As the Alberta referendum “debate” starts to heat up, you are seeing a lot of places where separatists or their proxies are trying to set the terms of debate on the federalist side, whether that’s demanding to be platformed so that they can spout lies and distortions, or treating emotional appeals as “flamethrowers” when they are allowed to use absolutely unhinged rhetoric with no consequence. They have become used to the kinds of egregious both-sidesing in legacy media that allowed MAGA to flourish in the States, or that allows Conservatives in this country to lie with wild abandon because they know they won’t be called on it, and if federalists don’t want to play that game, they cry foul.
The thing I am most concerned about, however, is federalists conceding that the invented grievances of these Alberta separatists are somehow legitimate—particularly when it comes to small-c conservatives advocating on the federalist side. And it’s going to be nigh impossible for them to actually argue against the invented grievances because they rely on them to this day to make their points. Max Fawcett made a very trenchant argument in that Albertans have become addicted to grievances politics (true!) and that Conservative politicians and pundits need give that up if they want to save confederation. That’s also true, but might be an impossible-level challenge for them to do, because that kind of grievance politics are all most of these Conservatives have ever known, and they don’t know how to argue in any other way. And this is why I worry about the Pandora’s box that’s been opened, because the people who are going to be counted on to save confederation are going to be unable to do what is required of them, because nobody will actually call bullshit on these grievances after Albertans have been force-fed them for so long that they’ve internalised them. That could wind up being a fatal flaw in the federalists’ arguments.
My Latest:
New episodes released early for C$7+ subscribers. This week I delve into the Online Streaming Act obligations, and why it's not a "Netflix tax." #cdnpoli
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-05-27T01:34:48.770Z
Ukraine Dispatch:
Residents of Kyiv remain defiant in spite of the heavy bombardment over the past couple of days.
Noteworthy:
- The head of the committee that the government used to consult on the lawful access bill says they didn’t mention the most contentious aspects in their brief.
- Lindsay Tedds savages the Alberta referendum question, and lays out clear comparisons to Brexit and how it went wrong, and why that’s worrying here.
- Paul Wells has a few thoughts on Carney’s entry into the referendum debate in Alberta, and the terms of that debate being set by the separatists.
https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2059361635165438209
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.
Canada’s going to play it cool and measured and neutral till the day Alberta leaves. Rob Rousseau compared Danielle Smith to Robert Bourassa. Another pundit said Canadians shouldn’t tell Alberta what to do. Just step aside and let them work it out. Paul Wells doesn’t think the question is so complicated.
The only politician showing any heat is David Eby, and he seems to be received with disdain. By the likes of above. If any political leader showed some passion for Canada, and a willingness to point out the obvious about Smith and Alberta, they’d run away with this.