Columnist Lorne Gunter wrote a piece in the Edmonton Journal where he appears to blame the referendum itself for causing the current debate over Alberta’s place in the federation, saying, “Because of the debate forced by the referendum, I have discovered I am a federalist with a lot of complaints about Confederation.”

The debate existed long before the referendum was scheduled. It began over a century ago, flared strongly in the 1980s, and has been simmering and growing ever since. In saying the referendum forced the debate, Gunter is trying to reverse cause and effect. If there was not a solid, significant base of support for independence within Alberta, the referendum would never have been scheduled, whether through petitioning or by the government itself.

Go Ad Free

Gunter is critical of Premier Smith clarifying a binding referendum could be held as early as spring 2027 if a majority of Albertans choose Option 2 on Question 10 this October. He has accused her of picking a scab by addressing the potential process.

While the speed of the timeline may be debatable, what does he expect her to say? That she would ignore a majority vote asking for a binding referendum? That indeed would make the referendum pointless.

Gunter has joined the ranks of Thomas Lukaszuk and Jason Kenney who see the referendum itself at the root of the division in Alberta rather than it being a result of generations of Western alienation.

If only we could take away the ability for Albertans to make a choice, the question would go away, right?

The concrete trigger for the current vote was citizen action, not a premier’s invention. Under Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act (created initially by Jason Kenney), Stay Free Alberta collected roughly 301,000–302,000 signatures on a petition for a direct independence question.

Thomas Lukaszuk’s Forever Canadian petition gathered over 400,000 signatures affirming a desire to remain. Combined, that is on the order of 700,000 signatures, hundreds of thousands of Albertans actively demanding a say on the issue. To refuse an open vote on the issue would only bottle it up and increase the pressure.

Smith did not create the debate. She is managing a reality that predates her October question. The healthy response is to argue the merits of Confederation versus the alternatives on the evidence, not to pretend the referendum itself is the problem.