In Danielle Smith’s Alberta, if the facts don’t support your argument, you can make up new facts.
Alberta’s premier demonstrated this capacity yesterday evening in her delusional 15-minute televised address to the province wherein she set out to explain the differences between the Canadian and United States constitutions in order to justify holding a referendum on Alberta separation.
Claiming Canada was founded on the principle of strong provinces, Ms. Smith continued: “Canada is very different from the United States and many other Western democracies. For example, the U.S. centralizes the majority of power and decision-making in its federal government. In Canada, we chose a decentralized federation composed of very unique and diverse provinces left to govern themselves in almost all matters with the main exceptions of national defence and international affairs.”
This is the polar opposite of the facts. She either missed the lecture on the constitution during her years at the University of Calgary or someone was guilty of educational malpractice!
The Fathers of Confederation created a federation in which the federal government had a clear preponderance of power. Even a quick read of the Constitution Act 1867* makes this obvious.
By contrast, the Founding Fathers of the United States did the opposite, creating a federation that vested more power in the governments of its states. The founders of Canada in took a different road in 1867 because they’d just had a ringside seat to the Civil War that wracked the neighbours from 1861 to 1865.
Ms. Smith continued, still mistakenly, “Over time, our federal government has sought to move towards a more centralized American-style system with Ottawa attempting to take over many provincial areas of jurisdiction using all manner of legislative, judicial and financial leverage.”
In fact, over time, while the United States has moved toward a more powerful central government, Canada has moved toward a less centralized model.
It’s important to note this nonsense because so many of the other consequential problems with Ms. Smith’s effort to push Alberta into a dangerous, divisive and economically harmful separation referendum campaign stem from her delusional view of the constitution.
The fact she is ignorant of both the U.S. and Canadian constitutions would be amusing were she not a premier promoting a campaign for constitutional change in Canada with the provincial treasury for a slush fund and the assistance – solicited or otherwise – of foreign actors in possession of the stolen personal data of three million of us who do not have our interests at heart.
This is extremely dangerous, and shockingly no one in her own party has tried to rein her in. Well, perhaps that’s what got Matt Jones and Nate Horner, two of her more sensible cabinet ministers, sent packing this week, leading to yesterday morning’s otherwise insignificant cabinet shuffle.
It was mildly amusing three years ago when Ms. Smith thought she had the powers of an American president to pardon convicted criminals. It is more troubling now as she uses the not inconsiderable powers of the province to assist a group of bad actors, foreign and domestic, in a campaign to break up our country.
“The misinformation is so profound that there is no redemption for such ignorance,” retired Mount Royal University political science professor Keith Brownsey commented in a conversation about the address last night.
Consider the wording the referendum question itself that she proposes to use, the courts having blocked the clear yes-or-no question that was cooked up by her allies in the so-called Alberta Prosperity Project for its Stay Free Alberta separation campaign. Voters, Ms. Smith said, will now be asked: “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
This is wordy, ambiguous, and possibly intentionally confusing. How will the answer be composed? We were not told. It cannot be a simple yes or no.
Why do this? According to Ms. Smith it’s “because this proposed referendum question does not directly trigger separation, but if successful would ask Alberta’s government to commence the legal process necessary to hold a binding referendum on the matter, the recent court ruling would not be applicable, and the referendum question I outlined, could proceed.”
In other words, her daily protests to the contrary notwithstanding, including in last night’s address, she is a separatist!
Alas for Ms. Smith, this is unlikely to mollify the separatists who now dominate her party and have threatened to eject her as leader if she doesn’t use their question, which faces hurdles put in place by a series of court judgments.
“Smith doesn’t understand that there is no such thing as a binding ‘referendum’ in a Westminster parliamentary system,” Dr. Brownsey observed. “You can’t tell Parliament or the Legislature in our case what to do.”
“I recommend that she read section 91 of the Constitution Act 1867,” he added. “As well, someone should remind Ms. Smith that Justin Trudeau is no longer prime minister!”
Well, yes, an awful lot of what Ms. Smith had to say last night was a tired recitation of the sort of talking points associated with the convoy protests that mutated into Maple MAGA that infested the United Conservative Party under Jason Kenney and eventually morphed into the Alberta separation campaign.
There was a predictable attack on the decisions of various Alberta judges that have stymied the march of the Stay Free Alberta question to a ballot, which the premier boldly asserted were erroneous, fundamental misinterpretations of the law, and so on.
Well, that could be. That’s why we have appeal courts. But I’d bet that a superior court judge in Alberta is more likely to interpret the law correctly than a premier who sounds as if she’s never read Canada’s constitution.
There was an unhealthy dose of irrelevant Trudeau bashing. Ms. Smith also recycled old talking points attacking the “Trudeau-Singh government in Ottawa” and “the leave-it-in-the-ground NDP.” I guess we can expect to hear that again in the next provincial election campaign.
There was a lot of whining about the rights of “law-abiding gun owners” to own unrestricted weaponry, which makes sense when you remember the proponent of the Stay Free Alberta petition owns a gun store.
Earlier yesterday afternoon, the premier’s loyal minions on the UCP-dominated Select Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee finally managed to push through the motion that was derailed the day before to use the question from the Forever Canadian petition promoted by former Progressive Conservative deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk.
Soon thereafter the premier then said she doesn’t plan to, exactly. Still, if the separation referendum turns out to be as unpopular as I suspect it’ll be, I guess that will let the UCP try to pin the blame on Mr. Lukaszuk.
It was mildly amusing to watch UCP and NDP members of the special committee fighting against positions that not long ago they held, but probably not all that relevant by the time Ms. Smith had read her speech.
*Formerly known as the British North America Act.
Another child lefty behind.
Queen Danielle made a declaration about the state of the Canadian federation and fell on her swollen face. Since we are all part of Smith’s podcast reality, it’s time to give her a really hard grilling over her obvious and completely dishonest interpretations of Canadian federation.
For one thing, her claims about the US and Canadian division of powers is completely reversed. She also has some rather fanciful notions of the movement of those federal powers over the generations. And she doesn’t seem to understand how the Westminster System is supposed to function. In other words, everything in her address to Albertans was pulled out of her arse.
She declared herself a federalist. Though he did so tongue in cheek, because she really is a full on separatist. She wants to found a country based on her own wild delusions, which is in itself proof of madness. About the only crazy thing she didn’t say was to demand that Ottawa build her a ballroom.
It’s pretty rich when she tried to sell the notion that Alberta is impoverished because of imperial Ottawa. As for the First Nations, they don’t exist in her world. But Smith as decided to sit on a throne of lies, and she’s determined to pile it ever higher with more falsehoods.
What’s left but to endure this crazy that much longer? Thomas Lukaszuk must be chomping at the bit over not only ripping Smith apart, but apparently excited about the aspirations that his own political career maybe ascendant. (Again)
There’s no question that the Seppies in the UCP wanted something more defined in their claims to Alberta FreeDUMB, like maybe an outright declaration of independence and a call to arms. Wannabe patriots, raised on the rantings of Still Dead Byfield, want their civil war, and they want it now.
What a time to be alive?
It isn’t surprising that Premier Ditzy has made such a fundamental mistake about the nature of our provincial and federal governments. Danielle dearest’s initial degree was in English, followed by an additional 2? years to obtain an undergraduate degree in economics. None of that would include a study of our constitutional arrangements, likely. Outside of Christy Clarke, and Mike Harris – I cannot recall a lesser qualified premier, other than Ralph Klein. Her only merit is her glibness that cons the many. There is also here innate ability with creating word salad. I suppose that may come from her English degree.
What is very dangerous is the actions of the UCP and Danielle Smith. Even more dangerous is anyone who falls for her lies. What a gong show this is.
Smith seems to be developing quite a niche for herself in contadictory, confusing or just ridiculous things.
For instance, first there was her talk about a sovereign Alberta in a united Canada, now there will be a referendum on a referendum. Lastly the final surprise, after months of equivocation – she finally says she is not a separatist. Its probably enough to cause Rath to spin even more, where ever he is.
Of course in Smith’s world, she chooses the questions despite the various petitions. Although option A as we will call it is fairly similar to, but not exactly the same as the Forever Canadian question. Option B is where it gets far weirder and more convoluted. Arguably the provincial government has already taken legal steps for a referendum on separatism, so the question seems a bit redundant.
The revisionist history lesson is also bit much. Perhaps she has some grandiose idea that the provinces, and her in particular, have limited Federal powers. Actually Federal powers have ebbed and waned over time, mostly based on what the judges that she dismisses have said.
Lastly, the tv address also gave Smith a chance to once again make whatever statements she wanted mostly unchallenged and therefore set the discussion. She is good at sounding convincing and as the old saying goes, if you can fake sincerity, you’ve got it made. So now it will now be up to Albertans to see through what Smith is trying to say and do here.
David Cochrane asked her some good questions on Power & Politics today. But she was prepared and though she lied her butt off, I don’t know how many people would notice.
My word! It seems we will have a summer full of roadside campouts, slow rolls and border blockades, for reasons clear to the people who orchestrate them. The crowds might be thinner with the cost of gas and diesel this year. Some in those circles are vowing to remove Premier Smith from office by the end of 2026. They’ll be busy.
The rest of us know who we’ll need to avoid in our personal circles if we wish to remain sane in the coming months. Aggressive interest in the weather is a fine place to begin and finish any conversation. Also, may I suggest the Habs?
Things could turn ugly around Thanksgiving. Watch out for instigators with American accents and other tells. Those people are playing for keeps. Also, if you see Pete Hoekstra out and about, welcome him back to Canada.
“The misinformation is so profound that there is no redemption for such ignorance”. Brownsey made an astute observation. Smith has been told that her referendum question is illegal but that is not stopping her. She is unlawful. Why follow the laws of a country you do not believe has any merit? Forget history. All the work people have done to create Canada in the first place in now in jeopardy because of Smith. She is someone who does not have any respect for anyone, ironically not even herself. She has no integrity. Smith has declared a proxy war against Canada. Shameless. She does not give a tinker’s damn about what anyone else has accomplished, she is only interested in herself. Remind you of anyone?
The ramifications of her awful thinking and behaviour will either galvanize this province or tear it apart, a risk Smith is willing to take. One has to wonder what kind of human chooses to destroy the underpinnings of a democratic society to be replaced by a one party rule state. Smith is a dictator. We live in extremely dangerous times because of people like Smith, the UCP and of course MAGA. They love corruption, chaos, pain and suffering for others, and annihilation. Who are we to stand up against these depots? This is also class warfare. Smith likes her golden cat and expensive carpet, her business class travel and all the perks she can muster. Her goal is to become as rich as possible and she is setting herself up to do just that. She is such a shit disturber that an American radio show with her as host beckons. She can already say that she has been a negative force when it comes to plurality, and commonality. And for that she is being rewarded in this insane asylum we call western society.
It’s time for Albertans to read about the four-facet model of the PCL-R, purely out of curiosity.
Hello DJC and fellow commenters,
I have to wonder if Danielle Smith actually does not understand the Constitution Act (formerly British North America Act), or if she simply doesn’t care what it says. What the Constitution Act says can be inconvenient to her her plans, and so she claims it says whatever is expedient for her.
Danielle Smith neglects to mention the “peace, order and good government” (POGG) phrase which is generally considered to give any residual powers to the federal government.
It is difficult to imagine how Danielle Smith knows better than the courts what the law says. She claims that the law is different from what it actually is and then claims that the courts do not know how to interpret it. That is pretty arrogant, one might say.
I am curious what the answer choices might be to the question she proposes. I think that answer choices likely would confuse the issue further.
@Christina,
I’d suggest that Smith suffers from the same disease that Trump does. “This word/phrase means what I want it to mean and if I lie often enough, everyone will follow suit and it will change the meaning.”
It’s a common tactic nowadays, one I strongly oppose because it is the opposite of “say what you mean and mean what you say”.
It’s a tactic designed to obfuscate, not enlighten, and it’s been going on for some time now and both these individuals (and much of the media) are participants in the rape of the English language to benefit their pet causes.
It falls under the category of “bullshit baffles brains”
Agree, but also corrupt politicians do not like good justice systems because they could be jailed for their crimes. Too bad they didn’t put Trump in prison for his 34 counts of fraud and other crimes. Maybe we can do better with Smith for her Corruptcare scandal.
Val Jobson: The UCP’s Corrupt Care scandal, which is $614 million, or even more, still has the power to sink the UCP and Danielle Smith. The investigation into it is ongoing.
Very good points!
An America-style home-schooled ignoramus running the province. Great. Between her and Doug Ford they share the IQ of a shoe size.
Stupidity is more dangerous than sociopathy. Unfortunately, we have a clever PM, who is too busy thinking he’s dealing with rational people to correct this madness. Surely as a history buff he could put pad to this in a witty two minute, retort.
I wonder how much annoyance with the separation referendum will affect the outcome of the other 9 referendum questions, in which Danielle Smith is essentially asking for a vote of confidence with her other MAGA inspired proposals.
Yes, it’s the other nine questions that really matter. By campaigning for remain on the separation question she is making it easier for conservative voters to go along with her on her real agenda, which is contained in the first nine, and which very few people are going to even read. Especially if the opposition doesn’t talk about them.
Nevermind the University of Calgary. The study of the distribution of legislative powers between the federal and provincial governments was and still is embedded in the Alberta Grade 6 Social Studies curriculum. Most of us quickly blipped it out of course, hormones being what they are, but it should still reside in the foggy recesses of the majority of Albertan minds.
I do wonder what they’re teaching these days in Applied Politics and Public Affairs at the college of massage where they welcome ‘homeschooled students who completed a non-standard curriculum’. Alternative facts are presumably also welcome. A bit of massaging?
“The misinformation is so profound that there is no redemption for such ignorance,”
That seems to both an ingrained character trait and a tactic used to befuddle the poorly educated segment of the population that both she and her Mar-a-Lago role model loves to death.
Besides, the lying seems beneficial when the ends justify the means, there is perceived utility in lying, there are no apparent negative consequences, and the opportunities for dishonest gains are morally justified in the guilt free mind of the liar.
It’s the wording of all these referendumb questions that concern me the most. I think they are purposely worded to try and dupe Albertans into giving this poor excuse of a government the result they are looking for. And to bring up Trudeau as a trigger point again!? It’s like they have psychologists helping them to write their speeches, instead of people who know our history and things like the BNA act. This is enough! Smith and the UPC need stop the delusional thinking and they need to stop living in the past.
“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
1) Yo (Yes and No)
2) Nes (No and Yes)
3) Huh?
4) Maybe
4) Search me
6) Whatever Danielle wants
7) Just deport the d*mn immigrants already!
No, the options are remain or leave, just like the Brexit referendum. (The word remain is even in there.) And she is a remainer. Go figure.
According to Rob Smith (the UCP president who was definitely not at the Centurion Project meeting!), the referendum ballot will be multiple choice. A. Stay in Canada.
B. In favour of a binding referendum, possibly in a couple of years, which will undoubtedly be struck down by the courts. Danielle Smith must think the folks in her separatist base are incredibly stupid. This word salad of a question just drips with contempt. Meanwhile, she’s insulted every lawyer and judge in Alberta with last night’s address. Watch for the courts to rule against the provincial government in absolutely everything – until Smith is gone. Great time to sue the province!
Personally, Highwood, I think it’s more likely to be, A: Leave Canada, or B: Leave Canada. But Danielle will still be Canada’s greatest patriot. DJC
It boggles the mind how anyone that has no clue of how the Constitution works can end up being premier. Furthermore how can anyone claim they have a university education and be unable to write a simple yes or no question on a very serious topic. To have two opposing ideas in one sentence and then ask for an answer is totally stupid. But then this what we have.
“…still is embedded in the Alberta Grade 6 Social Studies curriculum.” Hormones aside, perhaps home schoolers don’t get to Grade 6?
So David…. When are you going to consider the disaster awaiting the UCP/Wildrose adventure when the “separatists” revolt as they say they will?
Bruce: Well, I’ve been thinking about that. It’s not clear what form such a disaster will take, or who will be impacted in the worst way. I mean, will they just oust Danielle and pout in their own leader. I can’t see Grant Hunter or, God help us, Jeff Rath, being as electable as Ms. Smith. Or will they blockade the border at Coutts again, or send a convoy west to take Prince Rupert? DJC
Quick, we need to find some ostriches in need of attention from the fringers.
Avian ebola? DJC
Brilliant, the next level!
You nailed it again DJC, as one who took a few Poli Sci courses back in the day, her complete misrepresentation of the Constitution Act 1867 (formerly known as the BNA Act) specifically Sections 91 & 92, was both insulting (as she likely knows better but I do like Dr. Brownsey’s take) and frustrating, as similar to the MAGAs down south, words spoken by a fearless leader are beyond reproach and must be the truth. As you point out, there is no fact checking in a pre-recorded address.
On a lighter note (if that is possible with what is at stake)……….. I never figured that the referendum question would be in a long answer format. Who will be grading the answers?
For all their faults, Marlainia and the Grifter-Yokels do seem to have a functional recognition of historical materialism as it pertains to the state. They understand that the state is an instrument, like a lathe or a dildo, and as such the instrument is to be operated to effect a desired outcome. It exists to perform work. Grift-o-kons operate politician place-holders by purchasing them. Plutocrats get face-time with the political whores from whom they require services. The great unwashed do not. Alberta Grift-o-kons want the state to let them milk the current US energy war being fought against the rest of earth. Tout court. The “Canada forever” liberal/prog folks really don’t have much of a materialist foundation. Canada was created by the most blood-thirsty, expansionist colonizing empire in history, for the purpose of managing the resources present in the territory. It is now part-and-parcel of the US Empire, which is something like Byzantium was to Rome in terms of its relationship to the British Empire. Canada has been a comprador for British and US imperialism since always. The geographic make-up of the various legal entities in the Anglo imperial holdings in North America has changed immensely since Henry VII, the great proponent of universal single-payer healthcare and indigenous rights, dispatched Johnny Cabot to see just what was what with the heathens and infidels in parts unknown to Christians. It’s unlikely to be perpetually fixed in the current state. Now the conditions under which these perimeter paramaters change in the modern era is not different than it was in the time of Alexander. Wig-splitting and house-burning tend to be the practical program. The Soviet Union did dissolve itself through civilized means, but that was quickly undone by the Central Intelligence Agency and friends, who like good capitalists and imperialists recognized that there was loot to be had and various potential nationalists and religious fanatics to be cultivated. The US overthrew Allende with a fairly small band of Nazis, and they did the same in the Ukraine in 2014. Currently they are busy attacking Belt/Road in Myanmar, and getting ready to choke off Chinese oil in the Strait of Malacca, having more or less successfully shut down the Strait of Hormuz after failing to Make the Shah Great Again. While the Carny Banker has made a great show of jousting with the absurd wrestling character posing as the US executive, this kayfabe is wearing thin. Tar from Derpberta is not ever going to China in any appreciable quantities so long as the US program continues, as it has in its present form for eighty years. So, to coin a phrase, what is to be done?
Murphy: “…the US Empire, which is something like Byzantium was to Rome in terms of its relationship to the British Empire.” Very good point. I hadn’t thought of that. Gotta be a PhD thesis in that for someone! DJC
She either missed the lecture on the constitution during her years at the University of Calgary or someone was guilty of educational malpractice!
At the U of C, she was educated by the Calgary School. So, educational malpractice it is.
Lars: Actually, I knew that. DJC
The new question is framed as it should be (a direct question on separation would be shot down immediately in court) and it is very similar and no doubt inspired by the Brexit referendum question. The options are not yes or no, but remain or leave. The only dubious thing there is the reference to the Constitution (there is no constitutional mechanism for separation), but that’s probably not important. Voters will understand the question well enough. Smith and the UCP will now campaign for remain on question ten, thus demolishing the argument that they are separatists, and more importantly for yes on the first nine questions, which are much more serious and constitute her real agenda, and which everyone seems to be ignoring at least for now. We may be all very angry with Smith, but anger is a blinding emotion, and she is very good at what she does.
Actually, the choices in this referendum are “remain” or “hold another referendum on leaving”.
Jerry et. al.: At this point, we don’t actually know what the choices on the ballot will be. What Jerry suggests is a logical interpretation of what the question should be, given the convoluted wording of the proposed question, so that might be what Ms. Smith and her brain trust decide to do. Her language during the news conference suggests she is heading that way. But perhaps instead they’ll offer us the choices of YES (Yes, I want to separate from Canada) and NO (No, I don’t want to remain part of Canada.) You have to admit, that would be on brand. DJC
Looks like Dingy Smith is not quite done pissing everyone off just with her referendum. Given the loss of the court case involving the separatist petition, for failing to consult with First Nations people, she now is trying to champion removing those rights in the Constitution. This it very obvious she is two faced while claiming to campaign for the stay in Canada side when she is appealing the judges ruling, and actively looking to squash Indigenous rights in favor of her separatist friends. This is just another example of the Dictator we have, or maybe her attempt to keep her job in the face of the coup building in the UCP. Either way, the hole she is digging just keeps getting deeper and deeper. Below is the link to an interesting article. Too bad she is too busy chasing this shit, rather than doing her job and looking after health care, education, cost of living and the many other things she should be doing.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/danielle-smith-opens-door-to-amending-constitution-to-alter-treaty-rights
By the way, Smith probably recorded her referendum announcement on May 19, before the committee even met on May 20 and had its delayed vote on May 21.
See the clothes she wore the evening of May 19:
https://x.com/ABDanielleSmith/status/2057199235557458178
Val Jobson: I noticed that. Danielle Smith has also given herself quite a makeover. It doesn’t have the ability to cover up the rot that is inside of her – a moral decay. Danielle Smith doesn’t seem to get that the way to stop making the hole she is digging for herself even bigger, is to stop digging. Postmedia has scribes for the UCP and Danielle Smith, so they will show her foolish ideas to the masses, no matter how illogical they are. They will look really stupid when things like this backfire on the UCP and Danielle Smith.
Smith opens door to amending constitution to alter treaty rights | National Post https://share.google/IwFAGqrWBy9wG0rtb
Good predictions! Smith getting schooled by Wab Kinew about treaty rights and the constitution on national news was glorious.
and Don Braid’s smear of Steven Guilbeault today isn’t likely to cover up Smith’s bad behaviour.
Val Johnson: you’re right, same outfit.
I should say someone on twitter pointed that out first, I forget who.
So let me see if I understand her view of federalism…provinces have (or should have) as much power as possible to push back at the federal government, particularly with regard to natural resources. But when another province wants to protect its own natural resources (think B.C. wanting to protect its land when a pipeline is built) then maybe we should get the federal government to tell them what’s what. Or just ignore them, because clearly they don’t know what’s good for ‘them’ (read: Alberta).
O, for a “like” button on this platform …
“[Over] time, while the United States has moved toward a more powerful central government, Canada has moved toward a less centralized model.” In fact, this evolution was driven by decisions by the UK’s Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which was — until 1949 — Canada’s highest court of appeal — higher, even, than the Supreme Court.
Excerpt: “Canadian lawyers believed that many of these decisions showed a bias towards provincial powers. They argued that this contradicted the intentions of the Fathers of Confederation, as well as the text of the Act. These judgments greatly curtailed federal jurisdiction in fields such as trade and commerce. They also made the general powers of the Dominion, found in section 91, subordinate to the specific powers laid out in sections 91 and 92.”
https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/judicial-committee-of-the-privy-council
The gun shop owner, Mitch Sylvestre, also stated “we might have to shoot our way out”, when he learned of the decision by Justice Leonard shutting down their campaign. Will the RCMP be investigating his incitation to violence? Right, RCMP investigations are where political scandals go to die in Alberta.