s efforts to force through pipelines without properly following the law, this is what happens when right-wing governments put ideology and culture wars ahead of thoughtful policy. DJC
You’re right, of course, but I left out some of those details in the interest of brevity. (I believe it was Nobel Laureate theoretical physicist Neil’s Bohr who said, “brevity and clarity are complementary”).
What’s next? If the court rules the question unconstitutional will Smith et al claim that it is merely an opinion? It would appear our clownish Premier only want citizens to show initiative when they are doing her bidding.
Why doesn’t little Mickey go by his legal name? “Qassim Mohammed Makki Amery”
To be clear , it’s a fait of compli , the ruling will support the Minister of Justice (DS) aka, puppet. The Auditor General will be dismissed…so, no independent authority, as in the last Palowski affair.
Robert: Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, the most interesting part would get me sued, and would not be easy to prove in a court of law, so it has been noted but must remain unpublished. DJC
… lawsuits and the right to free speech conflict..cheers
Robert: Yes, they do. As it happens, I am being sued right now as a result of much more careful words that are also more defensible at law. This is a waste of time and has financial implications. Nevertheless, I am willing to take reasonable risks to comment on issues that I feel are important, but not ones, given the current state of the law of defamation in Canada and Alberta, that would not be defensible in a court of law. Fair comment requires that that the fair comment be based on fact, and the fact, moreover, be provable in a court of law. The issues you mention should be discussed in public. But let’s let Postmedia or the CBC do the discussing, since they have deeper pockets than your humble blogger. DJC
MAGA Albertans are suckers for performative grifting. The ignorance spewing from rural Alberta is breathtaking in its scope.
Marlaina and Micky are once again aping the Mango Mussolini who despises democracy and the rule of law. This goes beyond the usual clownish ineptitude of the UCP and into outright fascism. They will do whatever it takes, legal or not, to sell Alberta out to their cronies. The next election (if they allow one) can’t come soon enough. It’s hard not to despair though since it doesn’t seem to matter how incompetent or corrupt the UCP is, Albertans vote for them in droves.
@djc
Does removal of Mr. McClure require a majority or unanimous vote of the legislature?
Not that I want him removed, I’m curious as to what hoops our mini mango mussolini will have to jump through.
Gerald: Part I, Section 3(4) of the Election Act states, “The Lieutenant Governor in Council, on an address of the Assembly, may suspend or remove the Chief Electoral Officer from office for cause or incapacity.”
Section 3(5) continues: “If the Legislature is not then sitting, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may suspend the Chief Electoral Officer from office for cause or incapacity proved to the satisfaction of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, but the suspension shall not continue in force beyond the end of the next sitting of the Legislature.”
DJC
Or, as is happening down south, with a DC judge, since he follows the rule of law, find some little thing, take it out of context, say it needs investigation and proceed to smear…..
So who was it that Marlaina put into her DC office that they seem to be sharing the same playbook??
So if Smith claims “cause” (which would be a lie, as McClure is following Smith’s own law) what then? Could the Lt. Gov. step in? Lt. Gov in council means the cabinet acting in name of Lt. Gov., but constitutional convention does allow for the Lt. Gov. to act directly. Question is, would she?
So the premier could make arrangements now to suspend the Chief Electoral Officer and nobody would fill his role when/if Danielle Smith calls an election in March? I see. Would anyone other than hard-core UCP trust an election without proper oversight, or any oversight at all? Am I missing something? Should we call the United Nations’ election observation team now? We could join places like Angola .
https://unric.org/en/the-role-of-the-united-nations-in-ensuring-free-and-fair-elections/
Abs: I can’t argue with this. Hang onto your hat. DJC
Danielle “Sour Grapes” Smith and Mickey Amery are not happy. They are not happy with a government peon, appointed by Smith’s UCP government, no less. They are not happy that the government peon is not obeying the UCP Party whips. They are not happy that the government peon refuses to stay in his lane—as defined by Danielle of the Sour Grapes.
What will Sour Grapes’ next move be, I wonder? Thomas Lukaszuk’s request for a referendum petition is already approved. Has Mr. McClure defied the Premier of Oilberduh (emphasis on “duh”) by NOT reversing himself on that approval? Will Mr. McClure be removed from office by a UCP kangaroo court for “cause”? Or for “incapacity”?
Danielle’s grapes must be especially sour, in light of this latest revelation (to her, anyway) that she is not an all-powerful Republican governor of a deep-red MAGA state. Who will feel her wrath this time? If Smith doesn’t find a way to short-circuit Lukaszuk’s referendum, Smith herself will feel the wrath of Mitch Sylvestre, Cameron Davies, probably David Parker, and likely all the yahoos who’d rather be American MAGAts than maple MAGAts.
I agree with Just Me; we have to start pushing back against Smith’s constant noise, and proving that AT LEAST 65% of Albertans do NOT want to break up Canada—and that AT LEAST 75% of us do NOT want to be Americans.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters
Danielle Smith’s pushing of sovereignty and separation is absolutely incomprehensible. I would venture a guess that, if Alberta became independent, the U S would immediately demand unfettered access to all natural resources in Alberta, virtually for free, a demand backed up by the U S military. Then, things would get worse from there.
Alberta pension money etc.. would disappear, along with health care in favour of the U S insurance system, which even Danielle Smith would not be able to afford once she was swept aside as figurehead leader of the province. And many more disastrous outcomes would occur.
@Christina
That’s exactly the outcome I see, as well. Never mind how it would Balkanize the rest of the country right into the hand of the American Empire.
Now, Smith either knows and has made some kind of financial deal for selfish gain (more likely) or she doesn’t and she’s dumber than a bag of hair and naive, to boot.
I am so tired of this Damocles sword. Carney and the courts need to come out swinging on this–and soon.
This constant anxiety of “will they/won’t they” and Smith’s Trumpish aspirations have to be stopped. This isn’t “shall we have X government program?– this is insurrection and collusion on behalf of the American Empire.
Alberta doesn’t have the right to break up the whole country. BC doesn’t want to leave and they’ll be stuck there, unsupported, because if the army or other forces need to do something–they’ll have to pass through the US of Alberta to do it. This cannot happen. It puts the entire country at risk, the arctic circle, included.
Enough already.
Dixie Dani is so stupid she thinks the Americans will build her another pipeline and then share the profits. It’s a level of delusion that requires medication.
Because genociders don’t use the Courts and Constitution for their mission creep ….. because the Courts don’t have have a say in terror…just saying
No Canadian has a constitutional right to participate in a “Citizens’ Initiative” process; no such a thing is even mentioned in the Constitution. It is absolutely inappropriate for elected politicians to intervene or interfere with the absolutely independent electoral office. Smith and her UCP government display a sort of political Dunning-Krueger effect: they imagine themselves superior politicians and masters of the art of the possible in public affairs when in fact they are the opposite: politically so inferior and inept that they don’t even know they are the epitome of gormless and incompetent.
I’ve always said they don’t do politics, only partisanship, step-by-step, right down the bogs : Unite the Right; Unilateral Declaration of Extra-Federalist Distinction; tRump-Tariff Judas; Serial Proignoses; MAGA 5th-Columnists; Publicly-Perceived Criminal Perfidy; Unabashed Conflict of Interest; Preposterous Pretentiousness; Et cetera.
The UCP is proxy for Big Bitumen which has now shown too much of its hand to deny that it would prefer the 3rd-largest deposit of petroleum in the world be placed under US, not Canadian jurisdiction. With a potential operational horizon of centuries at the Bitumen Mines of Albetar, perhaps Big-B can’t be entirely blamed for its increasingly ham-handed gambit to sever Alberta from Canada: the behemoth is taken somewhat unawares by factors unforeseen —the much faster rate of human-caused climate change than even recently forecast, and the surprisingly sudden ascent of MAGA tRumpublicanism in the USA. It sort of snuck up on them.
Big-B’s shortcoming has been to presume too much competence in its political proxies who were supposed to get this objective done as seamlessly and smoothly as consuming citizens were once sold an environmental bill of goods along with their petro-fuel purchases. Big-B’s panic now is the realization that their proxies are so politically incompetent, their hyper-partisanship will jump the rails before it can secure the vast, sandy deposit of goo the way it would like. It must be wondering if it’s really too late. And worrying.
@Scotty, while I agree with everything you’ve said here as to the motivations behind this sh*tshow I think there’s another consideration.
Those American corporations are assuming Canadians don’t like harsh confrontation. They’ve factored that in–and they wouldn’t be wrong. They also factored in that they’d just steamroll right over top of First Nations’ Rights like they do in the USA plus environmentalists and anti-American sentiment. Getting a few of any of those disapproving groups shot while protesting, for them, is part of the business of successfully terrorizing the locals into silence. They likely backed the Trucker’s Protest to make enough of the country annoyed about protesters to turn a blind eye to any egregious behaviour towards them–a trap which Trudeau deftly avoided.
Unlike America, in Canada, regular people take a dim view of police abusing their children and grandchildren on livestream. Witness the outrage over the G20 a few years ago when Parkdale was invaded and the Queen’s Park protesters were abused on video. Officer Bubbles, anyone?
Arresting is okay, freezing bank accounts is okay…bashing little old ladies and students on video is a step too far. Shooting protesters can enrage Canadians and turn them out onto the streets. This is why Maple MAGA wants the CBC de-funded. They’ll often cover large events, being one of the only mainstream channels that will cover that beat with regularity.
Unlike the Americans they’re used to–we like to think we still have a conscience that isn’t bound by financial-impact constraints but by a basic sense of humanity and the right to protest even if most citizens don’t exercise those rights.
Keep your eyes open everyone cuz this is far from over.
When QUEBEC WANTED TO LEAVE WASNT THE QUESTION PUT TO THE COUNTRY NOT THE PROVINCE. AFTER ALL CANADA HAS PUT A TON OF MONEY INTO ALBERTA. AND CONTINUES TO.
No. No it was not. Only Canadians eligible to vote in Québec were able to vote in those two referenda.
Maybe Smith should be reported to the Ethics Commissioner and Amery to the Law Society for attempting to interfere in the administration of Justice.
Tom
A very good point, Tom. DJC
Late time an ethics commissioner weighed in on Smith, she was summarily “fired”…that’s the drill…
I’d like to know when the federal Justice minister, Sean Fraser, is going to step in with charges of sedition against Smith. How can the premier of a province get away with her obvious plan to destroy the country? I say it’s obvious because she has done everything possible to ease the way for a referendum. If she weren’t a separatist, she would have told these Maple Maggots long ago to go pound sand. And now she’s complaining about a law that her own government passed, because it is hampering her fellow Neanderthals from speeding up their scurrilous referendum. She says she believes in democracy? Pardon me while I vomit. What are the feds waiting for? How can what she’s doing not be seditious? And why doesn’t she just self-deport to Mar-a-Lago and ask for asylum?
Hi Michele. Our host has addressed your question in a previous post:
https://davidclimenhaga.wpcomstaging.com/2025/07/answering-a-seven-year-old-rhetorical-question-why-canada-needs-to-outlaw-freelance-diplomacy/
It’d take a team of constitutional lawyers to be certain, but so far(!) it seems “Sour Grapes” Smith hasn’t crossed the legal line into seditious behavour. If she:
(1) won a separation referendum (unlikely)
(2) failed to convince the federal government and ALL provincial governments to cut Alberta loose (failure is extremely likely)
(3) and then unilaterally declared “Alberta’s independent now! So there!!”, OR:
(4) appealed to Donald Trump to take over (Smith probably, repeat, emphasis, PROBABLY isn’t that stupid, though the truly delusional separatists pushing her probably are);
Then, Smith’s actions would be openly seditious, or even treasonous. But until she ACTS, yammering about separation is stupid, selfish, bone-headed and extremely harmful. It’s also way too likely to encourage the arrogant, stupid, fat old man who infests the Oval Office. But not—quite—illegal.
First, it isn’t seditious for a province to secede. The federal government has explored what is or should be required in order a province may secede: referring to the two Quebec Referenda, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Stephane Dion drafted the Clarity Act to require a clear referendum question (that is, no undefined “sovereignty association” allowed), and Jean Chrétien’s government asked the SCoC’s opinion of the legalities involved for secession. The high court said that, in its opinion, a constitutional amendment would be required, amending the Constitution to require that all eleven sovereign parliaments of Canada ratify any province’s application to secede. In any case, the first requirement is that a separation referendum must comply with the federal Clarity Act.
Presumably next comes the amendment, presumably a First Ministers’ meeting, probably with the Assembly of First Nations or other provincial organizations of indigenous nations seeking input with respect, as in Alberta’s case (and most, but not all other provinces), treaties signed with the Crown. Seven of the ten provinces representing at least 50%+1 of the national population, plus the federal government must ratify an amendment—one that the SCoC opines should require the consent of all eleven sovereign parliaments in Canada in order any province may secede.
It may be that if the amendment is difficult to achieve then, a fortiori, ratification of a secession by all sovereign parliaments is all the more so. However, it remains that a mechanism, no matter how unlikely to succeed, exists for any sovereign province to secede. Naturally many other factors would probably be inserted as new foot-tracks crisscross each other through the new snow of such a project.
So far, it’s not a crime for Alberta’s current government to pretend it can legally declare independence unilaterally. The UCP has already passed (under Kenney) statutes that are probably unconstitutional but the opportunity to challenge them in court has not yet arisen or been undertaken. For example, the UCP declared it would not allow exercise of federal firearms-control laws in Alberta: although it leaves the question of what it might do to stop federal authorities from carrying out the law of the land, an exemplary situation hasn’t yet arisen. And that’s probably on purpose.
Plainly the UCP is trying to goad the feds into somehow offending Albertans. It challenges federal jurisdiction. Referring a matter to court hasn’t worked out well—for example, K-Boy’s legal challenge of federal authority to impose a carbon tax failed—thus Danielle Smith’s approach has been to stick with bluster to avoid embarrassment in the courts. And thus she does everything she can to antagonize the federal government, to claim jurisdiction she doesn’t have, to threaten action (or, in the case of forearms, non-action) against federal jurisdiction —including replacing policing and pensions with Alberta ones, neither of which the majority of Albertans even want. This psephological foolishness aside, it’s still all hat and no cattle. Apparently it still plays with Smith’s MAGA base.
For at least the last decade—or since the HarperCons were defeated in 2015–the federal government has been content to let Alberta vent, absorbing all manner of insults, threats, and accusations with a cherubic, Justinian smile that obviously got up Wexiteers’ snoots more than the other way around, deftly calling their bluff with every one of their haymaker swings-and-misses. Although there hasn’t been a lot of jawing otherwise, it’s still better than warring, as Churchill once recommended.
At what point does cheap talk become sedition? When Danielle’s buddy Barry Cooper says the Americans might have to “help” convince Canada that it should cede Alberta to the USA? If Danielle herself says it? Or only if she welcomes US tanks and troops across the Canadian border? As far’s we know, she hasn’t done anything like that (but she might have smiled and nodded if the Orange One started riffing on it during her pilgrimage to MAGA Logo).
The 2022 Freedumb Convoy is a Wexit icon, but it is instructive for freedom loving Canadians: the UCP was on the knife-edge of condoning the truckers’ blockade of the Coutts-Sweetgrass border-crossing but when the federal Emergencies Act was implemented, just the way it was designed by a federal ProgCon government, to disperse border blockades and the siege of the Capital, the UCP was cowed and premier Kenney, founder of the UCP, was subsequently reviewed by the party which he himself stuffed with “Take Back Alberta” types, got a mere 51% approval, and resigned part way through the party’s very first term.
Not simply instructive that, when push comes to shove, the provincial authority can be inferred to buckle under federal jurisdiction, but also that Danielle Smith will never allow her bluff to be called. Which is why she will unabashedly do a one-footed hopscotch between glowing coals while juggling flaming potatoes and—almost assuredly—copy directly from the tRump playbook (written by Roy Cohn).
I think you will have to be content with the probable fact that every agency which is potentially affected by the UCP agenda is already watching very closely for any hint of actionable sedition. For now it looks like the planned referendum will be a total fiasco, one from which Smith et al can brew up tons of controversy and maudlin victimhood. But is that sedition?
Very good points, Scotty. I had forgotten that the Emergencies Act was PC legislation. In my opinion, nothing said or done yet by anyone associated with the government or the various separatist entities has meets the legal definition of sedition, let alone treason. Negotiating the destruction of the country with a foreign power, though, should be illegal, which is why I have advocated a Canadian version of the Logan Act. DJC
I’d agree p, except that we have the unfortunate precedent of Québec, which in 1976 elected a government bent on breaking up the country, and went on to hold a referendum on a soft-pedalled version of separation in 1980, and a somewhat more robustly worded referendum in 1995, and has also fielded overtly separatist MPs since the 1990s in the form of the Bloc Québécois — and nobody, not René Lévesque, not Jacques Parizeau, not Lucien Bouchard, has been prosecuted for treason or sedition.
I mean, it seemed prudent at the time to indulge those people and tolerate their efforts to break up the country, on the basis of freedom of political expression, in the hope that the voting public would see the folly of their project and vote against it — and they mostly did, although 1995 was a very close-run thing.
But in hindsight, I feel that precedent has emboldened the Alberta separation cabal in the knowledge that they won’t be greeted instead with the treatment of Carles Puigdemont by the Spanish government. I wonder what would happen if the Carney government decided to follow the Spanish model to deal with separatism …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carles_Puigdemont
Jerry: Carles Puigdemont may turn out to be an important footnote in Canadian history. I think some of the separatists in Alberta who have been sailing close to the wind, many with dual Canada-U.S. citizenship, may end up in similar trouble. Mind you, there are worse fates than ending up having to live in Belgium. The beer there is excellent, perhaps the best in the world. Certainly better than having to go back to Wyoming or Ottawa, Illinois. DJC
lol re Belgium 😉
Jerry: My daughter lives in Belgium in the lovely city where the treaty that ended the War of 1812 was signed. Sitting there two years ago in the emptiest corners of outdoor restaurants, owing to a case of COVID caught on a train to or from Glasgow a few days previously, I said to myself, “Self,” I said, “this is the best beer I’ve ever tasted. You could do worse than old Carles did.” DJC
The Quebec Referenda do not comprise legal precedent (only Common Law court decisions establish precedents); they did, however, precede two important responses to aspired secession—if, indeed, that’s what the 1980 “sovereignty association” implied: the first Referendum was followed closely in response by the so-called “repatriation” of Canada’s Constitution which was supposed —at least by some—to appease some of Quebec’s beefs with federalism. That is, the first Quebec Referendum, 1980, preceded the Constitution Act 1982.
The second Referendum was “more robustly worded” in light of preceding events (not legal precedents): yet it, too, contained somewhat ambiguous or speculative elements in the question (it asked if Quebec should negotiate some sort of new relationship—but did not define what that would be). It was also followed, or responded to, by the passing of the federal Clarity Act, plus by the feds’ reference question to the SCoC with respect how a popular affirmation of secession in a properly-worded referendum might be legally implemented (the SCoC’s opinion that amendment of the Constitution should say that secession requires each of Canada’s eleven sovereign parliaments to ratify is not a legal precedent since it does not arise from a trial between two or more parties).
I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that the Alberta Chief Electoral Officer’s reference to the courts with respect the legality of certain factions’ use of the provincial Citizens’ Initiative Act was inspired by the feds’ somewhat similar reference with respect the Clarity Act—which, while being his prerogative, does not a legal precedent (at least, not yet: the matter could conceivably end up in court).
The effect of the two Quebec Referenda that preceded the current Alberta effort is that, following both, we won’t ever be doing it that way again.
Politics—real politics, not the misconceived “politicization” rubric of today’s halfwitted internet society which really refers to partisanship, not the “art of the possible”—is a worthy and fascinating process. In this case the omission of potential secession in constitutional evolutions to present had to be mended, post facto and ad hoc, as the Quebec Referenda effectively guided blindness in this respect through the dark. We ended up with the possibility, the mechanism, by which Canadians can be said to be free agents of their own democracy—but, taking an ironic page from Danielle Smith herself, only within a sovereign FEDERATION of Canada.
We are always reminded that freedoms and rights are limited in any way that is reasonable in a free and democratic society; “limited” catches in the feral Albertan’s craw yet loosens the libertarian Freedumbite’s tongue. Yet, despite that, Canada is considered one of the freest, most democratic nations in the world—with the prosperity and influence to prove it. Any application to leave it is therefore automatically suspect.
It appears the housekeeping is almost done—short of a constitutional amendment that would be, as was probably intended, almost—but not quite—impossible to achieve. But there’s still plenty of time for the UCP government to create and actual, legal precedent by petitioning the courts the way it would—that is, if it’s got the guts to accept a decision that doesn’t go its way. I think that’d be swell: any future reference to secession as per a SCoC adjudication in Government of Alberta vs Crown, 2520, wherein what not to do is the precedent cited.
Knowing how Danielle Smith and the UCP are, they will want Gordon McClure gone. The previous UCP leader hated Lorne Gibson and his entire staff for doing their jobs too well, so they were sacked. Democracy and the UCP are like polar opposites. They don’t mesh.
Even if they want McClure gone, it’s too late. He did his job properly. The Lukaszuk referendum has been approved and the separatists’ referendum question is now before the courts. What’s Dani going to do — fire all the judges? Actually, I wouldn’t put it past her.
So how much of this pressure was due to the referendum question submitted by Thomas Lukaszuk, which has now been approved to proceed?
With the APP submission going in for review.
By the by, way to go
#Forever Canadian….
Alberta exerting anything over another province? Really does make you think of where Smith and her gang’s brains are. I could just see it now, Smith phoning Eby and instructing him to “whatever she wants”. its would be the best show in Canada. I’d like to see Smith phone the Quebec Premier and tell him what to do. Smith is demonstrating shades of Trump’s behaviour but she isn’t Trump.
Some of Smith’s suggestions, demands, actions might well qualify as sedition. Perhaps some one could charge and arrest her.
My take on all of this is she is using the trump detraction play and working towards taking Alberta into the U.S.A. Most likely she believed she would be an important part of Maga if Alberta joined the U.S.A. Dani might want to check the late night shows for updates. Trump may not even be in office if the Epstein affair really opens up. Given the Trump/Epstein affair, why would anybody even want to come near Trump.
I believe Trump hasn’t given up on taking over Canada. He isn’t interested in “making a deal” with Canada on tariffs, he just wants to ruin our economy so we will want to join the U.S.A. Dani is just one of those things he uses to make in roads and cause problems within our country. Dani is too stupid to understand orange boy is just using her. I’d prefer we had no deal with the U.S.A. than a bad deal. Oh well, trump is 79 so who knows we might get lucky and he exits stage left.
Hi e.a.f. I’m certain you’re right that Trump hasn’t dropped his big, beautiful idea of adding Canada to his brand-new empire. Trump has a whim of iron. What started as needling PM Justin Trudeau has stuck in Trump’s tiny mind and become an obsession. Trump simply can’t drop a bad idea, especially when it’s HIS bad idea.
And—whoda thunk it?—Danielle “Sour Grapes” Smith behaves exactly the same way.
Oh the irony….
CONservatives…Rule of law, we stand for Justice!!
….except in July??
— Marlaina and her ‘justice minister ‘ trying to influence the elections officer.
— Skippy ( I’m an Albertan so I can break the laws with impunity?)
– driving around in convertibles,on the back seat; no seatbelt.
–driving around, standing up in the back of a ‘pickup truck’ (more folksy) with his buddy perched on the wheel well.
–driving around Riley on an ATV, with his camera going; not in the least bit distracted. RCMP need to verify his license for that???
— laughs at the debate that he might get a ticket.
–has his buddy Garnett Genuis (posts on social media)bring a bus load of people from Fort Saskatchewan to the debate– limited seating for the locals .
— OCAA President Donna Kellway had to issue a letter
” Prosecutorial Independence and the Rule of Law “……
Because of the CONservatives ** who were posting on social media about the sentencing of the convoy-idiots (imo they should be charged with restitution for the billions it cost All Canadians for their occupation of Ottawa)
** Pierre Poilievre, Melissa Lantsman, Andrew Lawton, Andrew Sheer, Michelle Ferreri,Michael Barrett ; just the posts I’ve seen.
And for them to be gaslighting about the ” it was a totally peaceful protest” is absolutely disgusting, and they are only being charged with ‘mischief’.
So we still have a day to go, what else will be added to the list???
Well, well….Karma?
Justice was served in Alberta…
“Jeffrey Rath ,reprimanded and fined $10,000 in costs to be paid by June 30th ” after conceding he twice breached professional standards.
( thanks Gil)
NOTICE….Saturday August 2nd
OLD STRATHCONA FARMERS MARKET
Booth set up for
” Forever-Canadian” petition
( courtesy Reboot alberta/lisab)