The Decibel - A reality check on Alberta separatism

Episode Date: May 26, 2026

Political tensions are rising in Alberta. Last week, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced the province will hold a referendum on whether to hold a subsequent referendum on secession from Canada. Division and debate has been stirred up between federalists and separatists. And those who want to leave argue that Alberta will be better off, more economically successful and have full control over its natural resources.  The Globe’s editorial board did a reality check on some of the arguments for separatism. Oliver Moore, a member of The Globe’s editorial board, is on the show to talk about why separatists want to leave Canada and to help us sift through the legal myths and realities around Alberta separatism. Questions? Comments? Ideas? Email us at [e-mail] Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The conversation around separatism in Alberta has hit a tense moment. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced last week that the province will hold a referendum on whether to hold a referendum on secession from Canada. That's confusing, I know, and we're going to talk about that in a minute. But the idea of it alone has enraged people on both sides of this debate, the federalists who want to remain part of Canada, and the separatists who want to see Alberta become its own nation. Today, we're going to talk about why separatists want to leave Canada and the arguments they're making in favor of leaving.

The Globe's editorial board recently did a reality check on some of these arguments. Oliver Moore is part of the editorial board, and he joins us today to talk through the myths around Alberta separating from Canada. I'm Cheryl Sutherland, and this is the decibel from the Globe and Mail. Oliver, thanks much for being here. It's a pleasure. So there's lots of news out of Alberta when it comes. comes to separatism as of late. Can you catch us up on where we're at, especially when it comes to this referendum on a referendum? What is that? It's been a bit of a tumultuous month, the Alberta

separation file. Premier Daniel Smith, she says she's not a separatist. She says a lot she's not a separatist. She wants a sovereign Alberta within a unified Canada, or United Canada. But her party skews separatist, and she has made it easier to hold a referendum on the issue. So earlier this month, a separatist group submitted what they said was about 300,000 signatures on a petition, which should trigger a referendum if those signatures are verified. However, about a week later, a judge threw it out and said they could not verify it. Elections Alberta could not verify the signatures, in part because of a failure to consult indigenous people on how this would affect their treaty rights. The government said it would appeal. And then Daniel Smith came in with her own question.

And I'm going to read the question because it's quite a question. Yeah, okay. Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada. As you say, it's a question, it's very wordy. It's a question, should we have a vote to hold a vote? Our colleague, the columnist, Shannon Proudfoot, memorably called it a demonic mulean turduckin of a referendum question. I mean, it's a tricky one because this is a question that interestingly polls higher than just straight up, should Alberta leave, not leave, which legally now they can't ask is that ruling.

You know, we've seen polls regularly in the last few months showing that support for separatism in Alberta is kind of in the mid to high 20s. There's a bigger group of people who say they might vote yes to send a message, but actual separatists probably in the mid to high 20s. And Angus Reid poll came out this week showing that the question Premier Smith announced would garner actually 36% support. Oh, that's really interesting. But 61% are still opposed.

Half the respondents say the question confusing. And 56% say that Premier Smith has been handling the issue poorly. But the key question, the point in all these polls is that support for separatism is way higher in the United Conservative Party, Premier Smith's party, than is in the general population. So she has to deal with the fact that her supporters want this referendum and want separation more than the average Albertan does. You mentioned this judge's ruling in Alberta around indigenous consultation. So how does this referendum on a referendum question get around that ruling?

Well, it's a bit unclear. I'm certainly not a legal expert. But what I've read on this is that the original referendum notion was ran afoul of treaty rights because it would set in motion a process without first consulting with the indigenous people. In theory, I think, the argument at least on this one is that by saying should we have a question, you have not yet set in motion that process. Then you could do the consultation. So I guess the courts will determine whether that is a valid workaround.

But I think that's the logic. Okay, that makes sense to me. Okay. Okay. So now the editorial board wanted to look at some of the things that are brought up by those that are pushing for secession. Why did the board want to look into that? I mean, I'd take a very quick step back because I think a lot of people don't fully understand what editorial board is and maybe even some listeners don't understand. An editorial board is made up of journalists. We have a number of them. We have voices from across the country. It's an opinion piece, but it's not my opinion. It's not the opinion of my colleague on the board. It's the newspaper's opinion. So the Globe and Mail is saying, this is our position on major issue of the day. And I think over the last number of months, as this issue has grown in sort of prominence, you know, everyone, including the board, here's these arguments from separatists on why it's a good idea for Alberta to form its own country. And some of the arguments, I think, are uncontroversial and other ones raise eyebrows.

And some of the ones I think that on the board we are noticing, we're really raising eyebrows and needed a closer look. because if there's the chance of this country breaking up, it should break up for reasons that are rooted in fact and reality, perhaps, rather than rooted in theory and myth. Okay. First, let's talk about the idea of holding a referendum at all. So there are some who say Alberta should have a referendum to put the issue to rest, that even if a majority of people don't want to separate, the referendum should still be held so the government can move on, let's say. What's your concern with that? You could ask David Cameron, what do he thinks about that? Brexit. Listeners may remember David Cameron.

He's the former prime minister of the United Kingdom. And he called for a referendum on leaving the European Union in the hopes of putting the issue to bed. Of course, that did not happen. A small majority voted to leave. I think it's fair to say a certain amount of political chaos ensued. And four or five prime ministers later, UK is out of the European Union. And there's a real buyer's regret. There's a lot of people in the UK now who think it was the wrong call.

So I guess you would say that regardless of what you said on this issue, saying let's hold a referendum to make it go away has a certain level of risk. Absolutely. We know from Brexit that there is definitely risk there when you call a referendum. Anything can happen. Anything can happen. And there's also a level of risk in just having this conversation, having this referendum, leading towards it. I mean, this is not something the board has reported out. But Heather Thompson, a vice president at the Ebinton Chamber of Commerce, said in January that, and I quote, investments have not

gone forward because of this potential separatist talk. Investors want to see stability. And that's a fairly uncontroversial take that, you know, if you're an investor, if you're a potential immigrant, stability is important. So even talking about separatism, it's very hard to quantify the effect, but even talking about separatism has an impact. Something the editorial board wrote about was this idea that some are in favor of separating to send a message to Ottawa. Can you talk about that a little bit? I mean, it's an interesting point. I mean, it does get us back a little bit to the David Cameron Brexit thing of a strategic vote is difficult because every individual person says,

I'm going to use my vote to send a message. I'm going to use my vote to say, I want to stay in Canada, or I want to leave Canada. But you don't know how the vote's going to tally until it's over. So you don't know if your vote to send a message is actually, in this sort of a theoretical concept, but there could be literally a vote that is the I'm going to send a message vote. That's the one that tips it over whatever the line is. Again, there's risk there. There's risk. Okay. Let's get into this hypothetical situation that Alberta does decide that is going to separate. So here's our situation here. Referendum comes out in favor of Alberta separating. What happens next? Well, if you think back to the mid-90s when Quebec had its second

referendum, very close. And after that, the federal government referred three questions about the legality of secession to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court ruling and the Clarity Act that flowed from that lay out the terms for how a part of the country can leave. And it's worth noting that that's quite rare. Most countries do not allow secession. In fact, it's illegal, you know, Leaders of Catalonia will tell you that leading a secessionist party can be sort of actually personally and politically dangerous. Catalonia, Spain, just to say. Yes. In Canada, it is legally allowed.

But there's a process. The House of Commons has to determine that the question was clear and there has to be a clear majority. What is a clear majority is not specified in the legislation? So you have to be a clear question and a clear majority, the latter of which is left open. And if that is deemed to have happened, then a constitutional amendment would be the next step. It starts a process that quickly could become very complicated because if you think you're a civics class, the basic formula for amending the Constitution is it has to be passed by the legislatures of at least seven provinces that constitute at least 50% of the population. So the provinces will have a say in this? The province will have a say. And I think they will undoubtedly be at the table or indirectly at the table because if you want the legislature of pick a province, Manitoba, say, to pass it, on some level you have to take account of what Manitoba thinks about these issues or maybe other issues will come on to.

the table. Maybe it's, hey, we're doing the Constitution thing. Let's talk about X, Y, and Z. But even setting aside all the other provinces and what they might want to talk about, some major issues that would almost certainly be on the table in a secessionist constitutional amendment would be, you know, how do you divvy up the national debt, how do you divvy up assets, how do you sort out the boundaries of the new state that might come into being? How do you deal with things like national parks or the Trans-Canada Highway? There's an awful lot of things that could be on the table for discussion. And interestingly, the Clarity Act does not say that this any kind of resolution has to happen. Simply that it would be, you know, the way to do it is there would be

a constitutional amendment, which would be talked about. And so if the talks don't go anywhere, it's about unclear then what happens. I mean, do talks just continue? They can, we'll hope eventually we'll get somewhere. Does the province remain? Because, I mean, status quo would prevail in that case and hope they can get a better terms from the rest of the country. Or do they do the kind of Hail Mary of a unilateral declaration of independence, the U.D. which is basically saying we are separate, we're saying we're separate, and then you hope other countries recognize you. Because after a nation, it's, I wouldn't say it's a fictional thing, but nations exist only because other nations recognize them.

Yeah, let's linger on this idea of a UDI, a unilateral declaration of independence. Where have we seen this before? Because this is something that does happen. It does happen. We actually seen it tons of times. If you start looking, there's a lot of them. Many of them are not successful, so that's why we don't remember them. They're only in the history books. But it does happen in sort of in recent memory. I mean, Kosovo split from Serbia. A lot of countries, about half the UN, I think most of the EU, the whole G7, so of course, including Canada, recognize Kosovo.

Serbia does not recognize Kosovo. I mean, they're not at war anymore, but there's just kind of this extended limbo, basically. I go back a little farther, 1991 Somaliland split from Somalia and was recognized by nobody for decades. And then earlier this year, Israel recognized them. And I think they're the only country to have done so. Go back even farther than that, you got Rhodesia in 1965, tried to split off from the British Empire, and Britain didn't recognize it.

And no country recognized the UDI in Rhodesia. I mean, the most famous example, of course, is United States and Britain. I suppose that's true, yes. Going way back. Going way back. But a lot of, a huge amount of it would depend on who recognizes. And, you know, if a couple of major countries, influential countries would recognize in independent state, that could start up kind of.

a cascade. But there's all kinds of countries that don't want to do that. We talked about Catalonia earlier. Spain's not almost certainly not going to recognize a secession as part of another province when it's facing its own secession movement. Turkey with the Kurdish movement. There's a bunch of countries that wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. And there's others that might do for political or diplomatic reasons. And some would rush in. But it's a move that is uncertain at best. We'll be right back. Let's talk about borders. Because in this hypothetical scenario where Alberta does separate, the way we see Alberta on a map, it might not be what it would be as an independent country, right? Can you explain why that is? Yeah, I mean, you know,

if you think of when Quebec had its referenda, there was a political entity known as Quebec before the existence of Canada. It didn't have the current boundaries that Quebec, the province, has now, but it existed as a thing. Alberta did not exist as a political entity before it joined Canada. And in fact, the land that is now most of Alberta is part of the province because of treaties that were signed in the 19th century, before Alberta existed, between indigenous people and the British crown. Treaties six, seven, and eight cover most of the province. And indigenous people will tell you, and they've been going to court over this issue, that these are nation-to-nation agreements between them and the crown, that these agreements, these treaties don't simply disappear if a majority of Albertans vote to leave. So there's that issue of how those treaty rights can be respected and acknowledged and what that would do to the shape of the country. So that's one.

There's the federal lands. Banff, Jasper. There's a lot of land in that province that is actually national land. So are there land swaps or do they remain federal? Who knows? Or I mean, it could be like a map where it's like there's federal land. There's like the map is kind of encircling the federal land. It might be a really weird map.

It might be a very strange map. You know, you've got the Transcanter Highway. Does it remain sort of the way Panama Canal used to be sort of the high. highway and land on either side of it would remain federal or does it become part of Alberta? I mean, who knows? And then you've got areas that may vote heavily to stay. Edmonton, on that Angus Reid poll I mentioned earlier, there's something like 73% voting in favor of staying in part of Canada.

So if you've got these negotiations I talked about, and there's a lot of thorny issues being talked about, is one of those issues going to be what happens to a place like Edmonton if it votes overwhelmingly to stay in front of Canada? Would the rest of the country say, okay, you really wanted to do that? state part of Canada, but you got to go. But then, I mean, when it comes to elections though, you know, when people vote for one party and they don't win, it's not like we're saying, well, you can have this prime minister because you voted for them, right?

That's true. This does seem a bit more permanent. Okay. You've become a part of another country. That's true. That's true. It's not like for now and then the next election, the situation could reverse. This is, I mean, I guess in theory, there could be a referendum in the future on rejoining Canada,

but this is sort of ostensibly a, this now happens to become part of another country. And it's hard to know how the rest of the rest of the government. of Canada would view federal lands, certainly indigenous rights, and strong Canadians who's like, well, we don't want to join this country that's leaving. This is not our future. It's hard to know. But it might turn into a very strange map. Let's talk about citizenship and what that would look like for people living in Alberta

if they were to become their own country. So what would that look like? Well, the Canadian passport is a very desirable passport. There's about 180 countries that allow either visa-free access to, Canadians or you get your issued a visa when you land. So effectively it's visa-free access. It's a desirable passport. I think it's ranked seventh or eighth in the world of most desirable. And so I could entirely see why Alberta separatists would want to have an Alberta passport and keep a Canadian one. There are dual citizens in many countries. And under current Canadian law,

that would be just fine because the law was changed not too long ago, nothing to do with Alberta separatism, but the law was changed not too long ago to say that descendants of Canadians, I think even as far back as great grandparents could become citizens. In that vein, there's no obvious or legal reason why a separate Alberta couldn't maintain ties to Canada in that way. However, laws can change. And if we have what I think is fair to say would be a national divorce and divorces are not always amicable, it would be very easy to change the law to say that's not the case. I mean, would it be likely that the rest of Canada would say, you know, we've just gone

through this really painful, rancorous split. And you know what? Sure. Five million Albertans, you can remain part of Canada too. Like, what would that even look like? Yeah. And there's examples through history of this sort of thing. I mean, after the partition of India, what is now Bangladesh was part of Pakistan.

It was East Bengal was known as East Pakistan. There was a separatist war and they split off. And in 1971, I think it was they split off. And Islamabad revoked citizenship. And so they became citizens of Bangladesh. They are not duels. When Panama split from Colombia, about 120 a odd years ago, except for some specific cases, I think, where citizens could have specific ties to the old country.

They mostly became Panamanians. They weren't Colombians slash Panamanians. So is it possible that a separatist Alberta could maintain a Canadian passport? Anything's possible. Is it likely? I don't know if you'd want to bet on that. So one of the big things pro-separatists point to for leaving Canada is that they want to build a pipeline, of course. Tell me about this argument.

Well, this is one of the ones that I think is an example of what we talked about these arguments that the board kept noticing that did not seem rooted in reality, or at the very least needed a closer look. That supposedly under UN law, you know, Alberta could demand a pipeline across BC. You start looking into it. It's a, you know, that's a selective reading at best. Yeah, what are they basing this on? It's the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The UN Convention on the Law of Sea, among other things, lays out the rights of landlocked states.

So Alberta would be landlocked, at least on its current boundaries. I suppose I don't know any scenario, which they wouldn't be. And so landlocked states can seek, quote, right of access to and from the sea. The convention mentions rail, waterway road, mentions porters and pack animals. But this is not absolutely right. This must be agreed on between the landlocked state and the state that it seeks to transit. And also, the right of access is not the same as the right to build a pipeline. I mean, the convention does mention pipelines, but the wording is this may include pipelines

and gas lines, again, if both parties agree. So there's no reading of that, no honest reading of that convention, I think, that says Alberta can demand a pipeline and get access to the ocean, what is more likely is that you have a scenario in which Alberta is trying to convince Canada to build a pipeline, but now they're trying to convince Canada as another country, not part of the country. It's hard to see how that would be easier than the current situation. Yeah, it sounds like they will be doing the same thing, but in a very difficult divorce situation as you're talking about. It seems likely. It seems likely. Okay. And so more broadly, there's also this economic argument put forth by people that want to

separate, that Alberta would be better off financially by being independent from Canada. Is that true? Well, this is a super, super controversial topic. And it's an important one because, you know, surveys show that, you know, economic reasons are one of the big drivers of Alberta separatism. There's a feeling in Alberta among separatists, and more broadly, I think is fair to say, that the province is being taken advantage of by the rest of the country and that money flows from Alberta to central Canada where the majority of voters live. So that is a huge, political block. And so this argument is made that if Alberta left the country, they could keep what is now

paid in equalization. They wouldn't have to fund what they see as a bunch of silly things in Quebec or Atlantic Canada, and they'd be much wealthier. But is that the case? That's where it gets quite very difficult to say. I mean, the Alberta Prosperity Project, which is a pro-separatives group, they produced an analysis said that it would be a financial windfall. They said it would be so rich that they could, Alberta could eliminate sales tax, personal

tax, corporate income tax. But there's some red flags that show up when you look at this report. The group does not mention taking over any part of the national debt, which is $1.3 trillion in total. It lowballs some expenses. It says that a sovereign Alberta would spend $3 to $5 billion annually on defense. And even if you sort of look at different ways to crunch that, that would be at best 1% of the province's GDP. The group also asserts that Alberta would deserve to get half of CPP assets, but then says, conservatively, we'll say only a quarter of CPP assets. Alberta is one-eighth of the population.

So you can make, I mean, that number half comes out from a report that came out a few years ago. Yeah, and super controversial. Everyone's got a different take on it. But it's, I think, fair to say that it's not a fit to compil that Alberta would get a huge chunk of CPP assets. I mean, if you look at a more sober assessment, perhaps, as a University of Calgary economist named Trevor Toome, he ought to report on this. And he pointed out a number of fiscal problems with this report, including that they had eliminated old age security and child benefits without explaining how they might fund what that would replace. So it's a found money without a cost on the other side of it.

Trevor Toome notes that doing away with taxes the way they talk about would blow an $80 billion hole in the budget. That's a big hole. It's a big hole. As the saying says, a billion here, a billion there. Eventually you're talking real money. And he goes on to say that Alberta, independent, would face economic headwinds. there would be a productivity decline and increase in the cost of trade.

I mean, the bearer sort of assessment, as he puts it, is this is Trevor Toome, quote, a separate Alberta would be a poor Alberta, close quote. So his argument is the opposite of what the separatists are arguing. Absolutely. Okay. I think a big part of the economic grievance is around equalization payments, where money from some provinces goes to other provinces. Is that a justifiable grievance?

Justifiable grievance is a really hard thing to analyze. I mean, money does flow from Alberta into the Equalization Fund, and then as you put it, it flows from the equalization fund of the federal government to other provinces. It is true that the way the equalization formula is devised, it favors, say, Quebec hydroelectric versus Alberta oil and gas. And you can make the argument that that shouldn't be that way. But the board has also been pretty consistently clear that the biggest distortion of the equalization program is that Alberta has a lot of wealthy people. It's not that they're being taken advantage of. it's because they're well-off and prosperous, that they're paying more into it. Okay.

Something I learned from reading this editorial board is a new term. There was a comment in this piece, and it's called East Splaining. So kind of like mansplaining, but for Eastern Canadians explaining things to Western Canadians. What do you make of this criticism? Are people outside of Alberta justified in making criticisms about why Albertans want to leave? I don't understand that point at all, to be honest. I mean, it's a great term. It doesn't really roll off the tongue, but I like it. Look at the editorial board wrote. We're not saying you're a bunch of idiots for wanting separatism. What we wrote was here are specific facts about the arguments being made. You know, math is math. You know, diplomatic realities are diplomatic realities. Citizenship is citizenship. You don't have to be from Alberta to discuss whether, you know, the convention of the law of the C says X or says Y. And it seems a little bit self-serving to say, if you're not for Alberta, you can't talk about these things. Because then that means the separatists own the argument. Yeah. And of course, we're talking about the country. So this is a

national conversation. It's a national conversation. As I said earlier, I mean, we are a national newspaper. The board opines on national issues, and it would be odd. It might not even more than odd. It might be derelict to not discuss these things. What are we supposed to say, oh, well, it's happening in Alberta. Wash our hands of it. I get the point they're making it, but I do not get it. I mean, this does come back to this feeling of Western alienation, right? Something that's been going on for a very long time. And a lot of people in Alberta just feel disconnected from the rest of Canada. What do you say to that?

I mean, I understand that attitude. I mean, that is, I think, felt, and I think that's felt in greater numbers than just the separatist vote. You know, we talked to the people in the mid-to-high-20s would vote for separatism, at least in a theoretical poll question. But that feeling, I'm sure, is more widespread than that. So that's why in the piece, we talked about one last myth is that if Alberta votes not to leave, then great, cool, wash your hands of it, everything's fine, we can all move on.

No, there are some legitimate grievances there that the rest of the country has to work on, that building a better country is a job for everybody in Alberta and elsewhere. Oliver, thank you so much for coming on. It's a real pleasure. That was Oliver Moore, part of the Globe's editorial board. That's it for today. I'm Cheryl Sutherland. This episode was mixed by Ali Graham.

Our producers are, Madeline White, Rachel Levy McLaughlin, and Mahal Stun. Our editor is David Crosby. Adrian Chung is our senior producer and Angela Pichenza is our executive editor. Thanks so much for listening.