Alberta Premier Danielle Smith

Readers above a certain age will remember two of classic political jokes of the 1970s and 1980s. One joke asks: if students from around the world had to write an essay about the elephant, what would they title it?

• The British student writes The Elephant and the British Empire.
• The French student writes The Love Life of the Elephant.
• And the Canadian student writes The Elephant: A Federal or Provincial Responsibility?

In the second joke, Quebec comedian Yvon Deschamps delivered a punchline that finally answered the age-old question, “What Does Quebec Want?”: “Un Québec indépendant dans un Canada uni” – an independent Quebec in a united Canada.

In order to better understand where Danielle Smith’s leadership of the United Conservative Party (UCP) government has taken Alberta since she became its premier in October 2022, it is worth reflecting on what made these jokes so salient in the past. Both are absurdist. Obsessing over jurisdiction, while of some practical value, neglects or distracts us from just about everything else that is truly important or interesting.

When Smith chaired the “Alberta Next Panel” last summer and fall, once again flogging the issues of whether Alberta should pull out of the Canada Pension Plan, replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, change the allegedly unfair equalization formula and other aspects of The Ottawa Problem, officials in the Ministry of Health were quietly working on Bill 11, which amends the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act to allow dual practice for physicians and establishes private health insurance for medically necessary services – in effect killing a sacred cow of Canadian politics. In the Ministry of Finance, a deficit of $9.4 billion was projected, reflecting the energy revenue roller coaster that arguably should also be the focus of public debate about Alberta’s future.

Smith’s solution to The Ottawa Problem is “a Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada” (her words).¹ Yet her busy legislative agenda over the past three years, and the political strategy behind it, indicates that the word sovereignty does not just reflect a concern for protecting Alberta’s jurisdiction under Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. In fact, it more than hints at the same absurd paradox that lies behind Deschamps’s joke. It makes a direct appeal to separatists in the base of her party who helped to put her in power in place of Jason Kenney and who threatened to have her replaced unless she delivered a vote on Alberta’s independence.

She has also delivered a remarkably long list of MAGA-influenced policies, coupled with such populist broadsides against the Canadian state as attacks on “Trudeau-appointed judges” and repeated recourse to the section 33 override (“notwithstanding”) clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: in the Back to School Act ordering striking teachers back to work (October 2025), the Health Professions Amendment Act restricting access to gender-affirming care (October 2025), the Education Amendment Act regulating the use of preferred names and pronouns (December 2025), and the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act banning transgender women from participating in women’s amateur sports (December 2025).

The potential also exists for a fifth invocation of section 33 if necessary to stave off court challenges to the recently passed Bill 18 – Safeguards for Last Resort Termination of Life, which requires the College of Physicians and Surgeons to impose sanctions on people who practise Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) or even provide information about it. Senator Paula Simons has said that this legislation “makes Albertans second-class Canadians. It robs us all of the freedom to make fundamental choices about how we live – and how we die.”

Such social conservatism is not popular with the majority of Canadians, including the majority of Albertans. An Environics poll from this January found 79 per cent of Albertans agree with the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 decision in Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), which found that the prohibition of physician-assisted dying infringes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and support MAID for people with irremediable medical suffering; this is only slightly less than the 85 per cent supporting the Carter decision among Canadians as a whole. It is a further indication of the degree to which the Premier has been especially sensitive to the views of a MAGA-influenced minority in her party.

Back to Meech Lake – with a populist-authoritarian twist

Last year’s Alberta Next Panel Town Halls generated four referendum questions dealing with the Constitution. Voters will be asked “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces” to

• appoint judges to King’s Bench and Courts of Appeal;
• abolish the unelected Senate;
• opt out of federal programs that intrude on provincial jurisdiction with full compensation;
• transfer paramountcy to provinces where conflicts between levels of government occur in areas of shared jurisdiction (immigration, agriculture and the environment).

The opt-out and judicial appointment provisions are virtually identical to two of Quebec’s Five Demands in the Meech Lake round of constitutional negotiations in 1985-87. The other two – ending the federally appointed Senate and federal dominance of a few key policy areas – are substantively different from Meech Lake provisions but respond to similar concerns for greater provincial jurisdictional autonomy. All reflect the Premier’s longtime strategy of emulating Quebec and piggybacking on its constitutional demands.

This past February, five more questions relating to immigration were added to the referendum. Premier Smith noted in her announcement that “throwing the doors wide open to anyone and everyone across the globe has flooded our classrooms, emergency rooms and social support systems with far too many people, far too quickly.” She criticized Justin Trudeau’s government for accepting too many immigrants without “in-demand skills” and called his government’s immigration policies “absolutely unsustainable.”

These referendum questions do not suggest a strategy for making constitutional amendments in conjunction with other provinces, but focus on possible unilateral policies for asserting provincial authority in this area – for example, by “mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially-funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services.” Another question asks voters to endorse the idea of a 12-month waiting period for immigrants to begin receiving Alberta services, without explaining the likely reciprocity that will be demanded from other provinces, the possible legal challenges or the simple fact that immigrants will be working and paying taxes.

This recent emphasis upon the strain that immigrants have placed upon Alberta social services is ironic. Although it is true that the Trudeau Liberal government’s immigration policies were expansive and not well enough coordinated with provincial government to avert a housing crisis, a national policy reversal was announced well before Mark Carney came to office in March 2025. According to the Alberta government’s own figures, total net migration dropped to just 3,729 in the first quarter of 2025 – a decrease of 86.3% compared to a year earlier. By 2026, the overall pace of total migration to Alberta had reached its lowest level in years.

Yet Smith added five questions on immigration to the referendum and moved them to the top of the ballot, while ringing alarm bells for a fire that had already been brought under control. One plausible explanation is that a previous attempt in the summer and fall of 2025 to require certification of Canadian citizenship on provincial driver’s licences and other government ID fizzled amid a chorus of complaints and threats of litigation. The referendum questions are framed in such a way as to encourage a Yes vote and will please the base of the UCP that is most concerned about immigrants. Their attitudes, of course, are influenced by the xenophobic policies being put forward in the United States and in other countries where right-wing populist movements have gained support in response to large numbers of refugees and illegal immigrants.

The tenth question

On May 21, 2026, Premier Smith announced the wording of the tenth, and most important, question on the ballot for Alberta’s referendum vote on October 19. It is not structured as a Yes or No question, but rather as a choice between two statements, the first reflecting the Forever Canadian citizen initiative petition to remain within Canada, and the second offering the choice of a second referendum:

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 referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada?

This formulation avoids the legal problems posed by a recent Court of King’s Bench ruling by Justice Shaina Leonard that quashed the Stay Free Alberta citizens’ petition, on the grounds that the government failed in its duty to consult with First Nations before proceeding with a separation referendum, a duty grounded in their Treaty rights. That decision actually follows an earlier ruling of unconstitutionality by Justice Colin Feasby of the same court on December 4 following a request by Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer. This ruling had been sidestepped by the introduction of a new bill that shielded the referendum proposal from judicial review.

Justice Leonard’s ruling placed the UCP government in a position that was unlike the four other occasions on which it had invoked the section 33 override clause. Section 35 Aboriginal Treaty rights and the duty to consult derived from them fall outside of the Charter of Rights, and therefore the override clause was unavailable to the government. The government could not ignore Leonard’s ruling as easily as it had the Charter-focused arguments in the Feasby decision.

Premier Smith announced that her government would nevertheless appeal the new decision, calling it “antidemocratic” and “incorrect in law,” but she also recognized that it would be impossible to overturn it in time for the October 19 vote. Hence the decision to defer the actual referendum on separatism and to seek instead a mandate more consistent with Canada’s constitution which, if successful, would give added momentum to the separatist cause.

MAGA politics, Alberta-style

Danielle Smith has been handed numerous good reasons to postpone a sovereignty referendum if she wanted to do so. To begin with, she could argue that such an existential question should wait until after the next provincial election. The UCP’s approach departs from the Quebec model in not having a political party formally campaigning on a separatist platform – there is no electoral mandate. The need for such a mandate has been bypassed by legislation enacted before the election permitting citizen initiatives (Jason Kenney’s 2021 Citizen Initiative Act), followed by the drastic reduction after the election of the threshold for initiating a separation vote.

Kenney – the father of the UCP as well as of the Citizen Initiative Act, and therefore the Dr. Frankenstein of this piece – had failed to foresee this populist two-step: (1) that a former Wildrose Party leader and right-wing talk radio host could be catapulted into the UCP leadership and the Premier’s Office despite the Wildrose Party being half the size of the Progressive Conservative Party; and (2) that she could do so in large part by promising a highly motivated, well-organized and influential group of right-wing activists² an easier path to an independence vote.

Under the revised Citizen Initiative Act, the signature requirement fell from 20 per cent of eligible voters to 10 per cent of the votes cast in the last provincial election. That shift lowered the target from about 588,000 signatures to about 178,000, which enabled the Stay Free Alberta campaign organizers to easily clear that hurdle with about 300,000 signatures.

Nevertheless, there were several legal, ethical and logistical objections to the petition moving forward that required Smith’s dogged perseverance to keep it on the referendum ballot. In addition to the aforementioned challenges based on the legal duty to consult, Elections Alberta was rocked by the news of a massive data breach. The Republican Party of Alberta – which (then known as the Buffalo Party of Alberta) in the 2023 provincial election ran a single candidate who got a handful of votes, but as an official political party had access to the entire confidential Alberta List of Electors – gave a copy of the names and personal addresses of about three million voters to the Centurion Project, a pro-separatist group led by Take Back Alberta leader David Parker. It was Parker who was probably most instrumental in rallying the right wing of the UCP around Smith in her successful leadership bid.

A judge ordered Centurion to remove the database from the internet, but Parker has refused to sign a sworn statement declaring he would stop using the official voters’ list, calling Elections Alberta antidemocratic: “Elections Alberta is waging lawfare on Take Back Alberta, The Alberta Prosperity Project, and Stay Free Alberta. They are using the power of the State to suppress democracy. This must be stopped.” About 500 people had seen the list via the party’s app, and credible rumours have American annexationists being in a position to use the list or aid those who do, in any upcoming referendum (or election).

Interestingly, Pete Hoekstra, the U.S. Ambassador to Canada, is a friend of the app’s founder; Parker cites the Michigan right-wing political mobilization group 10xVotes as an inspiration and ally for the Centurion Project; and Alberta Prosperity Project general counsel Jeffrey Rath has claimed the enthusiastic support of numerous US government officials in his quest for Alberta sovereignty.

One of the most distinctive attributes of the Trump-led MAGA movement in American conservatism has been the deliberate strategy of its leaders to delegitimize important aspects of the legal and administrative order to advance its political aims. The UCP’s dealings with Elections Alberta reflect a similarly aggressive and subversive attitude.

For example, in November 2025 Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer, Gordon McClure, told an all-party legislative committee that Elections Alberta needed another $13.5 million in funding for the remainder of the fiscal year to handle recall petitions and citizen initiative petitions that had already been submitted, and to prepare for the 2026 provincial referendum that the Premier had already indicated was likely. Instead, the UCP-dominated committee approved slightly less than $1.5 million in funding for the remainder of the year. When judges invalidated aspects of the constitutional referendum, the Premier called the decisions “undemocratic” as justification for invoking the section 33 override clause.

Another echo of MAGA-style populist defiance occurred when the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission recommended the removal of two rural seats from Alberta’s electoral map to reflect the growing urban population. The government chose instead a radically different minority report recommendation that proposed splicing several big-city constituencies with rural ones. The Premier then chose former Conservative MP and lobbyist Monte Solberg to sit on the independent advisory panel tasked with redrawing Alberta’s electoral boundaries. David Parker’s refusal to comply with Elections Alberta’s order to cease and desist the Centurion Project’s use and distribution of the voters list was in the same vein.

Smith’s balancing act

With Elections Alberta overwhelmed, with the integrity of the voter database compromised, with more people (400,000) having signed a petition not to have such a vote than the number favouring a referendum, with the numerous ethical and legal breaches on the part of the separatist organizers, and with a clear legal finding that the government had failed in its duty to consult with First Nations, one would think that the Premier would finally recognize that the referendum would have to be postponed. But she found a way to keep it alive – by proposing Remain or Referendum rather than the straight-up vote on independence that both she and the separatist organizers had previously hoped for.

It is possible that, by choosing the “vote on whether to have a vote” wording of the referendum, Smith has given just enough red meat to separatists to maintain her grip on the UCP leadership while staying within the bounds of the law. If a Yes vote for remaining within Canada enables her to avoid a subsequent referendum campaign on sovereignty – a campaign which would surely cause Indigenous leaders to delay and possibly deny any pipeline construction, while also damaging the investment climate in a fashion comparable to Quebec in the 1980s and 1990s – then she will have successfully performed a mighty political balancing act.

On the other hand, any other premier in any other party in any other province (with the possible exception of Quebec) would have seized upon any of a number of very good reasons available for not having a referendum on separating from Canada at this particularly perilous time. One could be forgiven for thinking that Danielle Smith cares more about the unity of her party (and therefore her hold on power) than she does about the unity of the country. If this becomes any more obvious, it could be the beginning of the end of her tenure as Alberta’s 19th premier.

Notes

¹ Premier Smith’s regular references to “federal overreach” and exhortations to Ottawa to “stay in its own lane” suggest an old-fashioned idealized picture of a federalism with watertight compartments, and do not often evince an awareness of any of the gains made from the constitutional negotiations of the 1980s and 1990s (such as the Section 92A confirmation of provincial resource jurisdiction or the development of intergovernmental coordination in the form of the Social Union Framework Agreement in 1999 or the Council of the Federation in 2003). Indeed, like the Alberta separatists she caters to, she often talks as if conservative activism and the Harper government had achieved little to reform or improve federalism.

² Leading activists include David Parker, leader of Take Back Alberta; Jeffrey Rath, lawyer for the Alberta Prosperity Project; Mitch Sylvestre, leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project ; and Cameron Davies, the current leader of the Republican Party of Alberta.