Danielle Smith is treading dangerously close to a volatile situation.
What unfolds in the upcoming months could potentially engulf Smith, her United Conservative Party (UCP) government in Alberta, and even reshape the landscape of Canada as we understand it today.
As the Premier of Alberta, Smith finds herself in a precarious position, attempting to satisfy the separatist sentiments within the province while publicly asserting her desire for Alberta to remain a part of Canada. In reality, she seems to be catering to a minority group that garners around 30% support among the general populace of Alberta, although they hold a more significant sway within the ranks of her UCP.
This week, Smith took another step down this contentious path by penning a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, advocating for Alberta to have a more substantial role in the selection process for federal judges in the province. It’s important to note that the federal government holds the constitutional authority to appoint judges in every province.
Historically, Ottawa has engaged in considerable consultation through a committee framework established in the 1980s. Each province boasts its own judicial appointments committee consisting of seven individuals: three appointed by the federal government, one chosen by the provincial government, one by the provincial Chief Justice, and two representatives from legal associations—one at the national level and one local.
Premier Smith is now proposing a revision to this system, suggesting a four-member committee for Alberta, with two members selected by Ottawa and the other two by the provincial government. This committee would then compile a list of candidates for consideration, allowing both federal and provincial Justice ministers to collaborate on appointing new judges.
It’s no surprise that the federal government has pushed back against this proposal, especially after Smith included an ultimatum with her request, threatening to withhold funding for three vacant positions on the Alberta Court of King’s Bench. Despite this, Ottawa proceeded to fill two of those vacancies without yielding to her demands. The next move appears to rest squarely with Premier Smith.
In her defense of these actions, Smith claimed that her proposal aims to enhance national unity, implicitly suggesting that it serves as a counter to the separatist movement. However, she has also expressed support for the concept of a "sovereign Alberta within a United Canada," a notion that raises eyebrows due to its inherent contradictions.
Furthermore, Smith has taken steps to enable a provincial referendum concerning separation. She has lessened the number of signatures required to trigger such a referendum and conducted town hall meetings across Alberta to discuss the province's future. In fact, the platform she has created seems tailor-made for separatists to air their grievances, serving their agenda remarkably well.
The stakes are high; depending on how things unfold in the coming months, this situation could spell disaster for Smith and her government, as well as for Alberta and the broader Canadian federation.
Previously, Smith has articulated demands directed at the federal government that appear to be crafted for rejection, presumably to stoke resentment toward Ottawa. Before the last federal election, she put forth seven specific requests, many of which aligned closely with the interests of the oil sector.
Since the election of Mark Carney, however, there have been instances of cooperation between Smith and Ottawa, including the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) related to a potential oil pipeline to British Columbia's northwest coast, though this agreement does not guarantee its realization.
Despite the pushback from Ottawa regarding Smith's demands about judicial appointments, if the federal government were ever to concede, she would likely return with another demand dressed up as a plea for national unity. One must ponder whether Smith is genuinely trying to keep Alberta within Canada by placating separatists or if she is unwittingly acting as an accomplice in laying the groundwork for a 'yes' vote in a potential referendum.
For her political survival, it is crucial that she aligns with the latter interpretation. If a vote for separation succeeds, unless an unforeseen event occurs—like Donald Trump launching an invasion the following day and appointing her as governor of a 51st state—she risks fading into obscurity.
To steer clear of such a fate, and to protect Alberta from being subsumed by an autocratic regime to the south, Smith needs to make a decisive shift. She must confront the separatists directly, challenge their ideologies, expel members of her party who support separation petitions, and advocate for Canada without merely serving as a mouthpiece for the oil industry.
If she can take these steps, a referendum on leaving Canada would almost certainly fail, and Danielle Smith could emerge as a national hero. Ultimately, extinguishing the flames of dissent will require courageous leadership and a commitment to unity.
