What’s next after the Alberta referendums?

There is no doubt that most Canadians will breathe a sigh of relief in response to last night’s results on Alberta’s referendum question #10, which asked whether respondents wanted to convene another future referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada. Today will also be filled with a litany of commentaries and analyses assessing the future of the Alberta separatist movement and its relationship to the governing United Conservative Party (UCP). 

Certainly, these are important questions to consider given the gravity of what has occurred. But in many respects, it may be Albertans’ response to the other nine referendum questions—in particular the first five that deal with immigration—that provides a better guide for what we can expect from Danielle Smith and the UCP going forward. 

While Smith may have played coy in her support for separatism, she was ultimately more interested in mobilizing separatist energies in her fights with Ottawa rather than in any actual separation from Canada. However, in the wake of their decisive defeat, those separatist energies are now a liability for Smith, as recent polls have shown. Indeed, Smith must be delighted that the separatists have so publicly turned their guns on her this morning.  

But Albertans’ resounding defeat of separatism—and resurgent Canadian federalism—also poses a problem for a politician like Smith, who has made her career on an aggressive style of resentment-based right-wing populism. 

Populism is often called a “thin-ideology,” insofar as it does not contain much substance on its own, which is why it is often married to other, more cohesive and robust political ideologies like socialism or conservatism. But all variants of populism posit a stark divide between “the people” and “the elite.” It is this principal antagonism—between a pure or virtuous people whose interests are implied to have been neglected by a corrupt and arrogant elite—that animates all variants of populism, whether right or left-wing. 

All forms of populism therefore require an enemy—and in many instances, that enemy is thought to be “engaged in a conspiracy to harm the people, to take from them what is rightfully theirs and destroy their way of life,” according to scholar Mark D. Brewer. Western Canadian populists describe that elite as exclusively residing in Ottawa. 

We saw this type of rhetoric play out between Premiere Smith and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ad nauseam, with Smith portraying federal environmental policy as a reckless and malicious attack designed to destroy Alberta’s energy industry. Certainly there were more than enough Albertans willing to identify Trudeau as provincial enemy number one. 

Enter Mark Carney.

Carney offers a unique challenge for a western populist like Smith. He has gone out of his way to dismantle Trudeau-era environmental policy and has actively worked to advance Alberta’s energy interests via the Pacific Link pipeline proposal. At a personal level, Carney enjoys significant popularity in Alberta, with favourability ratings eclipsing Smith herself. Carney’s public prominence in the Alberta referendum debate coupled with his recent remarks about opening up the constitution to better accommodate Alberta make him very difficult to cast as an enemy of Alberta. How can Smith continue to cast Ottawa as the villain without attacking Carney? 

This brings us to the other nine referendum questions—most specifically the first five which all imply that recent immigrants to Alberta are somehow unfairly gaming a federal immigration system that is straining the province’s health and social services.

All of the questions imply that immigrants and the immigration system are detrimental to the province. Question #1 asks Albertans whether they wish to exercise more control over immigration, in order to reduce it, so as to give “Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities.” Questions #2 prevents undocumented migrants from accessing healthcare or public education, while Question #3 introduces a 12-month eligibility requirement before a recent immigrants can access provincially-funded social support programs. Question #4 requires non-permanent immigrants to pay a fee to access public health or education, while Question #5 requires proof of citizenship status to vote in a provincial election. 

As others have emphasized, these questions are riddled with incorrect assumptions and a complete misunderstanding of how the country’s immigration system actually operates. Some of the questions already have answers, for instance non-permanent residents are already ineligible for provincial income support and voter identification is already required by Elections Alberta. It is difficult to not come to the conclusion that these specific questions are more about painting a rather ugly narrative about immigration and immigrants.  And Smith firmly lays responsibility for all this at the feet of Justin Trudeau and his “lax immigration system” and “disastrous open borders” policy. 

The substance of the first five referendum questions—which a slim majority of Albertans voted yes on—allows for the sinister legacy of Trudeau to continue in the guise of newly arrived immigrants. Unable to conjure a sufficient external enemy in Ottawa, Smith seems intent on creating an internal one, albeit one ultimately created by Ottawa elites. By keeping the focus on immigrants, Smith will be able to continue to lay Alberta’s problems at Ottawa’s feet. 

Unfortunately, for Alberta’s immigrant communities that have already weathered xenophobic scapegoating for the duration of the campaign, the worst of it may be yet to come. 

About the author

Simon Enoch

Simon Enoch is the senior researcher for Saskatchewan issues and policies. He holds a BA in Political Science, a Masters in Labour Studies and a PhD in Communication & Culture. Active in both the labour movement and media reform efforts, Simon has published in a variety of academic journals and other news media. He lives in Regina, Saskatchewan.