In an excellent piece this morning, Dave Cournoyer identified the intersection between the breakdown of the trade talks and the Alberta separatist movement: An Independent Alberta is an American Alberta. The Clarity Act, which demands that Canada negotiate with a province after a clear outcome on a clear question, is an enormous barrier to Alberta separatists. The only plausible scenario in which Alberta leaves Canada is as a result of American intervention of some kind.

This was the premise of my little work of speculative fiction a couple of weeks ago. Apparently it resonated with some readers. The good folks at Balance of Power podcast invited me on to chat about it. And then, one of their listeners — Tavis Newman — reached out to ask if I’d mind if he made a dramatization of the story. For me, it brought the story to life. So I’m delighted to share it with my subscribers here. Enjoy!

One of the phones on the Governor’s bedside table started to ring. He stirred, startled by the shrill noise, and then groaned. It was the ringtone reserved for that pencil-headed fucker Miller in DC. Time zones were just one of the niceties of civilization that asshole chose to ignore.

The Governor rolled over and grabbed the phone.

“Secretary Miller. Good morning. What can I do for you?”

He held the phone away from his ear, catching just the tone. He knew what the content would be. He had heard it all before.

“Yes, Mister Secretary. I hear you. I know that the delays on the resettlement camps have been unacceptable. My sheriffs are doing everything they can to move the protesters.”

“No, Mister Secretary. We don’t need you to send ICE personnel to help. The training officers have done a great job. They’re toughening my guys up. Beating the woke Canadian out of them, you know!”

“Yes, Mister Secretary. I’m looking forward to seeing you at the President’s Day celebrations as well.”

“Well, no. I don’t think the Missus will be with me this time, sir.”

The Governor wondered if Miller was just fucking with him. Had he not heard that Sue had fled across the border to BC after their last visit to the Capital? The memory of their flight back to Edmonton haunted him. His wife sobbing and hissing at him the whole way about “those fascists.” He didn’t know if it was the mean-girl comments about Ozempic and Botox from the other wives or the pictures of prisoners in the detention centers that were displayed at the private parties for the Governors, but they pushed Sue over the edge.

She had stood by him through the referendums in 2026 and 2027. He could see the worry on her face when he started getting calls from the White House after the 2027 vote, offering assistance to correct the stolen referendum. But after the security action in 2028, she had accepted that it was her job to be First Lady of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the newest Unincorporated Territory of the United States.

She hadn’t liked life in the Governor’s Mansion. The Americans had demanded that they move into the old Government House, even though it hadn’t been a residence for almost a hundred years. Sue stuck with him through the renovations and seemed to be adapting to life behind the security walls that protected them from terrorists and protesters with their maple leaf flags and nasty signs.

The Governor didn’t know how his wife had managed to evade her security detail on that secret trip to Victoria to visit her dying mother. But she somehow made it to a police station and claimed asylum. It had been all over the news. Surely Miller knew. He was just rubbing it in that the Governor couldn’t control his woman.

The Governor hung up and looked at the time on his phone screen. 5:25. Too late to get any more sleep. He might as well face the day. He looked ruefully at the empty space on the other side of the bed. He missed her.

The Governor stared across his desk at the Secretary of the Treasury. “Tell me you have good news, man.”

The Secretary flinched. “Well, Governor, with the devaluation of the Canadian dollar last week, our share of the Canadian national debt just got smaller in US dollars. That’s good news? And potash exports were up again last quarter.”

The up-tick in the Secretary’s voice made the Governor brace for whatever was coming next. “And oil royalties?”

“Well, Governor, as you know, half the royalties go to DC. It’s a shame we didn’t get the Alaska deal of 90/10, but the White House said we owed them for being liberated. Since they negotiated the treaty with the Canadians to re-open the pipelines, we’ve been able to start exports from the West Coast again, but demand from Asia is way down.”

The Governor turned to the Secretary of State. “Any update on the carbon sanctions?”

Shaking his head, the Secretary stared down at the desk. “No, sir. The latest from DC isn’t promising. After the heat waves last summer, the Europeans aren’t backing down. Sanctions on every country with high per-capita GHG emissions. And they aren’t buying the argument that our emissions should be calculated as part of the US. So we’re in the top tier. Travel bans. Asset seizures. The whole nine yards.”

The Governor sighed. This wasn’t what he expected when he started organizing for Alberta independence. He knew the Americans would have to be involved. He wasn’t a fool. But he had never imagined he’d be their puppet, at their beck and call as they siphoned off Alberta’s wealth and used the Territory as a dumping ground for immigrants and dissidents they wanted to get rid of. Hell, some days he wondered if they’d be better off as part of Canada.

So here it is: I’m announcing an agreement with a craft brewery (private sector proponent to be identified later in the project) to build a beer pipeline to my house.

Now, you might think this is silly, but it has all the hallmarks of a suitable Major Project:

1. This idea is as European as a multi-national sequin-forward song contest. It is inspired by the De Halve Maan pipeline in Bruges, and will help us convince the Europeans that we’re one of them.

2. It contributes to national unity at a critical moment. Beer is an essential part of Canadian identity, and if I have to think soberly about the Alberta referendum for another 101 days, I may separate from something.

3. It’s a pipeline. You can never have too many.

I recognize that there are some elements of this plan that require mitigation.

True, there’s no private sector proponent yet. But I’m sure one will emerge. And if not, how could governments possibly say no to subsidizing this pipeline after they’ve subsidized the other ones?

Also, this proposal does little to add to Alberta’s GHG emissions. At present, our per-capita GHG emissions are lagging behind Saskatchewan’s. If Alberta were a country, its per capita GHG emissions would not make it #1, as our 60 tonnes per capita lag pathetically behind Palau, at 63 tonnes per capita.1 Clearly, we need to address this disparity. To contribute to this important goal, I have considered turning my attic into a data center, but I think my neighbours might not appreciate it. So I will commit to using AI more extensively so that Alberta can achieve its international targets.

Finally, readers might be asking themselves whether this pipeline will ever be built. It’s a reasonable question. But why should I be held to higher standards than the province of Ontario?

Happy end of stampede, y’all!

Just imagine picking up your rainbow package of ballots and taking them into the voting booth. (Oh, wait, isn’t there a diktat against rainbows in Alberta schools now?? So, maybe not a rainbow… )

Elections Alberta has its hands full at the moment, so as a good citizen I’ve done the work to pick out ballot colours that are sure to be approved by the provincial government.

Clearly, the Stay/Leave question needs to be on a Blue (Azure) ballot (Pantone 661 C) - the exact colour of the Alberta flag.

The five immigration-related questions should be printed on ballots reflecting a diversity of shades of white. My suggestions:

• PANTONE 11-0601 TCX — Bright White

• PANTONE 11-4001 TPG — Brilliant White

• PANTONE 11-0602 TCX — Snow White

• PANTONE 11-4800 TCX — Blanc de Blanc

• PANTONE 11-4301 TCX — Lily White

Now the constitutional questions are a bit more complicated to colour code. Here are some thoughts to get the conversation started:

• Question 6 (provinces appoint judges): Maybe the blue of a cloudless Alberta sky, reflecting the clarity of thought that only true Albertan judges could achieve? (PANTONE 14-4318 TCX — Sky Blue)

• Question 7 (abolish the unelected Senate): It’s the red chamber. Enough said. (PANTONE 19‑1762 TCX — Crimson)

• Question 8 (opting out of federal programs without losing funding): Now, this is a tough choice. My first thought was green, for all the money we’d get (PANTONE 362 C). But on second thought, this is really about killing the Canada Health Act, so maybe blood red (PANTONE 7621 C)?

• Question 9 (giving provincial laws priority over federal laws): Maybe a mud grey, to mimic the clarity of the question?2 (PANTONE 18‑0912 TCX)

In the event that Water not Coal makes it onto the ballot, we’ll reserve coal black (PANTONE Black 6 C).

Make a Plan to Vote

Now, with that out of the way, I want to talk to you about something serious, readers: MAKE A PLAN TO VOTE!

I know it’s early. I’ll certainly repeat this once or twice over the next 144 days,3 but you need to make a plan to vote. And it should probably involve voting in at an advance poll, because referendum day has all the makings of a disaster.

Picture yourself standing in the local junior high school gym for an hour or two as the line inches forward. You finally make it up to the front of the line, where you get to listen to negotiations between the poll worker and the voter:

“Which ballots do you want to decline?”

“The one about the Senate.”

“Oh, you mean Question 8?”

“No, I mean Question 7”

“Are you sure?”

“Yes I’m sure. It’s the red one, dammit!”

“Well, let me check my list. Oh yes, you’re right. It’s #7 you’re declining. Okay, there are your ballots. Now you just have to wait for a booth to be available. It’s taking people a few minutes to fill these all out.”

“Oh, never mind!”

Honestly, I hope I’m wrong. I hope Elections Alberta rises to the challenge. But referendum day has the potential to be its own little disaster cradled in the bigger disaster that is this referendum. So, as soon as the advance polls open, make a plan to vote!

After announcing the referendum and the Franken-question, the Premier announced she was a federalist. Arlene Dickinson’s commentary on Smith’s understanding of federalism is spot on. Smith, she writes:

clearly wants to diminish the federal government’s power and leave provinces unfettered, each going their own way. She wants the glory of running a province without rules, while keeping a big brother around for protection when it suits her. That’s not a federation. In her world we’d be a collection of territories that are only as valuables as the resources beneath each of them. Every province for themselves. Good luck if you live somewhere with less to sell or need something more. It hollows out everything that makes our country worth belonging to.

The Premier ended her televised address by speaking directly to “those of you who already agree with me that Alberta should remain in Canada.” In the coming months as we endure a referendum we did not want, federalists must “guard against the trap of using division and demonization tactics against our fellow Albertans with whom we disagree on this matter … We must never let the voices of hatred and vilification divide us as a people.”

This is the kind of language we need from political leaders in the midst of a divisive referendum. But it is striking that it is directed only at federalists.

This got me thinking about what was missing from Smith’s address. Where was the call to guard against malign foreign interference in the referendum campaign? Where was the call to ensure that this was a decision made by Albertans without any inducement by foreign governments? Where was the call to be sure activists on both sides respected the rule of law and protected the privacy of Albertans? Where was the call to be respectful of the treaty rights of Indigenous people?

Nowhere to be found.

And this speaks to the asymmetry of Smith’s view of the province. Federalists should be on their best behaviour, and devote themselves to advocating for firearms policy that might win over their separatist neighbours. Separatists should just let it all hang out, because they’ve had to endure years of Trudeau, and so the rules simply don’t apply to them.

The coming months have the potential to damage the fabric of Alberta society. We need our leaders to demand the best of everyone involved in the conversation.

This is as close as the Premier could come to having a referendum on separatism without triggering the duty to consult. So, a referendum on having a referendum.

At first blush, this makes no one happy. The federalists don’t want a referendum, and the separatists don’t like this question, because it kicks the can down the road. Smith looks like someone who’s trying to ride two bicycles at the same time, insisting on having a referendum while proclaiming herself a federalist.

And yet, despite my dire predictions on the weekend that the separatists would try to unseat her as party leader, I wonder if she hasn’t saved herself. The question is consequential enough that both the federalists and the separatists will have to campaign. And I’m not sure that the separatists have the organizational might to both mount a referendum campaign and unseat a party leader. The question, then, is whether they’re more interested in the campaign or revenge. Time will tell.

The separatists don’t want this referendum, because the question doesn’t meet the requirements of the Clarity Act. Even if 50% of voters say “no” to the question “Do you agree that Alberta should stay in Canada?” the federal parliament would not accept the outcome as being “clear.”

The federalists don’t want this referendum. Sure, they signed the Forever Canada petition, but that was only in an effort to block the separatist question. So getting their question on the ballot in October feels like a loss, not a win.

Everybody else in the province, I suspect, would like the separatists and federalists to just shut up already, so they could go about their lives.1

So who wants this sad orphan referendum? Possibly Donald Trump, who can use it to poke at Canada on days when he loses interest in Greenland, Cuba, and Iran. Some bot farmers in Moscow, perhaps.

But Premier Smith has backed herself into a corner, so she will go on TV tonight to tell Albertans that 700,000 of them have signed petitions calling for a referendum (glossing over the fact that you wouldn’t want to put a random subset of that 700K in a room together, because it could get ugly).

And so it is that we are going to spend the next five months going through the motions of an orphan referendum, because it’s consequential enough that it can’t be ignored, but not truly consequential.

But none of this commentary has offered what’s clearly required in this fraught moment: a flowchart! [New readers: meet me in the footnote]1

This flowchart is focused solely on referendum questions and what follows. I thought about trying to work pipeline scenarios into the mix, but then we’d need a 3D flowchart. Not gonna happen!

I think it’s a pretty good bet that there’s going to be a question about Alberta’s place in Canada on the ballot next October. The most likely question: Forever Canada’s ‘Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?’ Why do I think this is the most likely? Because it avoids the questions raised in the Athabasca Chipewyan decision while still allowing the Premier to claim she’s giving those who want to leave Canada a way to express their views. For the past several months, Smith has been Schroedinger’s Premier: both separatist and federalist at the same time. The Forever Canada option comes closest to allowing her to continue this stance.

Less likely, but still possible: engaging in hasty consultations with Indigenous communities and then putting the separatist question on the ballot as a government question. Would make the separatists happy, but also brands the Premier and her party as separatists.

Least likely: putting the separatist question on the ballot without first consulting. Would almost certainly result in an injunction, taking the government back to square 1.

Not gonna happen: No separatism-related question on the ballot in October. I suspect that Smith believes she needs a knife at the throat of the federal government to ensure that the pipeline doesn’t disappear. Without a question on the ballot, she can’t raise the spectre of an uptick in separatist sentiment if the pipeline falls through.

What you’ll notice about the flowchart, though, is that all scenarios lead to a separatist attempt to make the UCP a separatist party and overthrow Smith. The separatist movement has gained momentum. They’re unlikely just to pack up and go home if they lose the referendum vote, whatever the question. They’ll be mad, and they’ll take it out on Smith. In the unlikely event that they win the vote, they’ll need to be in charge of the UCP in order to negotiate Alberta’s exit from Canada. How successful would they be in taking over the party and/or ousting Smith? Hard to say. I don’t know how this would play out, but Smith has achieved so many remarkable comebacks in her political career that I’d bet on her surviving, though she may come out the other side an avowed separatist. It wouldn’t be her first floor crossing!

Enjoy the long weekend, everyone. I suspect that next week is going to be something else…

We’ve been on this bus for a year now. It’s starting to stink.

There have been off-ramps, but the driver wouldn’t take them. There was a petition on the back of the bus that we should vote on a different destination. The driver ignored it.

There have been exit ramps along the way, but the driver has swerved to avoid being in the turn lane.

Today, the bus has approached a three-lane exit ramp marked with arrows, flashing lights and a neon sign saying: “THIS IS YOUR BEST OFF RAMP: TURN HERE!”

The driver shook her head and kept us pointed toward Referendumtown.

There are three lanes in this off-ramp:

The first one is labelled ‘Electoral Integrity’: the breach of the voters’ list raises questions about Elections Alberta’s ability to verify the separatist petition, as well as about improper/illegal use of voter information in a referendum campaign. The driver has the option of putting on the brakes here, postponing any referendum until after the investigation is completed. If the rowdies in the front of the bus complain, she could remind them that they were the ones who created the situation in the first place. “Actions have consequences, boys!”

The second lane is labelled ‘duty to consult.’ Today’s ruling that Elections Alberta should not have approved the petition to be opened up for signatures in the first place because there was a duty to consult with affected First Nations offers the opportunity to pull the bus over to a rest stop until the complex and important legal questions involved can be resolved by a higher court. “Sorry guys, this is a treaty bus. It’s more important to get it right than to do it right away.”

The third lane is labelled ‘a better destination.’ Rumour has it that on Friday the federal government is going to drive up alongside the bus in a bright red Ford F150 flying F** Trudeau flags to say “sorry about those environmental regulations. How ‘bout a pipeline?” Since the driver got us on the bus in the first place because the federal government was being mean, this display of federal remorse would give her cover to pull over and take a breath. “Maybe Canada works after all, boys!”

Do I think the driver is going to take any of these exits? No, I do not. She likes driving this bus. She’s pretty sure that the rowdies at the front of the bus would knife her if she pulled over. She’s probably right.

So here we are, stuck on a bus on the Highway to Hell, wondering if there’s a court that’s going to put down a spike strip in front of the bus to puncture its tires. Because that’s the only way we’re stopping!

This is a good thing! You know a democracy is stable when the rules governing electoral competition are well-intentioned, non-partisan, and so widely accepted that no one feels the need to pay close attention.

Sadly, there’s nothing boring about electoral boundaries in Alberta right now.

We had a bipartisan boundaries commission. The chair (a retired judge) and the two NDP-appointed commissioners wrote a majority report that did a pretty good job of balancing the legitimate need for rural representation against the need to represent rapidly growing cities. But this compromise involved reducing the number of rural districts by two, because the legislature only allowed the commission to add two new seats.

The two UCP-appointed commissioners, who were unwilling to accept the loss of rural seats, wrote a minority report that the majority rejected.

The majority report offered a devastating critique of the minority report, dismissing it as unconstitutional gerrymandering. But the chair of the Commission also went solo to suggest that, if the government couldn’t bring itself to adopt the majority report, it should add two more seats and then have a legislative committee draw a map that would “and restore the two electoral divisions that this Commission has removed. The rest of the province as we propose must be maintained to the extent possible. This would need to be studied by an all-party Select Special Committee or other equivalent Legislative Committee in accordance with its Standing Orders.”

And so, the Smith government is now going to create a legislative committee (with a UCP majority) that will create a new advisory group that looks a lot like a boundaries commission. Let’s just call it the “Commissionette.” The Commissionette is going to spend the summer and early fall poring through the work of the Commission and will propose a new map to the legislative committee. Sorry, no time for public hearings! No time for anyone to look at the map and comment!

I suppose it is possible that this process is going to yield a fair map. But I fear that the more likely outcome is a map that attempts to cement the UCP’s dominance by further over-representing rural electoral districts and under-representing urban ones.

The Premier tipped her hand on her Saturday radio show when she stated (incorrectly) that the retired judge who had chaired the commission raised the possibility of using voters, rather than residents, as the basis for drawing boundaries.

It wasn’t the Chair, but rather the two UCP appointees who suggested this, in their minority report. The majority report is quite clear — Alberta’s legislation governing boundaries directs the commission to take into consideration population, not number of eligible voters. What’s more:

we must be sensitive to the fact that electoral divisions that have a significant number of non-voters are often those with a large number of individuals who have recently immigrated to Canada and are not yet citizens. It can be challenging to represent those electoral divisions for reasons we discuss below. Further, constituencies with large numbers of minors may place additional demands on an elected representative in their ombudsman role to represent constituents. Indeed, this underscores why effective representation, rather than strict voter parity, is the lodestar of this Commission’s mandate.

When the Smith government passed legislation in 2024 to increase the number of seats in the legislature, it could have increased to 91, not 89. It could have established that voters, not population, should be a primary consideration in operationalising “effective representation.” But it did not. And now, with just 18 months until the scheduled provincial election, the government is proposing a do-over because the Commission’s proposal isn’t to its liking.

We have seen the government change the rules on the fly when the separatist movement demands it: lower the number of signatures, do away with the Chief Electoral Officer’s ability to refer petitions to the courts to ensure they are constitutional. Now we appear to be seeing a similar effort when it comes to electoral boundaries.

The similarity between the much-reformed legislation governing citizen initiatives and what’s going on with electoral boundaries isn’t just legislating on the fly. Rather, both appear to be motivated by a desire to ensure a particular outcome. In both cases, the viewpoint of conservative rural Albertans is protected while the perspectives of city dwellers and newcomers to the province are dismissed as unimportant or even illegitimate.

With states this high, it’s hard to imagine electoral boundaries in Alberta becoming boring any time soon.

I’m not sure that Smith finds it all that unpleasant keeping the party base happy, but they aren’t her only audience. If she wants to join Aberhart, Manning, Lougheed, and Klein as one of the long-serving Alberta Premiers who defined an era and established a dynasty, she has to win elections, too. And here’s where things might get tricky.

I don’t want to overstate Smith’s electoral difficulties: as she has already demonstrated, positioning yourself as the champion of big oil goes a long way toward helping Alberta voters overlook the other stuff. And if Trump keeps oil prices high for long enough, Smith can fall back on the tried-and-true formula of low taxes and generously funded public services. Heck, if the Strait of Hormuz stays closed for a year, she might be able to hand out affordability cheques in the lead-up to the next election, just like in ‘23.

But these maneuvers ignore Smith’s fundamental dilemma: she has to keep legislating for the party base and winning elections with an increasingly diverse and urbanized electorate. The 2023 election demonstrated just how tenuous the UCP’s electoral support is: a few thousand votes different, and we’d all be shopping at Alberta Grocery Branch state-run stores for our Easter SHams.1

So, what’s a plucky political leader to do when they’re caught between an empowered party base and the voters? If your answer was “change the rules,” you’d be correct.

This brings us to the dueling majority and minority reports of the Alberta Boundary Commission. Dave Cournoyer has written a thorough analysis of both on his Substack. Suffice to say that the minority report, written by the two UCP appointees to the commission, is a crass effort to ensure that the UCP will govern for the next ten years. It dilutes urban votes by creating numerous hybrid urban-rural districts; it systematically and deliberately reduces representation for North East Calgary in favour of reliably-conservative South Calgary. It’s unconstitutional. Don’t take my word for it — it’s what the majority report says!

The dueling reports present the Smith government with a consequential choice. The decision they make will help shape provincial politics for the next ten years; it will also tell us a great deal about the government’s commitment to electoral democracy.

The decision about electoral redistricting isn’t just a decision about where lines belong on a map. This is a test of the UCP’s commitment to free and fair elections. There have already been some worrisome signs: efforts to ‘pick their own voters’ through voter identification laws; changes to election finance rules to bring back corporate and union contributions. But a decision to adopt the unconstitutional, self-serving map that all but guarantees UCP wins for the next two elections would be a clear sign of democratic backsliding in Alberta.

Governments engage in democratic backsliding when they worry that they can’t win elections fairly, or when a segment of the electorate believes that it is entitled to impose its preferences, no matter what. I worry that Danielle Smith’s political dilemma, and the mobilization of her party’s base, have created the conditions that might tempt a government to do the wrong thing. I hope I’m wrong.

Rather, they insist that federalists make “clear, well thought out arguments for Alberta staying in Canada.” If only the federalists could possibly match the clear, fact-based case the separatists make! Like this document on the Alberta Prosperity Project webpage that makes the dubious promise that there would be no sales, income or corporate income taxes in a free Alberta. It’s magical thinking for the win!

Happily, Alberta federalists have been making the positive case for some time, without having to resort to magical thinking. Senator Paula Simons has written a beautiful piece in Alberta Views magazine: “The Case for Sticking Around.” A couple of paragraphs worth quoting:

We are privileged to live in a country that values peace and inclusion and the rule of law. A country that encourages entrepreneurship and economic opportunity. A country that strives to balance individual rights and freedoms with the good of the collective community. A country where healthcare and public education are rights and gun ownership is not. A country where women control their own bodies and choose their own clothing, whether that’s a niqab or a bikini.

We’re not a country of polarization, but a country that values creative compromise, because we were born out of creative compromise.

Today Duane Bratt rose to the challenge and made his case. I was making the case way back in 2021! And the list goes on.

Having said all that, I want to disagree with the idea that it’s up to federalists to make a positive case for staying in Canada. It is a perfectly reasonable — and very Canadian — approach to argue simply that the status quo is preferable to the alternative.

If we look back to the years leading up to Canadian confederation, the impetus for joining together into the Canadian federation can be summed up as: “sorry, not that.” Having fought its (first?) civil war, the United States was well armed and feeling a bit expansionist. This was one of the motivators for the fathers of confederation to come together and make a deal.

The leaders of the contemporary separatist movement have made it quite clear through their words and actions that they see separation as a way to ally Alberta closely with the United States, if not to join it altogether. A “free” Alberta, they claim, would be able to build a pipeline through Montana, Idaho and Washington. It would benefit from loans from the Americans. Its sovereignty would be guaranteed by the United States.

Just as the fathers of confederation back in the 1860s looked south of the border, shook their heads and got busy confederating, a majority of Albertans today look at the spectacle that is Trump’s America and echo the sentiment: ‘sorry, no, not that.’ Whether it’s the shorter life expectancy, lower level of life satisfaction, less functional democracy, or higher rate of economic inequality in the US, or the state-sponsored violence in the streets, or the utter dysfunction of the political system, most of we “wackos” are prepared to give that a hard pass.

Our answer - to date - is always ‘no.’ After almost thirty years, this place is home.

But the Angus Reid poll released today tells us that we’re not the only ones having this conversation. Of the 65% of respondents who were inclined to vote “stay” in a referendum, three-quarters say they would pack their bags and leave if the “leave” side were to win a referendum. That’s roughly half the population thinking of trading sunshine and low taxes for cloudier skies and stability.

And this is why holding a referendum is a terrible, no-good, really-stupid, potentially-disasterous idea. Even if only a fraction of people are rattled enough by a referendum to decide to beat the rush, put their home on the market, and head for stability, they are a reminder that instability has consequences. Investments not made. Talent not recruited to the province.

Premier Smith maintains that it’s essential that the 30% of Albertans who would or might vote to leave have an opportunity to “blow off steam.” The other 70% are expected to stand by and watch this display indulgently. Today’s poll suggests that these folks are less inclined to blowing off steam and more inclined to packing their bags. It’s a pity the Premier isn’t as concerned about them.

In any event, we’re living in grim times. You know that geopolitics have taken a turn when the chit-chat at the lunch-hour suburban Calgary weight-lifting class strays from bone density to how lifting heavy things will make us useful to the resistance. (Never underestimate a woman with grey hair - we are virtually invisible and can order people around like Jedi using mind tricks).

Today appears to be the day that Europe and Canada have turned away from a strategy of appeasement toward defiance. The Polish PM summed it up in a social media post: “Appeasement is always a sign of weakness. … Appeasement means no results, only humiliation.” And PM Carney made it very clear that Canada stands with Greenland, not the Americans. (It remains to be seen what actions we will take, but the words are there).

A little over a year ago, I suggested that Danielle Smith’s early January trip to Mar-a-Lago might come to be seen as an act of appeasement. To be fair, Alberta’s oil has been spared the worst of Trump’s tariffs and Smith has kept her distance from Trump for the past year.

But Smith’s decision to pry open the pandora’s box of a secessionist referendum at this particular moment puts Smith on the wrong side of history. Trump is rapacious. If he is able to seize Greenland, he’ll quickly be on to his next conquest. And the separatist Alberta Prosperty Project is busily making sure that we are next on his to-do list.

The Smith government had off-ramps from this highway. They did not have to pass legislation in the Fall session prying the secessionist referendum out of court. They could have opted to take the success of the Forever Canadian petition as a signal that Albertans didn’t want a referendum on secession. Instead, they charged ahead, increasing the likelihood that Aberta would capture the attention of the Madman of Mar-a-Lago.

It’s not too late, though. As European leaders confront the reality of Trump’s expansionist ambitions, Smith has the opportunity to throw in her lot with Canada, to rally to the support of the Prime Minister who has met Alberta’s demands around oil and thrown in a win on canola (at the expense of Ontario). A government that can legislate a red carpet for a secessionist initiative can find a way to roll it back up and declare that now is not the time. The Premier can speak out against foreign interference in Alberta’s affairs and cast the APP as disloyal for its southern adventures.

If she doesn’t, and if events really do unfold according to this horrendous script, well, the women from the gym are ready to do whatever heavy lifting is required.

The must-have fashion item for this season? Jackboots!

This remarkably versatile footwear can take you from a day of trampling on workers’ rights into an evening of dancing on the bedraggled remnants of the Charter.

Pesky Auditor-General poking his nose into your business? A jackboot is just the right shoe to convey your authority not to renew his contract.

Purple-haired lefties trying to use your recall legislation to cause trouble? Let your shiny jackboots kick the chair out from under them by defunding the elections office.

There’s no limit to where jackboots will take you in Fall 2025! They say “I don’t care about your lousy democratic guardrails. I’m entitled to govern however I please.” And they let folks know that if they get in your way, there’s a jackboot coming at them next.

Inevitably, one of them will ask a question along these lines: ‘what’s the point of having a Charter of Rights if governments can override it?’ And I will trot out my explanation of why the Premiers back in 1980 wanted to ensure the supremacy of parliament. And I’ll explain that the idea of the notwithstanding clause is that it forces governments to admit to what they’re doing when they knowingly impair a right. And I’ll tell the students that the clause places the onus on citizens to hold governments to account when they use it.

Which is easier said than done.

The Smith government passed Bill 2 in the dead of night, after mere hours of debate. The Bill includes hefty fines for teachers who disobey and even heftier penalties for the Teachers Association if it does not comply.

Now it’s up to Albertans to demonstrate to the government that they object to the idea that Charter rights can be swept away when they’re inconvenient. Public sector workers are likely to be at the forefront of this fight. In passing this Bill and taking away teachers’ right to strike, the government signaled that public sector bargaining is a mere charade. Government will go through the motions for a while, but doesn’t need to meet in the middle because it’s free to legislate a contract when it tires of the exercise.

Public sector unions will certainly be animated by this, but what about the rest of the province? I suspect that for many Albertans, the question will not be about abstract Charter rights but rather about the fairness of imposing a contract on striking teachers.

Before skulking off to the Middle East, the Premier issued letters to teachers and to parents, essentially acknowledging that the teachers were right - the situation in our public schools is a mess. But teachers and parents are supposed to trust the government to fix things; it’s ‘unrealistic’ to put the government’s promised actions into a collective agreement, where there might be accountability.

It’s worth taking a moment to consider what it cost teachers to draw the government’s attention to the situation: three weeks with no pay only to have the contract they rejected imposed on them, along with vague promises that their working conditions would improve.

The rationale for the notwithstanding clause — that governments would hesitate to use it because the public wouldn’t accept having their rights eroded — was fundamentally flawed from the beginning. The whole idea of a constitutionally entrenched guarantee of rights is to protect citizens from illiberal acts favoured by a majority of the population. As provincial governments have normalized the use of the notwithstanding clause, it has freed them up to trample on the rights of trans kids, religious minorities, and now unionized workers.

So, students, you’re right. What even is the point of having a Charter if governments can set it aside when it’s inconvenient?

But I’d like to speak to the manager, please.

This Albertan started the day with a 20-minute quest to log in to the right website to be given the privilege to pay for a COVID shot sometime next month.

Frustrating as that was, it was a high-tech wonder compared to the experience of trying to cast a ballot in the municipal election. Long-suffering spouse and I headed off to the polling station mid-afternoon, planning to beat the rush. When we had to join a lineup that stretched out of the school all the way to the sidewalk, we started a timer. From joining the line to casting our ballots: 1 hour and 13 minutes. Heck, we were there so long I started writing this post just to pass the time.

Why the long wait? Because what’s going on in the polling stations is ridiculous.

Once voters make it to the front of the line, they present their photo ID. The poll clerk then laboriously writes all the information on a form, which the voter must then sign, attesting that they are in fact eligible to vote. (Poll clerk was getting a hand cramp from all the writing, and this was before 4 PM. Poor guy’s going to be a wreck by 8!)

Why the extra paperwork? Why is a government that prides itself on ‘red tape reduction’ introducing a form (in triplicate, no less) to gum up the process on voting day?

The short answer is that there has been a moral panic among some of the government’s supporters who believe that voter fraud is rampant. Never mind that, as Jared Wesley and Alex Ballos have pointed out “Elections Alberta has recorded only seven cases of voting irregularities since 2013.” (What do experts know about anything, anyway??)

Even if we were to accept the idea that there is a meaningful risk of voter fraud, surely we have to weigh that against the risk that voters will take one look at the line out the door to the sidewalk and decide not to vote. Long lines are a barrier to voting.

And if any of those voters who lined up today are interested in finding out who won, they are going to have to stay up very late. The fear of voter fraud extends to vote tabulators, so no results until late tonight. And even then, only for the mayoral races in the big cities. Council and School Board will be counted … sometime this week.

Most of my ire today is directed at the province, which is busily imposing administrative burdens to prevent citizens from doing things like getting vaccinations or voting in local elections. But one note for the City of Calgary, which was left to administer the mess: it’s not OK to leave seniors leaning on their walkers for an hour while they wait to vote. Some thoughtfully placed chairs (or an express line) were called for.

There are, of course, bigger issues to be concerned about. The absence of students in the school where I was voting comes to mind. But there’s a common theme: a firm commitment to upholding a belief held by the party base (that COVID shots are bad, that voter fraud is rampant, that public school teachers are greedy) at the expense of the rest of us.

Zero stars. Do not recommend!

Today, the Government of Alberta has announced that, as part of its Make Alberta Healthy Again initiative, it is launching the First Annual Alberta Vaccine Games.

At noon today, in every electoral district that voted NDP, all the seniors will gather in the town square for the Reaping. Two names will be drawn, and the Tributes will travel to Edmonton, where the Butterdome has been specially adapted for the First Annual Alberta Vaccine Games.

The seniors will compete in tests of strength and agility until only one is left standing (with or without their assistive device). The lucky residents of their electoral district will be guaranteed access to make an appointment to pay $110 for a COVID booster!

May the odds be forever in your favour! Make Alberta Healthy Again!

******

All joking aside, today is the day Albertans can visit bookvaccine.alberta.ca to register, which will later enable them to book an appointment at a public health center, where they can pay $110 to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

This process is what the public administration folks call an “administrative burden” — a process so complex and, well, burdensome that it discourages people from taking up a public benefit. Just in case the economic disincentive wasn’t a sufficient deterrent.

According to Andrew Nikiforuk’s reporting in the Tyee last week, “Last year the province administered 750,000 doses — largely to people over 50 years of age. This year the province has ordered only 485,000 doses, a 30 per cent reduction. That means a quarter of the population, again mostly the elderly, that wants the vaccine will not find it available.”

This actually raises some ethical questions for me: if supplies are scarce, should I elbow out a health care worker or senior? Does my concern (I teach a class with 250 germy young adults twice a week) warrant a scarce shot?

These are the kinds of questions we would ideally want government to answer, as it did when COVID vaccines first became available. Of course, we would also want government to be making enough doses of the vaccine available. But here we are.

But in this latest round of airing of grievances, immigration has been added to the list. Ottawa has admitted too many immigrants, and they aren’t the kind of immigrants Alberta wants.

This most recent wave of immigrants, according to the video on the Alberta Next Panel’s website, is responsible for unaffordable housing and high unemployment. “If Alberta isn’t satisfied with the number or kind of newcomers moving to our province, we may have the option to withhold provincial social programs to any non-citizen or non-permanent resident who does not have an Alberta-approved immigration status.”

Now, if Alberta were to remain in Canada, it’s unlikely that the province would be able to pick and choose which immigrants are worthy of healthcare or other services. The pesky Canadian courts would get in the way.

So the separatist Alberta Prosperity Project came up with a plan, embedded in its “Value of Freedom” document released yesterday. Deportations! (Just like the Americans!!)

In this document, which makes bold claims about Alberta’s low-tax future as a country, pages are devoted to setting out an immigration policy for an independent Alberta. “Natural born Canadians” will have preference and “naturalized citizens” of Canada will be awarded lesser points. Why? Well, folks born in Canada will fit in better and “they understand Canada and its winters and have at least a fighting chance of being able to drive acceptably on snow and ice.” I’m not making this up.

For anyone wanting to immigrate to the Free Alberta, there will be a points system. Being born in Canada gets you 40 points; 20 if naturalized. (Surprisingly, a driver’s license does not get you points…) Education counts (25 points for a PhD, if this is tempting to any of my academic friends elsewhere in Canada). So does language proficiency, merit, youth, “merit” and “health.” To get the 10 health points, you can’t have had a serious illness or an “experimental mRNA injection.” I’m not making this up.

Now, this wouldn’t just be the policy moving forward in Free Alberta. Anyone without citizenship who arrived under the “extremely unsatisfactory policies implemented by Canada since 2015” will have to requalify under the new screening program. The document projects that some 45,000-76,000 individuals who fail to qualify will be deported to Ottawa. I’m not making this up.

If either Smith or the APP was accused of racism, their response would likely be that these complaints aren’t racist; they are merely objections to bad Liberal policies. This gives them — and others — cover to articulate views that not so long ago would have been considered unacceptable in mainstream conversations. By turning antipathy toward immigration into yet another grievance against Ottawa, they are creating space for Albertans to indulge in their worst inclinations.

To have a panel led by the premier indulging in these ideas is simply shameful.

Before you conclude that my substack has been hacked by the Premier’s office, let me explain!

The premise of the Alberta Next exercise is that all our troubles are a direct consequence of the sinister federal government, the unjust Canadian constitution, and the nefarious program of equalization. Free ourselves from Ottawa, and everything would be better. There is nothing in the design of the “consultation” that allows for any other conclusion. For an Albertan to express their view on any of the “discussion topics” identified by the panel, they must first watch a 3-minute video that offers a one-sided explanation of the topic. It’s push polling at its finest.

The Alberta Next exercise is designed to ensure that we keep our eyes trained firmly on the Eastern horizon so as not to notice any of (waves hands) all this. You know, the unchecked gas flaring, the babies in hospital with measles, the ER wait times and closures, the unemployment rate, and the list goes on.

An enterprising opposition party (ahem!) might seize the moment to launch a parallel Alberta Next exercise, focused on what we here in Alberta might do to improve our economy, our standard of living, our health, our public services, our environment, and our sense of community. Start with the premise that our focus should be on Alberta, not on Ottawa. Think carefully about how we could make things better without a single change to federal policy or the Constitution. Take note of Jim Stanford’s analysis of the provincial policy choices that have contributed to Albertans’ anger and frustration.

Imagine a series of town halls being held across the province this summer, infused with a sense of hope and possibility rather than anger over manufactured grievances. Imagine groups of Albertans getting together to talk about how to change the things we can change instead of railing against equalization, the constitution, and “unAlbertan” immigrants. Imagine an exercise focused on imagining a provincial identity not tied to a single industry.

Less Ottawa, more Alberta.