Danielle Smith's separatism shell game

With polls continuing to show Mark Carney’s Liberals holding the most unexpected lead in Canadian political history, Conservatives are starting to work through the early stages of their political grief. Many are still stuck in denial, which involves pretending crowd sizes at Poilievre rallies are a more important indicator of support and momentum than the polls. Some have moved onto anger, which seems to involve lashing out at voters in eastern Canada and the media. And while few have moved onto bargaining and acceptance yet, it’s fair to assume there are plenty mired in some kind of depression. 

Danielle Smith, ever the maverick, has decided to add a sixth phase: empty threats. She has repeatedly promised that a Liberal victory, no matter how decisive, would precipitate a national unity crisis. And while she isn’t yet willing to put her full political weight on that particular branch, she has suggested that her government would strike a “what’s next” panel — one that would presumably amount to a glorified airing of grievances among her party’s faithful. 

This is, as former Harper strategist Ken Boessenkool noted on social media, all part of the “Free Alberta Strategy” she endorsed when running for leader in 2022. Said strategy included a clear path towards Alberta separation, and it’s one she seems to have been walking for a while now. Her government’s “Alberta Sovereignty Act” helped lay the intellectual groundwork, however legally shaky it might be, for a broader rejection of federal authority. Now, it seems, she’s preparing to take the next step: setting the stage, and establishing the framing, for a referendum. 

It will revolve around Ottawa’s apparent hostility towards Alberta’s economic interests, which in her telling are indistinguishable from those of the oil and gas industry. It’s worth reiterating that the Liberal government has done more to improve the economic competitiveness of said industry through the construction of TMX and the support of LNG Canada than any Conservative government in Canadian history. It’s also worth pointing out that Conservative complaints about cancelled projects under the Liberal government are a textbook example of spurious correlation — or, in some cases, deliberate misrepresentation. What they’re really mad about, when you boil away the lies and deceit, is that the Liberal government — and Mark Carney — want the oil and gas industry to take climate change seriously. Perish the thought. 

The good news for the rest of the country is that Smith’s separatist threats are mostly empty. Despite a government-funded propaganda campaign, Smith’s government couldn’t even get one-third of Albertans to support the idea of an Alberta Pension Plan. If she couldn’t convince enough Albertans to part with their federal pension plan, the odds of her getting them to trade in their passport at a moment when national pride is on a generational upswing are even lower. 

Why, then, is she doing this? In part, I’m sure it’s because she actually believes most of this stuff — that Canada is screwing over Alberta, and that her province would be better off on its own. But I’m even more sure that it’s because it serves as a useful distraction from her domestic problems, which revolve around an ever-expanding scandal involving the former CEO of Alberta Health Services and private surgical clinics. 

And for all of her criticisms of the federal Liberal government, maybe she prefers having them in power over a Conservative one. Yes, blaming former prime ministers named Trudeau for things that aren’t their fault is a widely shared hobby among Alberta Conservatives. But at some point, Smith’s government would lose some of its ability to blame Ottawa for Alberta’s problems if a Conservative government was in power there. If that happened, it might actually be forced to govern competently. 

Pierre Poilievre and his team might want to remember that the next time they’re asked about Smith’s latest comments or travel itinerary. His biggest provincial ally may, in fact, be quietly rooting for him to lose. If he does, after all, it would allow Smith to continue wielding her most powerful weapon of mass distraction — and perhaps advance her real political project. If you thought the whining and special pleading was bad before, just wait until after April 28.