Front Burner - How should Canada handle Alberta separatism?

Episode Date: May 19, 2026

Alberta premier Danielle Smith is calling a court ruling “antidemocratic” after judge struck down the petition which hoped to trigger a separatist referendum this fall. The ruling came in part because it found that the province failed to consult with First Nations whose treaty rights would be affected by a vote to separate. Still, separatist groups and the province are appealing the decision and looking to forge ahead.But how does Alberta’s separatist movement stack up against other secessionist causes and how should Ottawa handle it? The Globe and Mail’s Andrew Coyne joins us.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Shopping for a car should be exciting, not exhausting. But sometimes it can feel like a maze. That's where Car Gurus comes in. They have advanced search tools, unbiased deal ratings, and price history. So you know a great deal when you see one. It's no wonder Car Gurus is the number one rated car shopping app in Canada on the Apple app and Google Play Store. Buy your next car today with Car Gurus at Cargooros.ca. Go to cargoos.ca.

Go to cargoos.ca to make sure your big deal is the best deal. That's C-A-R-G-U-R-U-S dot CA. Cargooros.ca. This is a CBC podcast. Hey everybody, I'm Jamie Poisson. Anti-democratic. That, in a word, is what Alberta Premier Daniel Smith thinks about the latest setback to the province's separatist ambitions,

which happened late last week when a judge struck down the petition, which hoped to trigger a separatist referendum this fall. The judge found that in part the province failed to consult with First Nations, about how leaving Canada would affect treaty rights. Smith believes the petition should be allowed to move forward to verification by elections Alberta. Now, if I had to describe what my guest today thinks of this whole separatist affair, I'd have to say illegitimate. The Globe of Mail's Andrew Coyne has watched the country go down this path before with Quebec. He's a loud supporter of a united Canada. So today we're going to have a chat about Alberta, separatist movements

more broadly and where this country's latest breakaway tussle could be headed. Andrew, thank you so much for coming under Frontburner. It's great to have you. My pleasure. So right off the bat, it feels like we should establish that you've spent much of your career, arguing for a form of Canadian nationalism that includes the whole country and doesn't have much time, frankly, for splinters and separatist movements. And just talk to me about why that is. Well, we've suffered, I think, for lack of a stronger sense of self in the past. I think it's part of the reason why we now are confronted with not one but two

possible secession referendums. It's why when Donald Trump says things like I'd like to annex Canadians Canada, Canadians know in their gut that they don't want to, but I think sometimes struggle to say why. We've relied too much on what I would call identity nationalism. I've written the idea that there's such a thing as a sort of a Canadian cultural archetype that's manifestly different from the American cultural archetype, and it gets us into all kinds of dead ends. It means worshiping difference for differences' sake. It oftentimes means exaggerating the differences between us

or eliding the differences within each country. And it's particularly problematic when you're dealing with separatist movements within the country who would be inclined as soon as you start pumping your chest about how different you are from Americans, we'll reply with some reason. well, wait a minute, we're different from you. So if you've invested too much in the idea that differentness is what makes nations, I think you run into some trouble.

So that's why I argue for a classic more sort of civic nationalism that's based not on differentness, but on what do we want to do together, what do we want to stand for, what's our purpose and mission as a nation, that gives the country kind of moral purpose and gives you a strong argument when people say, well, we'd like to break up and destroy this moral project you've been working on for several hundred years. I think it gives us a bit more backbone and a bit more ability to withstand those demands.

I'm pretty sure your answer to this is going to be no, but through the years with the ebbs and flows of the Quebec separatist movement, have you ever heard an argument for secession that's resonated with you? For secession, no. Clearly, there is a culture there, a history there, that is distinct in some ways from the rest of the country. shares a lot of similarities with the rest of the country at the same time. So there's nothing wrong with the idea of Quebec nationalism where people feeling like they're a nation within a nation, that's fine. Secession is a different kettle of fish. That involves laying claim to things that you're really not entitled to lay claim to, including the territory of Canada. I just want to dig into the practicalities of separating from Canada for a moment. No part of the country can actually unilaterally leave the country, right? Canada is, one of the few countries that does have guidelines for how a part of the nation can separate and become its own country, but it is an uphill battle, even after a referendum is done where the majority of people vote to leave. And can you just talk to me about that legal framework and how difficult it actually is to leave Canada? Well, we should say that Canada is one of the few countries that allows

for its breakup as well. So yes, we've had a, we had first of all the secession reference, the Supreme Court ruled on it, and then we had the Clarity Act which followed it, which was a piece of federal legislation. And what both of those attempted to do for the first time, this is 20 odd years ago, was put some legal boundaries around the process. Until then, it had been commonplace not just amongst the separatists, but even amongst the rest of Canada, that, oh, well, Quebec would hold a vote, and that would be it. They would just secede unilaterally, which is you step into a legal void when you do that, which is the point the Supreme Court made. You are stepping outside the rule of law, since nothing in the Constitution allows that, it would have all sorts of grave implications

for the rest of the country, for the rights of the other provinces. So since the Patriation, since the Scession Reference, since the Clarity Act, the rule has been, if you want to succeed, you have to do it by negotiating with the rest of Canada and achieving the necessary constitutional amendments. Now, that's a lot easier said than done itself. There is no duly constituted body, first of all, to represent rest of Canada, nor is there any way of duly constituting one. So that would be one of the many obstacles we'd have to figure out at the time was who would be the negotiating partner. There would be demands, I would guarantee you, in every part of the country for referendums before anybody negotiated. In other words, to set up the mandate to negotiate,

to set up the negotiating position that each party would take. So people would quite rightly say, well, Quebec had to have a referendum before it could enter these negotiations. We should have to do the same thing. Then you get into negotiations, however you would constitute those, they would be a series of basically zero-sum issues where one side could lose, the other side could gain. There's very hard to saw them off in the middle. Very difficult negotiations involving things like boundaries and involving things like separation of debts and assets. And my confident prediction is they would go nowhere. They would take drag on for years.

You might well get people changing, changes of government in the meantime, changes in negotiating position, changes of heart. Maybe Quebec has a look at it over all these times and decides they don't want to go through. with it, it leads to, I think, to a dead end, which is why the most determined advocate of people like Jacques Parrizo still wanted to do it unilaterally, even if it's illegal. They just wanted to do it in the space of a few days. He was finally elected Premier in 1994 and led the sovereignty movement to within two percentage points of attaining its goal in the heart-stopping 1995 referendum. The campaign lasted just 28 days. On October 30, 1995, more than 4.7 million Quebecers cast a ballot, a 94% turnout, the highest in Canadian history.

To do a kind of essentially a coup d'etat and hope that the rest of the country was so innervated and paralyzed by the process that they wouldn't be able to react. CBC Decision Desicions DEC calling for a no victory numerically tonight. It's going to be a squeaker, maybe as much as one percentage point separating the two sides by the end of the evening. I think he was foolish in that. I think he totally understood. underestimated how much chaos there would be within the province of Quebec over this, because you'd have large groups of the population saying, we don't want any part of this, we would like to stay part of Canada.

And I guarantee you, if that's the case in Quebec, which has a much longer history of this, there would be that times 10 in any attempt to pull Alberta out of the Federation. Just on Alberta, before they have even gotten to a vote, they've already hit this major roadblock, right? last week when a judge ruled that the provincial government's process for a referendum and the separatist use of it is unconstitutional because they didn't consult with First Nations and now the province itself is appealing in and Premier Daniel Smith called the ruling incorrect in law and anti-democratic and we will be appealing it as a result. I think one of the arguments

she's making is that the job to consult would be for the government to do after the vote. I just, what do you make of the Premier's response here and how she has been dealing? with this. Well, every time a court tells the government that it can't do whatever the hell it feels like doing, that knee-jerk response is, well, this is anti-democratic, which is a very curious idea of democracy. I would say that it is a single judge who's made a decision, and we have now 700,000 Albertans, whether they're on the remain side or the leave side, who've said that they want to have this public debate. So our citizen initiative petition was always meant to, be very permissive. And we kept on having to modify it to ensure that that permissive quality

was in there. We want to hear from Alberts. That's what we think democracy is. And we'll be meeting with our... First of all, democracy is pretty intimately connected to the rule of law. And it's connected in, in no other way, that those laws that require you, among other things, to consult with indigenous groups were passed by Democratic parliaments and Democratic provincial legislature. So it's a very selective interpretation of what Democratic means. clearly you've got people, at the very least, you've got people who have treaty rights that cannot simply be waived away. And the court's interpretation is that once you go down this route towards a secession referendum, at some point it becomes such a sort of runaway freight train that the right to consultation may become meaningless if you go too far down the route.

So the argument of the court wasn't, I'm not saying that, you know, I think legal scholars can argue, which is exactly the right interpretation. But the argument of the court was, you need to have the consultation before you've actually held the vote rather than afterwards. And whether you like or not, that's the learned judge's interpretation of it.

They can appeal it. That's fine. But ultimately, we're bound by the rule of law in this country, and you cannot simply waive away things like the obligation to consult. And, of course, if people have treaty rights that need to be consulted, then you might say so do the people of Canada, whose country would be essentially broken up and destroyed, ultimately, if we were to go down this route. People need to understand that secession isn't just some, you know, neat little operation where you excise a troublesome appendage. It's you're breaking up the country.

And the parts that remained, it would be very, very difficult to continue. I know there's pressure for her to now simply call a referendum straight out. You know, you know, pressure from her own party and put the question on the ballot this fall. I imagine that it would still face the same challenges around duty to consult, et cetera. But, I mean, what do you think the most likely result is here? It's hard to know. Ms. Smith is playing a very deep game here. It's hard to know exactly what her game plan is, what her desired result is.

She certainly is not, she certainly has been going out of her way to make life easier for, the secessionist in this. Whether she is one herself is open to question. Although our government does support Alberta remaining in Canada, we think that today's decision by the court will deny opportunity to well over 300,000 Albertans to have their petition verified by elections Alberta. We think that this decision is... But she keeps making these decisions where they run into roadblocks to make it easier for them to hold their referendum. And it may well be that at the end of the day, that if they can't hold a citizen's initiative lawfully, that she'll step in and hold the referendum. But she certainly doesn't have to. She was very open to her to say, look, they haven't

followed the rules on the consultation. They didn't follow the rules to cite another controversy on the gathering of the petition signatures. The use of the voters list was highly improper and may well have compromised the signature gathering process. It would be very open to say, look, you know, let's call this off. This is not being done according to kosher rules, and we need to rethink this. She could also say there was a petition,

another petition that had over 400,000 signatures calling for a referendum to say Alberta would like to stay in Canada forever. So she has options. She's not required to hold this referendum. She does so. It's a choice. Shopping for a car should be exciting, not exhausting. But sometimes it can feel like a maze.

That's where Car Gurus comes in. They have advanced search tools, unbiased deal ratings, and price history. So you know a great deal when you see one. It's no wonder Car Gurus is the number one rated car shopping app in Canada on the Apple app and Google Play Store. Buy your next car today with Car Gurus at Cargooros.ca. Go to cargoos.ca. Go to cargoos.ca to make sure your big deal is the best deal. That's C-A-R-G-U-R-U-S dot CA.

Cargooros.ca. At this point, you're not really interested in starting from scratch because you've built something. A career, a reputation, a life that's already in motion. But maybe staying right where you are isn't feeling right anymore. At the University of Alberta, our flexible online graduate programs are built for working professionals so you can step up without stepping away

from your work, your income, from everything you've built. explore online graduate programs at UAB.ca slash step up. You mentioned before the people of Quebec and Alberta are not these deeply kind of oppressed populations, but I want to ask you about some other examples from around the world. There's the Catalan independence movement in Spain, the history of the troubles with the Northern Irish, the Khalistan movement in India. And in your opinion, are there legitimate separatist causes? And then how would Alberta and even Quebec stack up with these examples?

Yeah. Well, without getting into the specifics of any one of those cases, the international law does recognize a right to secede and indeed a right to succeed unilaterally in extraordinary cases, in cases of colonial oppression. So my reference to that earlier isn't just that you need that as a practical matter that people aren't going to be motivated to step outside the rule of law unless they're in that situation. But also lawfulness requires that you be in that situation in terms of international recognition, international law. Well, that doesn't, of course, begin to describe Quebec or Alberta. They are not impoverished or downtrodden or lacking in the rights, political rights and liberties, et cetera. But what's interesting is even in cases where international law might sanction a secessionist movement, international practice is much more reluctant. Countries do not line up to recognize breakaway states, even where they meet the test of international law.

And the reason is very simple is most of these countries have not. all of them have secessionist movements within them themselves. And they're not eager to set the precedent of quick recognition or making it easy for states to break away because they'd be facing that problem themselves. Even France, when asked about would they recognize a seceding Quebec, the basic law has been, well, we would be the first to recognize it as soon after Canada does. As soon as Canada does, then we would. separatism aside I just want to ask you about the grievances here

so she's given lots of interviews but while on global news this week Danielle Smith said that the grievances separatists have are legitimate the frustration is Ottawa and and if we can solve that Ottawa problem for us maybe maybe other provinces will be able to solve their Ottawa problem too but we can get back to a more balanced federation we have one of the most

decentralized federations in the entire world and I don't think it's been operating the way was envisioned by the signers of our Constitution. We're just trying to get it back to that. We think it'll be good for us. What would you say to that? Well, there's clearly, I wouldn't be the, I would not dispute at all. There's been policies that the federal government has brought in over the years or over the

decades that in some cases were inimical to Alberta's interests and not with any compensating national interest. The mere fact that the policy costs one part of the country or another isn't enough to discredit it. But if it's just bad policy, and I would certainly argue the National Energy Program, for It was bad, this is back, going back to the 80s, was bad policy for Canada, let alone for Alberta. And there's other policies which you can take or leave. You can debate the merits of them, but clearly a lot of people in Alberta aren't particularly pleased with. I didn't think all of the policies on climate change were well considered, the emissions cap, for instance.

But all of that to one side, even if you accepted that all of these were, quote-unquote, legitimate grievances, what cannot be allowed to take hold is the idea that if you've got a beef with the federal government, or a beef with the rest of Canada, that the way you pursue your grievance is to either secede or attempt to or threaten to as a means of blackmailing your fellow Canadians. And we've been far too tolerant of this idea that we should pay ransom to people who threaten the country as a means of mollifying them, because it doesn't, of course.

It simply sets up the baseline for further demands. And if people think they're going to solve the problem in Alberta, by just giving a bunch of stuff to the separatists or to the government of Alberta, I think they're cool for kidding themselves. That will simply be a moment for them to point in triumph and say, see, look what we managed to get when just pusherfitting around and talking like provinces normally do, didn't get these things. We only got them because we put the knife at the throat.

Well, just on that point, you know, Smith has said that she thinks a big step to calling the desire for separation would be a punishment. pipeline. And on Friday, the proposed West Coast oil pipeline would transport more than one million barrels of oil per day. Our Prime Minister, Mark Carney and Danielle Smith, signed an energy agreement that laid the groundwork for a new pipeline and pushed back the province's deadline to reach an effective carbon price for another decade. The agreement puts forward these dates. July 1st, a pipeline application gets submitted. October 1st, it's eligible to be fast-tracked under law. And September 1st, 27,

shovels go into the ground. Canada and Alberta have agreed to create markets that deliver an effective carbon price. Alberta agreed to raise the actual carbon price big polluters pay. Now it's roughly $40 per ton in Alberta. By 2040, it'll rise to $130. Do you see this as the federal government capitulating to these threats? I don't. I don't. Some might. Premier David E.B. sent a statement, and I want to show you what it says in In part, as a country, it's time to stop rewarding bad behavior. It cannot be the case that the projects that get prioritized in Canada are those where a premier threatens to leave the country.

I think the test we should ask in each of these situations and reasonable people will differ about them. But the question we should ask is, would we be doing this policy even if there weren't talk of secession in the wind? Now, I happen to think, and again, others can differ, but I happen to think the memorandum of understanding the agreement that they've struck is a good one. I think it's good for Alberta. I think it's good for the country. I think it achieves a good tradeoff of trying to meet our emissions reductions targets, trying also to get our resources to market, very pressing concerns

right now in terms of the economy, in terms of the geopolitical situation that have changed the calculus perhaps, changed how we might assess those tradeoffs. So I'm a supporter of that agreement, but I don't think it should be tied to trying to mollify secessionists in Alberta. In other words, if it happens to have that beneficial side effect of tamping down some of the tempers and some of the arguments in Alberta, fine, but do not attach it certainly publicly as we're doing this to try to allay these concerns because you'll just be asking for more. Do you think it's possible, though, that they're getting more out of the federal government than they would have otherwise, like this carbon pricing deal that they just got? Certainly possible. I think that should be a real concern if we're once again going down that road, even if it's just the perception. And of course, a lot of what drives the Alberta separatist agenda or the Alberta blackmailers

agenda and the blackmailers and the separatists as in Quebec are not necessarily the same people is that they've looked at Quebec and they think, oh, Quebec's gotten such a great deal because of this. Now, if you actually look at the record in Quebec, it's been a disaster. You know, 50, 60 years of the national question is it's called hanging over everything in Quebec, has hurt its economy, has hurt its progress. as a society, has distracted people from dealing with the real concerns that affect people in Quebec as they do in any society, because they're always debating about this existential question of should we break away from Canada or not. And a lot of the tools and the institutions

that Albertans now desire, for example, having their own pension plan, I think anybody who looks at the actual record of the Quebec pension plan should be very concerned. That's not a great track record. Frankly, the track rate of the can of pension plan hasn't been great either, but that's another story. But just because Quebec got something doesn't necessarily mean that that's advisable policy for Alberta. But I think what's happened is it's become for some people almost a matter of respect. And I've come to believe that the desire for respect is one of the most important motive forces in human history. That if people feel like Quebec's getting a special deal, we're being looked down upon, we're being discriminated against, we're not being treated fairly.

People anywhere, if that's what gets into their heads, they can sometimes tie themselves to really irrational position. I just want to put to you one argument that someone might make in support of sending this to a referendum in Alberta. The recent Legerable found 23% of respondents in the province being interested in separation, while 64% would rather stay in the country. And just would a referendum give this a release in a way? Like an opportunity to see this through to its natural outcome, especially given how unpopular it is anyways

and just maybe put some of this to rest, to bed. Well, I would say to federalists who might think that way, be careful what you wish for. You just never know once you go down this road, what can happen. Again, when matters of respect and dignity are involved, incidents can happen that can inflame people that you never would have predicted. I mean, people with long memories were remembered in the run up to the 95 referendum in Quebec, the quote-unquote Brockville incident where some protesters stomped on a Quebec flag. And it inflamed, understandably, opinion in Quebec over this. And I don't know what the equivalent would be in an Alberta process, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

that that can happen. And Jason Kenney has made this point, even if the referendum fails, but they get a substantial portion, you know, 30, 40 percent, then you've set up something fairly permanent. That doesn't just go away because you've had this kind of institutional setting where people have made this declaration. And at that point, you've got something that you have to contend with for a long time to come. So, yeah, if they held the referendum and separatism failed miserably, maybe that would be helpful. I would say at the same time, it's validating an idea that I just find illegitimate in principle.

And this gets right down to the bedrock, which is, I don't believe that people have a right to vote to help themselves to the territory of Canada. You have a right to vote on things that you have jurisdiction over. But the territory of Canada belongs to all of Canada. It doesn't belong to the people who happen to be walking about on it. I want to come back to the role of the federal government and the current Prime Minister, Mark Carney. I view that very much the best place for Alberta is in Canada and certainly a Canada that works, which is what we're pursuing.

And I think the evidence, well, others will judge, but we're making that progress on behalf of Albertans, by making Alberta stronger and making all of Canada strong. As you've pointed out, these secessionist movements are happening at a time when we are facing unprecedented threats south of the border by Trump. And then also reports of meetings between Alberta's 10 separatists and the U.S. State Department and disinformation groups have warned that some of the pro-separters content that they've seen online show signs of links to Russia.

How do you think Ottawa and the prime minister should be reinforcing Canadian unity as at this time, even with those who might want to leave. And first of all, I think that point is really worth emphasizing. This is not just some innocent desire of purely Canadians who would like to break away from the country. This is something that is being aided and abetted by what has to be called at this point in history a hostile foreign power. The United States under Donald Trump is not our friend for the duration, at least, of his time in office.

And so that puts rather a different color on it. When secessionists are meeting in private, clandestinely with officials from the Trump administration. Alberta Prosperity Project Legal Counsel, Jeffrey Rath, has said, Well, the group has met with U.S. officials. He says no agreements have been made. Rath has pushed back against the idea the meeting was to seek money from the U.S.

We're talking to them about our aspirations, and we have our goals and objectives. So, you know, we're not upon. And we're actually more like a, you know, a rook or a queen on a chessboard moving forward in the direction that we want to move freely on the board. When officials from the Trump administration are publicly and privately offering support for the idea of secession. One senior officials says, Albertans are, quote, very independent people and that the U.S. is a natural partner for the province. Alberta is a wealth of natural resources, but they won't let him build a pipeline to the Pacific. I think we should let them come down into the U.S.

Rumors that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not. And this isn't just a matter of to break away or to stay part of Canada. This is should we be aiding and abetting the designs of a hostile form power to divide and destroy the country? I don't think it's any less stark than that. So I think that point bears emphasis. I think the, so I think the government of Canada in dealing with this, they're unlikely to go exactly down the route I've been suggesting in this talk, but I should certainly say that they should be able to say there's a lot of questions surrounding this process. There's a lot of questions surrounding the foreign interference that we're already seeing and likely to see in spades if we get into a referendum debate. There's a lot of questions around the gathering of the petitions, et cetera. And they should be prepared to say, you know, until and unless these questions have been resolved, we're going to have our doubts about the legitimacy of this process.

Andrew, that feels like a good place for us. And thank you so much for this. This is great. Very good. My pleasure. All right. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Puezzo, and thanks so much for listening.

Talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC podcasts, go to cBC.ca slash podcasts.