Watching political machinations in real time is usually something I enjoy.
I have zero respect for illogical arguments, however.
I get that conservatives think their voters are kind of dumb. All they have to do is yell “Ottawa BAD!” And the rubes start opening their wallets. I’m sorry, if you’ve ever voted conservative in your life (former Reformer here), you are the rube if you think Danielle Smith respects you after that “public address”.
Even the separatists with Trudeau Derangement Syndrome (that would be the original Prime Minister Trudeau, by the way) whose brains were turned to mush trying to comprehend nuance during COVID were offended by Danielle Smith’s word salad.
Forgive me.
Dippity-do-Danielle’s referendum question is proposed as follows:
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?
I used white space to specify the point. It’s two questions, posed as one question that will presumably require a yes or no response.
Except…
If you want Alberta to remain a province in Canada, you would answer “yes” to the first part but would likely answer “no” to the second.
If you want a referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada, you would presumably answer “no” to the first part of the question and “yes” to the second.
So, now, we apparently need an explainer on what the UCP thinks each answer means.
May I just say “what the actual fuck kind of dumbass play is this?”
They had over a year to plan for a “clear question”. They had at least four and a half months to plan for the separatist question being quashed— again.
And they deliver this absolute horseshit as a serious referendum question proposal?
Hi, Danielle;
It looks like you’re not quite sure what you do here, but you’re the Premier of a province now. You’re not writing garbage takes for laughs with Postmedia anymore. Things you say actually matter to investors, and donors, and voters, because you’re supposed to be leading a province, not an ad-lib sing-along at the local daycare.
Sincerely gfy,
Deirdre
The separatist movement in Alberta is so steeped in ancient grievances that it is hard to take seriously at all, even if it’s possible that they manage to land on a real issue once in a while.
Not that it manages to register with anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention because they don’t want to solve their problems with confederation— they have legitimately refused to consider that any resolution would be worth their attention, time or energy. They are not asking for “a better deal with Ottawa”, they’re done. They want out— just not so “out” that they actually have to expend time, energy, or effort to leave.
Just— let it ride. The lack of logic is a foundational part of the problem.
Yet, even though I have no respect for an Albertan who could pull themselves up by the bootstraps and go— but won’t— even they weren’t making a mockery of their question.
And neither was Thomas Lukaszuk with his.
Smith and the UCP engineered this outcome
Thomas Lukaszuk acted in good faith when he launched his question as part of Forever Canadian. At the time, both the original and proposed changes to the legislation around citizen initiatives precluded a similar question from being asked at the same time. Launching the petition under the old rules allowed him to begin collecting signatures while the separatists waited for the bar to be lowered for their own.
It is true that Mr. Lukaszuk’s language around that time was clear: signatures were being gathered for a referendum. It is also true that Mr. Lukaszuk checked the box for a “legislative or policy proposal” rather than a “constitutional referendum proposal”. Some have speculated that he did so to take advantage of the lower signature requirements as well, but he also said from the beginning that he wanted the Premier to choose to adopt a policy that “Alberta should remain part of Canada” in the legislature to officially denounce separatism and the separatist movement.
In early August 2025, while signatures were still being collected, Mr. Lukaszuk told Alberta Primetime that if the Premier made the right decision, there would be no need for a referendum.
MH: Do you actually want your question to go to a referendum? Is that the ultimate goal?
TL: It doesn’t have to. If the premier does the right thing, it doesn’t have to. We don’t need a referendum. We just need a government to adopt a policy that does not include separatism. We need a government in this province that works hand in hand with other premiers and other provinces across the country and resolves any and all issues that arise from time to time through the processes that have been put in place.
They have worked quite well for over 150 years, that’s what makes us the great country that we are, but separatism is not one of those tools. So if the premier chooses to adopt this policy and brings it to legislature and has MLAs vote on it, that that would be actually the best case scenario.
At that time, however, the legislation favoured the first question to become certified by Elections Alberta.
Instead, just days after Forever Canadian received certification in December, the UCP removed the following clause from Citizen’s Initiative Act:
2(5) An application must not relate to a proposal that in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer is the same as or substantially similar to
(a) a proposal that, within the last 5 years, was the subject of an unsuccessful referendum under section 15 or 16 or an unsuccessful initiative vote under section 18, or
(b) subject to subsection (4), a proposal that is the subject of another initiative petition, or would result in a conflict with the outcome of another initiative petition, if
(i) the initiative petition signing period for that other initiative petition has not ended, or
(ii) the signature sheets for that other initiative petition have been submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with section 6 but that other initiative petition has not been completed by way of an initiative vote, constitutional referendum or otherwise resolved under that section and Division 4 or Part 2, as applicable.
Canlii, Citizen Initiative Act, current between July 4, 2025 and December 10, 2025
Canlii, Justice Statutes Amendment Act 2025, Assented to December 11, 2025
The legislative amendments made in December erased the legal standing that Mr. Lukaszuk and many of the petition’s signatories sought in the first place— to preempt a separatist question from being asked at all.
With that being said, there was a risk that even the positive question Mr. Lukaszuk was promoting would be weaponized. It seemed pretty clear that the UCP was willing to drag their feet on the Forever Canada petition so long as their separatist friends might have a chance to get their own question approved.
There is not a single doubt in my mind that if the courts would have sided with the separatists, the sham committee would have brought a different list of receipts with them: one that highlighted every time Mr. Lukaszuk said he didn’t want a referendum at all.
What a shock even to find out that as Lisa Young noted in her latest Substack, the UCP is set to deliver the referendum nobody wanted, Danielle Smith found a way to make it worse.
Like “Jason Kenney making public health decisions” worse.
Is that how Danielle Smith’s story ends, too?
There were always similarities between the leadership of Danielle Smith and Jason Kenney. They both ascended the steps to power by preying on the real and perceived fears of those who desperately seek some semblance of control in a world where little is offered, let alone available. Both of them, through an almost impenetrable veneer of confidence, easily made promises they had no capacity to deliver. Though it was more difficult to see this morning when I was writing this, I think it’s safe to assert that Danielle Smith’s premiership ends the same way Jason Kenney’s did, and for the same reason: playing politics with things Albertans really care about and managing to piss everyone off.
The monster Danielle Smith is facing is the same one Jason Kenney faced, which is the same one that has been carefully nurtured in this province for more than a generation to, near as I can tell, keep Albertans angry at Ottawa, distrusting any party that doesn’t have a blue sign, and electing conservatives to be their champion. It’s a monster that none of them think twice about poking, or rattling the cage when they want something, but also one that has tired of having a few bones thrown at them when they’ve been promised a feast.
They’re hungry. And they’re angry.
To them I say, “bon appetite”.
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!
The question is double barreled which means there are two questions and the data collected will be invalid because it’s impossible to know what the responders were answering. Bad Bad question design. UCP will interpret results anyway they want to.
Second great read in less than thirty minutes. First it was Jen Gerson's writing, now Deirdre you have an equally great write. Would it be possible for you and Jen Gerson to actually get published in the Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal. Somehow I think that both of your messages need to be heard.