Danielle Smith Says She Wants Alberta in Canada. One of Her MLAs Just Voted to Start the Separation Process.

Jason Stephan says he wants Canada fixed, not necessarily broken up. Fine. But his vote raises a question Danielle Smith still hasn’t answered very well.

I don’t need to call Danielle Smith a separatist.

I don’t know what’s inside her head.

I don’t know what she says when the cameras aren’t running.

And frankly, I don’t need to.

Because what’s happening right out in the open is interesting enough.

One of the MLAs in Danielle Smith’s United Conservative caucus has voted for Option 2 in Alberta’s October 19 referendum.

His name is Jason Stephan. He represents Red Deer-South.

And Option 2 says this…

The Alberta government should begin the legal process required to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether Alberta should separate from Canada.

That’s not somebody on Facebook blowing off steam.

That’s a sitting MLA in Alberta’s governing party.

And apparently, as far as Danielle Smith is concerned, that’s just one of those little differences of opinion political parties have.

That’s the part I can’t get past.

First, let’s get the facts straight

This October 19 vote does not separate Alberta from Canada.

That’s important, because there’s enough bullshit flying around this issue already.

Elections Alberta describes Question 10 as non-binding.

Option 1 says Alberta should remain a province of Canada.

Option 2 tells the Alberta government to commence the legal process required to hold a future binding referendum on separation.

So Jason Stephan has not voted to separate Alberta from Canada.

He has voted to start the process that could put that question before Albertans in a binding referendum.

That’s a significant distinction.

It’s also not nothing.

Stephan has explained his position fairly clearly.

He says he has never said he wants Alberta to separate. He says he’d like Canada to fix itself, Alberta to be treated fairly and the country to remain united.

His argument is essentially that putting a binding independence referendum on the table gives Alberta leverage over Ottawa.

Okay.

I disagree with playing Russian roulette with Confederation to improve your negotiating position, but at least I understand the argument.

Here’s where things get interesting.

Danielle Smith says she’s voting the other way

Smith says she supports Option 1.

Alberta stays in Canada.

Her government’s official position is that Alberta should remain within a united Canada.

Good.

That’s pretty unambiguous.

But when she’s asked what it means that a member of her own caucus has voted to start the process toward a binding separation referendum, Smith doesn’t treat that as some great breach of the party’s principles.

She talks about diversity of opinion.

Political parties don’t agree on everything, she says.

And normally I’d applaud that.

I don’t want political parties filled with bobbleheads who nod every time the leader speaks.

Argue about taxes.

Argue about health care.

Argue about pipelines.

Argue about whether the legislature cafeteria puts too much mayonnaise on the sandwiches for all I care.

But surely a governing political party gets to have some fundamental principles.

And whether the province it governs should remain part of Canada strikes me as a fairly good candidate.

That’s why I keep coming back to one simple question…

Where is the line?

If voting to begin the legal process toward a binding separation referendum isn’t over it, what is?

This didn’t suddenly appear last Tuesday

Stephan’s vote isn’t his first encounter with this issue.

Earlier this year, while serving as Smith’s parliamentary secretary for constitutional affairs, he encouraged Albertans to sign the petition calling for a referendum on separation.

He subsequently resigned that parliamentary-secretary position but remained in the UCP caucus.

Now he’s actually voted Option 2.

And he’s still in the caucus.

Smith is entitled to run a big-tent political party.

But Canadians are equally entitled to notice who is standing underneath the tent.

Especially because Alberta voters didn’t elect a separatist government in 2023.

The official Elections Alberta results are rather spectacular on this point.

The UCP received 928,896 votes.

The NDP received 777,397.

The Independence Party of Alberta received 5,228.

The Reform Party received 132.

Wildrose Independence received 820.

Albertans had separatist choices.

They overwhelmingly didn’t choose them.

Now, three years later, Alberta is preparing to vote on whether its government should begin the legal process toward a binding separation referendum.

And a member of the governing caucus has already voted yes.

That’s not proof Danielle Smith secretly wants Alberta out of Canada.

I’m not going to tell you something I can’t prove.

But it is proof that the separation movement has found room inside Alberta’s governing party that it never found at the ballot box as a political party of its own.

And I think Canadians are perfectly entitled to ask how much room Danielle Smith intends to give it.

Here’s the strange part

Smith herself has been arguing lately that Alberta’s relationship with Ottawa is improving.

And she’s got something to point to.

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Smith just stood together announcing the Pacific Link pipeline as a project of national interest.

Smith has presented that as evidence that working within Canada can deliver results for Alberta.

That’s actually a pretty powerful argument for Option 1.

So make it.

Defend it.

If Canada is finally responding to legitimate Alberta concerns, tell Albertans why walking toward the separation door now makes no sense.

But don’t simultaneously tell the rest of us that a member of your own caucus voting to start the process toward a binding independence referendum is basically another day at the office.

Those two positions don’t sit comfortably together.

Maybe Stephan genuinely wants nothing more than leverage.

Maybe he hopes Option 2 scares Ottawa into making concessions and Alberta never comes close to leaving Canada.

He has explicitly said he wants Canada to succeed.

I’ll take him at his word.

But once a government begins the legal process toward a binding referendum, Jason Stephan doesn’t get to control where that process ends.

Neither does Danielle Smith.

That’s the problem with using national unity as a bargaining chip.

Eventually somebody might call your bluff.

And there are some things I’d rather Canada didn’t gamble with.

The country is one of them.

The Recap…

A UCP MLA has voted to begin the legal process toward a binding Alberta separation referendum.

Danielle Smith says she wants Alberta to remain in Canada.

Both things are true.

The question is why the first apparently isn’t incompatible with belonging to the governing caucus led by the woman saying the second.

The Gut-Punch…

You can use a lot of things as leverage in a negotiation.

Your country shouldn’t be one of them.

Source credit:

Elections Alberta… 2026 referendum wording and status.

Elections Alberta… official 2023 provincial election results.

CBC News reporting on Jason Stephan’s Option 2 vote and his explanation that he wants Canada to remain united.

The Canadian Press/CityNews and Global News reporting on Stephan’s earlier support for the separation petition, his resignation as parliamentary secretary for constitutional affairs, Smith’s stated support for remaining in Canada, and her decision not to remove Stephan from caucus.

---

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations, Canadian stories, and the occasional smart-ass observation about the world we’re living in, you’re in the right place.

Subscribe free and get new stories, insights, and observations delivered directly to your inbox.

No paywall.

No spam.

No nonsense.

Leave anytime with a single click.

I promise not to take it personally.