Danielle Smith’s referendum was a lemon. Alberta voters made lemonade

When the political self-interest of an embattled premier causes her to order up a lunch of ten of the tartest lemons, the best thing that voters can do is find a way to mash them into lemonade.

That’s what Albertans mostly did on Monday.

Asked whether they wanted to remain in Canada, three-quarters answered in the affirmative. It’s an overwhelming result – and one that, on closer examination, understates the depth of federalist support.

The separation question that Premier Danielle Smith foisted on Albertans was a torqued business.

Carney hails Alberta’s rejection of separation, but other referendum questions muddy the waters

Option 1 was a simple enough: remain in Canada. But Option 2, a vote not for independence but for a mandate to hold a future independence referendum, could be sold to non-separatists as being about nothing more than putting pressure on Ottawa, making a statement without real consequences, or flying a kite to see if lightning might strike.

An Angus Reid poll released last week found that only 37 per cent of those intending to vote for a separation referendum were in fact separatists. Sixty per cent were simply trying to “send a message to Ottawa.”

An Abacus poll found that a mere 32 per cent of those backing Option 2 did so because “I want Alberta to become an independent country.” The rest were expressing dissatisfaction with some aspect of the status quo, not with being Canadian.

In other words, of the roughly 25 per cent of Albertans who cast a ballot for Option 2, only around a third – 8 per cent of voters? 9 per cent? Seven? – wanted separation.

The share of separatists in the Alberta population is almost certainly even lower.

It was widely assumed that the margin of federalist victory would come down to turnout. Separatists would walk barefoot over broken glass to vote, whereas many Remain supporters, with polls predicting an easy victory, might stay home.

Smith vows to push for more Alberta autonomy

Andrew Coyne: Alberta’s separatists lost badly. Danielle Smith might have lost even worse

As of Wednesday morning, with a handful of polling locations still uncounted, turnout appeared to be close to 70 per cent – higher than the last Alberta election, but more than 20 points below the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Three out of ten Albertans didn’t vote. Few of them are likely to have been separatists.

“I’m frustrated at Ottawa” is a big tent. “I want Alberta out of Canada” is a fringe movement.

Leave-minded folks may make up an outsized share of the membership of the governing United Conservative Party, but their part of the wider Alberta population is small. Their share of the electorate in Edmonton and Calgary, whose urban and suburban residents account for around 70 per cent of the province’s people, is even smaller.

In nearly every riding in Calgary and Edmonton, Remain captured more than 80 per cent of the vote. In nearly half of those ridings, it exceeded 85 per cent. In some it approached, or even topped, 90 per cent.

Among the reasons why the UCP did not pitch itself as a separatist party in the 2023 provincial election is that it has been demonstrated, time and again and decade after decade, just how hard it is to get elected in Alberta on an independence platform. That’s historically been true whether running for parliament, the legislature or deputy dogcatcher.

Albertans have given politicians the green light to put the separation issue to bed.

Ms. Smith may not find it easy to do that. Much of her party membership remains animated by this fringe passion.

But that’s the UCP’s problem. Ottawa has a mandate to move on to matters that the vast majority of Albertans, and the rest of the country, consider more important.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is, according to recent polling, the most popular politician in Alberta. Polls have his Liberals neck-and-neck with the federal Conservatives in the province, an unprecedented situation.

The PM’s popularity, and that of his party, could solidify if the UCP and other conservatives continue to obsess over separation and constitutional fights. While they start fires in pursuit of a dream hardly anyone else is dreaming, Mr. Carney will be focusing on growing the economy, attracting investment, stimulating business, and getting pipelines and other infrastructure built.

The lemon of the separatist movement has been political lemonade for Mr. Carney, and a bitter rind for Mr. Poilievre. The more separatism continues to haunt the UCP, the more Albertans will nod approvingly at Mr. Carney’s pursuit of real economic issues. The more it polarizes Alberta politics, the more Albertans will find themselves at the same pole as Mr. Carney.

And to the extent that the UCP continues to wage a civil war against itself on separation, it will cast a long shadow over Mr. Poilievre’s party.

Which brings me to the other nine questions on the referendum.

Ottawa can ignore the four constitutional questions. Ditto the MAGA-inspired query about the need for voter ID to confirm citizenship in Alberta elections.

The feds should, however, take the answers to the four immigration questions seriously, though not literally.

See the vote counts for Alberta’s nine other referendum questions

It isn’t illegitimate to ask voters about immigration. But what was put before Albertans in this instance was a mishmash of conflation, elision and misinformation. The questions were not designed to inform policy. They’re all about prospecting for rich veins of outrage.

Take Question 1:

“Do you support the government of Alberta taking increased control over immigration for the purposes of decreasing immigration to more sustainable levels, prioritizing economic migration and giving Albertans first priority on new employment opportunities?”

That’s four questions, all mashed up.

Roughly 54 per cent of voters answered yes. But what were they voting for, or against?

More provincial control of immigration? Do voters know how much influence provinces already have, or to what extent previously high levels of temporary immigration were driven by provincial demands?

Were they voting for lower immigration? Lower than the Trudeau years, or lower than today’s reduced levels? Less permanent immigration? Less temporary immigration?

And what about giving Albertans priority in hiring? Priority over who? Where? How? Why?

Questions 2, 3 and 4 asked whether temporary residents should have to pay extra for public services. In some circumstances, it’s a perfectly reasonable idea – for example, foreign students in Ontario aren’t generally eligible for OHIP, the provincial medicare program, and must buy additional health insurance.

But temporary residents working in Canada pay taxes on their income, just like the rest of us. Their taxes fund public services, just like the rest of us. To what extent would it make sense for temporary residents to pay taxes, but be excluded from some services?

But again: Ms. Smith did not ask these questions because she wanted voters’ help in formulating better policies on immigration or the financing of public services.

As for Albertans, they were not clamouring for an immigration referendum. Which may explain why, after they lined up to vote on the keystone issue of remaining in Canada, hundreds of thousands of left the polling place without answering the remaining questions.

As for those who did vote on the immigration queries, they were likely expressing a frustration with what happened during the Trudeau government, particularly from 2022 to 2024.

Back then, immigration levels surged to several times where they had been during the Chrétien and Harper years, with most of those arriving on temporary visas – primarily students or former students on postgraduate work visas. There was also a record spike in the number of refugee claims made by tourists and temporary residents.

Polling since 2023 indicates that most Canadians feel that something went very wrong in the immigration system.

They may not know exactly how the machine worked, what was broken, what is still broken or how to fix it. (The same can be said for several Liberal immigration ministers). But a lot of Canadians came to believe, not without reason, that the immigration system had jumped the rails. They suspected that might have downsides for the economy, the country and their own pocketbooks.

I’d take the response to the referendum’s immigration questions as reflecting that.

Since 2024, the federal government has made moves to get the immigration system, as Mr. Carney has repeatedly said, “under control.” Canadians mostly just want to be assured that competent people are overseeing the file for their benefit, that nobody coming to this country is pulling a fast one and that immigration is being managed in the national interest.

That’s the national interest of Canada – the country that the overwhelming majority of Albertans want to lead, not leave.