Western Standard - Danielle Smith on Alberta’s referendum bonanza

00:00:00.000 I'm Derek Fildebrandt, publisher of the Western Standard.

00:00:27.560 Today, we're going to be joined by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.

00:00:33.040 The Premier announced just the other day that nine questions are going to be put to Albertans in a referendum coming in this October.

00:00:44.180 Five of those questions revolve primarily around questions of immigration, Alberta taking more control over immigration,

00:00:51.740 being able to limit it and limit the benefits that go to immigrants who are not here without Alberta's permission 0.99

00:00:59.160 and are drawing more from the tax system than they're paying into it.

00:01:03.160 She's also putting forward four constitutional questions that ostensibly should oblige Ottawa and the other provinces

00:01:10.880 to respond and negotiate on reforming the Canadian Constitution.

00:01:14.720 Things like giving all of the provinces more power over appointing appellate court judges, abolishing the Senate, allowing provinces more autonomy in areas that are supposed to be their exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitution, in areas like health care, education, and giving provincial laws primacy over federal laws where they collide in areas of shared jurisdiction.

00:01:44.700 So in addition to that, though, I'm going to ask the Premier about the timing of all of this,

00:01:50.760 because right now there is a ton of people going around Alberta gathering signatures on a petition

00:01:55.960 to trigger a citizens initiated referendum on independence.

00:02:02.440 And the Premier has said previously that if that happens, that independence vote will take place on the same day

00:02:08.460 as all of these other referendum questions.

00:02:11.020 So that would be a potential of 10 referendum questions.

00:02:13.740 but four of those questions are about reforming the canadian constitution

00:02:19.740 should albertans be voting on reforming the canadian constitution at the same time as they're

00:02:25.500 voting on essentially leaving the canadian constitution creating its own constitution

00:02:29.260 it's an interesting question so for that we're going to bring in alberta premier danielle smith

00:02:35.540 thank you premier smith for uh joining me today yeah my pleasure all right uh well you've got

00:02:42.180 budget coming right up. But what I really want to talk about is the series of referenda that

00:02:48.940 Albertans can expect in the coming October here. Let's talk about the questions first themselves,

00:02:55.000 not individually. We don't have time to go through because you've put nine questions forward to

00:02:59.840 Albertans. We'll talk about them primarily as clusters. We'll start with the perhaps the

00:03:04.980 non-constitutional questions, which are all largely focused around immigration,

00:03:11.540 Alberta taking control of immigration, you know, requiring the consent of Alberta's government before certain migrants can qualify for benefits that they're paying into the system, not just taking out, requiring identification to vote, which a lot of people are shocked that we don't already do, I think.

00:03:32.180 um you know you and i both came from kind of the wild rose direct democracy tradition uh i'm a fan

00:03:40.520 of a lot of these kinds of things but i i was mildly critical of this not in terms of the

00:03:47.780 policies you're proposing for these referenda but the why you wouldn't just do it uh i i think that

00:03:55.840 there's a very broad support for the measures you're talking about requiring identification

00:04:00.060 proof of citizenship to vote um albert taking control of immigration limiting migration i think

00:04:05.900 these things have broad uh support in alberta even canada more broadly um why is it you feel

00:04:11.740 the need to put these two uh these items in particular to referendums rather than just

00:04:17.580 implement them as uh policy well there's a couple of reasons i mean one is that it's a change of

00:04:22.620 direction um from from where we were in 2022 when i when we did go to the people to seek a new

00:04:29.340 mandate. Because you have to remember back in 2022, we were just coming out of COVID and our

00:04:34.440 unemployment rate was 4.9%. We had major big projects on the horizon and we were concerned

00:04:39.300 we weren't going to be able to attract the skilled workers in order to fill the jobs.

00:04:43.320 And so that's when the Alberta is Calling campaign started. But what we didn't know

00:04:46.840 is that Justin Trudeau was going to take all of the restrictions off all of the programs

00:04:51.220 over the intervening few years. And as a result, 600,000 newcomers came into Alberta in that time.

00:04:57.940 And so what we're asking is a question that Justin Trudeau should have asked.

00:05:02.020 Justin Trudeau never asked anyone whether or not they wanted him to change the policy.

00:05:06.560 What we're asking is, do you want to go back to the kind of immigration policy that we had before?

00:05:11.180 But more importantly, do you want Alberta to assert so that it doesn't happen again, that we have more control over economic migrants the way they do in Quebec?

00:05:18.600 So that's a bit of a change in policy that has emerged in the period of time since we got elected.

00:05:22.840 That's part of the reason why we think we've got to go to the people.

00:05:24.860 And the only other thing I'd say is that, as you know, when we're in debating circles and policy sessions, people who are really engaged talk about this stuff all the time.

00:05:36.140 The general public doesn't necessarily even know that this is what political parties are contemplating.

00:05:41.280 And that's part of the reason why you want to go to a general referendum is that you don't want that confirmation bias that just because we heard about it loud and clear in the Alberta Next and in our survey results and at policy meetings,

00:05:51.280 We want to make sure that this is something that the general electorate wants us to do.

00:05:55.600 And that's part of the reason for a referendum.

00:05:58.080 On immigration, I think, you know, a lot of people who were very pro-immigration are now, I'd say, moderate restrictivist.

00:06:05.700 People who were moderate restrictivist before are now very restrictivist.

00:06:11.200 You know, a lot of people have had their views change on this over time.

00:06:16.980 You've talked about bringing migration in Alberta down to one percent.

00:06:20.960 Now, if we're talking interprovincial migration is very easy to handle.

00:06:25.360 There are people who, they almost all speak the language.

00:06:28.820 They understand relatively our customs, traditions, culture.

00:06:34.440 It's much easier to handle interprovincial migration than international migration, for the most part.

00:06:40.040 But at this point, we've been flooded with migration,

00:06:44.800 mostly the increase being primarily international migration

00:06:49.200 that's much more difficult to assimilate,

00:06:54.840 to be able to process in a reasonable period of time.

00:06:57.700 Even a one, I think you, if I'm referencing correctly,

00:07:00.000 you said you want to bring it down to 1%.

00:07:01.520 I mean, that's a huge improvement over what we've been doing,

00:07:04.520 but we have been swamped.

00:07:06.120 We have a lot here who many, like myself,

00:07:10.880 would think should not be here at this time.

00:07:15.880 Now, I understand you're talking about taking more control

00:07:18.020 from the federal government, but certain things like deportations would still probably be under

00:07:22.380 federal. Do we not want to look towards net negative migration at this time, at least among

00:07:30.440 newcomers who are here, first of all, illegals, but also those who are not kind of the higher

00:07:37.980 level skillset people that we were traditionally attracting to Alberta, but people who are bringing

00:07:42.800 less to the table economically? Do we not want to move towards net negative migration?

00:07:46.560 I think it's worth a discussion. I can just tell you in trying to figure out what the right level is, we were trying to, I've been talking with a number of people who give some serious thought to that. We know that what we have experienced is too high. Getting $150,000 or more per year is clearly unsustainable. Can't build schools fast enough, hire doctors fast enough. There's not enough grocery stores to be able to support those extra demands.

00:08:12.940 And so you end up with everything escalating from food prices to housing prices to rent prices and so on.

00:08:18.360 So we know that $150,000 is not sustainable.

00:08:22.100 Is it possible that 1% is sustainable or less?

00:08:25.900 I guess that's one of the things that we will have to do some modeling on and figure out.

00:08:29.860 But it does seem to be more in sync with the kind of policies that we saw in the Stephen Harper era.

00:08:36.200 It might have been a little bit lower.

00:08:37.120 I think we saw about 0.6% brought in internationally over a long period of time.

00:08:43.400 But I think that that's more in the ballpark of where it is that we need to be.

00:08:47.840 But our basic premise is this, that the first opportunity to have a new job in Alberta should go to an Albertan.

00:08:56.320 And especially our young people who I feel have been crowded out of the employment market.

00:09:00.840 You can see that with historically high unemployment levels.

00:09:04.960 So that's one thing.

00:09:05.840 The role of economic migrants have always been to identify roles that can't be filled and often high skill, high skill roles that can't be filled by somebody in the local market.

00:09:17.520 And so that's what we're going to have to take more control of.

00:09:21.160 Let's have a proper labour market opinion.

00:09:23.240 Let's make sure that the job search does give opportunities to Albertans and Canadians first.

00:09:28.540 And then let's reach out into the international community to find out where the holes are.

00:09:32.980 But I just wanted to put something out there about what I was thinking would be a little bit more along the lines of reasonable.

00:09:39.680 And we can see it now, because especially with the large number of Ukrainians who came here under the evacuee program, many of whom do have jobs,

00:09:47.020 there's a really big demand on our provincial nominee program for permanent residency.

00:09:52.420 And the federal government continues, even after all this, after all of the asks that we have made to allow us to have more control over economic migrants,

00:09:59.640 we still only have the ability to choose about 6,400, whereas we've got about 30,000 who are

00:10:06.000 asking if they can have that pathway. So that's where the mismatch comes in. And we've got to do

00:10:10.060 a better job of making sure the provinces take the lead on it. It's nothing unusual. Quebec does

00:10:14.340 it. It's not unusual in the Constitution. Section 95 says that the provinces have the right to

00:10:19.320 determine their immigration policy. It's just a matter of us reading the Constitution and

00:10:23.100 asserting our powers under it. Real quick before I move on to the constitutional questions you're

00:10:27.960 putting forward uh thomas lukasik and rachel notley uh good friends of yours uh they have

00:10:35.040 said that this is racist uh that this is fascistic that this is nazism do you have any reply at all

00:10:42.320 to that kind of thing it's hysterical i mean i i think that like literally they're in hysterics 0.80

00:10:47.600 and i think they need to dial it down it's disgraceful and disrespectful to the jewish 0.69

00:10:51.660 community to use such outrageous language to talk about something which ontario is already doing

00:10:56.940 Ontario already has a policy where you don't get automatic coverage of families of temporary foreign workers.

00:11:03.900 This is very common in Australia and some of the social democratic nations of Europe.

00:11:09.520 If you're coming on a temporary basis, you're treated as a tourist.

00:11:12.840 And just think about that yourself.

00:11:14.680 If you were to decide to go and live somewhere temporarily for a year and bring your family,

00:11:18.620 you wouldn't expect the government there to pay for your health care and your education and your social services.

00:11:24.180 You'd be expected to take care of yourself and you'd accept that.

00:11:26.620 And so we just have to have a policy that aligns with what they do in the rest of the world. And that is not unusual. What is unusual is what we're doing right now, which is disadvantaging, I think, the workers in our local economy. And it's also disadvantaging. The parents of the kids who are in the school system, as well as the people who need to have health care, we need to make sure that we've got sustainable social programs and a sustainable level of growth so that we're not putting excessive pressure on them.

00:11:54.420 Okay. I want to switch into the constitutional questions you're putting forward here. We don't have a lot of time, so I have to be pretty high level about it. These are, for the most part, pretty reasonable. These are constitutional reforms that could be recognized in some form from the Reform Party, although you have Senate abolition rather than Senate reform.

00:12:20.920 Yeah, let's go through them one by one, because I'm kind of interested in your take on that.

00:12:24.000 Can I tell you about the Senate?

00:12:25.740 If I'm allowed to have a little more time, yeah.

00:12:28.160 I'd love to.

00:12:29.400 Yeah, let's go through them.

00:12:30.780 Okay, okay.

00:12:32.120 Let's talk the Senate.

00:12:32.920 You're proposing to abolish the Senate.

00:12:35.140 I'd agree that no Senate is better than the current Senate, which is wildly unfair to Alberta and Saskatchewan, British Columbia.

00:12:42.480 I take no Senate over the current Senate, but every functional democratic federation in the democratic world has some kind of functional upper house.

00:12:51.320 America, Australia, Germany.

00:12:53.460 This would make Canada the only democratic federation in the world without one.

00:12:57.920 Well, I guess I would say that it's the job of the provinces to hold the federal government to account.

00:13:01.960 And we've got a constitution that is one of the most decentralized in the entire world as well.

00:13:07.060 And so I would say that in some ways, the Senate usurps the role of the provinces by having a pretense that they're there to represent regional interests.

00:13:16.820 Well, just look at the complexion right now of the senators that are up there in Ottawa, supposedly representing Alberta.

00:13:25.360 And ask yourself the question if any one of them would have been able to get a democratic mandate and if any one of them ever talks about the things that matter to Albertans.

00:13:33.100 So I would say that in some ways they impair our ability to get the regional representation that we need.

00:13:38.860 The second thing I would say is tell me a circumstance when Quebec will ever agree to reduce from 24 Senate seats down to six, like Alberta.

00:13:48.780 Tell me why Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would ever reduce from 10 down to six.

00:13:53.040 It just won't happen.

00:13:54.440 And maybe have a look, too, because I seem to recall that we used to have a provincial Senate in Alberta at one point and we don't anymore.

00:14:01.300 Ontario and Quebec did.

00:14:02.280 I'm not sure if Alberta ever did.

00:14:03.700 Okay, so we did have a...

00:14:04.780 Certain provinces used to.

00:14:06.400 And we've been able to do just fine without them.

00:14:08.860 It's part of the role of the official opposition to hold governments to account.

00:14:11.480 That's what elections are for, too.

00:14:12.900 But here's the thing.

00:14:13.940 Maybe it is that we need to abolish in order to bring back in a form that's functional.

00:14:17.940 But I would put it to you.

00:14:18.860 I don't think it's a functional form right now.

00:14:21.260 Okay, okay.

00:14:22.980 You talked about...

00:14:24.200 This was in the news before you announced the referendum on it, about the government

00:14:27.940 of Alberta, all the provinces being able to appoint their own appellate court judges,

00:14:33.000 Court of King's Bench and whatnot, that I don't think gets a lot of people's attention

00:14:36.480 because it's boring, legal mumbo-jumbo to most people, but it is extremely important.

00:14:40.340 These courts are setting precedent.

00:14:43.980 I guess you're really more or less just asking for what Quebec is able to do already without

00:14:48.440 an amendment to the Constitution.

00:14:49.640 Well, Quebec is able to have a joint process for Supreme Court, but my understanding is

00:14:56.280 they don't have the ability to do this at the lower court levels.

00:14:59.400 And it's just as frustrating.

00:15:00.600 I mean, when you've got this revolving door of justice that we're seeing right now,

00:15:04.780 where really bad actors, really bad dudes are getting back onto the street again and again and again and committing crimes.

00:15:10.180 You have to wonder if we drew from a pool in Alberta that was more consistent with Alberta values,

00:15:16.960 would we end up with that kind of outcome?

00:15:19.100 I don't know the answer to that, but I would hope that there would be some kind of recognition

00:15:24.780 that the woke policies that have led to this revolving door of justice

00:15:29.880 that has created incredible crime and disturbance in our communities

00:15:34.320 is no longer serving the interests of Canadians.

00:15:37.260 I mean, the federal government finally is bringing through Bill 14

00:15:39.540 with the support of the opposition to try one more time to rein the judges in.

00:15:44.280 And so that's the other aspect,

00:15:46.940 is maybe the judges would be a little bit more accountable

00:15:50.000 if they were drawn with the values based on the province that they represent.

00:15:56.660 The other one, though, too, when we're talking about some of the federal spending powers in our areas,

00:16:02.820 I think that those are ones that we could probably get a lot of buy-in as well.

00:16:07.080 When you look at, for instance, we have a policy right now or parliamentary practice of parliamentary supremacy.

00:16:15.720 And so when there's laws in conflict, the laws of the parliament are the ones that stand, but maybe it should be the other way. Maybe in our areas of jurisdiction at the provincial level, if there's a conflict, then our laws should stand, that maybe we should be the ones who are able to chart a bit of a different pathway.

00:16:32.440 And I'd like to see that kind of reversal in how we approach issues, especially where we end up with these conflicts, because we do all the time, because we just have different approaches on the administration of justice and on our policing priorities.

00:16:45.340 And it does seem to me in this stage that we've gotten to, I think Albertans want policing and justice in their province to reflect a little bit more of their local values.

00:16:53.320 Okay, so you just touched on the fourth of the constitutional questions, reforming the Constitution to protect provincial rights from federal interference by giving provinces laws dealing with provincial or shared areas of jurisdiction priority or federal laws where they conflict.

00:17:09.040 um in general i'm sympathetic but i i am concerned a lot of people who are angry at

00:17:17.020 kind of alberta first people who want you know the feds out of our backyard they don't understand

00:17:21.960 that what we want actually a separation of powers that the federal government not that it has no

00:17:26.960 power but that it has it stays in its lane and it exercises powers within its lane appropriately

00:17:31.560 so my concern with this i i i'm not set one way or another i want your take is that you know

00:17:38.660 provincial laws are trumping federal laws wherever they run up against each other this would mean say

00:17:44.020 bc then would be able to more effectively veto a federally approved pipeline through its territory

00:17:52.020 what how would you respond to that well i guess i would look at the areas where we we do genuinely

00:17:57.700 have concurrent powers so agriculture and immigration are supposed to be concurrent

00:18:01.460 powers and if you read the constitution it says to me that the provinces are supposed to

00:18:05.700 to be the principal decision maker in that area. The other area I would say would be around

00:18:12.740 policing and administration of justice. We come into conflict all the time because the criminal

00:18:16.260 code is set federally, but then we're supposed to enforce the laws. So those would be a couple

00:18:20.020 of areas. But quite clearly, municipal issues, healthcare, education, social services, there's

00:18:27.060 a whole variety of areas where we have exclusive jurisdiction. And in those areas, the federal

00:18:33.780 government keeps on interfering and and trying to tell us what to do there always will be a

00:18:38.500 attention in areas of joint jurisdiction in areas of trade and commerce i mean i accept that the

00:18:42.980 federal government has the right to determine a cross-border um infrastructure like transmission

00:18:48.420 lines and pipelines and i think they've been irresponsible in the past and in vetoing those

00:18:52.580 because i think their job is to help us get our products to market but i think we've seen a bit

00:18:55.780 of a change in an approach happening at the federal level but i would say that in areas of pure

00:19:00.580 provincial jurisdiction

00:19:02.480 outlying in the Constitution.

00:19:04.500 Our laws should take precedence.

00:19:06.800 Okay.

00:19:08.220 You had touched on this

00:19:09.420 when we were discussing the Senate,

00:19:11.680 that Quebec would never agree

00:19:13.140 to some form of a triple E Senate

00:19:14.940 and there's different Fridays

00:19:16.620 what that could look like.

00:19:18.520 I am going to be

00:19:20.260 kind of raining on the parade here

00:19:21.880 and put it to you

00:19:22.480 that they will never accept anything

00:19:24.280 because they have their own package

00:19:26.180 of constitutional reforms

00:19:27.180 that they want,

00:19:27.960 a la Meech Lake,

00:19:28.760 versions of Charlottetown that, you know, they might be willing to compromise on some of these

00:19:34.980 things, but in exchange, they tend to want historically a whole package of other very

00:19:40.280 Québécois nationalist changes that is asymmetrical federalism, treating them very special from the

00:19:47.260 rest of Canada. Ever since the failure of Meach Lake and then Charlottetown, especially,

00:19:53.020 the constitution has been considered sealed in stone, set in granite. It can never be touched

00:19:58.560 Again, the critics of your, Andrew Coyne, critics of your reforms here have said, well, Albert's got no right. It's never changing. And I, for different reasons, I tend to agree with them that the Constitution is largely set in stone. It can't, that's why many people like myself are open to ideas like independence, because we don't believe it can be reformed.

00:20:22.960 how we had the vote on equalization a number of years ago, which is the same kind of thing,

00:20:29.180 kind of a Clarity Act referendum on a clear constitutional question. And I don't even

00:20:33.560 think we got a post-it note back from Ottawa. We were just utterly ignored. So how confident

00:20:39.900 are you that a successful referendum on these four constitutional questions would be taken

00:20:45.120 seriously by Ottawa and the other provinces first, and then two, that anything would ever

00:20:50.720 potentially happen on this front? Well, I can tell you that that's why there's a smaller number

00:20:55.420 of constitutional questions, because I think you have to find the coalition of the willing. Some

00:21:00.620 of our constitutional changes require unanimous consent across all jurisdictions. Some of them

00:21:06.160 only require 7 out of 10 provinces representing 50% of the population. And so the question of

00:21:10.920 the Senate, do we agree that all of the provinces might agree to abolish it? Maybe, because I don't

00:21:16.180 think it's working particularly well for any of the provinces. I don't think it's a regional voice

00:21:19.880 for any region of the country.

00:21:21.960 Could we get a unanimous consent

00:21:23.540 over appointing our own judges

00:21:25.100 at the higher court levels?

00:21:27.460 Maybe.

00:21:27.900 I know that Quebec would probably 0.98

00:21:29.880 be very much interested in that.

00:21:31.860 And as I'm talking to the premiers,

00:21:33.080 they're interested in it too.

00:21:34.060 So maybe we could get enough support.

00:21:35.940 When it comes to having our laws

00:21:39.120 take precedence in our areas of jurisdiction,

00:21:41.260 I think most people think

00:21:42.080 it should work that way.

00:21:43.700 That we should have a law ability

00:21:45.460 to disallow federal laws

00:21:46.620 if they're not in alignment

00:21:47.640 with what our people want us to do

00:21:49.020 in our areas of jurisdiction.

00:21:50.220 So I think we could probably get consensus on that.

00:21:52.540 And then also being able to opt out of federal programs

00:21:54.720 without having a punishment of having our funds drawn back.

00:21:57.980 We already see Quebec is able to do that.

00:21:59.960 And I suspect that other provinces

00:22:01.940 would like the ability to do the same.

00:22:03.500 So mindfully, I think the committee recommended proposals

00:22:07.180 that they thought that we'd be able to get consensus on.

00:22:09.320 We don't need to have some big, long, drawn-out,

00:22:12.700 Meech or Charlottetown Accord-style convention.

00:22:15.880 Why don't we just see if we can focus on,

00:22:18.040 from time to time on the areas where we think we can identify common ground and see if we can move

00:22:23.400 them ahead. We've got to try something. Equalization, we did move the dial, but of course

00:22:27.740 there's the haves and the have-nots. I think the haves are now all in alignment thinking how unfair

00:22:32.280 it is that some of the small provinces are transferring money to the big provinces.

00:22:36.920 And watching that number grow, whether it's Manitoba, which I think has doubled their

00:22:41.240 equalization in the last number of years, or Quebec that continues to see an increase in

00:22:45.580 equalization payments, even though their economy continues to grow. Those are the things that I

00:22:50.920 think Newfoundland and Labrador are frustrated by as one of the lowest population provinces.

00:22:57.060 Saskatchewan is frustrated because they're a lower population province than Manitoba.

00:23:00.620 And I think BC is frustrated too, which is why they joined the court case that Newfoundland and

00:23:07.080 Labrador started about having fair transfers to provinces. So it wasn't all for naught.

00:23:12.440 It started an important national discussion that is going to find its way into the courts,

00:23:16.280 and maybe we'll be able to make some progress on changing that.

00:23:19.100 Okay.

00:23:19.680 But I'd put it to you.

00:23:20.900 A lot of these items, as you've said, maybe we could find a coalition on individual items,

00:23:25.040 but the Constitution still requires seven provinces, I think, representing 60%.

00:23:34.300 Seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

00:23:36.500 Yeah, yeah.

00:23:37.620 And Quebec has an unofficial veto.

00:23:39.640 the feds will never sign including both houses of parliament and a parliament will never sign off

00:23:45.000 on a deal i think at this point that does not have uh quebec sign up so i i am skeptical that

00:23:50.960 we can get any one-off deals because quebec will not allow it unless their grab bag of issues are

00:23:55.100 addressed to so-called sign the constitution um which kind of brings me to the timing of this all

00:24:02.720 It's not yet confirmed, but I put it to you that it's highly likely that the campaigners trying to get signatures for an independence, a vote on independence in Alberta, they're going to succeed.

00:24:17.620 And we'll then, I guess, at some point be having an independence vote.

00:24:22.220 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you've said that that would likely then take place at the same time as all these other referenda.

00:24:28.220 And I would ask you if maybe that's something you'd reconsider, because you're putting forward the four constitutional questions are about reforming Canada.

00:24:38.160 And it seems odd to me that people would vote on reforming Canada and vote on leaving it to become an independent country at the same time.

00:24:47.260 I think the vast majority of Albertans, including most people who say they support independence, would prefer a reformed Canada if it was possible.

00:24:54.400 Would it not make more sense then that we vote on these referendum questions in October and we give some reasonable period of time, three months, four months, whatever, after that, before the vote, the citizens initiated a vote comes on independence?

00:25:13.740 that they should probably be at two times.

00:25:17.060 It just doesn't make sense to vote on reforming something

00:25:19.620 and leaving it at the same time.

00:25:20.980 Just give it a little time to see if reform actually has a chance of working

00:25:24.380 before we vote on something more radical like independence.

00:25:27.720 Well, there's sort of a practical reality, I think,

00:25:30.140 that how many times can you ask the public to go to the polls?

00:25:35.180 If you ask them too frequently, you might end up seeing less voter turnout,

00:25:39.760 and then you have to question the validity of the results.

00:25:42.180 So I think when you look at California, they regularly have 10 or 12 propositions on their docket when they do citizen-initiated referenda.

00:25:51.300 And so I think Albertans can figure it out.

00:25:54.180 And I have to do my job.

00:25:56.480 I want to demonstrate that Canada can work.

00:25:59.320 And I want to give people hope.

00:26:00.940 And so that's what I will be focused on.

00:26:03.320 And these are some of the things that we're doing.

00:26:04.660 The MOU was one part of it.

00:26:06.820 These series of changes are another part of it.

00:26:09.340 I have also already raised it with the federal government that the issue around the gun grab is another thing that is causing incredible tension and fueling this movement as well.

00:26:19.380 And they've got to address that since nobody wants it.

00:26:21.280 So it's not just one thing.

00:26:22.580 It's a number of different things.

00:26:24.440 But it is the case that there are two active citizen petitions right now and a third one that we're considering as well that was done, the Forever Canada petition.

00:26:34.860 And if it is the case that all three of those are able to get the requisite number of signatures with the support of their petitioner, then all three of those will go on to the ballot as well.

00:26:43.860 I hear you. But I mean, when Quebec had its referendum in 1995, I'll wrap it up here before I get in trouble from your team here.

00:26:50.840 When Quebec had its vote in 95, they had it was almost total turnout.

00:26:55.600 It was like an Australian election. It was 98 or 99 percent.

00:26:58.600 And when a populace is being asked to vote on something as existential as independence or remaining, there's no real get out the vote campaigns needed because everyone tends to vote.

00:27:09.880 So I don't think that if we had a referendum on reforms in October and then we had another referendum in January or February, then on independence, that no one's going to come out to vote on independence, that they'd be exhausted by it.

00:27:24.640 So it just seems to me that these are, the timing of it seems incongruent that we'd vote on reforms and then have zero time to see if these reforms have any chance of succeeding.

00:27:37.420 We would just, on the same piece of paper, possibly, we then also vote on independence.

00:27:43.000 That just doesn't seem to make sense.

00:27:44.800 Well, again, as I say, from a timing point of view, it takes more than a few months to be able to create an entirely different immigration system.

00:27:53.240 And so if you're saying wait another few years before...

00:27:56.720 I'm talking about just to see if we get a response back from Ottawa, response back...

00:28:00.320 No, we've already got a response back.

00:28:02.280 We've already got a response back.

00:28:03.800 LeBlanc has said that he'd be very interested in continuing to work with us on immigration reform.

00:28:08.140 That was immigration.

00:28:09.040 I'm talking about the constitutional ones to see if we get any response back at all.

00:28:12.920 Because we've got no response in equalization.

00:28:14.460 It's not going to make a difference.

00:28:16.520 If people feel strongly about any of these questions, then they will come out.

00:28:21.680 If people feel strongly about the petition campaigns, they will sign the petition.

00:28:25.420 If those questions are on the ballot, people can figure it out.

00:28:28.340 I have a lot of confidence in Albertans that they'll be able to read through all of the questions and be able to make the decision that's best for Alberta.

00:28:35.100 And so I don't fear having more questions on the ballot.

00:28:38.840 I think that Albertans are going to see the proof is going to be in how the federal government responds.

00:28:43.620 I've always told the federal government that Justin Trudeau created the separatist movement.

00:28:47.640 And it's going to be up to them to demonstrate that Canada can work again if they're going to see those numbers go down.

00:28:53.420 So part of my job is to put forward the policies to address the very real pressure points that I'm hearing from people and to come up with some alternatives for how we might be able to solve them.

00:29:03.880 The independence group has a different idea, but it's ultimately going to be up to Albertans to decide.

00:29:09.500 It's Albertans' choice on the future of this province.

00:29:12.460 all right premier danielle smith thank you very much for being uh available with your time uh

00:29:17.960 while you're up in edmonton uh we'll uh hopefully chat with you again soon you bet thanks derek

00:29:23.440 take care

00:29:42.460 We'll be right back.

Western Standard - February 25, 2026

Danielle Smith on Alberta’s referendum bonanza

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript