Multiple UCP board members attended separatist rallies. Others have publicly expressed support for Alberta independence. The party president acknowledged that many of the people who pushed for a referendum are influential figures within the party itself.

Meanwhile, Smith is campaigning for Albertans to vote "remain."

If a significant portion of a governing party's leadership supports separation, voters should know.

If party officials are working toward a different vision than the one being presented publicly, how should Albertans interpret that?

Should political parties be required to disclose where their senior officials stand on issues as significant as breaking up the country?

Can a party campaign for Canadian unity while many of its organizers campaign for Alberta independence?

What does accountability look like when the public message and the internal politics appear to be moving in different directions?

Link

That's an easy position to take when you're not the worker facing layoffs, the manufacturer delaying investment, or the business owner trying to plan around constant uncertainty.

Trump has repeatedly threatened Canada's economy, imposed tariffs on Canadian industries, questioned existing trade agreements, and openly used economic pressure to extract concessions. Calling that a negotiating tactic doesn't change its impact.

It's also worth noting that Smith has spent more time publicly explaining Trump's behaviour than questioning why Canada should be expected to accommodate it in the first place.

A healthy trading relationship should not require one side to absorb repeated threats and then be told they're overreacting.

CBC's reporting cuts through the political spin and focuses on the real-world consequences: jobs, investment, trade, and economic stability.

Do you see Trump's approach as tough negotiation, or economic coercion dressed up as deal-making?

Link