OP-ED: Alberta separation: An existential threat to Canada

It’s high time for a national referendum on whether Alberta should honour its status as a federal territory.

Every day, the outcry among pundits, legal scholars, economists, and political scientists grows louder: Alberta separation poses an existential threat to Canada.

An existential threat is one that jeopardizes the very survival of a nation as it currently exists. To be sure, existential threats can come in many guises, but the most notable and critical are economic, geographical, constitutional, and, of course, military.

Faced with the prospect of Alberta’s separation from Canada, it’s distressing how many Canadians, including those in the federal government, have taken a complacent stance. Sure, some alarmed observers have gone so far as to call the action “treasonous,” and yet they propose no concrete government action. Instead, they cross their arms and wait to see how the Oct. 19 referendum will play out.

The referendum is the brainchild of Premier Danielle Smith and her administration in an attempt to appease the more extreme wing of her United Conservative Party and, ultimately, prevent its potential demise. It’s backed by powerful vested interests in the U.S.

According to the Alberta’s Citizen Initiative Act, passed in 2021, Albertans can petition the government to hold a referendum on a given topic if, in a 90-day period, they can gather the signatures of 20 per cent of the electorate from the previous election.

In this case, however, hoping to appease the extreme wing of her party, Smith lowered the threshold from 20 per cent to 10 per cent of votes cast and increased the signature-gathering period from 90 to 120 days.

Under intense legal and political pressure, Smith agreed to first hold a “referendum on a referendum” on Oct. 19, 2026, when Alberta voters will be asked: “Do you agree that the province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?” If the separatists (Stay Free Alberta) garner over 50 per cent of the vote, a formal date will then be set for a binding provincial referendum on Alberta’s separation.

There is nothing in the Canadian Constitution that allows a province to separate, but some claim that, while the Fathers of Confederation did not include a formal separation provision, they didn’t specifically rule it out either.

There is, in fact, a stronger constitutional argument here than the claim that the Constitution does not rule out a province separating. Unlike the founding provinces (those present at Confederation), Alberta and the other Prairie provinces were a creation of the federal government.

Turning the tables, then, one may argue that there is nothing in the Constitution preventing the Government of Canada from holding a national referendum to revoke Alberta’s status as a province.

Some will point to past referendums in Quebec as precedents and, most notably, the referendum of 1995. But Quebec is a far more complex case. It is a founding province whose people have a distinct history, language, and culture.

It is nonetheless my fervent belief that Quebec’s needs can and will be met within the context of Canadian sovereignty, which will ultimately grant the province more control over areas such as immigration, language, and culture. Most recently, Trump’s efforts to crush Canada with heavy tariffs has shown Quebec that it is stronger when standing solidly with Canada as one country. Indeed, the appetite for separation has plummeted to the point that it now stands at under 30 per cent.

A little-known fact, however, is that the 1995 Quebec referendum was illegal. The federal government was under no obligation to negotiate with the province even if the 50 per cent-plus-one threshold was achieved. As a consequence, it passed the Clarity Act (a must-read) in June 2000, and that legislation is now part of the Constitution.

The Act dictates strict criteria that must be followed in the event of a referendum and to manage its aftermath. The criteria are so strict, in fact, that the separation of a province, without guaranteed geographical boundaries, remains virtually impossible.

It must be said that Quebec contests the validity of the Clarity Act (indeed, it still has not signed the legislation). But Quebec is a province, and international law (to which it often appeals) does not grant component parts of a sovereign state — provinces, in Canada’s case — a legal right to secede on their own. Moreover, the oft-evoked right to self-determination needs to meet certain conditions, none of which apply in the case of Quebec (e.g., being denied meaningful access to government and human rights). I note this while being a champion of Quebec.

In the 1860s, several prominent American politicians advocated for the annexation of British North America. The threats were a significant catalyst behind Confederation in 1867, the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad (CPR) from 1881 to 1885, and the purchase of Rupert’s Land from the Hudson’s Bay Company (1870) — the last two especially precursors to the establishment of the three Prairie provinces. British Columbia joined Canada in 1871 with the guarantee that a transcontinental railway would be built within 10 years.

The land that today comprises Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba was purchased by the Dominion of Canada in 1870 from the Hudson’s Bay Company. Until then it was known as Rupert’s Land (1670–1870) and after the purchase it became the Canadian North-West Territories. Alberta was established as the eighth province in 1905, but it took a number of steps to get there.

The first step was for the Canadian government to sign treaties with the Indigenous nations. The intent (often broken!) was to secure consent for immigrant settlement and for the development of natural resources. The result was the Dominion Lands Act of 1872 (others followed), which created free and fertile homesteads of 160 acres from land that was previously inhabited by native peoples.

To guarantee the settlers’ safety, the government established the famous North-West Mounted Police in 1873. One of its most iconic early figures was Col. James MacLeod, who was raised in Cape Breton. He established Fort MacLeod in 1874 and chose the site and name for the City of Calgary in 1876.

Until the CPR’s arrival in Calgary in 1883, the city’s population was a mere 300, and Edmonton’s was about the same. In fact, the entire provisional district of what is now Alberta had a non-Indigenous population of under 2,000 — mostly Métis.

Even with the arrival of the CPR and the promise of free farmland, Alberta’s population still did not take off. When Calgary was incorporated as a city in 1894, its population was only 3,900, and Edmonton’s was around 1,000. Indeed, the entire population of what is now Alberta was estimated to be under 35,000 (the prior census of 1891 counted 25,277).

Who were the very first pioneers and homesteaders? Some (circa 1,200) were native-born Americans according to the 1891 census. There were also some 1,700 European-born citizens, almost entirely from Great Britain. The rest were from Eastern Canada, including 1,941 native-born Ontarians and 396 native-born Nova Scotians (1,027 in the 1901 census).

The Americans declared their western frontier officially closed in 1890. The big shift for Canada’s Prairies started in 1896 when Clifford Sifton, a Liberal politician, became Minister of the Interior under Wilfrid Laurier. Thereafter, immigrants were directed to the Canadian Prairies — The Last Best West. The campaign was a resounding success, bringing over a million settlers to the Prairies by 1911.

Alberta became a province in 1905 with the Alberta Act — its total population was by then around 185,000 — but it wasn’t until 1930 that it was given official control over its natural resources with the Alberta Natural Resources Act. In this way, Alberta (Saskatchewan, too) was placed in a position of equality with the other provinces. The federal government maintained control over immigration and settlement, arguing that these were, after all, federal lands.

The big turning point in Alberta’s economic shift to an oil economy began in 1947 when Imperial Oil struck black gold at Leduc near Edmonton. But the truly extraordinary shift in wealth generation came with the 1970s oil boom combined with provincial royalty reforms under Premier Peter Lougheed. This was the period when Nova Scotians began yet another massive migration to Alberta. But even then, it was only in 2003, with oil and gas fetching record prices, that Alberta’s per capita GDP pulled ahead of the other provinces.

Natural resources now account for around 30 per cent of Alberta’s direct annual economic output — and some 90 per cent of this resource wealth is driven by oil and gas extraction tied to the oil sands.

On a national scale, Alberta, which accounts for 12 per cent of the Canadian population, produces roughly 38 per cent of Canada’s economic value generated from natural resources — or around 15 per cent of Canada’s total GDP. This is not because Albertans work harder than other Canadians. It is due to the nature of the province’s energy wealth.

Since the U.S. is the destination for over 90 per cent of Alberta’s oil and gas, it has become the dominant force behind the province’s energy sector and thus its primary source of income. This, of course, has been used to explain Premier Smith’s seemingly unbreakable support of the U.S., even under President Trump and his existential threats to Canada.

Recently, there has even been revelations that Alberta separatists have been in talks with Washington in which they have gone so far as to suggest swapping oil and water for U.S. support — as if these resources were theirs to bargain with.

This begs the question: If the federal government had a crystal ball, would it have passed the Alberta Natural Resources Act and/or the Alberta Act it they knew that the province would eventually hold a referendum on becoming an independent country?

Our history — including our proud military history — and continued strength as a unified, democratic nation respected around the world fuels my passion and that of many Canadians to protect our sovereignty.

If disruptive separatists, aided and abetted by MAGA’s aim to make Canada the 51st state, claim that Alberta can legally pursue this existential threat to Canada, then the federal government should exercise rightful control by holding a national referendum aimed at revoking Alberta’s provincial status. Moreover, there are several precedents for national referendums in Canada.

To be clear, none of this is meant to imply that Alberta has no legitimate grievances. It is merely to say that separation is not the answer, and it is high time for the federal government to take meaningful action to avert this looming threat. There’s only one group more dangerous to Canada than the separatists: the group that stands by and does nothing.

Gerard Naddaf is emeritus professor of philosophy, York University, Toronto. Formally from North Sydney, he now divides his time between Halifax and Cape Breton.