According to the website of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Calgary-Shaw MLA Rebecca Schulz gave up her seat on May 15.
That’s not a surprise, but it’s odd.
It’s no surprise because when the former minister in cabinets formed by United Conservative Party (UCP) premiers Jason Kenney and Danielle Smith announced her resignation as Alberta’s environment minister last New Year’s Eve, she said she’d be leaving her seat in the Legislature in May. Her cabinet resignation took effect on January 2.
“Timing is everything in life and in politics, and it is time for me to seek new opportunities in my career,” she wrote in her anodyne cabinet resignation letter, without providing any hints of why she chose that particular moment or what opportunities awaited her. Premier Smith praised her contribution to the government, as is customary in such situations.
What’s more, on May 12, Schulz offered a swan song of sorts in an interview with CTV News, praising the premier, sending up hosannas to former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, and dutifully carping about former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau and his environment minister Steven Guilbeault.
What’s peculiar, though, is that her resignation from the Legislature seems to have gone all but unremarked by official Alberta without so much as a fare-thee-well. Indeed, the confirmation of her departure on the Assembly web page is implicit, not explicit – that is to say, it merely notes May 15 as her end-of-service date and her seven years, zero months, and 30 days as an MLA.
One would have thought that tradition and protocol would have required at least gentle pat on the back and the promise not to let the door smack her on the way out, if not a nice press release thanking her for her service.
After all, she served in cabinet in three important ministries – environment, municipal affairs, and children’s services – and ran for the leadership of the UCP in 2022, casting herself as a kinder, gentler sort of Conservative leader, promising to deliver “compassion and common sense in addition to conservative values.”
It doesn’t seem likely given Shulz’s effulgent praise for the premier in her May 12 interview that there is any sort of significant disagreement between the two. So presumably this has something to do with the by-election required by law to replace her.
But the UCP’s relative radio silence for more than two weeks on a topic bound to stir a lot of political interest is unusual, to say the least. Perhaps Ms. Smith has some ducks to get in a row.
Somebody knows something, of course. On Wednesday, political commentator Dave Cournoyer reported that the UCP had posted a notice online stating today would be the deadline for nomination candidates, then pulled it down.
Also Wednesday, separatist supremo Mitch Sylvestre posted a video statement on social media Wednesday saying a by-election would take place in Calgary-Shaw on June 21 and urging his supporters in the riding to sign party memberships by today and to vote for his favourite separatist candidate. At least two other candidates have come out of the woodwork seeking the UCP nomination in the reliably conservative riding in Calgary’s deep south.
There is no official confirmation of the June 21 date.
All this assumes that Smith won’t want to find a way to conn the ship of state to avoid having to call a by-election within six months as required by law, which wouldn’t be entirely out of character for our premier.
Smith signs cabinet order ensuring separation referendum
Premier Smith, meanwhile, signed a cabinet order yesterday formalizing the wording of her controversially murky Oct. 19 separation referendum question.
Never mind the boldface statement that lingered yesterday on the Internet home page of the UCP government’s Alberta Referendum 2026 website that “A referendum is a direct vote where citizens are asked to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on specific issues.”
This specific referendum question will be multiple choice.
Says the question: “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 provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”
Voters will have two choices: “Alberta should remain a province of Canada,” and “The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.”
Note that the questions don’t say what form this separate Alberta might take if you’re thinking a cozy little republic is a deadbolt cinch instead of, say, an unincorporated U.S. territory like Puerto Rico.
