Danielle Smith keeps premiers’ constitutional position vague ahead of Alberta referendum

The Story

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government is pressing ahead with a provincewide referendum on constitutional reforms next month, while premiers across Canada have largely stayed silent on whether they support Smith’s proposals that would require major cross-country backing.

Albertans will vote on Oct. 19 on 10 questions. Smith’s plan includes four constitutional measures, three of which would likely need the support of more than half of Canada’s legislatures—reflecting the so-called 7/50 rule—and Parliament to be implemented. Smith’s office acknowledges that one of the broader changes she is putting to voters is unlikely to gain the unanimous consent required to proceed.

The four constitutional proposals Smith is offering to Albertans are: abolishing the Senate; transferring responsibility so Alberta, rather than Ottawa, would choose provincial appointments for the King’s Bench and Court of Appeal judges; letting Alberta opt out of federal programs without losing associated funding; and giving provincial laws standing over Ottawa’s during jurisdictional disputes.

In a concession on the referendum website, Smith’s government says abolishing the Senate is effectively a non-starter because it would require unanimous support across the country and approval from the Senate itself. By contrast, the premier’s office argues that the remaining proposals are more feasible because they involve targeted amendments to Canada’s legal and administrative “spine.”

Ryan Fournier, a communications adviser to Smith, said provinces across the federation are “tired of federal overreach” and want “more authority within Confederation, not less,” adding that Smith’s government believes the referendum is “a vital step towards a fairer Confederation.” The communications adviser emphasized that Smith seeks a voter mandate to proceed with the changes beyond the ballot.

Despite the high level of provincial cooperation the 7/50 rule implies, many provincial leaders did not give a clear public position ahead of the vote. Several offices declined to comment, including Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe’s office, which said it would not comment on the proposals.

Other premiers who did respond also avoided endorsing the constitutional changes directly. A spokesperson for Northwest Territories Premier R.J. Simpson said it is “a matter for Albertans to consider through their referendum process.”

Some leaders framed their remarks around maintaining Confederation rather than taking a position on Smith’s specific amendments. Nunavut Premier John Main said his territory is closely monitoring the referendum results, citing the need for external supports to bring resources to market and saying he intends to work “in partnership with other governments and private industry” on measures that would strengthen Canada.

Yukon Premier Currie Dixon said he is looking forward to hearing what Albertans decide on the Constitution, but did not offer an opinion on the reform questions. Dixon did, however, express support for Alberta remaining in Canada, connecting that stance to the referendum’s “headlining” succession question.

Legal experts say at least some of Smith’s constitutional strategy is plausible in theory, but implementation would still confront significant barriers. Constitutional law professor Gerard Kennedy of the University of Alberta said Smith’s office is likely correct that there could be enough provincial support to take two proposals beyond the ballot—namely the plan for Alberta-directed appointment of provincial judges and the opt-out approach to federal programs without financial penalty.

Kennedy described the premise of the proposals as giving provinces “extra provincial power” and said such moves would appeal to governments that want greater autonomy. He cautioned, however, that even with provincial momentum, the federal Parliament’s agreement would be a major constraint, because Parliament would have to reduce its own power without a corresponding exchange.

On the other proposals, Kennedy said the likelihood of success is lower. He argued that giving provincial laws paramountcy over federal laws during jurisdictional disputes probably would not advance, noting that “there was no federation in the world with that setup.” He said Alberta could still pursue negotiations, but he warned that more sweeping constitutional bargaining can create new demands from other provinces.

Kennedy said the practical risk of opening constitutional negotiations is that other governments may seek to attach their own priorities as conditions for agreement. In his view, that dynamic could cause negotiations to stall because provinces would not accept packages that include changes they see as favourable only to others.

He also described a third pathway Alberta could attempt: using amendments that require only the support of Parliament and the affected province. Kennedy pointed to the 2001 change renaming Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador as an example of an amendment that did not require the full national consensus process. Even then, he said such a strategy would likely end up in court if Alberta sought special privileges that could be seen as violating the principle that provinces are treated equally.

Smith’s referendum framing appears designed to connect the constitutional questions to broader political concerns in Alberta. She has positioned the reforms as a plan to improve Alberta’s standing within Confederation and reduce the appeal of separation. The premier’s government has also linked Alberta’s push for change to grievances about federal immigration policy, saying those policies have contributed to overburdened health and education systems.

However, some political analysts say the constitutional proposals may be less central to Smith’s broader campaign message than other questions on the ballot. Political scientist Duane Bratt, based in Calgary, said the constitutional issues can feel like an “afterthought” relative to Smith’s immigration-focused messaging and the government’s $4-million advertising campaign, which he says concentrates more heavily on five immigration proposals also included in the referendum.

Bratt said that when Smith talks about these issues, immigrants are often cast as “scapegoats and the villains,” and he questioned whether the government would expend the effort needed to carry constitutional changes through after Oct. 19. He described the challenge of acting on multiple major priorities at once, suggesting Smith has other initiatives—such as building pipelines and restructuring health care—that may compete with constitutional bargaining.

Opposition New Democratic Party leader Naheed Nenshi criticized the constitutional reform push as politically motivated rather than focused on practical outcomes. He said Smith is “only trying to find new enemies to blame for Alberta getting a raw deal,” arguing she wants to “complain about not getting those things” and that she is seeking refusals from other provinces.

With Alberta set to vote in just weeks, the constitutional question now is not only how Albertans respond, but also whether Smith can translate any voter mandate into the complicated parliamentary and interprovincial approvals required for the changes she has placed on the ballot.