Danielle Smith's live-ammunition separatism exercise

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her government are embarking on what you might call a live-ammunition exercise, and one that could quickly get out of hand. At the intersection of Western populism and anti-Ottawa sentiment, Smith’s government is proposing to lower the threshold for holding a referendum while stoking the fires of resentment in service of pursuing a new deal within the federation. The manoeuvre comes as an Albertan separatist movement grows, which means these matters are neither academic nor without risk. 

While Alberta has every right to negotiate with the federal government, and a material interest in securing the best arrangement it can, the provincial government’s brand of grievance wedge politics is irresponsible, and the institutional changes it’s proposing couldn’t be more poorly suited to the moment. With Bill 54, Alberta is proposing to make citizen initiatives and referendums easier to hold. These are forms of direct, participatory democracy that have a certain appeal, but are, at best, blunt instruments prone to being hijacked in moments of extraordinary popular passion. 

The bill would decrease the number of signatures required to initiate a vote while extending the time petitioners have to collect signatures from 90 to 120 days. It would be easier to hold a referendum, though it would still need to pass with support from a majority of voters. But even holding a referendum can be divisive, if not outright destructive. There were a series of referendums in Canada between 1980 and 1995, two provincial votes on sovereignty in Quebec and one national vote on amending the Constitution. Each put Canada to the test, and each failed, leaving the country weaker after each vote. The history of these referendums doesn’t imply a need to ban mass policy or constitutional votes, but they do remind us of the cost they entail, suggesting that as a tool, they ought to be used as a last resort, and not as a negotiating tactic or a distraction from scandals at home.

A referendum, like a poll or an election, is a snapshot of voter sentiment at a moment in time. They typically take complex policy questions and reduce them to a “yes” or “no,” asking voters to choose a course in the short term and leaving them stuck with the result in the long term. At least in an election, voters return a government that is meant to take a longer view, to exercise its judgment, and to adapt and adjust on the fly. In that sense, the immediate choice of the electorate unfolds over time. An election vote remains a living thing, and subject to review at the next one. With a referendum, you’re typically locked into an outcome, set on a path that’s hard to deviate from. One thinks of Brexit in the United Kingdom and its effects as an example of how such things play out. 

Smith calls Albertan secession the “elephant in the room.” Her government won’t itself put separation on the ballot, she says, but speaking to the province – and the country – she made it clear that if a citizen-led undertaking met requirements, the province would hold a vote. What happens after that is anyone’s guess. While the vast majority of residents of the province say they wish to remain in Canada, it’s impossible to predict what might happen. The last six months of national politics has reminded us that unlikely events, while unlikely, are certainly possible.

Of Alberta separatists, Smith says, “These Albertans are not traitors nor should they be treated as such.” Rather, she notes, “They feel Alberta would be stronger and more prosperous as an independent nation. That is an understandable and justifiable feeling to have, even if we disagree on what to do about it.”

It looks as though Smith herself is not a separatist – in contrast to, say, Quebec premiers during their referendums in 1980 and 1995. She is, however, using them to fish for a new deal with the federal government. She wants an “Alberta Accord” that would guarantee the province concessions from Ottawa – and other provinces. The new deal would include guaranteed access to tidewater for energy, the repeal of what Smith calls the “no new pipelines law,” Bill C-69 and other laws and policies that the province believes slow or hamper resource development and export. Alberta also wants the oil and gas emissions cap gone, the electric vehicle mandate scrapped, an end to the federal industrial price on carbon emissions, a per capita equalization formula, and more.

One read of the situation is that Alberta is happy to use the threat of separation as leverage in a negotiation with the federal government, perhaps on the assumption it will seem a credible threat. After all, Quebec has long held the implicit threat of a return of the separatist movement to guarantee asymmetrical arrangements for itself. Albertans have long raised the question, “Why not us?” in the face of special treatment for other provinces, which is a reasonable enough question. But threatening to tear the country apart if your demands are not met is, let’s say, far less reasonable. Using the threat of a referendum on separation to get your way is, as John F. Kennedy put it, like riding the back of the tiger — and as Jason Kenney found out when he stoked his party’s fringes, it’s easy enough to end up inside it.

As Canada faces threats to its sovereignty from the United States, there could be no worse time to roll the dice on the future of the country. As unlikely as Alberta voting to separate may be, the chances are non-zero, and the best referendum on sovereignty is no referendum at all. Alberta has every right to fight for the deal it wants within confederation, but the threat of a referendum – implicit or otherwise – is reckless. You might even call it a mess that deserves a big no.