Separation anxiety
We must have tapped into some collective consciousness over the last couple of weeks. A comment from Jason Kenney had me looking at the similarities between Quebec’s referendum and the one being initiated by the unelected separatist faction— but supported with winks and nods from the UCP— in Alberta. I used it to look at the NDP pledge campaign.
In 1995, Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson Jr. chaired the “no” side against Premier Jacques Parizeau, leader of the Parti Quebecois, who represented the “yes” side. No doubt, you see the problem immediately.
…
Separatism was a stated goal of the governing party; not just a pet project they worked on behind the scenes. It made sense, therefore, for the opposition to tie it in with other policies and decisions made by the governing party. That’s not what we have here.
While I’m sure Naheed Nenshi, as Leader of the Official Opposition, would have no problem standing up for all the reasons he feels Alberta should remain part of Canada— as Daniel Johnson Jr. did at the opening of the debate on separatism in 1995— at this point and time, there’s no guarantee he wouldn’t be debating the unelected nobody…
ABNDP can own the space against separatism; January 29, 2026
Patrick Lennox, a former RCMP Intelligence manager, author, and one-time Liberal candidate in Edmonton, compared Brexit and the Quebec referendum and found the same inequity.
The UCP is not the Alberta equivalent of Quebec’s Party Quebecois. They did not make a promise to Albertans to hold a referendum on the province exiting confederation during their campaign. That outcome was not written into their platform. It was not part of the pitch on the doors. There was no advertising to the effect that “a vote for the UCP is a vote for a referendum on Alberta leaving Canada.” None of this was transparently laid out for Albertans to vote on in a general election.
Is Danielle Smith a separatist? January 30, 2026
This was followed by Jen Gerson’s excellent rant on The Line Podcast where she pulled no punches over the fact that the UCP has pulled a “bait and switch” by running a classic conservative campaign to get elected and then pandering to separatists. Danielle Smith is risking Alberta’s economy, unity within the province, as well as the country, all so that her party doesn’t split, she said. It’s well worth a listen.
What you have there is a centrist, a Liberal, and a conservative all saying the same thing in a province where a majority of people do not support a separatist agenda but are still supporting the party that made it possible.
There is a single message that is worth repeating (all on its own) every day: Danielle Smith and the Conservative Party did not ask for a mandate to hold a separation referendum and they were not given one in 2023.
Baa, baa, batshit
I had no problem giving the ANDP and leader Naheed Nenshi props for creating a pledge to support a united Canada. I respect the fact that Peter Guthrie admitted he signed the Forever Canadian petition and said that support for a united Canada was included in the founding documents of the Alberta Tories. It’s in the UCP’s founding principles, too.
The difference is leadership.
Naheed Nenshi had no trouble getting his caucus onside. Peter Guthrie has no caucus to speak of, yet, but as the party leader, he made his position clear. Danielle Smith saw the ball coming toward her and jumped out of the way, as expected.
Former Premier Jason Kenney did the same— albeit in more dramatic fashion— when he was faced with the reality that the party he built upon a foundation of grievances and false bravado was willing to demand the rainbows and butterflies they’d been promised for decades.
A lie repeated often enough and all.
It didn’t begin as a lie. The Hon. Peter Lougheed had very real rows with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who, years later, acknowledged that he didn’t do a very good job listening to Alberta during that time. The latter is lost to history while the former is still spoken of as if 40 years had not since passed. The unfortunate reality is that Pierre Trudeau, along with most (if not all) of the provinces, was willing to build the infrastructure across the country; something conservatives in Alberta realized they actually wanted… 35 years later (Hansard, page 905).
Instead, the memory of being asked to provide oil and gas to every other province while insulating our Canadian cousins (and ourselves) from volatile global price shocks festered. It helps explain why many of the staunchest supporters of separatism are in their 70’s. As Jen Gerson noted above, many supporters of separatism aren’t at all hard done by. Perhaps they feel they could have been twice as successful, or three times wealthier; there’s no limit to what could have been if things would have been different.
Thanks to a recent poll from Leger, we know Albertans still support the direction of the Conservative Party in Alberta and the news has also buoyed the separatist movement that controls the party. Alberta Prosperity Project leader Dennis Modry said Danielle Smith is willing to lead an independent Alberta as “Prime Minister”. Party president Rob Smith (no relation to the premier), said that if a referendum on separation is successful, the party is interested in meeting the moment and holding a membership vote to officially declare the “U”CP a separatist party.
Thanks to the team sports effect on Alberta politics, as someone in my orbit so eloquently put it, “people in this province vote for the conservative party because it's their sports team and even if your sports team is trash and does terrible stuff, signs bad players and is just downright incompetent at their job, you still want them to do well…” even when voters give up hope they can turn it around this season.
Unlike last season, their team is playing to quit the league if they “win”.
Dave Cournoyer published a piece last week asking who is going to be able to lead a proper campaign against separatism. As noted above, we have many different players but they’re not exactly teaming up together. Unfortunately, because of their partisan ties, they’re all trying to forge their own way with their own message. As of yet, there isn’t a concerted effort even close to what the separatists have going on.
Zain Velji addressed this a couple of times as well; if everything you don’t like can be solved by separating, well, that’s a great message. It’s just as strong as “everything you don’t like can be solved by electing a conservative government”. Every problem is simple and every solution is easy. Like life.
Legally blond
Danielle Smith sent a letter to the Prime Minister last week demanding more say in judicial appointments that “appropriately reflect Alberta’s distinct legal traditions”. The claim that Alberta had some sort of distinct legal tradition that varied in some material way from every other province in which common law is practiced had many scratching their heads. Albertans, I would argue, are no more or less vengeful than Canadians elsewhere.
The premier said that the provincial Justice Minister would select a committee of “non-partisan” representatives to offer input to appointments, and added that the federal government should relax the bilingualism requirement for Supreme Court appointments.
If these new demands were not taken seriously, the premier said her government would refuse to fund the positions entirely, ostensibly leaving Albertans with fewer judges and more opportunities for those accused of crimes to be relieved of the charges. It’s happened before, though not because the government refused to fund them; back in 2016, it was because Alberta was awaiting judicial appointments.
The disdain and demonization reserved for those the premier doesn’t feel the need to pander to was received exactly how she wanted it to be— it pissed everyone else off and they pushed back. Our chief gaslighter then responded that it wasn’t a threat, it was a “negotiation tactic”. Duh.
I peeled back some of the rhetoric for CBC News Network Wednesday. The premier and her caucus have no problem with everyone they don’t like being upset with them— it powers them. “See how mean everyone is to us when we’re just trying to get the respect we deserve? They don’t want to give us a fair deal; they want to keep Alberta down.” Etcetera.
What I find with this iteration of “conservatives” is that their lofty expectations stem from a complete lack of nuance and a determination to do the exact opposite of Aristotle’s description of what the law should be.
Aristotle said that “law is reason; free from passion.” I’ve argued from this perspective often, not just on law but politics generally. I may get very upset with things, which feels great to rant about and can be a fun read, but there’s a greater risk of being wrong, in my opinion, if emotions are doing all the heavy lifting.
This is the likely basis of the complaint generally. Someone who served their time reoffended and that would have been prevented if we applied the law differently. Someone who was accused of hurting children was let out on bail. No, it’s not the same as the person who was accused of hurting children and became president of the U.S.; he was the victim of a woke justice system— the same woke justice system that allows people accused of crimes out on bail. It’s wildly flawed logic but without the capacity for nuance, it’s the same.
First, Danielle Smith says she wants a committee to review potential appointees. Those in the legal profession in Alberta are already eligible to have a say but Danielle Smith and her advisors/circles don’t trust them because they have in the past disagreed with what this government feels is right. Therefore, why not allow them to choose people they “know they can trust” to have a say?
This also comes back to the fact that they believe those who disagree with them are evil. Danielle Smith will demonize Albertans who didn’t support her party, but those who show up to fundraising dinners deserve civility and compassion. They are good and right and can be trusted because they have the same values and “common sense”.
Second, relaxing bilingual requirements in official languages for appointees to the Supreme Court. They would probably point to the fact that Mary Simon was appointed to the position of Canada’s Governor General without speaking French. Conservatives lost their minds over that appointment. Liberals acknowledged that in a pluralistic society like Canada, speaking an Indigenous language should be considered an appropriate level of bilingualism for such an appointment. Therefore, to conservatives, why not other appointments? How is a Supreme Court justice any different from a national ambassador? Don’t answer that; there’s no nuance.
I felt the same as everyone else when I first read the letter; it’s Danielle Smith trying to occupy all of the lanes and politicize the judiciary. I don’t deny that she is also doing that but I’ve found that I can sit with conservatives who care deeply about the same things NDP, Green, or Liberal supporters do and the bottom line is that they fundamentally believe two things: there is always a right answer and it’s easy. There are no exceptions, no extenuating circumstances, and no nuance.
Think Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule; there’s right and wrong, and nothing in between. Simple. Common sense.
Never mind that laws and legislation are constantly being amended to recognize that few things are simple. That would require nuance.
Final thoughts
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!
Honestly I’m not all that concerned about separatism succeeding, what I am worried about is what’ll come in the aftermath when it fails because while Smith has been relatively transparent of what her political beliefs are I also think the referendum failing could be the point where Smith and the UCP go full mask off; going on a policy blitzkrieg to fully dismantle everything in Alberta
Again I know it’s something they’re technically already doing now but we’d see it happen at an even faster rate if the UCP and separatists don’t get their way because if it fails then their mission becomes to ruin the lives of everyone living here out of spite
And yes I recognize this might be the paranoia talking but it’s something I’ve had to mull over when thinking of the Separatists’ ambitions failing and what they may do after
I wonder if "Alberta’s distinct legal traditions" refers to the fellows who took guns to the Coutts blockade and were treated as martyrs and "political prisoners" by the rightwing extremists, who never stopped shrieking online about it. I don't recall Smith saying such a thing but she sure hangs around with a lot of the shriekers.
Remember it was Denis Modry who arranged her phone call to Artur Pawlowski about his criminal case re inciting the Coutts mischief.
Remember her earlier disappointment at learning she could not pardon people.
But it seems possible Smith also has a personal motive for damaging Alberta's justice system: fear of being prosecuted over those corrupt health care contracts and possibly other mishandling of public money. Are some of the moves she and Mickey Amery are making intended to cover their own butts and to make it harder to get evidence of corruption?