I thought it might be useful to do a roundup about the Alberta votes. So here are some comments from inside Alberta and from outside it, plus the terrible impact of the anti-immigrant support.
First, what Albertans are saying.
We Rocked the Indigenous Vote on Separation. Alberta Is Indian Land. indigenousinsider.substack.com/p/we-rocked-... "None of this came out of nowhere. First Nations leaders have stood against the separatists, and the provincial government that enabled them, all year long."
— tikabean.bsky.social (@tikabean.bsky.social) October 20, 2026 at 9:13 PM
[image or embed]
....The people who supported staying were, by and large, individuals with real reputations and credibility — and, therefore, something real and valuable to lose if they lied. The other side, by comparison, was overwhelmingly dominated by kooks and crooks who suffered no reputational penalty for saying whatever crazy idea or claim slipped out of their mouths.David Climenhaga
What we were left with is one side trying to defend an imperfect but reality-based status quo, a Confederation in which competing interests have to vie for their preferred policy choices. In the real world of politics, that means Alberta has to fight to have its voice heard; it has to make the case to the rest of Canada in order to win. And it means, sometimes, this province will lose on a policy debate or piece of legislation.
On the flip side, we had a separatist movement that could make up whatever it damn well wanted and often portrayed a fantasy of an independent Alberta in which citizens would pay virtually no taxes, be better run, and would somehow manifest every preferred policy and pipeline by dint of a new flag and a re-drawn map on a border. The further we travelled down the social-media propaganda rabbit warrens, the more likely we were to find a deeper aim. Some way to escape the broken modernism of Canada; and a return to an Alberta that was universally white, Christian, rural, and blandly “conservative.” This was a fever dream of an “independent” nation that was totally divorced from both geopolitics and the reality of the province today; which is, in fact, as pluralistic, urban, and irreligious as any other place in Anglo Canada.
Separatists are not, and have never been, representative of “Alberta.” They are the minority even as they claim to speak for the province as a nation.
The problem is that it’s rhetorically impossible to debate a dream. There’s an impossible asymmetry to overcome; fact vs. fantasy, credible vs. non-credible, real grievance vs. conspiracy theory, plausible but emotionally unsatisfying solution vs. simple cure-alls. And those people who are grounded in fact and reputation are at a perpetual disadvantage on the debate pitch against those who are not.
You can’t really have a productive argument with a fiction writer about a world that exists in only his own imagination. It’s a little like trying to hold a serious discussion about the allocation of scarce health-care resources in the Shire.
It’s a pointless exercise with fundamentally unserious people, and pretending otherwise is not only dishonest pandering, it grants the kook-aroos and their ideas the illusion of real intellectual weight.
The separatists haven’t earned the right to be debated on equal terms... The fact that we held this referendum at all wasn’t a heartwarming exercise of democratic will — it was a failure of leadership by the provincial government, and of Danielle Smith in particular, who eased the way for this vote via Bill 54 in order to placate her separatist base and ease tensions within her own party.
That was, and remains, an insanely reckless thing to subject an entire province to in order to save one party and one premier’s political ass....
...Albertans, in their wisdom, had the good sense to reject this nonsense.
The separatists’ loss is both embarrassing and well deserved.
The last open question is whether or not there will be consequences, and for whom.
...The biggest winner? Likely New Democratic Party Opposition Leader Naheed Nenshi.Linda Walker
Despite his low-energy leadership of the party he inherited from former NDP premier Rachel Notley in June 2024, Mr. Nenshi could well surf into power in the wake of widespread disgust with the high-risk referendum strategy implemented by Ms. Smith and her separatist-dominated United Conservative Party at a time when Canada is under economic and ideological attack by the Trump Administration in the United States.
Recent polls suggest the NDP was creeping into the lead before the referendum. The latest one indicates it may have arrived.
As for the UCP itself, the U may stand for United, but it is a Disunited Conservative Party as of right now.
Ms. Smith may try to heal the wounds she has inflicted on her own party, but it’s difficult to imagine how the UCP – always a Frankenparty that stitched together separatists, federalists, social conservatives, market fundamentalists and traditional economic pragmatists, and lately a considerable number of MAGA nuts – can hold together for long. As the Good Book says, a House Divided against itself cannot stand.
Even before the vote yesterday, it was clear many secessionist leaders were openly calling on social media for a separatist takeover of the UCP and removal of Ms. Smith as leader, just as they dumped Jason Kenney before her. But if they succeed, who will replace her? The UCP leadership talent pool is shallow.
....with the UCP’s annual general meeting set to open on Nov. 27, the party has less than six weeks to pick a lane!
If the party cracks open then, the nine noxious questions won’t matter regardless what their final votes are. If anyone’s got an old Wildrose Party sign in their garage, someone will probably be happy to come and pick it up.
As for the separatists, they will declare a moral victory and remind everyone that they collected something like a quarter of a vote – albeit for a question on which they campaigned to have us merely “send a message to Ottawa.” They will vow this fight isn’t over till its over.
And maybe it isn’t. But their leaders – including the self-appointed U.S.-assimilation negotiating team that talked to someone in Washington – will either have to take over the UCP or form a new political party. Either way, they’ll have to run for office, won’t they? How do you think that’ll work out?
Given what we know right now, it sure looks as if Danielle Smith’s dream Alberta can become Canada’s sovereign friend with benefits is dying. That’s not a pity.
... I'm tired of listening to people blame Canada, Ottawa, immigrants, minorities, and everyone else under the fucking sun for everything they don't like about their lives. At some point, you have to take responsibility for your own choices… If you're miserable, perhaps examine your own decisions before deciding the entire country needs to be dismantled to accommodate your sense of entitlement. And while you're at it, open a fucking history book. Because judging by some of these results, either far too many people never learned civics, or they sat through those classes without absorbing a damn thing.
But let's get to what really has me furious this morning.
THE OTHER NINE FUCKING QUESTIONS.
For months, I've been researching the legislation, the political connections, the concentration of power, and the very deliberate direction Danielle Smith's government has been taking Alberta. I've written about it. I've shared documents. I've connected legislation to the larger political agenda. I've practically screamed from the rooftops for Albertans to pay attention.
And then I watched last night's results. What the actual fuck, Alberta?
You voted overwhelmingly to stay in Canada, yet far too many of you supported proposals that threaten the very foundations of the Canadian system you just voted to remain part of… Do you even understand what you voted for?
Danielle Smith wrote those questions. She controlled the wording. She framed the issues. She presented complicated constitutional and political matters in ways designed to obtain the answers she wanted. And far too many of you fell for it, hook, line, and fucking sinker. ...
Next, a few comments from the rest of the world
The Americans who were following it knew what was really going on here
Despite the Trump administration's best efforts, Alberta votes not to break up Canada
— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum.wsocial.eu) October 20, 2026 at 12:51 AM
[image or embed]
U.S. government accuses Canada of meddling in Alberta referendum
— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) October 20, 2026 at 3:18 PM
[image or embed]
In the Toronto Star, Ontario Chamber of Commerce president Daniel Tisch warns about separation fantasies:Propaganda vs Reality. Alberta will always be Canadian. #cdnpoli #abpoli #notothenine #alberta #referendum
— Anonymous (@youranoncentral.bsky.social) October 19, 2026 at 11:54 AM
[image or embed]
...Quebec’s sovereigntist movement was not the only reason Montreal lost its economic primacy. However, the political uncertainty it created compounded other challenges, encouraging businesses and investors to look elsewhere.Kevin Boucher
This presents a lesson at two levels: first, investors hate uncertainty, and few things create more uncertainty than the prospect of a nation splitting apart. And second, even unsuccessful separatist movements can impose costs that last for generations.
...Ordinary citizens who are part of Canada’s federalist majority must make themselves heard. We have built one of the world’s most successful countries, and it belongs to all of us. No one has an inherent, unilateral right to break off a piece of it.
Canadians will disagree about how our federation should work, and such debates are healthy — even necessary.
But the question of whether Canada should continue to exist cannot become a permanent political campaign. A democracy must be capable not only of asking difficult questions, but also of accepting clear answers.
Polls suggest Canadian unity is surging in the face of external threats, as is Canada’s reputation in the rest of the world.
If we are to address our challenges and seize our opportunities, the greatest lesson from the Alberta referendum must be to make “no” the final answer.
...They lost by roughly 50 points, and they still won the coverage. They got the live hits, the panels and the “what’s next for the movement” segments. Then a CTV reporter told the country the movement had been legitimized.Paul Wells thinks it was all just a waste of time:
Wilson said they’d already won. He was right. That’s the problem.
... This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s conditioning.
Mainstream political coverage is built around the horse race: who’s ahead, who’s behind, who’s gaining. That model needs two horses. When the result is 76 to 24, there’s no race. So the coverage does the only thing it knows how to do. It keeps the losing horse on the track.
“Separatism isn’t going away” is a horse-race story. “Smith faces a fight inside her party” is a horse-race story. “What’s next for Danielle Smith?” is a horse-race story. One news cycle, one political cycle, then on to the next one.
The alternative would be harder. Reporters would have to cover what’s actually happening in this country: our relationship with the United States, the trade deals Canada is signing around the world, the pipeline Albertans are watching move toward construction. And they’d have to ask tough questions, not of politicians about their next move, but about who these separatist leaders actually are....
...Enough is enough. A quarter of a vote doesn’t earn anyone legitimacy. Neither does a live hit on results night. Good journalism doesn’t hand legitimacy out. It looks at people’s records and reports what they’ve done. These men have records. Report them.
The separatists said they’d already won. On the vote, they lost badly. They only win if the media keeps treating one voter in twelve as half of a two-horse race.
There’s only one horse. Cover it.
...Premier Smith’s brief vacation in the land of magical realism is over and she is back in the world of politics. She has often been better at politics than her opponents, though the by-election returns from Calgary—Shaw are a reminder that even skilled politicians sometimes lose their touch. I hope she won’t pass the full suite of measures implied in Questions 1 to 5 into law. I expect she will get nowhere with the Question 6 to 9 amendments. But she sometimes does what I hope she won’t. She is responsible not to me but to the voters, the courts and the give-and-take of federalism. In those arenas yesterday’s events changed nothing. Alberta voters will weigh how they feel about this colossal waste of time.
Finally, the separatists lost but the racists won
If there is a lasting impact to this vote, it will be Alberta's support for those four racist and cruel anti-immigrant questions.
There was so much else to talk about during the last two months, these questions likely didn't get the attention they deserved. But now a majority of Albertans have voted for them - a slim majority, but a majority none the less. They have labelled Alberta as anti-immigrant racists, and that will hurt their province for such a long time, in so many significant ways.
In Alberta's large cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and in the national parks communities, a majority of the vote was pro-immigrant - these are, of course, where Albertans actually know immigrants, the places where tens of thousands of immigrants actually live and work.
In Alberta's large cities of Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and in the national parks communities, a majority of the vote was pro-immigrant - these are, of course, where Albertans actually know immigrants, the places where tens of thousands of immigrants actually live and work.
But that support likely won't stop Smith and her government from creating and trying to pass the anti-immigrant legislation these questions threaten. And they will likely need to invoke the Notwithstanding clause again to deny Canadian rights to all of the university faculty, the doctors and nurses, international students, technicians, oil sands workers and so many others who have moved to Alberta and wanted to build a life there.
Today, they are devastated.
I staged my own separation from Alberta this year, but I am not celebrating the result. The headline will be that Albertans rejected separation, but the 9 questions will dominate Alberta politics for years to come. And immigrants will pay for the societal biases that were validated. It’s tragic.
— Ghouly Hoye 👻🇨🇦 (@hollyhoye.bsky.social) October 20, 2026 at 9:22 AM
[image or embed]
The real outcome of the Alberta referendum is "we'll stay in Canada but we FUCKING HATE IMMIGRANTS and we have a mandate to make their lives miserable, try to stop us and we'll have another hissy fit." I can't celebrate that.
— âpihtawikosisân (@apihtawikosisan.bsky.social) October 20, 2026 at 12:08 PM
Smith wants immigrants/new arrivals to Alberta to be treated like second-class citizens and wants to be able to blame them for overcrowded schools/hospitals/public services.
— Dr. Darren M. A. Calvert (@dmacalvert.bsky.social) October 19, 2026 at 2:02 PM
In her I Prefer Not To substack, immigrant Ximena González, who has lived in Alberta for more than a decade, writes:They're both just going to go gung-ho on scapegoating immigrants, and take this referendum as permisison to do so.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) October 20, 2026 at 9:14 PM
[image or embed]
A racist Alberta within a united Canada As I reflect on the referendum results so far, I feel less welcome than ever
...If I were to decide whether to stay in Canada today, as the referendum results trickle in, I would probably make a different choice, which is precisely the intent of the immigration questions put forward in the referendum.
Seemingly, Albertans want foreigners to come and spend lots of money in this province, maybe take jobs they would prefer not to, enrich their culture for a while — and then leave.
I find it quite telling that in the eight months preceding the referendum vote, few bothered to crunch the numbers on the economic impact of losing non-permanent residents, or of making their lives worse.
Although separation has always been an unlikely possibility, the provincial government went as far as to commission a study on the effects secession could have on Alberta’s economy. Yet, even though the value non-permanent residents is typically measured in economic terms, there was no study accurately measuring the cost of having fewer of them choose Alberta, of making employers foot the bill for the health care and education costs of foreign workers, nor of simply making it more difficult for them to make ends meet while working or studying in Alberta.
One could argue that nobody asked for it, except I did. It was the political pressure that wasn’t there, as clearly evidenced in the referendum results so far.
For over 600,000 Albertans (as of 9:30am on Oct. 20, 2026, according to Elections Alberta’s unofficial results), little evidence was needed to ask the provincial government further limit the rights of the third-class residents building their homes and roads, repairing aging infrastructure in their communities, pouring their double-doubles, or subsidizing their children’s post-secondary education...
No comments:
Post a Comment