Danial Smith has stated she is not for separation. The UCP platform has stated they are not for separation.
"Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has stated she does not support Alberta separating from Canada. She formally supports a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada, focusing on regaining provincial constitutional rights and resisting federal policies rather than total independence"
"The United Conservative Party (UCP) official position is to support a "sovereign Alberta within a united Canada," focusing on increasing provincial autonomy rather than formal separation."
Does the party have members who support separation maybe, do they have members who are against abortion maybe, do they have member ho support liberal/ndp policies maybe.
I don't know how many times a person or party has to say something to be right. Unless you go off McKenna saying, "If you actually say it louder, we’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it" Maybe this is what some of you are wanting to believe is true.
They would only need to say it once- if their actions matched. But when you say something ten or a hundred or a thousand times yet act in the opposite way, for everyone to see, your deeds belie your words and your words mean little to nothing.
She has instead made choice after choice to enabled and embolden the separatists.
The UCP has explicitly embraced the Citizen Initiative process as a recognized way for force the provincial government to a separation referendum. They did not have to do this, it was a choice. The correct answer to separatists could have been “go form a party and get elected”.
When it became apparent that the Citizen Initiative process would make it hard to get the necessary signatures for separation, they specifically had the necessary threshold lowered, and the amount of time to collect signatures lengthened by a month. They did not have to do this, it was a choice. The correct answer to separatists could have been “you can put in the same work and achieve the same threshold as everyone else”.
A competing petition that would put the question of reaffirming remaining in Canada
did succeed under the old, higher threshold. She has buried that in committee and basically pretended like it doesn’t exist. The legislature
changed the law to remove the deadline to act on the successful petition. They didn’t have to do that, that was also a choice. The correct answer would have been to either promptly schedule a referendum on that one essential question, or alternatively to put the question as-is to a vote in the legislature.
When the separatists filed their petition, it was referred by the Chief Electoral Officer to the courts for review, and was struck down as posing an unconstitutional question and violating treaty rights. The legislature again changed to rules, removing the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to have a question reviewed by a court for constitutionality. They specifically changed the rules to let an explicitly unconstitutional referendum question go forward. They didn’t have to do that, that was a choice.
When the separatists were arguing in court over the constitutional matter, the provincial government had their own legal counsel argue in favour of continuing the petition process, and against a judicial order staying it. They argued against the same constitutional and treaty concerns that had already see. The courts rule against the petition once earlier. This was also a choice.
So, whatever the UCP
says, they’re standing there yapping with their thumb visibly on the scale. Their words are in plain conflict with their actions. At every step they have coddled and enabled the separatists.
I believE
@QV called incorrectly yesterday, that the UCP will not actually meaningfully commit and will blow with the wind:
My estimate: The UCP are going to sit this one out until after the referendum (on leaving), for now they will fence sit like they've been doing.
If the 'leave' votes wins you will see the UCP pivot to be the Parti Albertois and will aggressively advance the next phases to follow.
If the "leave" vote loses, status quo, the issue loses some steam and goes away for a little while. The UCP will not risk becoming openly separatist without a clear referendum win on 'Leave' for fear of splitting the party, and risk the NDP to run up the middle again next election.
But, while they presently hang against the flagpole waiting to be told which way to flap, it’s clear which way they hope the wind blows.
