Opinion: Smith: One and done or perpetual legacy?

This year will be pivotal for Premier Danielle Smith. Will she be “one and done” like her predecessor, Jason Kenney, or unleash a dynasty rivalling her hero, Ralph Klein?

Many folks seem to think 2026 will be a problem for Smith. Recall petitions, separatist moles and her (un)popular anti-progressive policies will all prove her undoing.

But, perhaps this time next year, the recall petitions won’t even be remembered. It is really only wishful thinking that inflates this blip into some sort of widespread organic groundswell of UCP discontent. A few activist-minded NDPers with $500 and the ability to fill out a government form will not bring down the government.

NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, in an uncharacteristic display of modesty, has opted for plausible deniability. But who are the nameless NDP activists and operatives providing the administrative support for this effort?

And if not the NDP, then who? Could it be the Alberta Liberals, who didn’t do so well in the most recent election? Or maybe Peter Guthrie’s newly minted Progressive Tory Party, or his other party? Unlikely.

Regardless, the recall petitions will fail to even secure the required number of signatures. The reason is simple; severely normal “Martha and Henry” Albertans easily recognize dirty tricks. They did not appreciate the antics of the Longest Ballot Committee and abhorred the abuse of an honourable and sometimes necessary recall process.

Most Albertans cherish their democratic rights and respect our Legislative Assembly. They also respect the office of a member of that legislature, an MLA, and they respect the validity of our election results. They believe the time to replace elected officials and governments is at the end of a duly constituted and hard-fought general election.

Isn’t this the way democracy is supposed to work?

Speaking of democracy, the main reason cited for the recalls is an objection to the UCP’s use of our Constitution’s notwithstanding clause. Somehow, it is “undemocratic” and violates human rights.

This is odd. How can the exercise of an action permitted by a duly vetted (by democratically elected provincial and federal governments) and democratically approved Constitution be undemocratic? Are parts of the Constitution unconstitutional?

And how can it be that an unelected branch of our government, the judiciary, is more democratic than our elected officials?

That Section 33 is at all controversial is because most Canadians are largely uninformed about both our system of government and our Constitution. For example, the right to strike was not included by the original architects of the Constitution in 1982. Why they excluded it is a great question.

However, everyone knows we have the right to strike in Canada. Right? Was this a later amendment by duly elected officials following our Constitution’s amendment formula? Nope. It was a constitutional right discovered by the unelected Supreme Court of Canada.

The logic of this decision is beyond my understanding of the law. What do you think?

Even fewer Canadians understand that Section 33 was advocated by Peter Lougheed in 1982. Somehow, they think that its invocation is a permanent negation of all basic human rights. So, somehow, Alberta teachers have been disenfranchised.

Not so. The notwithstanding clause was unanimously agreed to by all the 1982 architects regardless of their political stripe. It was deemed a necessary temporary check on an overactive judiciary. The keyword is temporary. If, in the intervening temporary period, voters object to their government’s use of the option, then the voters can switch governments.

Nenshi may wish to give a blank cheque to teachers and free rein to their union. But maybe Albertans would disagree. They can make that choice in the fall of 2027.

It seems that the biggest challenge to Smith is Albertans’ lack of knowledge about their own system of governance.

Now, can Smith deal with the separatists? That is another story for another day.

William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.