At Issue | Danielle Smith moves to keep a separatism referendum alive

At issue tonight, Alberta separatism.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.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 to be made of how Daniel Smith is dealing with all of this.I'm Rosemary Barton here to break it all down tonight.Chantal Hébert, Ender Coyne and Althea Raj.Good to see everyone.So this is now sort of a third option, I guess is the way to describe it, that Daniel Smith has put on the table.

Chantal, what do you make of this as a political move tonight?

I think that Danielle Smith totally believed until last week that she would be asking the question from the referendum, from the petition on separation that was thrown out by a court.So the fallback position is a question that basically is the status quo.Or it's a choice question.It's not a yes or no question.Those who are used to referendums, forget that.The answer is not going to be yes, wins, no wins.

It's a choice.A bit more like Brexit, remain or leave.First question, status quo improved.The premier is promising.Or 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.Well, then this gets set in motion and everything else happens.But that vote in October, presumably, is not make or break vote about whether Alberta wants to separate, it's basically the end result.

So while your explanation was very good, this is what then?Buying some time, Andrew?Is that the best way to say it?Or trying to find a way out of this?How do you interpret that?

Yeah, well, she's dug herself into a ditch, and she's trying to get herself out of it, but only getting partway out.Look, this isn't even about remain or stay.It's not even about the mandate to negotiate that René Lebesque sought.This is about a referendum and whether to hold a referendum.So, la farce continue.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 the potential for strategic voting squared here, even before you ever get to a referendum.So there was no necessity to any of this.There's no binding requirement, which he refers to, to commence the legal process under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding referendum on whether to separate.There's no constitutional process for a referendum or for separation at all.

The Constitution doesn't mention either of those.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 hokum.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 oftentimes, as it's 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.

But is it a smart way to get out of having to have a referendum about separation, or is it none of those things, Althea?

I guess it depends whose perspective you take.If you're Danielle Smith, this is a good way to get out of a jam in the sense that if she didn't put a referendum question to Albertans in the fall, there is a huge chunk of her caucus, as Andrew mentioned, not her caucus, her party, pardon me, that was actually threatening to have a non -confidence vote in a special meeting later this summer.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 having a mandate from the public to have a question like that put to the electorate.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 vis -a -vis the federal government in our constitution, a very, I would say, revisionist version of the Federation.

And when you couple that with the other questions that are going to be placed to voters in Alberta in October, 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 you could say no to health care funding, for example, but still get cash from Ottawa.She wants constitutional questionsat the same time as she's saying that that's not really, you know, she's not after breaking up the country.I do think it has the potential to create greater chaos.And Andrew mentioned it, but, you know, in 1995, and Chantal wrote a book about this, a lot of people voted yes because They wanted to send a message to Ottawa, and I think this is a first step to many, many more problems down the line.

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 400 ,000 people who voted, who signed the Forever Canadian petition, never wanted to have, 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 question on whether to stay Canadian.And never mind even those people, there's probably two 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?

Chantal, Chantal.

Well, stepping back from all this, the good news is if you ask Quebecers today with Le Parti Québécois leading in the polls a referendum question on do you want a referendum, it would lose squarely.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 kind of have mixed feelings about the notion that Premier Smith's view of federalism is out of sync with reality in the sense that when I read it, excuse me, I'll be testifying to my age, but it looked to me like Joe Clark's vision of a community of communities and a debate that we've been having for 50 years about what the federation is.Is it the strong central government or is it provinces assertingsovereignty 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.

Is it about, though, trying to deal with what is real frustration for some Albertans, or is it about trying to preserve her own position as leader of the party and premier of the province?Chantal, and then I'll get everybody else to weigh in quickly.

I think the second, preserving her position as the premier and trying to keep her base, happy enough that she doesn't go the way that Jason Kenney went.

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.Last word to you, Andrew.

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 those kinds of negotiations or talks or discussions with the threat of separation.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 threatening to do bad things, and we cannot sanction that.We've done that far too long as a country, 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're paying the price for that now just as we paid for it in dealing with Quebec.

At issue tonight, energy ambitions.The Prime Minister says Canada must do its part as the world deals with the crisis, and his government won't wait on provinces opposed to development.

We don't want to hear what people are against.We want to hear what they're for.If things get stalled here, We're going to be spending more time elsewhere in the country.

But B .C.'s premier says environmental concerns cannot be ignored.

Part of the truth for British Columbia is that that development work that we're doing of developing our economy has to go hand in hand with environmental protection.

So how are provinces responding to Ottawa's push for energy infrastructure?Is Ottawa being pushed to referee energy deals between provinces?Here to break all that down now, Chantal, Andrew and Althea.Althea, I mean obviously this is all very much connected to what we were just talking about, to the deal that Ottawa struck with Alberta, to trying to tamp down those separatist sentiments, and now the Prime Minister in a position where he I guess he has to do something to try and make sure that David Eby is satisfied with the state of the Federation as well.What did you make of the Premier's complaints and the way the Prime Minister responded?

It's quite unusual, actually, to have a premier so vocal in his criticism of the federal government.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, it kind of means that the provinces that are behaving properly or positively with the federal government feel like they're getting short -shafted and you know that's what Premier Eby was saying.Also Premier Eby is also going to be facing a tough re -election bid and he needs to have some wins and it's not clear that the Prime Ministerseems sensitive to that or as sensitive to that as he is to Premier Smith's wishes.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.

And so I think it does, it's interesting.It's also interesting that the Prime Minister's yardstick keeps moving so I can understand the 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 because of course You can be for something, but also frame it in a critical lens.And clearly, everybody wants to be singing from the same songbook.At least that's what the federal government wants.And it does not want to be publicly criticized.

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'm not sure that those are politically the smartest questions, but I understand why he might say that.What did you make of how that meeting unfolded?

Well, I can sympathize up to a point with Premier Eby that the Prime Minister's approach to Alberta and the Prime Minister's approach, at least present with the BC, are simply a study in contrast to the emollients with which he's been trying to make concessions to the government of Alberta versus my way or 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.The premier, however, has a bit of a short memory because it wasn't so long ago that premiers 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, to step outside the normal rules of law and engagement and constitutional processes to push and get their way, whether it's to get a pipeline built or to stop a pipeline from being built.And neither of those types of tactics should be allowed to succeed.

Chantal.And on the other hand, you have a federal government that is basically exempting itself from a bunch of laws and regulations to push through its pet projects for those that it decides to shepherd.I was curious about this notion that if B .C.stalls, we're going to be looking or working with other provinces, because one, if you're going to get the pipeline to the Pacific Ocean, there is only one province that can do it.So feel free to look elsewhere, but there's not going to be a pipeline.

But the other issue is of all of the projects that are being discussed between the federal government and the province of British Columbia, only one seems to be a major issue, there's an LNG development, there are mines.And so is the message here, if you don't do my pipeline bidding, I'm gonna 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.But when you think it through, you think, okay, so you're gonna go somewhere else, well, then there won't be a pipeline to the Pacific Ocean, is basically what you're saying.

Some of that whole conversation and the things that were said in the room, Althea, did make me wonder, with all due respect to the Prime Minister, whether hewhat's unfolding in front of him.For all his strategic acumen on the business side, there's a lot of moving parts here.

Oh, I think the prime minister gets what's happening.I think that, you know, there's a lot 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.Premier Eby has put a red line on the tanker ban, for example.He does not want to see that lifted.

Federal government seems open to southern route, but is, you know, you know, not, you know, ruling out a northern route, so I think it's about public positioning on other things happening behind closed doors more than anything else.I think there's other questions, you know, port infrastructure, for example.We talked about the whales last week, but I love whales, so I'm going to mention it again.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 net zero by 2050.That does not seem like it's going to happen whatsoever.

I also think that it's kind of hard to take the prime minister at its word when he is you know, goes against the, you know, he put things in the budget, for example, in November of 2025, just six months ago, and now is totally revisiting them.So I think that the premiers know this and they know that they need to get something much firmer in hand and that the prime minister is perhaps more flexible than he says or hints publicly.

At issue, Canada -U .S.trade tensions.With the Kuzma review deadline fast approaching, the U .S.is pausing a bilateral group focused on defence cooperation that dates back to the Second World War.

The PM says there's no cause for concern.

I mean it has a long heritage but I wouldn't overplay the importance of this.We have many aspects of very close 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.So where do things stand between Canada and the U .S.right now?Are trade tensions escalating?Let's bring everyone back, Chantal, Andrew, and Althea.

Andrew, why don't I start with you?This defense board, I mean, I think the Prime Minister's right, we shouldn't overstate the importance, but I also think that when the U .S.does things and says, we don't think Canada's spending enough money, we aren't going to be here, that that is cause for concern, that there's some part of what the message that the federal government is putting forward to the United States is not resonating, or they frankly don't care.you make of that?

Yeah, I mean, the Permanent Joint Defense Board on Defense has not met since 2024.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 it's 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.And I don't think the signal is about, I don't think you can credibly say it's about the level of defense spending anymore.

I think it's more to do with How much are you going to spend on American defense providers?And more broadly, how willing are you to stay within the American corral?We've all been talking about all these months about diversification.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.If you try to trade more with China, we're going to punish you.

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, five, six, and seven in this process rather than just the first couple of steps.

Yeah, I mean, I wouldn't say things are getting worse, but I also wouldn't say, Althea, things are getting better in terms of where this is headed.

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.Perhaps it's about the F -35 purchase, which still hasn't yet been decided and the government is looking elsewhere.But I do think it kind of raises an interesting 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 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 view that we had with Harper and Obama when we had the Security Prosperity Partnership, like continental defense and further integration.

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.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 lawmakers to explain to us, the public, 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, like things of strategic importance?to the United States.That's going to be a real challenge for this government.

Chantal?

If you wanted to convince Canadians that the government is incompetent and not doing what it needs, possibly you should have picked something other than defense, where the government has actually distinguished itself by increasing defense spending.I think we waste a lot of time trying to find coherence in what the Americans are trying to do to us.I noticed that this week they're at the Greenland thing again.And 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 anything because of that bridge thing, you know that something, if it's called the strategy, is kind of not working.

Okay, got to leave it there.Thank you all very much for all of that.That is at issue for this week.I'm Rosemary Barton.Thank you for watching.