At Issue | Alberta premier moves to keep separation referendum alive

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]At issue tonight, Alberta separatism.

[00:00:02]The Alberta premier puts another option on the table for a vote. Muzzling the voices of hundreds of thousands of Albertans wanting to be heard is unjustifiable in a free and democratic society. It's time to have a vote.

[00:00:15]Understand the will of Albertans on this subject and move on. So, what will this new question mean for Alberta's future in Canada and what's be made of how Daniel Smith is dealing with all of this? I'm Rose Barton here to break it all down tonight. Shantelli Bear, Andrew Coin, and Althia Raj. Good to see everyone. So, um, this is now sort of a a third option, I guess, is is the way to describe it that Danielle Smith has put on the table. Uh, Shantel, what do you make of this as a as a political move tonight?

[00:00:47]>> Okay. So I think that Danielle Smith totally believed until last week that she would be asking the question from the referendum uh the from the petition on separation that was thrown out uh by a court. So the fallback position is a question that uh basically is the status quo or it's a choice question. It's not a yes or no question. Those of who are used to referendums forget that. Uh the answer is not going to be yes. The wins, no wins. It's a choice. A bit more like Brexit, remain or leave. First question, uh status quo improved. uh the premier is promising or um giving the government a mandate to set in motion the process for a referendum on separation which basically means that regardless of the outcome, there will not be a mandate to separate from Alberta when that question is posed and answered. Which also means that the federal government does not need to dig out the clarity act to see if the question is clear because suppose people say no we don't want to remain in Canada as it is we want to give you a mandate to set this in motion >> right >> well then this gets set in motion and everything else happens but uh the that vote in October presumably is not a make or break vote about Whether Alberta wants to separate is basically the end result.

[00:02:25]>> So So while your explanation was very good this mean this is what then buying some time Andrew is that is that the best way to say it or trying to to find a way out of this how do you interpret that?

[00:02:40]>> Yeah well it she's dug herself into a ditch and she's trying to get herself out of it but only getting partway out.

[00:02:47]Look this isn't even about this isn't about remain or stay. It's not even about the mandate to negotiate that Lebec sought. This is about a referendum on whether to hold a referendum. Uh so the first continu is this is in the grand tradition of convoluted referendum questions. But this maybe takes the cake. The danger of course is that some people may vote on this saying look even if I vote for the referendum option doesn't necessarily mean we'll even have a referendum because maybe we'll lose but we might get close enough to scare the rest of Canada into making concessions. So you've got this the potential for strategic voting squared here uh even before you ever get to a referendum. So there was no necessity to any of this. uh there's no binding requirement which he refers to the to commence the legal process under the Canadian constitution to hold a binding referendum on whether to separate.

[00:03:39]There's no uh constitutional process for for a referendum or for separation at all. The constitution doesn't mention either of those.

[00:03:46]>> No, >> this is there are things about what you can't do. You can't violate people's treaty rights, for example. But this is all basically made up hookum uh to get her out of a problem that she got herself in with because half of her party if not more are separatists. She's been riding that tiger and often times as it said people who try to ride on tigers end up inside them and so she's trying to avoid that fate by basically putting the province through this ridiculous ordeal and the country as well. So, but but is it a um a smart way to get out of having to have a referendum about separation or is it is it none of those things? Althia, >> I guess it depends um whose perspective you take. If you're Danielle Smith, this is a good way to get out of a jam. Uh in the sense that if she didn't put a referenda question uh a referendum question to uh Albertans in the fall, there is a huge chunk of her caucus, as Andrew mentioned, uh not her caucus, her party, pardon me. Um uh that was actually threatening to have a non-confidence vote in a special meeting later this summer. Um, so you can see that she's in a bind and she's trying to find a way out, but it's incredibly messy. I mean, the most honest thing would have been, frankly, to call an election over like having a mandate from the public to have a question like that put to the electorate. Um, instead she comes out with a strong defense of Alberta's place in Canada, but also a very different view of the province's place visav the federal government in our uh constitution, a very, I would say, revisionist version of the federation. And when you couple that with the other questions um that are going to be placed to voters in Alberta in October, um a lot of constitutional questions, you know, working with the other provinces to abolish the Senate, working with the other provinces to make sure that um you could say no to healthcare funding, for example, but still get cash from Ottawa. Um she wants constitutional reform at the same time as she's saying that that's not really, you know, she's not after breaking up the country. Um, I do think it has the potential to create greater chaos and Andrew mentioned it, but you know, in 1995 and Shad wrote a book about this, a lot of people voted yes because >> they wanted to send a message to Ottawa.

[00:06:11]And I think this is a first step to many, many more problems down the line.

[00:06:17]>> There's also this bogus arithmetic where she says this respects the will of the 700,000 people who signed these two petitions. Well, the the 400,000 people who voted who signed a forever Canadian petition never wanted to have an also have a question on whether to hold a referendum on separation. And the people who voted for the referendum question didn't want to have a a question on on whether to stay Canadian. And never mind even those people. There's probably 2 million people or more in Alberta who don't want to have a referendum on either subject. Where are they being represented in all this?

[00:06:47]>> Shantel. Shantel. Well, uh, stepping back from all this, the good news is if you ask Quebecers today with the PKUA leading in the polls a referendum question on do you want a referendum, it would lose squarely. Uh, there is no appetite for it. And I suspect that the majority vote in Alberta is going to be no, we're not interested in having this referendum. But if you're going to go down, I I I'm kind of have mixed feelings about the notion that the Premier Smith's view of federalism is out of sync with reality in the sense that when I read it, excuse me, I'll, you know, be testifying to my age. So, it looked to me like Joe Clark's vision of a community of communities uh and a debate that we've been having for 50 years about what the federation is. Is it a strong central government or is it provinces asserting um sovereignty of some sort in their areas of jurisdiction? That didn't sound very foreign to me reading it from Quebec. It would be the federalist position in Quebec. I I is it about though trying to deal with what is real frustration for some Albertans or or is it about trying to preserve her own position as as leader of the party and premier of the province Shantel and then I'll get everybody else to weigh in quickly. I think the the the second preserving uh her position as the premier and trying to keep her base uh it happy enough that uh she doesn't get go the way that Jason Kenny went.

[00:08:29]>> Elia, >> I don't think it needs to be one or the other. I think it's both, frankly. I think she's trying to save her job. I think she's also I mean there are people I'm in Edmonton who feel very strongly about leaving and who are very unhappy with the current status quo. I just think it's incredibly risky because a whole bunch of other issues can be lumped in together and then the question doesn't become what the question is actually about.

[00:08:55]>> Last word to you Andrew.

[00:08:56]>> It's entirely acceptable to talk about Alberta's grievances real or imagined with the rest of the country or with the federation or with the federal government. What's not reasonable, what's not acceptable is to back your demands in that those kinds of negotiations or talks or discussions with the threat of separation.

[00:09:13]Separation itself is, I would say, illegitimate. But even more legitimate in a way is this insincere threat where you don't actually want to separate. You just want to, as I say, get your way by by threatening to do bad things. And we cannot sanction that. We've done that far too long as a country. Uh, and we're reaping the whirlwind from that. The people who are doing this in Alberta are very much citing the Quebec example established over many decades and we are paying the price for that now just as we paid for it in dealing with Quebec.

[00:09:41]At issue tonight, energy ambitions. The prime minister says Canada must do its part as the world deals with a crisis and his government won't wait on provinces opposed to development.

[00:09:52]>> We don't want to hear what people are against. We want to hear what they're for. If things get stalled here, we we're going to be spending more time elsewhere in the country.

[00:10:03]>> But BC's premier says environmental concerns cannot be ignored.

[00:10:07]>> Part of the truth for British Columbia is that that development work that we're doing of developing our economy has to go handinand with environmental protection.

[00:10:17]>> So, how are provinces responding to Ottawa's push for energy infrastructure?

[00:10:21]Is Ottawa being pushed to referee energy deals between provinces? is here to break all that down now. Shantel, Andrew, and Althia. Althia, I mean, obviously, this is all very much connected to what we were just talking about to the the deal that Ottawa struck with Alberta to trying to tamp down uh those separatist sentiments and and now the prime minister in a position where he I guess he has to do something to try and make sure that that David Eie is is satisfied with the state of the federation as well. What What did you make of uh the premier's complaints and the way the prime minister responded?

[00:10:54]It's quite unusual actually to have a premier so vocal in his criticism of the federal government. Um but I think he had a point, you know, like when the federal government spends that much time placating a province that makes a lot of noise because of sovereigntist elements, um it kind of means that the provinces that are behaving properly or positively with the federal government uh feel like they're getting uh short shafted. And you you you know that's what Premier Eie was saying. Also, Premier Eie is also going to be facing um a tough re-election bid and he needs to have some wins and it's not clear that the prime minister seems sensitive to that or as sensitive to that as he is to Premier Smith's uh wishes. Um, and some of the things are hard, you know, no lines for NDP supporters in British Columbia who happen to also be in some cases liberal, federal liberal supporters. Um, and so I think it does it's it's interesting. Um, it's also interesting that the prime minister's yard sticks keeps moving. So I can understand a frustration from a province like British Columbia where they're not actually sure what the move is. But similarly interesting is the prime minister's kind of slap down of that criticism. Um because of course you can be uh for something but also frame it in a critical lens and clearly everybody wants to be singing from the same song book. At least that's what the federal government wants and it does not want to be publicly criticized.

[00:12:25]>> Yeah. I mean those comments Andrew that the prime minister made about saying you know if you're not going to work with us then we'll find someone else to work with. I I I'm not sure that those are politically the smartest questions, but I understand why he he might say that.

[00:12:37]Um what did you make of how that meeting unfolded? Well, I can sympathize up to a point with Premier EIE that the prime minister's approach to Alberta and the prime minister's approach at least present with the BC or simply studying contrasts the imolience with which he's been trying to make concessions to the government Alberta versus myware the highway with the premier and I certainly sympathize with him when he says it cannot be that we're going to reward bad behavior of that kind. I think he used the exact phrase bad behavior or the threat of separation >> using the threat of separation to get what you want. Um the premier however has a bit of a short memory because it wasn't so long ago that premers of British Columbia were using unconstitutional assertions of powers were taking advantage of unlawful blockades to prevent a pipeline from being built through their province. So that's bad behavior of a different kind as well. So what's common to both of them is we've got provinces that are willing to use um to step outside the normal rules of law and engagement and and constitutional processes to push and and and get their way whether it's to get a pipeline built or to stop a pipeline from being built. Uh and neither of those types of tactics should be allowed to to succeed. uh uh Santel >> and on the other hand you have a federal government that is basically exempting itself from a bunch of laws and regulations uh to uh push through its pet projects or those that decides to shepherd. I was curious about this uh notion that if BC stalls were going to be looking or working with other provinces because one if you're going to get a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean there is only one province that can >> yeah sure feel free to look elsewhere but there's not going to pipeline but the other issue is of all of the projects that are being discussed between the federal government and uh the province of British Colombia only one seems to be a a a major issue. There is an LNG development. There are mines.

[00:14:46]Uh and so is the message here if you don't do my pipeline bidding. I'm going to myself stall on every other project which kind of sounds like blackmail. I'm not sure it was politically very effective. It did sound great in that room of business people.

[00:15:03]>> Sure. But when you think when you think it true, you think, okay, so you're going to go somewhere else. Well, then there won't be a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean is basically what you're saying.

[00:15:15]>> Yeah. I mean, some of that whole conversation and the things that were said in the room, Althia, did make me wonder, you know, with all due respect to the prime minister, whether he he he gets what's unfolding sort of in front of him. uh you know for all his uh strategic acumen uh on the business side there's a lot of a lot of things a lot of moving parts here.

[00:15:37]>> Oh I think the prime minister gets what's happening. I think that u you know there's a lots that we're not privy to because it's happening behind closed doors. The prime minister has said very clearly that British Columbia is to share parts of the profits. I'm assuming there are negotiations happening around that. Um Premier Eie has put a red line on the tanker ban for example. does not want to see that lifted. Um, federal government seems open to southern route but is you know not ruling out a northern route. So I think I think it's about public positioning on other things happening behind closed doors more than anything else.

[00:16:11]>> Um I think there's other questions you know port infrastructure for example. Uh we talked about the whales last week but I love whales so I'm going to mention it again.

[00:16:20]But so I um I think he's very savvy on those things. I think where there may be more of a blind spot is like on him insisting that they're going to meet their uh net zero by 2050. That does not seem like it's going to happen whatsoever. Um, I also think that it's kind of hard to take the prime minister at its word when he, you know, goes against the, you know, he put things in the budget, for example, in November of 2025, just 6 months ago, and now is totally revisiting them. So, I think that the premers know this and they know that they need to get something much firmer in hand um, and that the prime minister is perhaps more flexible than he says or hints publicly.

[00:17:04]At issue, Canada US trade tensions. With the Kusma review deadline fast approaching, the US is pausing. A bilateral group focused on defense cooperation that dates back to the Second World War. The PM says there's no cause for concern.

[00:17:18]>> I mean, it has a long heritage, but I wouldn't overplay the importance of this. We have uh many aspects of very close uh defense cooperation with the United States. But this move comes as the White House points to unfair trade practices as the reason for the delays on a key bridge from Windsor to Detroit.

[00:17:36]So where do things stand between Canada and the US right now? Are trade tensions escalating? Let's bring everyone back.

[00:17:41]Shantel, Andrew, and Althia. Uh Andrew, why don't I start with you? This defense board, I mean, I I think the prime minister is right. We shouldn't overstate the importance, but I also think that when the US does things and says we don't think Canada's spending enough money, we aren't going to be here. that that that is cause for concern that that there's some part of what the message that the federal government is putting forward to the United States is is not resonating or they frankly don't care. What what did you make of that?

[00:18:08]>> Yeah, I mean the permanent joint defense board on defense has not met since 2024.

[00:18:13]>> Yeah.

[00:18:13]>> But it is symbolic. It is, you know, it is part and parcel of the whole post-war defense arrangement between Canada and the United States which has been going on for 80 years and is very close and very tightly integrated. So, they haven't pulled the plug on all that. We haven't abolished NORAD or anything, but they're certainly trying to send a signal.

[00:18:30]>> And I don't think the signal is about I don't think you credibly say it's about the level of defense spending anymore. I think it's more to do with, uh, how much are you going to spend on American defense providers? And more broadly, um, how willing are you to stay within the American corral? We've all been talking about all these months about diversification. and we're going to we're going to trade more with other countries and we're going to buy more military hardware from other countries than the United States and we're going to strike out on our own and much more independent line and I don't think we've really thought through enough what it would do if the Americans say we're not going to let you uh if you try to trade more with China we're going to punish you if you try to diversify your procurement sources for the military we're going to punish you if you do that so we've got to have you know figuring out step four six and seven in this process rather than just um the first couple of steps Yeah, I mean I wouldn't say things are getting worse, but I also wouldn't say Althia things are getting better in terms of where this is headed.

[00:19:31]>> Well, the rhetoric from the Americans has escalated. There's no doubt about that. And possibly it's about trying to get Canada to come to the table, which it does not want to or seems in no hurry to do for its own strategic reasons.

[00:19:46]Perhaps it's about the F-35 purchase, which still hasn't yet been decided, and the government is looking elsewhere. Um, but I do think it kind of raises an interesting um challenge for the Americans. At the one hand, you have the president continuously saying that they need absolutely nothing from Canada. They don't need our lumber. They don't need our oil. They don't need our cars. And at the on the other hand, they're also expressing quite publicly in terms of documents that they've released that they see a role for Canada to be a strategic stronger North American partner kind of in the the view that we had with um Harper and Obama when we had the security prosperity partnership like continental defense and further integration.

[00:20:32]>> Well, one hand it's like they don't understand how Canadians will react. If you're saying you don't need us at all, of course we're going to look elsewhere.

[00:20:39]But then if you're also saying at the same time, but you want us to integrate more, these two things don't compute together. And that is a challenge from I think the American standpoint but also for Canadian uh you know lawmakers to explain to us the public like if you've conditioned us to think that this is a rupture and we need to look elsewhere and we cannot bend to the American will then would we want to sacrifice you know giving you know bending on critical minerals and access to strategic um in like things of strategic interest to the United States that's going to be a real challenge for this government. Shantel, >> if you wanted to convince Canadians that the government is incompetent and not doing what it needs, possibly you should have u picked something other than defense. Uh where the government is actually distinguished itself by increasing defense spending. Uh I I think we waste a lot of time trying to find coherence in what the are trying to do to us. I noticed that this week they're at the Greenland thing again. Um and and every every time that they do what happened this week, they reinforce support for Mark Carney's line about not rushing to negotiate because why would you negotiate with people like that >> who set lines in the sand and then step all over them to say you're not meeting my line in the sand. when the mayor of Windsor is basically saying, "Do not give up uh anything because of that bridge thing," you know that something, if it's called the strategy, is kind of not working.

[00:22:21]>> Okay, got to leave it there. Thank you all very much for all of that. That issue for this week. I'm Rosemary Barton. Thank you for watching.