I’m not an Albertan, though sometimes I think I should be.
On a whole host of issues, I’m more aligned with the entrepreneurial, risk taking ethos you find in Alberta than the risk adverse view you find in too much of Eastern and Central Canada.
I should have asked Danielle Smith to swear me in as an Albertan during our interview late Thursday.
If I were an Albertan voting in the referendum that is coming up on Monday, I’d be voting YES to the nine and voting Option 1 on the independence question, meaning stay in Canada.
If you aren’t familiar with the other nine questions on the ballot, you can read them all here. Basically though, there are five questions that touch on immigration, four on constitutional issues like appointing judges and abolishing the Senate and then of course the tenth question on whether to have a binding referendum on leaving Canada.
Most of our discussion focused on the nine questions, the ones Mark Carney is now telling people to vote against. It’s an odd position for him to take at the last moment, but perhaps he was just caught up in the moment.
I appreciate Carney, just as I appreciate Poilievre, lending their voices to the call for Alberta to stay.
That said, if we want Alberta to stay and not have the separatist argument come back again and again, we need to do the hard work of addressing legitimate grievances.
Despite some rhetoric, I’m not sure we are there yet.
That was a big part of my column in the Toronto Sun today.
This is an auto-generated transcript that has not been edited
Danielle Smith on Alberta’s Referendum Questions, Immigration and Separation
Brian Lilley:
Alberta votes in its major referendum this coming Monday, with advance voting underway now through Saturday. And there’s more than just a question about Alberta independence on the ballot.
I’m Brian Lilley, political columnist with the Toronto Sun. Albertans will face 10 questions when they cast their ballots. Five deal primarily with immigration, four address constitutional reform, and then there’s the big one: should Alberta begin the process that could lead to a binding referendum on leaving Canada and becoming an independent country?
The woman at the centre of it all is Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She’s been campaigning for some of the questions, but not for the independence option.
Premier Smith, thanks for joining me.
Danielle Smith:
Hi Brian. I’ve been very clear: I voted for Option 1, to remain in Canada, and I’ve been asking Albertans to vote “yes” to the remaining nine questions so we have a strong mandate to pursue greater autonomy.
Why Nine Government Questions?
Brian Lilley:
Let’s get to Question 10 in a moment. Why the other nine questions? Were they already planned before the separation question emerged?
Danielle Smith:
Actually, it’s the other way around.
The nine government questions came out of our Alberta Next panel discussions a couple of years ago. We knew there was a great deal of frustration during the Trudeau years, particularly when the NDP held the balance of power. Albertans were asking how we could achieve greater autonomy through changes involving the Senate, the judiciary, federal spending, and federal legislation in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
There were also concerns about the complete reversal of roughly 40 years of immigration policy beginning in 2023. In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report on that issue today.
Those nine questions originate from government consultations.
The tenth question came about through a citizen-initiative process. Under Alberta law, if enough people sign a petition, the government is obliged to put the question on a ballot. About 400,000 people signed one petition seeking a vote to remain in Canada, while roughly 300,000 signed another seeking a path toward a binding referendum.
That’s how Question 10 got on the ballot. It’s now up to Albertans to tell us which direction they want the government to take.
I’ve voted for Option 1, to remain in Canada, and I hope others will too.
Immigration and Quebec-Style Powers
Brian Lilley:
Question 1 is perhaps the biggest of the immigration questions:
“Do you support the Government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?”
Quebec already has significant authority over immigration. Are you simply asking for treatment similar to Quebec’s?
Danielle Smith:
Very much so.
I watched with interest as immigration became one of the central issues in Quebec’s provincial debate. I also noted that one of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first actions was recognizing that several immigration programs had become unsustainable and needed to be scaled back.
What we’re trying to prevent is a repeat of the uncontrolled growth in immigration that occurred in the years following COVID.
The way to do that is to return to the model that served Canada well for decades: selecting newcomers based on whether they have a job and whether that job fills a genuine economic need. Someone arriving with a well-paying job is already positioned for success and may eventually pursue citizenship.
Quebec has had authority over economic immigration since 1991. We’re seeking a mandate to negotiate something similar with the federal government.
Strain on Provincial Services
Brian Lilley:
The immigration system reached unprecedented levels. In 2023, Canada admitted roughly 2.2 million people across all streams when you include permanent residents, asylum seekers, temporary foreign workers and international students. Historically, the total was closer to 750,000.
Questions about residency requirements and requiring some non-citizens to pay for access to services like health care seem connected to those pressures. Was Alberta feeling the strain?
Danielle Smith:
Absolutely.
We assessed the impact of temporary foreign workers in Alberta. We currently have about 246,000 temporary workers, up from roughly 80,000 several years ago.
The analysis showed they generated approximately $150 million in provincial revenue while the province spent about $1 billion on health care and education for them and their families.
That’s not how the temporary worker program was intended to function.
Temporary workers are supposed to come temporarily to fill a labour shortage. Instead, low-skill workers were increasingly admitted and many brought family members, creating costs the system wasn’t designed to absorb.
The original model worked well for industries such as agriculture and tourism, where seasonal workers come for a specific purpose and then return home.
For other jobs, we should first ensure opportunities go to young Albertans and Canadians. Only after that should employers turn to foreign labour for genuine shortages.
There’s also nothing unusual about asking temporary residents to provide their own health coverage. Countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and South Korea already do that.
Given the imbalance we’re seeing, Alberta taxpayers shouldn’t be expected to shoulder those additional costs indefinitely.
International Students and Diploma Mills
Brian Lilley:
The Trudeau government also removed many of the restrictions around international students.
Danielle Smith:
Exactly.
We saw a proliferation of fly-by-night private colleges, many of which are now being shut down. Some became diploma mills offering programs that provided little path to employment.
That’s unfair to newcomers who came here expecting better opportunities.
A lot of poor practices developed during that period. We’re simply saying we should return to the kind of system that served Canada well for decades while strengthening oversight of temporary programs.
Constitutional Reform and the Courts
Brian Lilley:
Prime Minister Mark Carney has publicly opposed not only Alberta separation but also the nine other referendum questions.
Did it surprise you that he weighed in against the broader package?
Danielle Smith:
It did, but I’m a pretty persuasive person.
There have been times when the Prime Minister and I disagreed and I was able to convince him to reconsider.
I don’t think it’s sustainable to allow Quebec significantly more authority over immigration while denying similar discussions with other provinces.
If Albertans provide a strong mandate, I intend to have a serious conversation with the Prime Minister about that.
As for the constitutional questions, some amendments would require unanimous provincial consent and others would require support from seven provinces. Alberta can’t do it alone.
The Prime Minister has made his position clear, but it won’t be entirely up to him. Other provinces will have a say, and we’ve already had constructive conversations about provincial jurisdiction, federal spending and judicial appointments.
The Senate may be a tougher challenge.
Judicial Appointments
Brian Lilley:
Let’s focus on the courts. Provincial governments appoint judges at lower court levels while Ottawa appoints judges to higher courts. Are you looking for full authority or simply a formal advisory role?
Danielle Smith:
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Alberta to have a much larger role in selecting judges who serve Albertans.
Initially, Ottawa wasn’t interested in a collaborative process. However, Alberta recently had two higher-court vacancies, and we ultimately reached consensus on both appointments.
To me, that’s encouraging. If provincial and federal governments from different political traditions can agree on strong candidates, that’s good evidence of an independent process.
If we can formalize that approach, great. If not, then we’ll continue pursuing constitutional change. Alberta and Quebec have both raised the issue and we’ll see what sort of mandate Albertans provide.
The Senate
Brian Lilley:
Alberta has six senators representing more than five million people. Atlantic Canada, with a much smaller population, has 30 senators.
Stephen Harper spent years trying to reform the Senate and was unsuccessful. Is that frustration why you’re now raising abolition as an option?
Danielle Smith:
I think people see the basic unfairness of the arrangement.
How is it that provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each have 10 senators while Alberta, with more than five million people, has six?
Albertans also question whether senators appointed by a Liberal government always represent Alberta’s interests or those of the government that appointed them.
After years of unsuccessful attempts to pursue a Triple-E Senate that would be equal, elected and effective, many people have become frustrated.
This referendum will help tell us whether Albertans still want Senate reform or whether they believe strong provincial governments are the better way to defend regional interests.
I don’t know what Albertans will choose, but that’s why we’re putting the question before them.
Why Stay in Canada?
Brian Lilley:
As I told your chief of staff, if I lived in Alberta, I’d vote yes on the first nine questions and no on the tenth.
You’ve spoken to people on both sides. What’s your elevator pitch to someone who is considering Alberta independence?
Danielle Smith:
First, it’s important to understand that Option 1 is to remain in Canada. Option 2 begins a legal pathway that could eventually lead to a binding referendum.
I’ve voted for Option 1 and I’m asking Albertans to do the same.
There were legitimate grievances during the Trudeau years. No question about that. Separatist sentiment rose higher than I’ve ever seen, reaching as much as 45 per cent in some polling.
When Prime Minister Carney was elected, one of the first things I told him was that these concerns had to be addressed.
While we haven’t achieved everything we want, we’ve made meaningful progress. We’ve seen significant federal policy reversals and a willingness to engage.
That tells me the federation can work. Federal and provincial governments can disagree, negotiate and find compromises.
I want to continue doing that. Let’s remain in Canada while securing greater autonomy for Alberta.
Are You a Separatist?
Brian Lilley:
In central and eastern Canada, some media outlets portray you as a separatist. I’ve known you for more than 15 years and have never gotten that impression.
Why do you think that perception exists?
Danielle Smith:
I think some people misunderstand our laws.
There seems to be an expectation that I should have ignored legislation and ignored valid petitions. That’s not how I operate. If the law exists, governments should follow it.
Brian Lilley:
Critics would argue that you lowered the threshold for citizen initiatives, making this easier.
Danielle Smith:
Both petitions would have qualified under the old threshold as well.
One obtained about 400,000 signatures. The other obtained roughly 300,000. Neither would have had any trouble meeting the previous requirements.
Other petitions failed to qualify, including one related to independent schools and another related to coal development.
When 700,000 people collectively sign petitions asking questions to be put before voters, government has an obligation to provide a mechanism to do so.
Citizen-initiated ballots are common in parts of the United States. California alone has had hundreds dating back to 1911.
In Alberta, the threshold is actually higher than California’s. California requires signatures equal to five per cent of voters; Alberta requires 10 per cent.
Whenever I give speeches, I stand in front of both the Canadian and Alberta flags. I wear a Canada-Alberta pin. For months I’ve been telling Albertans to vote to remain in Canada while giving us a strong mandate for greater autonomy within Canada.
We wouldn't be having this vote if Quebec would pay their own bills and the Energy-East pipeline wasn't cancelled. Ten years of Trudeau mismanagement led to all of this...
I voted yes to the nine , and option 2 question 10