Alberta Independence: What's the Fastest Path to Victory? I’ve been seeing a lot of debate within the Alberta independence movement over the past few days about what comes next. Some are calling for Danielle Smith to be replaced, others want a new independence party, and others have entirely different ideas. I think it’s time we have an open, constructive discussion about something that should matter to all of us: What is the fastest realistic path to another independence referendum, and more importantly, winning it? First, let me make something clear. I’m not a Danielle Smith supporter. I’m an Alberta independence supporter. I think my track record over the past couple of years speaks for itself. My priority is achieving independence on the fastest possible timeline. Everything else is secondary. So here’s how I’m looking at the political landscape, and I’m genuinely interested in hearing where others might disagree. 1. The 2027 election presents a serious timeline problem. If the NDP wins the 2027 provincial election and serves a full term, the next scheduled election won’t be until October 20, 2031. Even if a pro-independence government wins in 2031, realistically we could be looking at spring 2032 before another referendum takes place. That’s more than 5 years from now. For anyone who wants Alberta independence sooner rather than later, I think that’s a timeline worth taking seriously. 2. What about creating a new independence party? I understand the frustration driving this idea. But we also have to consider the electoral consequences. Under our first-past-the-post system, splitting the conservative vote could allow the NDP to win seats it otherwise wouldn’t. We’ve already seen concerns about this dynamic in Calgary-Shaw with Peter Guthrie’s new party. Would creating another party strengthen the independence movement politically, or could it inadvertently delay the next opportunity for a referendum? It’s a question worth asking. 3. What about replacing Danielle Smith before 2027? This is where I think the conversation gets particularly interesting. Let’s say Smith loses a leadership review or is otherwise replaced. Who takes her place? If the replacement is an openly pro-independence leader, would they be able to hold together enough of the UCP’s existing coalition to win a general election? We have to remember that not every UCP voter supports independence. Some strongly oppose it. Would those voters remain with the UCP, or would we see them migrate toward Peter Guthrie’s party or another federalist alternative? And if the replacement is someone neutral on independence, does that actually move us any closer to our objective? I’m not saying these questions are impossible to answer. I’m saying they need serious consideration before assuming a leadership change automatically improves our position. 4. Here’s the alternative scenario I’ve been considering. What if the movement focuses the next year on continuing to grow public support for independence, particularly within the UCP, while working toward a political environment where another referendum becomes achievable? Right now, independence has support among a substantial portion of UCP voters, but there’s still considerable room for growth. What if we could turn that into an overwhelming majority? What if province-wide support returned to the mid-40% range we saw in some polling following the last federal election? And what if that support continued growing as political and economic circumstances evolved? In that scenario, the political landscape after the 2027 election could look very different. 5. The timing of a leadership change could matter just as much as the leadership change itself. Imagine reaching the other side of the 2027 election with a government that has a full term ahead of it, while independence support has grown substantially. If Danielle Smith continues maintaining her position that there will never be another independence referendum, despite a significant increase in public support, the political pressure on her could become enormous. At that point, she would face growing pressure to reconsider her position or potentially face a leadership challenge from within her own party. And importantly, that leadership discussion would be happening after the general election rather than immediately before it. To me, that’s a meaningful distinction. 6. None of this means giving Danielle Smith a free pass. We should continue criticizing decisions we disagree with, advocating for independence-minded candidates, organizing, educating Albertans, and holding politicians accountable. My argument isn’t that everyone should rally behind Danielle Smith. It’s that we should carefully consider whether the timing of certain political decisions could help or hinder our ultimate objective. Because the goal isn’t to win an internal political argument. The goal is to win an independence referendum. So here’s where I’d genuinely like to hear from everyone. Is there a faster, more realistic pathway to independence that I’m overlooking? Is there a potential replacement for Smith who could hold the UCP coalition together while moving the province toward independence? Or is there another strategy entirely that deserves more attention? I’m not pretending to have all the answers. I’m laying out the political calculations as I currently see them, and I’m completely open to having my thinking challenged. We’ve just come through an enormous political campaign. Emotions are high, frustrations are understandable, and people have different ideas about what should happen next. But we’re all going to accomplish a lot more by having serious, constructive conversations than by attacking one another. If you think there’s a better or faster path to independence, I genuinely want to hear it. Let’s have an open discussion in the comments, challenge each other’s assumptions, and figure out what actually gets us closer to the finish line.

💥EXPLOSIVE ATIP: Immigration Canada knew Indian agents were running MASSIVE FRAUD in the trucking industry and the student visa program as early as 2017 — and stamped the evidence "DO NOT DISCLOSE." According to records released under the Access to Information Act, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) maintained an internal procedures manual for its New Delhi visa office documenting systemic fraud across the student visa and temporary foreign worker streams. The manual instructs officers to treat fraud as anticipated rather than exceptional The most damning thing about this scandal is not the fraud — it's that the government predicted it, kept it running, and then stamped the file "DO NOT DISCLOSE." Canada didn't lose control of its immigration system—they monetized it.

Even the questions that “passed” — the five that targeted immigrants for punitive measures — did so with less than what you might call a “clear” majority. The best-performing was the one calling, entirely needlessly, for proof of citizenship when voting, with a projected 58 per cent.

New 30 km/h area speed limit signs will be posted at neighbourhood entry and exit points. Once you enter a signed area, the 30 km/h speed limit applies throughout the local road network until you leave that area. Slower speeds help reduce the risk of serious collisions and make neighbourhood streets safer. Learn more about the change: toronto.ca/LocalSpeed

Elections Alberta says there was no Fraud in the referendum. Ok then. I guess that settles it.

My reflections on Monday’s referendum—and the road ahead for Alberta More than 500,000 Albertans—over 25% of everyone who voted—supported moving Alberta toward a referendum on independence. That is more than one voter in four, and it is a remarkable achievement. We reached that level of support despite every established political party deploying its infrastructure and resources against us, well-funded third-party campaigns defending the status quo, and the Stay side enjoying the support of the publicly funded media. In my view, the playing field was not level. Serious concerns remain about the consistency of Elections Alberta’s enforcement of election and campaign-finance rules which allowed Thomas Lukaszuk and Forever Canadian to receive out of province donations and donations over the limits applied to the rest of us. Nevertheless, more than half a million Albertans stood up and said that the status quo is no longer acceptable. They represent a substantial and growing constituency that wants constitutional change, economic freedom and a better future for Alberta—and their voices cannot responsibly be dismissed or ignored. We must respect Monday’s democratic result. We must also recognize that our work is far from finished. There is much more to do to help a majority of Albertans understand that, by every objective measure, our children and grandchildren can have a more prosperous, secure and hopeful future if Alberta controls its own destiny. We must take the time to explain the opportunity, answer legitimate questions and demonstrate that a better future is both achievable and practical. My focus will continue to be on persuading more Albertans—not merely speaking to those who already agree with us. At the same time, I will continue encouraging Premier Danielle Smith and the UCP government to pursue meaningful structural and constitutional reforms without delay. That means demanding statutory and structural changes in Ottawa that address Alberta’s fundamental weakness within Confederation, including: • reforming equalization; • securing the immediate repeal of the remaining nine federal laws damaging Alberta; • requiring Ottawa to respect the constitutional division of powers and Alberta’s exclusive areas of jurisdiction; • insisting that the federal government comply with the Alberta Court of Appeal’s latest ruling concerning the unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act; and • defending the resource-development rights Peter Lougheed secured for Alberta under section 92A of the Constitution. Alberta needs more than temporary political promises. We need structural reforms that create lasting economic certainty and protect future generations from another National Energy Program, another series of laws like those imposed under Justin Trudeau, or a new federal export tax on Alberta oil arising from the current trade dispute with the United States. I do not personally support creating a separate independence party at this time. I do not believe gathering people who already support independence into a smaller political party will persuade the majority of Albertans who remain uncertain that independence is the right and achievable path. Instead, I intend to continue supporting Premier Smith and the UCP while strongly encouraging them to expand Alberta’s autonomy and pursue genuine structural reform. I also believe it is essential that the UCP remain a broad conservative coalition. I encourage Premier Smith to make it clear that Albertans who believe our province has a more prosperous future as an independent nation have a welcoming place within the party. Supporting independence should not exclude anyone from contributing to the conservative movement or working toward our shared goals. At the same time, I encourage Alberta independence advocates to recognize the importance of maintaining conservative unity and working with the UCP to prevent an NDP government from taking office. Such an outcome would risk setting back the progress we have made and delay another referendum for many years. We can continue advocating for independence, growing public support and making our case to Albertans while remaining united in our determination to defeat the NDP in the next provincial election. These objectives are not mutually exclusive. In my view, this is the most realistic path toward greater freedom for Alberta—and potentially toward independence in the future if Ottawa remains unwilling to undertake meaningful reform. Monday’s result was not the destination, but neither was it a defeat of the idea. More than 500,000 Albertans have given us a strong foundation upon which to build. Our responsibility now is to remain united, learn from the campaign, improve our case and earn the confidence of more Albertans. This chapter has ended. The work of building a freer, stronger and more prosperous Alberta continues.

🚨 MAIL-IN BALLOTS: This needs a serious look. Option 2 got 33.06% on Election Day and 28.58% in advance, but just 8.86% by mail. I find that gap suspicious. The UCP should demand a review and tighter mail-in rules in future elections.

Les Albertains ont participé à un référendum et ils ont voté sur neuf questions déterminantes pour l’avenir de l’Alberta. Outre le fait que la tenue de cet exercice démocratique n’a pas du tout causé le cataclysme qu’on nous annonce lorsqu’on prononce au Québec le mot référendum, le message qu’ils envoient à Ottawa ne peut pas être plus clair : le Canada, tel qu’il est, ne fonctionne pas et le statu quo ne passe plus. Au-delà du choix fortement médiatisé ce matin de demeurer dans la fédération, et même si le décompte se poursuit, tout indique que les électeurs albertains ont également appuyé huit des neuf questions réclamant davantage de pouvoirs pour leur province sur des enjeux qui vont de l’immigration à la nomination des juges des tribunaux supérieurs. Voici certaines des neuf questions: 1. Êtes-vous favorable à ce que le gouvernement de l’Alberta exerce un contrôle accru sur l’immigration? Oui: 54,8% Non: 45,2% 5. Êtes-vous favorable à ce que le gouvernement de l’Alberta adopte une loi obligeant les électeurs à fournir une preuve de citoyenneté canadienne, comme un passeport, un certificat de naissance ou une carte de citoyenneté, pour pouvoir voter lors d’une élection provinciale en Alberta? Oui: 63,8% Non: 36,2% 6. Êtes-vous favorable à ce que le gouvernement de l’Alberta collabore avec les gouvernements d’autres provinces qui le souhaitent afin de modifier la Constitution canadienne pour que les juges des cours du Banc du Roi et des cours d’appel provinciales soient nommés par les gouvernements provinciaux plutôt que par le gouvernement fédéral? Oui: 51,6% Non: 48,4% 7. Êtes-vous favorable à ce que le gouvernement de l’Alberta collabore avec les gouvernements d’autres provinces qui le souhaitent afin de modifier la Constitution canadienne pour abolir le Sénat fédéral, dont les membres ne sont pas élus ? Oui: 53,4% Non: 46,6% 8. Êtes-vous favorable à ce que le gouvernement de l’Alberta collabore avec les gouvernements d’autres provinces qui le souhaitent afin de modifier la Constitution canadienne pour permettre aux provinces de se retirer des programmes fédéraux qui empiètent sur leurs champs de compétence, notamment en matière de santé, d’éducation et de services sociaux, sans perdre les fonds fédéraux qui y sont associés, afin de pouvoir les utiliser dans leurs propres programmes sociaux? Oui: 48,9% Non: 51,1% Pour cette dernière question où le « non » l’emporte, soit celle sur le pouvoir dépensier du fédéral, le résultat est extrêmement serré. C’est un signal important. Presque 50% des électeurs y voient un problème. Les Albertains viennent donc de démontrer, hors de tout doute, qu’ils adhèrent au consensus déjà largement partagé au Québec. Comme au Québec, ils constatent que la fédération canadienne est un carcan qui les empêche de placer leurs priorités au cœur de leurs propres politiques publiques, afin de répondre à leurs propres besoins. Ils font le pari qu’un mandat fort de faire bouger les choses pourra mener à ces changements à l’intérieur de la fédération canadienne, ce qui n’est pas sans faire penser à ce que la CAQ a fait miroiter aux Québécois au cours des huit dernières années. Une approche qui a mené qu’à des refus et des reculs pour le Québec. Le premier ministre Mark Carney devra donc prendre acte que les Albertains remettent désormais en question, comme l’ont fait les Québécois avant eux, l’ordre constitutionnel canadien et les abus de pouvoir du régime fédéral dans les champs de compétences. Le gouvernement fédéral, de plus en plus interventionniste, non seulement intervient toujours davantage dans les affaires des provinces, au mépris de ses propres règles constitutionnelles, mais prend également des décisions qui vont directement à l’encontre des intérêts de celles-ci. Le nouveau gouvernement du Québec s’assurera que le message soit compris à Ottawa. Il sera prêt à collaborer avec les gouvernements des autres provinces qui arriveront au même constat que les Albertains et les Québécois : un changement s’impose. Nous saluons au passage cette démarche démocratique, sur le fond et sur la forme. L’exercice a été réalisé avec professionnalisme, calmement et avec respect, ce qui est tout à l’honneur des Albertains. Ils ont démontré qu'il n'y a rien à craindre de s'exprimer par voie référendaire. Photo: Adrian WYLD, La Presse Canadienne

One clear message from the referendum: Alberta separatists should go back to their separatist micro parties, rather than trying to destabilize Alberta by infiltrating a party created and elected to support national unity. Reminder: 👉The last time a separatist party contested an Alberta provincial election, the Alberta Freedom Party got a province wide total of 9,000 votes (0.54%) in 2019. 👉The last time a Western separatist party contested a federal election, the Maverick Party got 35,000 votes (0.2%) in all of Western Canada in 2021. 👉Since they began running in 1980, Alberta / Western separatist parties have contested over 20 federal & provincial elections, winning on average 1% of the vote, one seat, and zero governments 👉By comparison, since the PQ’s foundation in 1968, Quebec separatists have won over 1500 seats federally and provincially, and elected 5 provincial governments Albertans have absolutely legitimate grievances. Too often we have faced federal and some other provincial governments that undermined our province and its hugely positive contribution to the federation. We must continue to build alliances, and make the case for fairness in the federation. But let’s be clear about one thing: Alberta separatism is not, and never has been, a serious political movement.