On October 19, Albertans will vote yes or no on a question that cannot support a yes or no answer. A plain-language breakdown of what is actually on the ballot and why it matters.
Thank you Keith. The House review mechanism under the Clarity Act is the most immediate federal lever available, and the 30 day window from official release of the question means the clock is already running. Whether Carney treats that as an obligation or a suggestion is the thing to watch.
The only thing granting the Alberta Crown control over any land is Alberta Act 1905, with inherent sovereignty being with Indigenous nationalities (and treaty rights holders) and Western European Westphalian sovereignty tied to the Canadian Crown.
While I thought in the past that Canadian Provinces were just like any other region one might see in Europe, the legal status is entirely different. Provincial Crowns can legislate themselves out of existence, but these "separate" governments don't have any land base under any meaning of sovereignty.
Russell, this is such an important dimension and honestly one I want to come back to properly in a future piece. The Alberta Act 1905 point gets almost no airtime in mainstream coverage, and it should. The gap between “province” and “sovereign nation” is enormous in legal terms, and the inherent sovereignty of Indigenous nations sitting inside that territory is a question the separatist movement has no coherent answer to. Thanks for the link, I am going down that rabbit hole today.
The gap between "fee-simple property" and "government land title" is also enormous, and yet they regularly get conflated. Even an exclusive patent for European business within a region (say, Hudson's Bay) -- a European trade agreement -- being confused with fee-simple property or government land title (never made clear) is common within contemporary Canadian political discussions.
But, hey, Gulf of America.....
BTW: It is a very deep rabbit hole, and one I so didn't expect to fall into when I started to ask what "Shut Down Canada" (Wet'suwet'en Strong) could possibly be about at the beginning of 2020. I'm so happy I decided to go down that rabbit hole, as it makes so much of contemporary politics makes so much more sense looking from outside of Western European "Enlightenment" individualistic linear time.
Thanks very much Leni, for your excellent research and analysis. Such a crucial piece of writing. Sending it to my (Liberal) MP. Every Member of Parliament needs to be focussed on this. We are after all talking about the fate of the nation.
Thank you Donna. Sending it to your MP is exactly the right instinct. The Clarity Act review mechanism exists precisely for this moment, and the more pressure arrives from constituents the harder it becomes to treat this as a regional issue that Ottawa can watch from a distance.
It is indeed time for constituents to speak up. Here is the letter I sent, with of course your piece attached.
Dear Ms Rochefort
Thanks for your steady work on our behalf. I am writing to you to raise the issue of Alberta separatism and the need for the federal government to step in now, with the Clarity Act.
There is considerable danger that Alberta will sleepwalk its way, via a peculiar referendum question, into the kind of disaster Britain faced with Brexit. Unfortunately, an Alberta exit— brought about by a deliberately vague set of unclear questions and considerable confusion, along with some very bad actors from the USA— would break up our country.
This piece attached is the clearest outline of the situation that I have seen. It is commendably calm, but devastating in its implications.
I hope caucus is talking about this. I hope other MPs are receiving letters like this one.
Thanks for your work, and your care— not just for this riding, but for Canada.
The geopolitical lens is a legitimate one Paul, and the connections between the Centurion Project and American Republican networks are documented enough that this is really not just a provincial story anymore. Who benefits from a fractured Canada is a question that deserves serious treatment, and it is one I want to come back to properly in a future piece.
I just received a note from my security software: my private information is on the Dark Web for the first time. Thank you, Danielle Smith and David Parker!
Sorry to hear that LAS. Sadly many of those affected don’t have security apps notifying them of the very real risks. I hope you are able to compensate for the security holes without too much trouble— although it is always countless steps with this level of personal information breach.
Those are exactly the right questions, Georgette. It cannot be cleanly answered with yes or no, which is the core problem the piece tries to lay out. As for why it is allowed: the province controls its own referendum question, and there is no mechanism that requires voter approval of the wording before it reaches the ballot. The federal Clarity Act can review it, but even that has limits here because the question is technically asking about a process rather than separation itself.
As for what happens if turnout collapses: a low turnout yes is still a yes the government will claim as a mandate. Which is why showing up matters more than it might feel like it does right now.
…”question” YES means what exactly!? NO means what exactly? Attach that statement to every ballot - failing that, concerned Albertans should put up signs, rent bill boards, take out ads…
That is exactly the problem John, and you have identified the only real remedy available to ordinary citizens before October 19. The government is not going to attach a plain-language explanation to the ballot. So the work of explaining what yes and no actually mean, or more accurately cannot mean, falls to everyone who understands what is at stake. Signs, billboards, conversations at kitchen tables. Forever Canadian is organizing but they need people and resources. The civic pressure has to come from the ground up because it is not coming from the top down.
Thanks Leni! I’ve been hoping someone would explain what the correct answer should be (although, just b/c Dani says a “no” vote means “not separating”, I don’t know if I believe her. She has set the question so she can take the winning answer and apply it to whichever half of the question she chooses). Or maybe the separatists are so mad at her b/c she told us which answer will kill this whole thing? Wink wink. Anyway, maybe the next thing to be amended should be that the Clarity act no longer allow the provinces to set the questions!
Your skepticism about taking Smith’s word on what no means is well placed, Lisa. The question is ambiguous enough that the government retains the ability to interpret the result in whatever direction is most useful after the fact. That is a feature, not an oversight.
Your instinct about the Clarity Act is interesting and you are not alone in thinking it. The fact that provinces control their own question wording is the single biggest gap in the existing framework, and this referendum is a fairly compelling argument for closing it. Whether a Carney government with a slim majority and a lot of other fires burning would want to open that particular constitutional conversation is another question entirely.
And yes, the separatists being furious at Smith for saying no means no is its own kind of telling. If the question were genuinely open to interpretation, they would not be angry about her interpretation of it.
Great article. A credible path forward would be a clearer question, transparent oversight, public explanation of how results will be interpreted, and early resolution of legal and consultation issues before voting day. Without that, the result may still be politically real but contested in meaning.
All of that is exactly right, and in a healthy democratic process those conditions would be baseline requirements rather than aspirational ones. The problem is that every one of those safeguards, clearer question, transparent oversight, pre-declared interpretation standards, resolved legal and consultation issues, would reduce the government’s ability to use the result as an open-ended mandate. Which is precisely why none of them are in place.
Your last line is the one that should worry people most. “Politically real but contested in meaning” is a result this government can work with. The ambiguity is not a bug they would be motivated to fix.
The only correct answer when someone asks a question with no yes/no answer is no response. Vote, vote on all other questions, leave this blank. It is stupid games
That instinct is understandable, and a lot of people feel the same way. Worth knowing though: the BBC is now reporting, citing the Premier’s Office, that the ballot may actually offer two checkboxes rather than a yes/no format, one for each option. If that is confirmed by Elections Alberta, leaving it blank becomes a more deliberate and visible choice. Either way, the piece has an update note at the top with the latest. Thanks for engaging with this.
The BBC is reporting that when the Premier’s Office was contacted, her staff indicated that the ballot question would have 2 check boxes, one for each part of the frankenquestion. This is not something I have seen in Canadian media.
LAS, thank you very much for the update. I’ve put an update into the article and will also see about getting verification on the two boxes from Elections Alberta.
The notice added to the article:
Update, May 26: The BBC is reporting, citing the Premier’s Office, that the ballot will offer two checkboxes rather than a yes/no format. Elections Alberta had previously indicated a yes/no response format. Between the Lines Canada is seeking clarification on which format will govern the October 19 vote. This discrepancy is itself notable. If the two-checkbox format is confirmed, it partially addresses Trap One as described above, though the remaining three structural problems with the question stand regardless of answer format.
Excellent analysis! Lots to unpack as this Premier Smith says one thing while actively, deliberately moving in the opposite direction. The longer this dangerous theatre continues the more businesses will be planning for a more stabilized location and economy - except of course for the moneyed interests backing Smith. Strange times in AB!
What a terrific breakdown Leni. Thank you. The PM had better bring the question to the house and the house better reject it.
Thank you Keith. The House review mechanism under the Clarity Act is the most immediate federal lever available, and the 30 day window from official release of the question means the clock is already running. Whether Carney treats that as an obligation or a suggestion is the thing to watch.
I really wish the international law aspects were always included.
If Canada is severable, then so are its provinces
https://r.flora.ca/p/if-canada-is-severable
The only thing granting the Alberta Crown control over any land is Alberta Act 1905, with inherent sovereignty being with Indigenous nationalities (and treaty rights holders) and Western European Westphalian sovereignty tied to the Canadian Crown.
While I thought in the past that Canadian Provinces were just like any other region one might see in Europe, the legal status is entirely different. Provincial Crowns can legislate themselves out of existence, but these "separate" governments don't have any land base under any meaning of sovereignty.
Russell, this is such an important dimension and honestly one I want to come back to properly in a future piece. The Alberta Act 1905 point gets almost no airtime in mainstream coverage, and it should. The gap between “province” and “sovereign nation” is enormous in legal terms, and the inherent sovereignty of Indigenous nations sitting inside that territory is a question the separatist movement has no coherent answer to. Thanks for the link, I am going down that rabbit hole today.
The gap between "fee-simple property" and "government land title" is also enormous, and yet they regularly get conflated. Even an exclusive patent for European business within a region (say, Hudson's Bay) -- a European trade agreement -- being confused with fee-simple property or government land title (never made clear) is common within contemporary Canadian political discussions.
But, hey, Gulf of America.....
BTW: It is a very deep rabbit hole, and one I so didn't expect to fall into when I started to ask what "Shut Down Canada" (Wet'suwet'en Strong) could possibly be about at the beginning of 2020. I'm so happy I decided to go down that rabbit hole, as it makes so much of contemporary politics makes so much more sense looking from outside of Western European "Enlightenment" individualistic linear time.
Thanks very much Leni, for your excellent research and analysis. Such a crucial piece of writing. Sending it to my (Liberal) MP. Every Member of Parliament needs to be focussed on this. We are after all talking about the fate of the nation.
Thank you Donna. Sending it to your MP is exactly the right instinct. The Clarity Act review mechanism exists precisely for this moment, and the more pressure arrives from constituents the harder it becomes to treat this as a regional issue that Ottawa can watch from a distance.
It is indeed time for constituents to speak up. Here is the letter I sent, with of course your piece attached.
Dear Ms Rochefort
Thanks for your steady work on our behalf. I am writing to you to raise the issue of Alberta separatism and the need for the federal government to step in now, with the Clarity Act.
There is considerable danger that Alberta will sleepwalk its way, via a peculiar referendum question, into the kind of disaster Britain faced with Brexit. Unfortunately, an Alberta exit— brought about by a deliberately vague set of unclear questions and considerable confusion, along with some very bad actors from the USA— would break up our country.
This piece attached is the clearest outline of the situation that I have seen. It is commendably calm, but devastating in its implications.
I hope caucus is talking about this. I hope other MPs are receiving letters like this one.
Thanks for your work, and your care— not just for this riding, but for Canada.
Donna Sinclair
Professor Glenn Diesen interviewed Brian Berletic, posted on You Tube.
Canada needs to view this Alberta "disruption" through a zoomed-out geopolitics lens.
Interview link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z7Ud5P9pNo
For further reading: https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/brian-berletic
The geopolitical lens is a legitimate one Paul, and the connections between the Centurion Project and American Republican networks are documented enough that this is really not just a provincial story anymore. Who benefits from a fractured Canada is a question that deserves serious treatment, and it is one I want to come back to properly in a future piece.
Look forward to your future piece on “Who benefits from a fractured Canada”?
It’s almost ready for publication. It has to sit for a day or two and then I can go over it with fresh eyes before publishing.
I just received a note from my security software: my private information is on the Dark Web for the first time. Thank you, Danielle Smith and David Parker!
Sorry to hear that LAS. Sadly many of those affected don’t have security apps notifying them of the very real risks. I hope you are able to compensate for the security holes without too much trouble— although it is always countless steps with this level of personal information breach.
How can that question be answered with yes or no? It’s a trap and everyone knows it. What if no one answers the question? Why is this allowed at all?
Those are exactly the right questions, Georgette. It cannot be cleanly answered with yes or no, which is the core problem the piece tries to lay out. As for why it is allowed: the province controls its own referendum question, and there is no mechanism that requires voter approval of the wording before it reaches the ballot. The federal Clarity Act can review it, but even that has limits here because the question is technically asking about a process rather than separation itself.
As for what happens if turnout collapses: a low turnout yes is still a yes the government will claim as a mandate. Which is why showing up matters more than it might feel like it does right now.
Thanks Leni - D. Smith should be held accountable to make this question”
…”question” YES means what exactly!? NO means what exactly? Attach that statement to every ballot - failing that, concerned Albertans should put up signs, rent bill boards, take out ads…
That is exactly the problem John, and you have identified the only real remedy available to ordinary citizens before October 19. The government is not going to attach a plain-language explanation to the ballot. So the work of explaining what yes and no actually mean, or more accurately cannot mean, falls to everyone who understands what is at stake. Signs, billboards, conversations at kitchen tables. Forever Canadian is organizing but they need people and resources. The civic pressure has to come from the ground up because it is not coming from the top down.
Thanks Leni! I’ve been hoping someone would explain what the correct answer should be (although, just b/c Dani says a “no” vote means “not separating”, I don’t know if I believe her. She has set the question so she can take the winning answer and apply it to whichever half of the question she chooses). Or maybe the separatists are so mad at her b/c she told us which answer will kill this whole thing? Wink wink. Anyway, maybe the next thing to be amended should be that the Clarity act no longer allow the provinces to set the questions!
Your skepticism about taking Smith’s word on what no means is well placed, Lisa. The question is ambiguous enough that the government retains the ability to interpret the result in whatever direction is most useful after the fact. That is a feature, not an oversight.
Your instinct about the Clarity Act is interesting and you are not alone in thinking it. The fact that provinces control their own question wording is the single biggest gap in the existing framework, and this referendum is a fairly compelling argument for closing it. Whether a Carney government with a slim majority and a lot of other fires burning would want to open that particular constitutional conversation is another question entirely.
And yes, the separatists being furious at Smith for saying no means no is its own kind of telling. If the question were genuinely open to interpretation, they would not be angry about her interpretation of it.
Great article. A credible path forward would be a clearer question, transparent oversight, public explanation of how results will be interpreted, and early resolution of legal and consultation issues before voting day. Without that, the result may still be politically real but contested in meaning.
All of that is exactly right, and in a healthy democratic process those conditions would be baseline requirements rather than aspirational ones. The problem is that every one of those safeguards, clearer question, transparent oversight, pre-declared interpretation standards, resolved legal and consultation issues, would reduce the government’s ability to use the result as an open-ended mandate. Which is precisely why none of them are in place.
Your last line is the one that should worry people most. “Politically real but contested in meaning” is a result this government can work with. The ambiguity is not a bug they would be motivated to fix.
voting the UCP out next election
The only correct answer when someone asks a question with no yes/no answer is no response. Vote, vote on all other questions, leave this blank. It is stupid games
That instinct is understandable, and a lot of people feel the same way. Worth knowing though: the BBC is now reporting, citing the Premier’s Office, that the ballot may actually offer two checkboxes rather than a yes/no format, one for each option. If that is confirmed by Elections Alberta, leaving it blank becomes a more deliberate and visible choice. Either way, the piece has an update note at the top with the latest. Thanks for engaging with this.
The BBC is reporting that when the Premier’s Office was contacted, her staff indicated that the ballot question would have 2 check boxes, one for each part of the frankenquestion. This is not something I have seen in Canadian media.
I have not seen that either! And I hunted hard! I don’t suppose you have a link?
Never mind! Just saw your post with the link!
LAS, thank you very much for the update. I’ve put an update into the article and will also see about getting verification on the two boxes from Elections Alberta.
The notice added to the article:
Update, May 26: The BBC is reporting, citing the Premier’s Office, that the ballot will offer two checkboxes rather than a yes/no format. Elections Alberta had previously indicated a yes/no response format. Between the Lines Canada is seeking clarification on which format will govern the October 19 vote. This discrepancy is itself notable. If the two-checkbox format is confirmed, it partially addresses Trap One as described above, though the remaining three structural problems with the question stand regardless of answer format.
Excellent analysis! Lots to unpack as this Premier Smith says one thing while actively, deliberately moving in the opposite direction. The longer this dangerous theatre continues the more businesses will be planning for a more stabilized location and economy - except of course for the moneyed interests backing Smith. Strange times in AB!