Danielle Smith asks Albertans to "respectfully debate" separation

As with any other right guaranteed by our Charter, should they really be extended to all?

photo credit: Danielle Smith on the site formerly known as Twitter, Nov. 22, 2022

It seems to be a pattern; people like Danielle Smith who rail against “cancel culture” and “censorship” go out of their way to question whether the rights granted to all Canadians should really exist for some of them. They frame it as though it is as inconsequential as the great debate (in some households) over what movie they should watch on Friday night.

Debate, they say, is healthy. No one should be offended by debate, they say, it’s just a conversation; just asking someone else to defend why they should have the same rights as others.

For some — like the Premier of Alberta who, a year before she saw the opportunity to run in a leadership race to become Premier, had already made the decision to leave the country and purchased her “retirement” home in Panama — the consequences are not theirs to bear.

In a live address to Albertans at 3:00pm yesterday, while a majority were either at work, or picking up children from school, the Premier of Alberta said that if enough signatures were collected, she would commit to holding a referendum on separation from Canada in 2026.

She also said it should not be a divisive issue.

The Charter gives Canadians the right to live, and work, anywhere in the country. Some people may have even decided to live in this part of the country because it was part of the country.

For those who want to give up their citizenship, have already made plans to leave the country, or have no intention of sticking around if the debate on separation isn’t great for the province, or Albertans, they will not be impacted by the result. It allows them to smile and laugh while saying we should be able to “respectfully debate” whether another Albertan should have to choose between their home, and their country of citizenship.

Regardless of what each of us believes about this issue, or what path we think is best; we, as Albertans, must be able to respectfully debate and discuss these issues with our friends, family members, and neighbours.

Danielle Smith, May 5, 2025

Nothing to lose

To Ms. Smith, this isn’t a big deal. So what if your family, friends, and neighbours think you should have to leave your home to remain in Canada? How can it be offensive when they probably think that if you don’t like the fact that there’s a liberal government, they should have to leave their home, too; it’s totally the same.

Except, shockingly, it is not, and those who have the privilege of threatening the rights of others willfully ignore this fact.

The consequences — consideration of which are absolutely not Ms. Smith’s forte — are vastly different.

If a separation referendum fails, those who already hate being part of Canada and want to separate retain the same privilege they have if it passes or fails; to stay or not. Their rights do not change depending on the outcome of that debate, or that referendum. That’s legitimately how privilege works.

If a separation referendum were to have a decisive majority level of support — like Ms. Smith’s 93 per cent support for her leadership she received from 0.002 per cent of eligible voters in Alberta — there would not be an option for those who voted “no” to remain in Alberta and still be part of Canada. Their right, as Canadians, to remain residents of Canada would be disregarded unless they left the province.

It’s the same as me asking for a “respectful debate” on whether men should have the vote. Or, if I could get 177,000 signatures, it’s legitimate to have that question put to a referendum for others to vote on. There are no consequences to me asking because my right exists whether that referendum succeeds or fails. I have nothing to lose by asking for “respectful debate” on the subject, though I can imagine someone might disagree with the fact that I’m thinking it should be debated in the first place.

Such is the outcome of a debate on whether everyone should have the same rights. If the answer is “yes”, everyone has the choice to exercise them, and retains the privilege of doing so even if someone else disagrees.

This is why we don’t debate rights for one group of people in a free country like Canada. Individual rights cannot be “respectfully debated” because the consequence is not the same both parties.

Paradoxically, the consequence also cannot be the same because it would mean that rights are, in fact, debatable.

Would those who support separating do so if, by virtue of voting “yes”, they were voting to be forced to leave their home, family, and community?

Would women vote “yes” in a referendum on men’s right to vote if, in so doing, they were also giving up their right to vote?

I doubt it.

In fact, I’m quite certain they would protest against the injustice of having a consequence they don’t want imposed upon them “for having a difference of opinion”.

This is why whether some people should have rights is not a “difference of opinion”; the consequences are not the same for those on opposing sides.

Uniting through division

I’m all for differences of opinion — in fact, I thrive on it. Forgive my humble-brag, but I think my ability to argue the exception is both impressive and annoying in equal measure.

There is, for instance, an argument for holding the referendum on separation just to get it over with and put the topic to rest. But why would it, or should it, end at the provincial level?

If a provincial separation referendum were unsuccessful, could those in Treaty 8 hold their own secession referendum to separate from Alberta and claim the oil sands as their own jurisdiction and revenue resource?

Should Calgary be able to hold a referendum to secede if they don’t like being subject to provincial overreach? I mean '“oversight”? Calgary sends more tax dollars to the province than they get in return — is that a good enough reason for them to decide they don’t want to be part of the province anymore?

What if the NDP wins every seat in Edmonton again next election, but the UCP forms government; should Edmontonians be able to secede from the rest of the province if they warned the rest of the province to vote like they did “or else”?

It’s absurdist to act like this is a legitimate solution to disagreement, or that entertaining the idea will make it less divisive.

I doubt I could be convinced that’s not what this government wants anyway. The chasm between Albertans along partisan lines is already deep; it’s to the benefit of their political dynasty if they make sure it can never be bridged.

All consequences on the path to the goal be damned.

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