By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Alberta’s newly lowered threshold for triggering a separation referendum, from 600,000 to 177,000 signatures, has significantly emboldened the province’s independence movement. While public opinion remains heavily against separation (75% opposed), Premier Smith’s electoral reforms have inadvertently aided separatist efforts. Despite one separatist leader acknowledging the wide gap between triggering a referendum and winning it, the Alberta Prosperity Project claims to have already secured enough online registrations to meet the new, lower requirement. This development comes amidst growing dissatisfaction with the recent federal election results.
Read the original article here
Danielle Smith’s push for Alberta separation is shifting the conversation from “if” Alberta will separate from Canada to “when,” despite the significant legal and practical hurdles involved. The very foundation of Alberta’s existence within Canada complicates any attempt at secession. Alberta wasn’t a negotiating party in Confederation like Quebec; it was formed from federally administered lands and its creation is intrinsically linked to the Canadian government. Altering this would require amending the Articles of Confederation, a process needing the agreement of seven provincial premiers and a nationwide 50% majority vote – a highly improbable scenario.
The significant Indigenous land claims further complicate matters. Alberta is covered by Treaties 6, 7, and 8, agreements between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian Crown, not a sovereign Alberta. Ignoring these treaties would have enormous legal and ethical ramifications, making separation incredibly challenging. A cease-and-desist letter from two First Nations highlights the serious concerns this issue raises.
The economic realities of Alberta also undermine Smith’s ambitions. The province’s economy is heavily reliant on oil and gas, a notoriously volatile industry. The cyclical nature of boom and bust periods presents significant economic risks, a fact Smith seemingly ignores by consistently blaming “eastern bastards” rather than promoting diversification. The notion of a separate Alberta economy is particularly fraught with uncertainty.
The perception of Smith’s motivations is also being scrutinized. Speculation connects her separatist rhetoric to deflecting from investigations into government corruption and possibly even foreign influence, with the suggestion of ties to Russia surfacing. This raises concerns about ulterior motives beyond genuine provincial autonomy. This perception damages her credibility and undermines the movement’s legitimacy.
Furthermore, the narrative of Albertans yearning for a life in the United States is significantly overblown. While some Albertans may hold pro-American sentiments, it’s a gross exaggeration to suggest a majority desire to join the US, particularly given the potential risks. The threat of a US annexation of Alberta, often presented as a consequence of separation, mirrors historical events like Russia’s justification for invading Ukraine, a deeply concerning parallel.
Even if a referendum were held and passed, the process itself is arduous and would likely fail to achieve the desired outcome. Unlike Quebec, which has engaged in extensive preparations for potential separation, Alberta lacks any comparable groundwork, making any sudden move unrealistic and impractical. The legal and political challenges are monumental, and a simple “yes” vote would only initiate a potentially lengthy and complex process fraught with obstacles.
The widespread support for Smith’s separation agenda is arguably overstated. Many Albertans oppose the idea, and even within the province, her support might not reach the level required to initiate any legitimate separation process. The suggestion that she is acting in a minority position is significant, highlighting the disconnect between Smith’s pronouncements and the will of the province.
Finally, the timing of this intensified push for separation is not overlooked. Its emergence after the Conservative Party’s electoral loss raises questions of political strategy, leading to accusations of using separation as a means to consolidate support. This is amplified by Smith’s perceived incompetence in various sectors like healthcare, casting further doubt on her leadership.
In conclusion, while Danielle Smith’s actions are undeniably pushing the idea of Alberta separation into the forefront, the complexities of the situation, coupled with the considerable opposition and lack of realistic planning, suggest that the transition from “if” to “when” is far from certain. The numerous challenges, from legal impediments to economic vulnerabilities, and even potential foreign interference allegations, paint a picture far more complicated than a simple desire to leave Canada.