Populism and Secession in Post-Election Alberta

A decade ago, the notion of Alberta’s secession was limited to fringe voices. Today, it is woven into mainstream political discourse, not as a concrete policy, but as a pressure tactic.

May 06, 2025

The 2025 Canadian federal election is reverberating sharply in Alberta. Despite Mark Carney's Liberals winning reelection nationally, they managed only two seats in Alberta, a result that has reinforced long-standing feelings of alienation in the province. In the immediate aftermath, Premier Danielle Smith announced legislative changes that would make it easier to trigger referendums via citizen petitions. Although pitched as a measure to enhance democratic participation, this reform also opens the door to potentially radical initiatives, including referendums on Alberta's separation from Canada or even hypothetical annexation to the United States. The province's populist political turn, its deeply entrenched grievances about Confederation, and its economic dependence on fossil fuels converge in a volatile moment that challenges the fabric of Canadian federalism.

Alberta’s Identity Crisis

Western alienation is hardly a new phenomenon. Alberta's grievances with the federal government date back generations, often crystallizing around issues of energy, taxation, and national identity. In the 1980s, the Trudeau-era National Energy Program (NEP) was widely seen in Alberta as a confiscatory policy that prioritized Central Canadian interests over the West’s economic sovereignty. That resentment seeded a narrative that Ottawa governs "against" the West, a sentiment that has only deepened over time.

While the specific flashpoints have changed—from the NEP to carbon pricing and pipeline delays—the perception of cultural and economic marginalization has remained durable. Increasingly, the alienation is not simply about policy disputes, but about a fundamental identity rift. Jared Wesley describes this as a shift from material grievance to cultural estrangement: Alberta is no longer just economically disadvantaged by federal policy, but increasingly sees itself as culturally incompatible with the rest of Canada. This shift intensifies the sense of urgency and moral righteousness behind calls for greater autonomy or outright separation.

What has emerged is a political identity rooted in opposition. This identity is increasingly defined not by what Alberta is for, but by what it is against: federal overreach, climate regulation, bilingualism mandates, and the urban cosmopolitanism associated with Ottawa and Toronto. The result is a potent mix of economic nationalism and cultural populism—fertile ground for radical proposals that would have been politically unthinkable a generation ago.

Populist Reforms and Referendum Politics

Premier Danielle Smith’s political strategy in the wake of the 2025 federal election reveals a concerted effort to institutionalize populist modes of governance in Alberta. At the heart of this shift are reforms to the province’s democratic machinery—changes that lower the threshold for initiating referendums via citizen petitions, reconfigure the provincial elections commissioner’s role, and reduce the power of third-party oversight bodies. These moves are framed as a “democratization” of Alberta politics, but functionally they tilt the playing field toward majoritarian mobilization under a populist banner.

This embrace of populist procedure is not new to Alberta, which has long harbored a political culture that valorizes direct democracy and skepticism of central authority. From the United Farmers of Alberta in the early 20th century to the Reform Party’s federal insurgency in the 1990s, the Prairie tradition has oscillated between constitutional orthodoxy and an insurgent, plebiscitary impulse. Smith’s reforms revive and repurpose these legacies for the current moment, positioning “the people” as a legitimating force in a potentially secessionist trajectory. The direct democracy mechanisms—especially recall and citizen-initiated referenda—signal a mistrust not only of Ottawa but of institutional mediation itself.

Crucially, the new referendum legislation introduces a pathway by which an energized and organized minority could force a vote on Alberta’s constitutional status. This accelerates the risk of populist capture. While referendums are often justified as expressions of democratic will, they are also tools of political entrepreneurs who frame complex issues in binary terms. In Smith’s Alberta, the referendum becomes not just a decision-making device but a symbolic gesture, a populist theater of grievance against federal authority and urban elites. It is this confluence of procedural populism with existential identity politics that renders the current moment distinct—and potentially volatile.

Premier Smith’s proposed legislation, borrowing from populist movements worldwide, aims to give citizens the right to initiate referenda. While the political logic behind this move is clear, it opens complex questions about legitimacy, minority rights, and national coherence.

In a recent op-ed in The Globe and Mail, Preston Manning, founder of the Reform Party and a longtime advocate for democratic reform, endorsed the idea of citizen-initiated referenda in Alberta. He frames it as a means of empowering ordinary citizens in a political culture he views as overly centralized. Manning argues that provinces need greater constitutional space to act as “laboratories of democracy,” especially when federal institutions are perceived to be unresponsive to regional needs.

But as Lisa Young warns in her writings on “loser’s consent,” the legitimacy of democracy hinges not only on the process of voting, but on the willingness of the losing side to accept the outcome. If the outcome is viewed as structurally unfair, as many in Alberta increasingly believe, then consent begins to erode. Young’s warning is particularly salient in a political climate where procedural innovations like referenda may inadvertently intensify polarization rather than resolve it.

These legislative reforms thus do more than change the mechanics of governance. They alter the norms of political legitimacy. By institutionalizing tools that favor rapid, polarized mobilization over deliberative consensus, the Smith government sets the stage for a redefinition of the Alberta-Canada relationship not through elite negotiation, but through populist momentum. In doing so, she draws upon and intensifies the narratives of Western alienation, reframing them from complaints into instruments of potential rupture.

Petro-Nationalism and the Lure of Annexation

Alberta’s fraught relationship with the rest of Canada is inextricably linked to its identity as an energy powerhouse. Resource nationalism, particularly in the context of oil and gas, has long been central to provincial self-perception. Successive federal governments, both Liberal and (Progressive) Conservative, have been accused by Alberta elites and voters alike of failing to respect or support the province’s energy sector. This grievance deepened with policies perceived as hostile to fossil fuels, including carbon pricing, pipeline delays, and international climate commitments that impose economic costs disproportionately felt in the West.

Mark Carney’s election as Liberal leader, with his strong climate finance credentials and Bay Street persona, has amplified this sense of alienation. His 2025 reelection, with weak support west of Manitoba, reinforced a perception that Alberta’s economic core is not only misunderstood by the federal center but actively marginalized. The specter of a “post-oil” Canada led from Ottawa, Toronto, and Vancouver represents an existential threat to a province whose prosperity remains tied to hydrocarbons. In this environment, the idea of constitutional realignment, or even secession, gains emotional and ideological traction.

It is in this context that a small but persistent strain of annexationist sentiment reemerges. Though still marginal in electoral terms, the notion that Alberta might fare better as part of the United States rather than Canada taps into a deep well of Western grievance. The appeal is not merely economic, though access to U.S. markets, regulatory regimes, and tax structures plays a role. It is also cultural and ideological. Alberta shares with many U.S. states a libertarian small-government ethos and a combative stance toward environmental regulation. As American conservative media and political figures increasingly engage Alberta’s frustrations, from Tucker Carlson’s sympathetic coverage to Texas politicians expressing “solidarity,” the annexationist idea gains symbolic resonance.

This is not to suggest that a majority of Albertans support annexation. Most do not. But as a rhetorical device, it reflects the intensity of alienation and the poverty of alternatives in the provincial discourse. The failure of past reformist federal efforts, such as Senate reform or constitutional recognition of Quebec’s “distinct society,” has contributed to a sense that structural change within Canada is unachievable. The annexationist trope thus operates not only as provocation but as an indictment of the Canadian federation itself.

In this light, the emerging referendum machinery is not simply about Alberta’s place in Canada. It is a challenge to the political and constitutional assumptions of Canadian federalism. What makes the current moment more combustible than earlier waves of Prairie protest is that economic grievances are now entwined with a populist political style that privileges symbolic rupture over institutional compromise.

Referendum Legitimacy vs. Constitutional Boundaries

Any serious consideration of Alberta separating from Canada—and especially of joining the United States—raises profound questions about political legitimacy, both domestically and internationally. While Danielle Smith’s proposed citizen-initiated referendum reforms aim to grant grassroots democratic validity to such a process, legitimacy in constitutional terms is not merely a matter of majority rule. It depends on legal frameworks, political consensus, and recognition by other jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s 1998 ruling in the Reference re Secession of Quebec provides the most relevant precedent. The Court held that while Quebec does not have a unilateral right to secede under either domestic or international law, a clear referendum result in favor of independence would oblige all parties to negotiate in good faith. Importantly, the judgment emphasized four constitutional principles, federalism, democracy, the rule of law, and respect for minorities, that must inform any legitimate process of separation.

Alberta’s case would be even more tenuous than Quebec’s. Unlike Quebec, Alberta lacks a distinct language or culture recognized in the Constitution. Nor has it historically claimed nationhood or asserted a unique status within Confederation. A unilateral referendum, even if conducted under new provincial legislation, would have no binding force unless followed by a negotiated process with Ottawa. Moreover, any move toward annexation would involve not only the federal government but also constitutional amendments requiring approval from seven provinces representing at least 50% of Canada’s population—or potentially, unanimity depending on the interpretation of the Constitution Act, 1982.

On the international stage, the idea of a Canadian province joining the United States is almost entirely without precedent. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides for the admission of new states, and the accession of Texas to the Union at the end of 1845 set a precedent for annexing the territory of a neighbor over that country's objection. Any American attempt to incorporate Alberta would push bilateral relations to the point of rupture, undermine U.S. commitments to international law, and be opposed by key allies, even by an invocation of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.

In short, while Alberta could conceivably hold a referendum on independence or annexation, the legal and diplomatic pathways to achieving either are narrow. Still, the political theater of such a vote, especially if it garners substantial support, could create significant destabilization. It would challenge the legitimacy of federal institutions, embolden other regionalist movements, and force both Canadian and American leaders to confront questions they would prefer to avoid.

What remains most striking is how far the conversation has shifted. A decade ago, the notion of Alberta’s secession was limited to fringe voices. Today, it is woven into mainstream political discourse, not as a concrete policy, but as a pressure tactic, an outlet for discontent, and a symbol of estrangement from the Canadian project itself.

Scenarios, Safeguards, and Federal Responses

As Canada enters a period of post-election adjustment under Mark Carney’s leadership, the federal government faces a delicate balance: asserting national unity without exacerbating alienation in Alberta. Ottawa must tread carefully, recognizing that the secessionist impulse, however constitutionally unviable, is rooted in real grievances. Rising living costs, regulatory constraints on the energy sector, and a perception of cultural marginalization have made populist appeals to sovereignty more persuasive in the Prairie provinces than at any time in recent memory.

In one plausible scenario, Danielle Smith’s referendum reforms pass, and a successful petition triggers a province-wide vote. Even a narrow majority in favor of separation would lack legal authority, but it would create political momentum that Ottawa could not ignore. The federal response might involve constitutional negotiations, renewed equalization debates, or new energy accords designed to reaffirm Alberta’s role within Canada, much as the Clarity Act and sponsorship programs followed the 1995 Quebec referendum.

Alternatively, the referendum might fail to meet thresholds for turnout or clarity, thereby discrediting the movement’s democratic legitimacy and returning the conversation to economic and administrative grievances. But even in this less volatile outcome, the genie is not easily returned to the bottle. Populist rhetoric, once normalized, continues to shape political identity, and future leaders may exploit it further.

The Carney government thus has an opportunity, but also a responsibility. It must go beyond technical fixes or short-term concessions. A meaningful federal strategy should combine institutional recognition of regional concerns with narrative reinvestment in the Canadian federation. This could involve new fiscal federalism initiatives, visible federal investments in the West, and a greater effort to include Albertans in national leadership roles and public culture. Above all, Ottawa must reaffirm the principle that Canada is a voluntary union not because provinces may come and go at will, but because the federation earns its legitimacy through fairness, inclusion, and mutual respect. The threat of separation, even if constitutionally hollow, forces a reckoning with that legitimacy. Ignoring it would be a mistake. Confronting it with maturity, vision, and democratic renewal may be the best way to turn a moment of fracture into one of reinvention.

The tension between democratic empowerment and institutional legitimacy is not unique to Alberta, but the province offers a particularly vivid example of how populist tools, like referenda and citizen petitions, can both revitalize and destabilize democratic practice. Manning’s intervention gives these efforts intellectual pedigree, while Young’s analysis reminds us of the civic glue that holds democratic systems together: not just rules, but shared commitment to abide by them.

References:

https://albertaprosperityproject.com/history/

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/danielle-smith-rejects-oil-export-tax-carney-meeting

https://calgary.citynews.ca/2025/02/20/billboard-canada-usa-alberta-highway-2/

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/alberta-place-canada-beyond-frustration-strategic-collaboration

https://canadastrongandfree.network/books/moment-of-truth-how-to-think-about-albertas-future-edited-by-jack-m-mintz-ted-morton-and-tom-flanagan/

https://cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/athana-mentzelopoulos-ahs-alberta-health-services-lagrange-1.7489988

https://cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-alberta-separation-referendum-threshold-analysis-1.7524320

https://cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-premier-outlines-list-of-demands-in-first-meeting-with-prime-minister-mark-carney-1.7489042

https://cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/alberta-separation-rally-legislature-may-3-1.7526053

https://cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-preston-manning-western-independence-1.7502033

https://cbc.ca/news/politics/western-secession-economy-1.7524422