Separation Anxiety: What’s Next for Alberta’s Referendum Dream?

The recent court ruling against the separation petition in Alberta has left Premier Danielle Smith facing a daunting challenge: finding a path forward for her long-sought referendum on independence. While Smith and her supporters have vowed to appeal the decision, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the road ahead is fraught with obstacles.

One of the key issues at play here is the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples before making significant changes to their treaties. This principle has been enshrined in Canadian law for decades, but some politicians seem to be only now discovering its importance. Justice Shaina Leonard’s ruling this week was a decisive blow to the separatist movement, and one that should have been anticipated by Smith and her team.

The court’s decision highlights the broader context of Indigenous rights in Canada. For too long, governments have ignored or downplayed these rights, often with disastrous consequences. The Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Blackfoot Confederacy have brought attention to this issue, and their persistence is paying off.

Smith’s promise to appeal the decision is laudable, but it’s unclear what this will achieve. Even if the court were to hear an expedited appeal, a new referendum date would be unlikely before October 19th. Moreover, the legal risks associated with proceeding without proper consultation are significant.

The separatist movement has relied on the support of Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP) base, but this may be about to change. As one commentator noted, “Putting a question on the ballot of this magnitude — with sweeping implications for treaty rights and the treaty relationship — without first consulting First Nations is simply not lawful.” This observation highlights the tension between the UCP’s electoral calculus and the constitutional requirements for consultation.

Smith’s position is increasingly precarious as she grapples with conflicting demands from her base and the court. Some separatist leaders are urging their supporters to become UCP members in order to pressure Smith into calling a referendum, while others warn that this could backfire spectacularly. As one lawyer noted, “Danielle is facing a politically existential choice — or an existential turning point in her leadership.”

The parallels with Quebec’s own separatist movement are striking. Past premiers who scheduled independence votes did so because they genuinely believed in the cause; Smith, on the other hand, has professed to oppose separatism while still wanting to respect the wishes of petition signatories. Critics will argue that she is using the referendum as a means of self-preservation rather than a genuine attempt to address Alberta’s concerns.

In the coming weeks and months, Smith’s caucus and cabinet will deliberate on next steps. Their decisions will be crucial in determining whether Alberta continues down the path toward separation or seeks a more inclusive approach. As they weigh their options, it’s worth remembering that even if a referendum were called, there’s no guarantee of success. History has shown us time and again that referendums can be volatile affairs, prone to misinterpretation and manipulation.

Ultimately, Smith’s decision will have far-reaching implications not just for Alberta but also for the rest of Canada. As we navigate this complex web of politics and constitutional law, it’s essential to remain vigilant and prioritize consultation with Indigenous peoples at every turn. The fate of Alberta’s referendum dream hangs in the balance; only time will tell whether Smith emerges as a champion of inclusivity or an advocate for division.