Rob Breakenridge: Smith can stop a referendum ... if she wants to
There’s a sense now that a separation vote is inevitable, even if actual support for separation is well-short of a majority.
By: Rob Breakenridge
It may fall on deaf ears, but Jason Kenney is once again urging his fellow Albertans to step back from the brink.
In a recent interview, the former Alberta premier expressed his hope that the province could still avoid the strife and disruption of a referendum on leaving Canada. Kenney believes “it’s bananas if we allow a tiny perennially angry minority to drag the whole province through a deeply divisive debate.”
Such a campaign, he fears, “would divide families, divide communities, divide friends for no useful purpose.”
Albertans could be forgiven for fearing that such pleas are too late. There’s a sense now that a separation vote is inevitable, even if actual support for separation is well-short of a majority.
But here’s the thing: it’s not inevitable. And the decision to avoid a disruptive and destabilizing referendum could lie in the hands of Alberta’s current premier. It’s a decision that entails no shortage of political risk, but also reflects the responsibilities that come with this position.
Interestingly, Danielle Smith doesn’t seem to think that a separation vote is a fait accompli. When asked about Kenney’s remarks, Smith said she’s doing everything she can to prevent a vote, a statement denounced by the separatist Republican Party as “capitulation” and a “betrayal.”
Smith’s “doing all I can” comment clearly wasn’t about taking on the separatists, but rather her campaign to persuade the new Liberal prime minister to take a much different approach than his predecessor on matters pertaining to Alberta.
And indeed, there are clear indications of a different approach on energy and environmental policy under Mark Carney. If that ultimately includes a federal green light for a new oil pipeline from Alberta to the west coast, that would be a major — perhaps even fatal — blow to the Alberta separatist cause.
Mind you, the movement isn’t just going to pack up their tent and go home, even with an approved pipeline. They are, however, stuck in limbo at the moment. Elections Alberta is seeking court guidance on whether the constitutional question the separatists wish to pose might actually run afoul of the constitution. And then there's the whole matter of the other petition.
Former MLA Thomas Lukaszuk and his group Forever Canadian got the jump on the separatists by getting their petition drive authorized by Elections Alberta. Their proposal is a straightforward policy question: “Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?”
They’ve got until the end of October to gather just under 300,000 signatures. If they succeed, that could slam the door on the separatist efforts for another five years, as per the legislation overseeing all of this.
The Forever Canadian petition could still be a path to a separation vote, even if it’s not phrased to the separatists’ liking. In her comments earlier this week, and again in a separate interview, Smith warned that Lukaszuk’s efforts would still constitute "a separatist referendum."
Smith points out that it’s still a yes-no question, and if “he gets the signatures; and then people have the choice of voting yes or no.”
But there’s a very important choice Smith herself would then face. While she did state that if Lukaszuk’s petition succeeds, it would pave the way for a spring referendum, it doesn’t actually have to unfold that way.
Under the citizens initiative process, “electors can (…) have a legislative or policy proposal introduced in the legislative assembly or to have a constitutional referendum conducted.”
In other words, if the Forever Canadian petition succeeds, MLAs could be the ones to vote on whether Alberta should remain in Canada. And that would be that.
If she’s genuinely trying to prevent a vote, and shares or understands the concerns raised by Jason Kenney and others, then she would have the power to put the matter to rest.
Of course, if Smith’s comments last week were seen as a “betrayal” and a “capitulation” by separatists, it's easy to imagine how such a move would be received. But the premier isn’t — or shouldn’t be — beholden to them. The extent to which she fears them is another matter, though, and perhaps the factor that could tip the balance.
Smith is the one who lowered the bar for the petition effort by the separatists, assuming they’re even able to launch a campaign (Lukaszuk’s efforts are under the old rules). But does she really owe them a vote?
The broader interests of Alberta should certainly outweigh the more narrow political interests of one individual or party. Unfortunately, what should happen and what does happen are often not in alignment.
Yes, the prime minister could make all of this a lot easier for the premier. And yes, all bets are off if Lukaszuk’s petition fails to gather enough signatures. But there’s a potential off-ramp here for the premier to steer us away from a separation vote — if she has the courage to take it.
Rob Breakenridge is a Calgary-based podcaster and writer and host of The Line: Alberta Podcast. He can be found at robbreakenridge.ca and and reached at rob.breakenridge@gmail.com
The Line: Alberta is a provincial bureau of The Line, edited by Jen Gerson and Matt Gurney. Email us at alberta@readtheline.ca.
Kenney, on the item of AB separation is an elitist who is out to lunch because he steadfastly refuses to to acknowledge the bigger picture.
There aren't enough believers in separation to cause much division. The most likely problems are people who might vote "strategically" to send a message to Ottawa, or vote spitefully to try to make trouble (eg far left). People with the ability to attract media attention should focus on persuading people to vote for what they think will be best/least disruptive right now in today's situation.