Thanks to her sneaky separatist manoeuvring, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith seems to have wedged herself between the proverbial rock and metaphorical hard place.
If she doesn’t do what the Alberta separatists in her United Conservative Party demand and call a referendum using the wording on their Citizen Initiative petition – “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?” – they may very well depose her in an internal party coup.
If she does that, though, she will run up against the courts – which have ruled that question to be unconstitutional and quashed approval of the petition because First Nations were not consulted. She may also soon face an energized pro-Canadian electorate that is finally starting to pay enough attention to send her packing if it gets the chance.
If she tries to find a “compromise” between those irreconcilable positions, one side, the other, or both could turn on her.
Nevertheless, it looks as if starting today Premier Smith will try to wiggle out of the trap she has built and wedged herself into by pretending to be a loyal Canadian while doing everything she can to facilitate the schemes of the separatist crowd.
The Legislature’s Select Special Citizen Initiative Proposal Review Committee has asked Thomas Lukaszuk, proponent of the Forever Canadian petition campaign, to come to its meeting this afternoon at 3 o’clock.
“It is possible the Committee will consider a motion during the May 20th meeting to invite you to present to the Committee,” said Chair Brandon Lunty, the UCP MLA for Leduc-Beaumont, in a letter to Mr. Lukaszuk, a former Progressive Conservative deputy premier of Alberta.
The letter continues: “In the event that the Committee chooses, during the meeting, to invite you to present, I would ask that, should you be available to attend, you please be prepared to make a presentation on the citizen initiative proposal of up to five minutes, after which committee members will have the opportunity to ask questions regarding the proposal and your presentation.”
Needless to say, this is both gormless and rude. Mr. Lukaszuk obviously picked up on the letter’s tone when he posted it to social media yesterday, commenting, “Looks like the UCP led committee dealing with the #ForeverCanadian petition has found whole FIVE MINUTES to discuss the future of Alberta and Canada.”
Nevertheless, he will be there. He told me last night: “I think Canada is worth five minutes. I will definitely go and make sure that this is the longest five minutes that those UCP MLAs have ever experienced!”
The obvious conclusion from this is that Mr. Lunty’s boss and her advisors have already decided to put separation on the ballot in October, and they’ll make it official this week, but they’d like to find a way to blame Mr. Lukaszuk for what is bound to be an unpopular decision.
Up to now, the committee has been slow-walking the Forever Canada petition – which was intended to require the members of Legislative Assembly to vote yes or no on the question, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” – observed Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt said on social media last night.
“It does not matter what @LukaszukAB or Forever Canada may have wanted,” Dr. Bratt said, responding to a post that suggested the UCP was trying to make Mr. Lukaszuk the scapegoat for the referendum they desperately want. “It is the determination of the MLA Committee that matters. And I am almost 100% that they will recommend a referendum and along party lines.”
Whether the UCP has decided to use Mr. Lukaszuk’s wording for their separatist referendum, as some have speculated, remains to be seen. But if they do, Mr. Lukaszuk observed, the premier will have to be the proponent, because he won’t.
And if they use his question, he added, “that will cause them more problems than they can imagine.”
“My question was designed to be asked in a legislature and to block their question,” he said. “My question does not meet the Clarity Act requirements and it cannot possibly start a constitutional process for separation.”
Which leaves us where, exactly?
In the short term, if the UCP tries to use the Forever Canada question, the hard-core separatists in the party bureaucracy will be furious – at the premier. If the government tries to move ahead with the Stay Free Alberta question, the vote will quickly bump up against the courts. What’s more, we can expect a large cohort of Alberta voters who have not really been paying attention up to now to be infuriated by this UCP threat against their country and the rights it guarantees them.
Still, one way or another, Ms. Smith might succeed in wiggling off the hook. History shows you can never count her out.
Years ago, one of Ms. Smith’s smartest and closest political allies, who must remain nameless to protect the periodically helpful, told me that the former Wildrose Party leader often operated her mouth without engaging her brain.
But whenever this got her in trouble, as it frequently did, she reckoned she could always talk her way out of the hot water she’d gotten herself into. “And she usually could,” they ruefully remembered.
