Through commission and omission, the final four questions we must deal with on Oct. 19 aim to support a provincial march into federal jurisdiction – say no to all nine!
On Wednesday we considered the five tendentious questions about immigration that Danielle Smith’s Government intends to put on a ballot on Oct. 19, 2026. I recommended in that post that voters say No to all of those questions, which are often deceptively worded and are clearly intended to prepare the ground for an attack on immigrants of non-European descent and non-Christian beliefs.
Today, let’s look at the four “constitutional” questions, which are designed to advance a grab-bag of policy goals pulled straight from the wish list of far-right politicians throughout the nations of the industrialized West. In some cases, like the “immigration” questions previously considered, they too are deceptively worded to sound more reasonable than they are in fact intended to be. In other cases, the deception is achieved through omission, rather than commission.
The Questions on the Canadian Constitution
Each of the remaining four questions begins as follows: “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to … ”
Some Canadian Conservatives have long dreamed of a situation in which there would be enough Conservative majorities in Parliament and provincial legislatures to gut the 1982 Canadian Constitution and remake our country in the image of the United States.
Today, of course, there are some Canadian provinces run by governments with a similar ideology to the UCP’s that would support a provincial march into federal jurisdiction as suggested by the Smith Government’s four “constitutional” questions.
But the purpose – and the likely result – would not be to make Canada stronger. The goal, it is said here, is to make the country ungovernable, and thereby weaker. This would not serve the interests of Canadian citizens, including Albertans, but it might work for some of the groups and people funding the UCP and its separatist campaign in this province, and the Americanization of Canada in every part of the country. Who funds these campaigns is a topic for another day, but it is worth keeping in mind that not all of them are Canadians, or operating from within our country.
Moreover, it might work for neoliberal ideologues who see the democratic nation state as a potential impediment to “economic freedom,” which means economic feudalism for most of us. It is an irony that conservative political parties and advocacy shops that so effectively pilloried former prime minister Justin Trudeau for musing about Canada becoming a “postnational state” are the force striving most mightily to move us into a state of powerless postnationality.
So, keeping in mind the preface above, let’s consider the four “constitutional” questions:
6. Have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts?
The UCP has already clearly demonstrated willingness to channel the Trump Administration’s inclination to ignore rule of law and due process. This is a blatant attempt to create the conditions for the UCP to rule in perpetuity, assuming it would be able to do so with the help of a politicized judiciary functioning like the Supreme Court of the United States. As we can see from some of the rulings of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, the provincial judiciary is clearly not entirely made up of “activist judges” determined to thwart the plans of the Alberta Government at every turn. So if the current system ain’t broken, even from a conservative perspective, any attempt to “fix it” engineered by this crowd is likely to make it far worse. The Smith Government knows, of course, that the federal government will never allow provinces to appoint judges to the superior courts, that is, the courts of King’s Bench and Appeal. Not even a Conservative federal government dominated by that party’s Alberta caucus would do that. So a secondary goal of this question is to create the conditions for a constitutional crisis, which authors of the so-called Free Alberta Strategy have openly admitted is one of their goals. Vote No.
7. Abolish the unelected federal Senate?
Like Question 4 in the “immigration” set, this is designed to sound reasonable but to achieve an entirely different goal than its implied purpose. Who doesn’t hate the unelected federal Senate? The problem is, if you abolish it, what do you replace it with? Nothing at all, as the NDP used to say? Ah, but that might result in too much democracy from Alberta’s perspective. That could end up giving those “Eastern Bastards” even more power than they have in the House of Commons! (Note that “Eastern Bastards” is a slur that also includes residents of the British Columbia Coast, who are obviously easterners as seen from the perspective of the True West out here in Wild Rose Country.) No, an innocent Yes vote to this question is intended to create the political conditions to fulfill Preston Manning’s dream of creating a Canadian Senate just like the U.S. Senate, on which it would be modelled. This would impose permanent obstacle to democracy and in particular change of the type nowadays characterized by the term “progressive.” We can all see how well that’s working right now south of the Medicine Line. So, remember, the word “abolish” is misdirection. The Canadian Senate that the UCP and its éminence grise, Mr. Manning, want to work with “other willing provinces” to create is intended to act as a check on democracy, just as the U.S. Senate was and is. Vote No.
8. Allow provinces to opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education, and social services, without a province losing any of the associated federal funding for use in its social programs?
This question is transparently designed to deny the federal government the ability to have truly national policies governing health care, education or social services. However, the UCP would still like the cash, thank you very much! A starting goal is to eliminate, or at least freeze in place, such federal policies as national health care standards such as are imposed through the Canada Health Act, as well as programs such as pharmacare, dental care, and childcare. Given Ms. Smith’s obsessions, health care is likely the principal target of this question. However, legislation justified by a Yes vote on Question 8 could and would be used to prevent Ottawa from funding university research in areas opposed for ideological reasons by Alberta’s provincial government – from climate change to gender studies to modern literature, to give examples from the hard sciences, social sciences and arts. At present, the federal government funds significant portions of the cost of post-secondary education. Canadian universities would be impoverished and intellectually weakened by such a policy because, while the federal cash would eventually flow no more, most provinces would resist an investment with no short-term political gain. In Alberta, as the UCP response to the increase in federal funding for the severely disabled illustrates, it would also open the door to wholesale redirection of earmarked federal funds to unintended uses while cutting services within the province. In the end, the likely result would be to end virtually all federal national programs that benefit Canadians. Vote No.
9. Better protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving a province’s laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of constitutional jurisdiction priority over federal laws when the province’s laws and federal laws conflict?
Seriously, this is the worst idea of them all, designed specifically to render the federal government essentially meaningless and replace it with 10, or 13, or whatever, regional satrapies. Canada was founded in 1867. The American Civil War ran from 1861 to 1865. More than a million Americans, soldiers and civilians, died as a result of that terrible conflict. On several occasions the war threatened to spill over into Canadian territory. So the Fathers of Confederation had a powerful example of what a constitution with strong states and a weak centre can lead to. They had very good reasons to construct Canada’s original constitution as they did, with all significant powers given to the central government in Ottawa – money, banking, international and interprovincial trade and all the rest. The result has been one of the most successful democratic states in the history of the world, the ninth largest economy on the planet, and the envy of people everywhere. We have even managed to hold together a country containing two significantly different cultural and language groups and forge something truly special as a result – to paraphrase our founding document, peaceful, ordered and (mostly) well governed. Danielle Smith and the vandals in the Free Alberta Strategy and its often mysteriously funded offshoots want to turn this on its head and make our country weak and ungovernable to advance their own authoritarian ambitions. Hell no! Vote No.
In closing, remember that in 1992, a majority of Canadians recognized this. When Canadians were given the opportunity to vote on the Charlottetown Accord, which included many of the UCP’s current decentralizing constitutional ideas, Canadians voted No. The accord was emphatically rejected by voters in the western provinces.
Things might have been easier from month to month and year to year if Canadians had said yes, but the centrifugal forces the UCP seeks to unleash for its own ends would have continued to pull the country apart.
In 2026, say no to all nine. Here endeth the lesson.
Once again, thank you for the in depth analysis of this very confusing referendum, which will only cause harm if it were to go ahead. I believe the courts will strike these things down, because they cross boundaries that they shouldn’t be crossing.
OMG the third one just leaped out at me.
They want federal money but no oversight. Yeah, I’m noping out right there. That’s MY money they want to spend with abandon there, not to improve the lives of my fellow Canucks, but on whatever vanity project The Oil Princess thinks up after a night of binge drinking.
Every single one of this questions is designed to create a rift between Albertans and the rest of Canada so they can haul the USA into the rift and fracture this country into city-states to be eaten as an American Imperialist late-night sack of Bits ‘n’ Bites. I do not see how every single Albertan cannot see the obvious ploy, here.
Every question is overly-worded to cause confusion. I thought that referendums were legally obligated to be easily understood? How is this vociferous verbiage, legal?
Can the separatists please just pack their pickups and fugg off to Alaska, now? If they lose, will they just leave? They’re advocating rebellion, clearly, but they’re not willing to pay the sacrifices it costs to have one. So, they’re not only seditious. They’re seditious cowards.
At least Quebec had the cajones to fight since they had some actual points to fight, for–not just how much oil profit someone else gets to keep. They’re being used by Mango Mussolini and his henchman Hoekstra to add economic pressure and if they’re too stupid to see that, they’re too stupid to run a country. His administration knows it. Their leaders know it.
And again, the rights of First Nations and treaty rights in all this–is blatantly ignored.
Nein to the nine!
Now imagine what would happen if a religious group built a big new church in anticipation of a “win” by the UCP in October and the bargain-basement sell-off of an architectural wonder for use as their new (brainwashing/money laundering) educational institution. Now imagine if that group already had considerable experience operating a place just like that south of the border. Now imagine that money crosses international borders under the guise of religious/charitable works. What would become of Canada after a while with US interests steering the ark?
Abs: Are you thinking, perchance, of a big new temple in a place like, say, Lethbridge? Perhaps one with a spire taller than municipal bylaws allow? DJC
Hmmm. Maybe.
Thanks for writing this, David. I found the connection between the US Civil War and its effect on how Canada was constructed very interesting.
A bit of a quibble. According to the government website (linked below), which very gently introduces a vote Yes bias, the actual questions are a bit more wordy than the summaries you provided. Fortunately, each of the actual questions include the phrase ‘Do you support the Alberta Government…’. As a result, deciding how to vote is really easy. I don’t support the government, so my vote is No. For me, the actual topic of the question is less important to me than the opportunity to make the statement that I do not support the government.
The UCP AGM is Nov 27 – 29. By the time the AGM happens, both the referendum, and hopefully the Calgary Shaw by-election will have happened, and I love the mental image of Danielle Smith appearing in front of her faithful having been embarrassed by the referendum results and a loss in Calgary Shaw (Shaw did vote NDP in 2015). Perhaps it is only a fantasy, but it is something I can cling to until October 19.
I am concerned, the referendum is something the UCP will easily gerrymander, if Elections Alberta is not independent. Sadly, Corb Lund’s petition has very much drawn Elections Alberta’s independence into question. With the separation question on the ballot as well as the other nine questions, I expect turnout for the referendum will be much higher than a general election. Both the importance of the separation question, and the fact every vote in the referendum will have equal weight, will give a lot of people incentive to get out and vote. Will Elections Alberta have the needed staff on Referendum Day at all locations, or will they somehow not be able to attract the needed staff at locations that are expected to be unfriendly to the government’s cause?
https://albertareferendum2026.ca/constitutional-questions/
Bob: Thanks for this comment. I have amended my introductory passage slightly to make it clear that the boilerplate at the top of my description is part of each question below. As for the introduction of the Yes bias on the web page you reference, I don’t know that it’s all that gentle. The first paragraph reads: “The division of powers established in 1867 and 1982 has been blurred by federal overreach. Provinces have evolved significantly over the last 150 years and should have more autonomy from Ottawa, not less. Targeted constitutional changes would ensure Alberta is freer to navigate the issues faced today.” The first sentence is an intentional misinterpretation of history. In other words, a flat-out, bold-faced lie. The division of powers established in 1867 has been blurred by judicial and political willingness to weaken the federal government’s powers. In other words, the opposite of what the provincial government claims. To suggest that anything different has happened since 1982 is tendentious. The constitution of 1982 introduced changes, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that the Canadian right despises. The Charter is popular, though, so a certain amount of deception is proving necessary for them to undermine it. The first half of Sentence 2 is true, although not for the reasons given. The second half of Sentence 2 presents a truly dangerous conclusion that if followed would weaken the country, possibly fatally. Arguably, Canadian provinces should have less autonomy from Ottawa, not more, but good luck making that happen now that Pandora’s box has been opened. This is precisely what Canadians rejected in in 1992, as noted in the text. Really, Sentence 3 is false as well. Targeted constitutional changes would ensure Alberta is freer to undermine and ignore the fundamental guarantees of the Canadian Constitution. That is the true point of this mendacious exercise. DJC
In fact, most of the weakening of the federal government vis-à-vis the provinces occurred early in Canada’s history, during the period in which the Supreme Court of Canada was not yet the highest court of the land.
No, before the 1931 Statute of Westminster — in fact, before 1949 — the highest court of appeal for Canada was the Judicial Committee of the [UK] Privy Council, and successive post-Confederation rulings of that body served to diminish the power of the federal government in our federation from what had been envisioned in 1864-67.
https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/judicial-committee-of-the-privy-council
You Albertans have to be really smart to be able to wade through the subterfuge as DJC has done. I’m not sure my neighbours and I would be savvy enough to sift through the jiggery-pokery. You’ve got a diabolical bunch in charge.
Marlaina knows that most Albertans will vote as they are told to. Hence the biased, confusing questions. It’s easier for the rubes to just obey even if it’s against their best interests. No to the nine!
Not that long ago, demands for a Triple E Senate were a cornerstone of the ‘West Wants In’ movement led by Preston Manning. Abolishing the unelected federal Senate was the position of the NDP. The Liberals of course used the Senate as a cesspool of patronage for party loyalists and insiders. I will emphatically vote no to the constitutional questions, as well as the anti-immigrant questions. But abolishing the Senate I’m not sure of my vote. Especially since Carney is reviving the practice of patronage appointments to the Senate and Poilievre would do the same if he got the chance.
The key word in this question is “unelected.” The question is not asking for the abolition of the senate. The UCP is, instead, trying to promote the election of senators. As I recall, the last time that Alberta senators-in-waiting were up for election, every one of the individuals running was aligned with right-wing parties. Those of us who could not stomach electing any of them refrained from voting on that particular ballot question.
GMG: I recall expressing my frustration with the NDP for not running or just supporting NDP-adjacent candidates in the election, supposedly on grounds of principle. One victory in one of these bogus elections by a genuine social democrat and the UCP or whatever kind of Conservative party succeeds them will never try that stunt again. DJC
Here’s an example: https://albertapolitics.ca/2019/06/the-senatorial-selection-act-explained-a-farcical-faux-exercise-for-sure-but-a-clever-one/ DJC
The question does ask that the Senate be abolished, not that the unelected federal Senate should be replaced by an elected one?
And that right there is the rub. The questions are purposefully ambiguous so that otherwise good-meaning folks like yourself will see at least some of the questions as “somewhat” reasonable. The UCP can already count on Yes votes from the hick crowd, all it will take are a few Yes’ from the non-UCP crowd to really push them into majority territory.
I for one believe a non-partisan Senate is in the best interests of our democracy. So Justin Trudeau’s reasonably non-partisan appointment process was one of the few policies of his government that I liked. I am disappointed that Mark Carney is reverting that.
As for abolishing the Senate – oh Hells no. Someone has to be a check on the elected tyranny known as the House of Commons. The devil is in the details – we need an appointment process not subject to the whims of the sitting PM. Perhaps a selection board that answers to the Governor General. After all, it is the GG’s responsibility to ensure good governance.
I noted at the end of the Western Premier gathering Smith attempted to throw in a comment about doing away with First Nations rights because she doesn’t believe in them, and was looking to get support for that by the other premiers which she got absolutely none. If she thinks she can just smile her way past the others, especially the premier of Manitoba, she surely will have another thing coming. Send Smith a loud and clear no to all this garbage!
Grift-o-Kons have been grooming healthcare in Alberta like the prize child virgin in a cathouse for almost forty years. There is no “progressive” change in any significant, meaningful aspect of the economy. Power had flowed one way for the last forty years, and that direction is up to the plutocracy. There wouldn’t be a threat from Grift-o-Kons were this not true. The people are ignorant and silly, which is why they elected Harpo and Mulroney and Ford and Harris and Barf and Marlainia and the rest. This country is not, and has not been peaceful. Its proximity to the Wall Street Murder Machine has simply transferred the violence to far-flung regions of the Empire. Although Canada does continue to foster the destruction of the inconvenient indigenous people. I work with immigrants of all stripes. All stripes of conservative. They’re valuable cogs in the manufacturing of consent for the kakistocracy. There’s a reason CIA backs evangelicals in Africa and Latin America. And there’s a reason li’l Magus’s government gave a round of applause to an SS trooper, despite the “dog ate my homework” denials. Progressive/liberals can digest Nazis much better than they can workers taking the means of production. And your Federal judges all fit the corporate bill, no matter which party appoints them.
I hope that everyone reading this blog realizes regardless of how the numbers fall out, this bullshit is not going away. Marlaina wants to keep her job because the moment she quits or is fired she is a nobody.
@Jaundiced Eye
Dixie Dani might want up a nobody but she’ll wind up a wealthy corporate nobody with a seat under the table along with all the other loyal dogs of the Oiligarchy.
Much like Obama’s half-a-mil-for-twenty-minute speeches to the banks upon retirement.
It’s a big club my friend and we ain’t in it.
NO is the way to go. You make it easy, but I wonder what the bewildered hinterlanders will do, feeling like they are betraying their party, especially since they are who they are. I have little faith in their power of comprehension, and they will Stampede with YES just because.
The UCP wanted ten questions on the ballot. It’s a nice round number and looks important. They had one question – separation. They needed nine more and basically started throwing darts at the wall. Their goal was to give the appearance of consulting the electorate, while avoiding any questions they know people will vote ‘no’ to – such as replacing the RCMP with an Alberta police force, Alberta pension plan, etc. Has anyone asked Smith why we’re not voting on an Alberta pension plan on October 19th? Seems an obvious choice of question. Or how about whether opinions have changed on staying on daylight savings time? Hmmm.
Anyway, I’ve been consulting my crystal ball – and have a prediction. Smith will call a provincial election for October 19, in conjunction with the referendum. Why, you ask? There are a lot of things Smith, Anderson and others currently making the big bucks would like to avoid. The UCP AGM in November, where separatists are planning to challenge her leadership. The A-G report into the health care procurement scandal – due at the end of the year. The former AHS CEO’s wrongful dismissal case reaching the courtroom. A multitude of RCMP investigation conclusions, reports and possible charges. (How many are there now – about 30?)
Financial and organizational gains by the Alberta Tory Party which could lead to a split in the centre and right vote. Solidifying support for the NDP, including in some rural areas. Backlash against AI in many rural communities, which is – strangely enough – creating allies of both farmers/ranchers and environmentalists. (The UCP has underestimated just how angry people are about these AI centres being foisted on them. This is an own goal. Completely stupid.) And, last but not least, the UCP will be able to brag about its balanced budget, forgetting to mention that it’s due to the idiocy of Trump attacking Iran and driving up oil prices. The province’s finances won’t be looking all that good next year should oil prices revert to ‘normal’ levels. All good reasons to pull the plug and go to the polls, rather than wait it out until spring or fall of 2027. Unless the UCP knows it’s going to lose – in which case, hang on to the last minute to collect those big paycheques! Rider up!
@Highway Hippie:
It’s straight outta Steve Bannon’s playbook. Just flood the zone with so much sh*t that some of it, sticks.
Seriously- since the question starts with “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to …” and as far as we know there are no other governments of willing provinces interested in any of questions, is it worth wasting ink or graphite on answering?
It bears repeating, these questions are largely irrelevant and useless. They are designed to distract from the UCPs own problems and direct the anger of Albertans instead against the Feds and Canada.
Frustrated about the quality of our schools or health care? Well let’s talk about the appointment of judges instead.
Like her predecessor’s referendum that accomplished nothing, this smorgasbord of useless questions will likely do the same. The only thing it will accomplish is to make the frustrated more frustrated.
So perhaps then the separatist dominated UCP will realize how ineffective she is and boot out Smith, like their party did to her predecessor who also played games with useless referendum questions.
I stop each question right here: “Do you support the Government of Alberta…”
And the answer is a big fat NO.