Alberta’s possible separation from Canada will most likely be added to the list of 9 questions Premier Danielle Smith has already placed on the referendum which Albertans will vote on this coming October. Needless to say this has produced widespread consternation and anxiety both within the province and across the country, particularly at a time when national unity – and a unified approach to the threat posed by the crazed lunatic occupying the White House – would normally have top billing on everyone’s political to-do list.
To begin with, let us be clear as to why the question of separation would even be considered for the fall referendum. By proposing to ask Albertans their ‘views’ on this question, Smith has cravenly bowed to the wishes of a small minority of her United Conservative Party (UCP) base for purely political gain. And she has given the topic a legitimacy it does not deserve. Despite the many pressing problems faced by her province, and despite the findings of numerous public opinion polls indicating that separation is rejected by the vast majority of Albertans, she is wasting time and effort on a non-issue.
As someone who claims to be a strong proponent of direct democracy, she has also deliberately ignored relevant citizen input. The Alberta Citizen Initiative Act, in place since 2021, allows individual Albertans to launch petitions on a specific question and, if they obtain a sufficient number of names, the petition can be submitted to the legislature for consideration and/or action. Ironically, and no doubt to Ms Smith’s chagrin, this process was deliberately utilized by former Deputy Premier Thomas Lukaszuk in late 2025 to counter the growing separatist rhetoric. At the time, at least 294,000 signatures were required under the Act for a petition to be successful. Lukaszuk sponsored a petition referred to as “Forever Canadian”, which obtained more than 456,000 signatures supporting the question “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” He then referred it to the legislature, where it has been ignored.
As a frustrated Lukaszuk explained, “this exercise was actually to give the premier an opportunity to avoid a referendum (that would) further divide Albertans along political lines… We’re asking (her) to do the right thing and (have) Alberta MLAs vote on this issue and put separatism to bed once and for all.”[i]
Instead the Act has been conveniently amended by her government to lower the number of signatures required on a petition to 177,732. A pro-separation group, led by various grassroots members of her UCP party, has been working furiously to acquire the requisite number before the submission deadline of May 2. That petition reads “Do you agree that the Province of Alberta should cease to be a part of Canada to become an independent state?” Although they have refused to reveal their progress to date, several of those involved claim they are almost certain to succeed in acquiring sufficient signatures, thereby allowing the question to be placed on the referendum ballot if the premier chooses.
Of course this is hardly the first time that the premier has tried to finesse a difficult political problem by taking both sides at once, or by ceding the field entirely to others. It is simply the most outrageous example yet.
Even worse, Smith has stated that her while own preference is to remain in Canada, she has no plans to make that case, or to encourage a NO vote in such a referendum. Instead, she implies that as premier she has no role to play and is merely a helpless conduit for the wishes of the majority of Albertans, whatever that might be.
Nor can Smith be counted upon to take a consistent approach on this topic, any more than she has done on others. This is, after all, the same premier who happily posed with the prime minister and waxed eloquent about a new era in federal-provincial relations when she learned a pipeline would be considered under the federal major projects initiative, only to turn around mere days later and launch a wide-ranging attack on the federal government’s handling of the judicial system. In an open letter she demanded that her province have a bigger role to play in selecting judges, even though this is already part of the appointments process.[ii] And here, too, Smith’s actions were prompted by a small minority of UCP members who were unhappy with some recent judicial decisions.[iii] Not only did she not defend the decisions, or the independent judiciary, but she portrayed herself as a helpless pawn of the system, saying she “wished she could direct” the judges…[iv]
Nevertheless there is a good news side to this story. Despite the claims of the pro-separatist group that they are doing well with their signature drive, polls have consistently shown that support for separation is limited to between 25-28% of Albertans. Some pollsters believe it might actually be as low as 20%. Even more significant, these polls indicate that the so-called ‘separatist movement’ is actually badly split. An estimated 25% are only “conditional” supporters while another 15% admit they are only saying ‘yes’ to pollsters for symbolic reasons, to express their unhappiness with the province’s supposed maltreatment by Ottawa. Put another way, only 55% of the YES supporters could be considered hardcore separatists, or roughly 14% of Albertans at most. Meanwhile more than 70% of Albertans indicate they will definitely vote NO in any such referendum, and more than 60% say they would leave the province if it were actually to separate.[v]
With such a small minority approving the prospect of separation, many observers might conclude there is nothing to worry about and the issue can be safely ignored. This is not only wishful thinking of the worst kind, but positively dangerous. This leads us in turn to the bad news aspect of this story. And here, too, polls tell the tale. Fully 56% of Albertans are convinced that their province “is getting a raw deal being part of Canada”[vi], a number which far exceeds the next closest cohort, the 31% of Quebecers who share or somewhat share that sentiment about their own province.
Albertans may not want to separate, but they are labouring under a large number of misconceptions that make them very unhappy Canadians.[vii] This would be bad news at any time, but it is particularly serious at this crucial moment in the country’s history, given the unprecedented threats to the national economy and sovereignty that Canadian politicians at all levels are being forced to confront.
In one respect this degree of discontent is astonishing. Albertans benefit equally with their fellow Canadians from all of the many well-known national programs provided by Ottawa such as healthcare, welfare, old age security, childcare, the Canada child benefit and disability benefits. It is also surprising given that Albertans are living in the wealthiest province in Canada, with the highest after-tax income. Their province consistently ranks first in median household and family income, frequently surpassing Ontario and British Columbia by a significant margin. It has the highest proportion of people earning over $100,000 annually (15.15%) and the smallest proportion of low-income earners.[viii] In addition, and unlike every other province in Canada, Albertans pay no provincial sales tax, a choice their provincial government is free to make, but one that clearly limits its revenue and therefore its ability to provide those services and programs for which it is responsible.
But Albertans’ belief that their province is being treated unfairly by Ottawa should actually come as no surprise, since Smith and her predecessor, Jason Kenney, have spent more than a decade denouncing anything and everything the federal government has done or falsely claiming it has done, arguing that its actions are contrary to the best interests of the province and its residents. For the past three years this litany of alleged federal malfeasance has also been repeated ad nauseum by federal Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who constantly refers to Albertans’ “legitimate grievances.”
These alleged grievances are based on the wilful misrepresentation of federal actions, and the accusers know it. In reality their claims concerning their three major ‘issues’ — equalization, electoral seat distribution, and policies affecting the oil industry– are not only unfounded but deliberately misleading, designed to stir up further resentment of the federal government in order to further their own political ends.
Jason Kenney, for example, was a minister in Stephen Harper’s cabinet when the federal government last adjusted the equalization program. Yet after having returned to Alberta and become premier, he consistently argued those adjustments further disadvantage the province. This deception is compounded by Kenney’s failure to note that equalization is entirely paid for by the federal government. Alberta, like other provinces, does not contribute a cent. Instead, individual Canadians contribute to the equalization program through their income tax, and Albertans pay the same income tax rates as all other Canadians. Some Albertans pay more income tax than many of their fellow citizens elsewhere simply because they make more money than most other Canadians. (see above) Nor will Albertans save any money if the equalization program were to end tomorrow. Individual Albertans would still pay the same amount of income tax. Perhaps the most egregious part of this Conservative obsession with equalization is the fact that Alberta for much of Canadian history was a so-called “have not” province which benefited greatly from federal equalization payments, and it may one day be a “have not” province again. In addition the principle of equalization is embedded in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and only a constitutional amendment could change this, a difficult if not impossible proposition that no one is contemplating.
Then there is the oft-repeated claim that Albertans, and western Canadians generally, are under-represented in the seat distribution of the House of Commons. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the federal electoral system were to rigorously follow a “one person, one vote” formula, the west would have fewer seats than it does now and downtown Toronto would have more. Equally significant, western ridings would be geographically huge if this principle were strictly adhered to. As one wag once put it, “trees do not vote.” There are simply far more people in central Canada. After the latest redistribution, which saw Alberta gain three more seats in time for the 2025 election, the most under-represented province is Ontario.
As for the third alleged grievance, or what Ms Smith has referred to as “the federal government’s unhinged vendetta”[ix] against the oil and gas industry, it fell to former NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, during the 2025 federal election, to point out that it was Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who ponied up the money to build the Trans Mountain pipeline when the private sector pulled out. A year after the pipeline went into service in 2024, financial analysts estimate it has delivered some $12.6 billion in new revenue to the oil industry, as well as huge windfall taxation revenues to the provincial government, to say nothing of the thousands of new jobs created. [x]
More recently, the federal government under prime minister Mark Carney has signed an agreement with the province allowing for the possibility of another new pipeline under the federal Major Projects initiative,[xi] leaving Ms Smith free to assemble a provincial-private sector consortium proposal by July 1st. That there has been little or no mention of this option on her part in recent months is no doubt due to the fact that a flurry of private sector executives have demonstrated no interest in the project.[xii]
Meanwhile the federal government has also introduced a suite of measures to help the oil and gas industry as the inevitable global transition to net zero emissions continues. Ottawa has, for example, offered a 50-60% tax credit for carbon capture and storage projects, while the Alberta government has provided only a 12% tax credit incentive.
Simply put, Ms Smith’s anti-Ottawa rhetoric on this subject is not matched by any meaningful policy actions of her own. But, like her constant complaints about the other two alleged grievances, it has poisoned the well in terms of Albertans’ perception of the federal government’s treatment of their province. And this perceived federal disregard for their interests has had numerous political repercussions. As several political analysts have noted, by encouraging voters’ mistrust of Ottawa and positioning herself as the defender of provincial interests, Ms Smith has further deepened the political divisions in her province. Most recently these have been evident in her decisions to invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect various government measures that would otherwise have been found unconstitutional, in the growing number of campaigns by her opponents to use the recall provision against the premier and several cabinet ministers, and in the clear-cut divisions of voter support in both provincial and federal elections. [xiii]
Which brings us to the October referendum, and the existing nine questions that can only be described as a deliberate attempt to harden the political divide in the province, stirring up resentment of both the federal government and recent immigrants, while badly misleading voters on constitutional issues. Albertans have a right to know the facts long before they are asked to vote, but her questions, instead, are clearly designed to achieve a YES response in all cases, based on her unfounded allegations and allusions. And the fact that so many of the constitutional questions are completely meaningless non-starters, (“abolish the unelected Senate?”) is apparently neither here nor there for Smith.[xiv] In this climate of wilful deception, adding another question on separation hardly seems to be a stretch.
As for the referendum itself, Smith is selling a pig in a poke and here, too, she is only too well aware of this. It will have no legal or constitutional legitimacy whatsoever, but she knows full well that many voters will assume she will be obliged to act on the outcome. In the case of her immigration questions, she is obviously expecting a set of positive responses and in fact is planning to use them to justify the various measures she has proposed. But in the case of the constitutional issues and, now, most likely, the separation question, it is far from clear what the premier’s endgame might be. Nor is it clear that she will receive positive responses to all of the constitutional questions posed, and certainly not on the separation question, regardless of how low she tries to set the bar for approval. And this, of course, is another issue she has not addressed. Is a mere 50% plus 1 a sufficiently positive response, as some of the pro-separation petition organizers have suggested, despite the fact such measures normally require a far higher margin of support?
In addition, her certain failure to obtain cooperation from other premiers or Ottawa on any of the constitutional measures that might receive support will clearly be an additional source of grievance. Meanwhile, the whole referendum saga will deflect public attention from other, far more pressing issues for most of the year, another calculated distraction that will benefit Smith and her government as they attempt to deal with a massive deficit and numerous policy debacles in healthcare and education.
It is primarily up to the opposition parties, relevant interest groups and stakeholders in the province to address those problematic issues, as well as the issues raised by the premier’s questions on immigration. But the constitutional questions on the referendum ballot, as well as the potential question of separation, are issues that must be addressed by the federal government, and sooner rather than later, if there is to be any hope of an informed debate, and any chance of heading off the dashed expectations of many Albertans that will lead to further alienation and conflict between the province and the federal government. Yet the Carney government appears to be inexplicably missing in action.
This brings us to an important and highly relevant lesson in Canadian political history. Students of Canadian elections will no doubt recall Conservative leader Kim Campbell’s widely panned comment during the 1993 campaign that “an election is no time to discuss serious issues.” Many observers considered it to be a turning point in the federal election which led to the disastrous defeat of her party by the Chretien Liberals. While that may well have been the case, in retrospect her statement has come to be considered a reasonable comment on the growing superficiality of election campaigns and the need to allow sufficient time for informed debate on complex policy issues. Put another way, on important issues it is always necessary to provide ample information and supportive argumentation well in advance of a scheduled decision point, whether it be parliamentary debate or an election campaign.
Perhaps the most relevant demonstration of the value of Campbell’s point can be found in the Chretien government’s handling of the 1995 Quebec independence referendum campaign that followed so soon after her defeat at his hands. Bowing to the wishes of the Quebec provincial Liberals running the NO campaign that the federal government not intervene in any way, Chretien and his ministers stood on the sidelines and watched as events unfolded in that province, events that were increasingly putting the anticipated victory of the NO forces at serious risk. Not only did the provincial No team prove incapable of defending their position, but they allowed the YES side, led by Jacques Parizeau and then Lucien Bouchard, to utter innumerable incorrect or misleading statements without rebuttal. Only in the final days was there any federal presence at all, and that was organized by volunteers as a sort of love-in led by two non-Quebec cabinet ministers, Brian Tobin and Sheila Copps. Unfortunately this fact-free event was one that many analysts subsequently concluded had not helped the federalist cause, and In the end the vote was far closer than expected, or than it should have been.[xv]
Happily Chretien learned from this debacle. Now paying attention to those who had argued strenuously against the “wait and see” passivity of the referendum campaign, the members of this so-called ‘Plan B’ group were called into action. As part of Chretien’s famous “Ten Point Plan” to address the arguments of Quebec nationalists, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Stephane Dion, a well-known Quebec federalist, was sent into the fray to educate and inform Quebecers and, even more importantly, to rebut each and every incorrect or misleading statement made by Bouchard (now the premier) in real time. The result? In less than five years support for separation had fallen to levels last seen in the 1970’s, and Bouchard had resigned as premier admitting that there would not be “winning conditions” for another referendum in his time.
It is hardly surprising, then, that those two federalist warriors have returned to the charge on the Alberta separatist front. In a recent interview, Stephane Dion criticized Smith for failing to provide any specifics about the referendum bar, or her plans in the unlikely event of a YES vote, arguing she has a “duty” to provide such information to Albertans and all Canadians. He also noted that in any event she is heading down a “worrying” path by allowing a vote on separation. “It’s pretty odd to go through this process without even a majority of MLAs that are separatists.” Dion, who went on to table the federal Clarity Act in 1999 (which calls for a “clear majority” vote in order to begin negotiations with the federal government and other provinces), also noted that a Supreme Court ruling stated categorically that a province could not secede unilaterally.[xvi]
Former prime minister Jean Chretien was even more critical of Smith. In an interview for the CBC’s “The House” Chretien went out of his way to criticize Smith’s handling of the separation issue, accusing her of the kind of “double talk” she employs on other topics as well and stating that she and Alberta separatists “should read the Clarity Act.” After all, he noted, there is a very complicated process now, in which all parties and regions must be consulted in addition to the federal government. “It’s not just like posting a letter”.[xvii]
Another prominent voice opposing the whole separatist agenda is, predictably, that of Alberta First Nations. It will be recalled that in 1995 a major hurdle posed for Quebec separatists involved the potential for First Nations in that province to secede from it, declaring their land to be part of Canada. This unexpected dilemma was ironically reinforced by an academic paper written some time earlier by Professor Daniel Turp, a widely recognized constitutional and legal scholar at the Universite de Montreal who argued that such a separation was legally possible. An embarrassed Turp, who was a sitting Bloc Quebecois MP at the time of the referendum, maintained that he had changed his mind, but the arguments in his paper were supported by many other scholars at the time.
Hardly surprising, then, that a group of Alberta First Nations chiefs, councillors and elders attended a recent session of the Alberta legislature to make it clear that they opposed any attempt at separation by the Alberta government and insisted the separatist petition itself “tramples our treaty rights” and is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.[xviii]
What is surprising at this point is the complete absence of the federal government on this front. Clearly trade, tariffs, industrial and foreign policy are top priorities for the Carney Liberals, but there are several ministers who have little or no responsibility for those files and are logical spokespersons to articulate the federal position. First and foremost is the Minister of Justice, Sean Fraser, who has commented extensively on issues such as Smith’s lack of respect for an independent judiciary, but has been notably silent on the referendum and separation issue. In normal times the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would also be front and centre on this file, but this is unfortunately a role assigned to Dominic LeBlanc, someone with far too many roles as he is also Minister for Canada-US Trade and Internal Trade. There are, however, a number of parliamentary secretaries, legal/constitutional scholars and western MPs in the Liberal caucus who also could be called upon to closely follow the file, fact-checking statements by all of those involved a la Dion, and identifying potential areas where the federal government should intervene to set the record straight. In short, the federal government must act now, not next fall, to present Albertans with relevant facts and demonstrate the many benefits they receive as Canadians.
With apologies to Kim Campbell, a referendum campaign is no time to discuss complicated constitutional issues.
[i] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/results-petition-keep-alberta-in-canada-9.6956689
[ii] https://castlegarnews.com/2026/02/05/alberta-premier-danielle-smith-demands-carney-reform-judiciary-appointments/
[iii] https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/justice-minister-defends-judicial-appointment-process-after-alberta-funding-threat/
[iv] Op cit
[v] https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/support-independence-alberta-reaches-levels-similar-quebec
[vi] https://www.338canada.ca/p/canadian-pride-runs-high-even-as
[vii] https://www.338canada.ca/p/canadian-pride-runs-high-even-as
[viii] See for example The Alberta Worker
[ix] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qm0UOsa01pw
[x] https://financialpost.com/commodities/energy/oil-gas/trans-mountain-pipeline-revenue-oilpatch-windfall-governments
[xi] https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/backgrounders/2025/11/27/canada-alberta-memorandum-understanding
[xii] https://financialpost.com/news/no-guarantees-oil-industry-will-build-pipelines
[xiii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-bill-late-reading-9.7009893
[xiv] https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/increased-control-over-immigration-nine-questions-on-alberta-referendum-in-october/
[xv] For a detailed account of this series of events, see B. Jeffrey. Divided Loyalties: The Liberal Party of Canada 1984-2008. (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2010) pp 272-282.
[xvi] https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/albertas-smith-owes-answers-before-separation-vote-former-federal-minister-dion/
[xvii] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/danielle-smith-jean-chretien-separatism-pipeline-9.6962003
[xviii] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/alberta/article-first-nations-leaders-show-opposition-to-separatism-at-alberta/
