Alberta to vote on secession in 2026? A tale of two votes? (Mill Woods Mosaic Feb 2026)

Possibly during this coming year Albertans will be voting in a critical referendum. The question of whether or not Alberta should stay in Canada will be put to the average voter. But there is great uncertainty about many things - will a vote actually be held, Will the Alberta government abide by the vote result; what would happen if Alberta seceded from Canada.

This uncertainty should not be unexpected. Referendums have always been contentious and polarizing events. As well, economic problems and human costs are even greater when countries are broken up.

In various ways, the idea of Alberta separation is presented as a way to fight or avoid the moves by the Canadian government toward fulfilling Alberta’s international obligation to bring down the consumption of fossil fuels and thus do its bit towards staving off a looming environmental collapse, predicted to be caused by global warming and climate change within next several years. The recent above-zero weather in Edmonton can be seen as a harbinger of that and perhaps even of a record-breaking heat wave this coming summer.

As well, the Conservative/UCP long-held dislike of public healthcare and progressive social policy on women’s rights, gay and transgender youths also are cause for a call for separation from a Canada committed to a social safety net and full human rights.

Under Alberta law, about 177,000 voters can sign a petition calling for a referendum. When it looked like a petition  on Alberta leaving Canada was getting started, a group led by Thomas Lukaszuk, gathered up more than 400,000 signaturs in sjuprt of a referendum on the question of staying in Canada. This phraseology was intended to nudge votes to vote in favour of staying.

Many right-wingers, the natural voter base for the UCP government, support Alberta leaving.

But the government meanwhile has said it is in favour of staying in Canada but would be sovereign as a province within Canada. It would assert a legal right to push against federal laws and policies that it deems unconstitutional or harmful to provincial interests. We have seen this recently with Danielle Smith’s invocation of the “notwithstanding clause” of our constitution to say whatever the national constitution says about its actions, it will slap down on transgender youth and did order striking teachers back to work last fall. 

As long as Alberta is in Canada, the sovereignty of Alberta may be said to exist but  would necessarily be of limited nature. The Canadian government has jurisdiction on international trade, including export of oil, and is expected to work with other countries in pursuit of environmental goals.

So now having received a petition demanding a vote on staying in Canada,  the Alberta government is seeking a way to avoid the expensive vote. The Premier says she does not want to be the one to break up Canada  but also has done little to thwart the separationists’ campaign. 

Sampling of Albertans shows a massive majority in favour of staying in Canada, but if somehow the leave-Canda took a majority of the vote, she will have a choice of leading Alberta out of Canada or disregarding the vote result, neither of which are appealing outcomes.

And if Alberta left, what would happen? What would be the nature of its relationship with its former compatriots in Canada? Would Alberta face anger and economic blockades? Would Alberta have just one friendly neighbour, the land-hungry U.S.? How long would such an aggressive “friend’ withstand the temptation to engulf the mini-country of Alberta?

Recent revelations that some of the leading separatists have met with high ranking U.S. officials both puts the project in a bad light and also opens them to charges of treason. This shows that the U.S. might be hoping to cash in on Alberta secession. 

An independent Alberta could go the way of Texas and California, which broke from Spanish Mexico 200 years ago. Texas was an independent republic for only ten years and California was independent for just three weeks, then they were gobbled up by the U.S.

And once taken by the U.S., Alberta’s key asset - its tar sands - would then become a national treasure for the U.S. Under U.S. law, the national government has jurisdiction over natural resources. So if Alberta was to become part of the U.S., Alberta would not have freed its oil from outside control but instead put itself even more under the control of a national government. Only now it would be located in Washington, DC, not in Ontario.

Premier Danielle Smith cries that Alberta oil is under attack from the Canadian government but actually last year Alberta produced more oil than ever before. Last year Alberta set a new record of more than 4M barrels per day. Alberta exports 3M barrels per day to the U.S., which consumes about 20 million barrels per day. 

But Smith wants even more production. Uncertainty about secession is not good for investment in oil or any other section of the economy, except perhaps for psychiatrists.

And now Smith is saying that as her government is in support of staying in Canada, a petition in favour of a vote on staying in Canada should not force a referendum on the question. Of course, a referendum on staying in Canada is also a referendum on leaving, and Lukasyk and his stay-in-Canada activists never intended to give an opportunity for a leave-Canada vote.

The whole referendum idea is intended to allow citizens to force a government to hold a vote on doing something the government does not want to do. Or sometimes a government uses a referendum to do a thorough polling of public sentiment.

The first known referendum was indeed such a case, and like the one possibly in Alberta’s future was on redrawing a country’s boundaries. That referendum was held in 1527 to test the opinion of people living in Burgundy on whether or not they would agree to being moved from France to Spain. They rejected the idea.  

Another referendum was held in 1938, after Nazi Germany imposed its rule on little Austria. A referendum was then held to get Austrians to say they endorsed the grab. The vote was hopelessly unbalanced. Anti-Hitlerites were put into concentration camps. On the ballot, the circle to make the X to show support for Hitler was larger than the circle for the no vote. Many voters who marked their ballot with a yes showed their ballot to officials to show they did not vote against Hitler.

Such behaviour would not be accepted in Alberta if a referendum is held. But other rules are not clear - how much propaganda and advertising would be allowed? Would a simple majority be enough to force secession, or would it be 60 percent, or what?

If the leave-Canada forces finish their petition, would two questions be put to voters – one on whether or not to leave and one on whether or not to stay?

There was a case of a referendum held in Oregon in 1908 with two questions. One question was whether or not to ban fishing upriver (put forward by a petition signed by downriver fishermen). Another question was whether or not to ban downriver fishing (put forward by upriver fishermen). Voters saw each group acting selfishly and voted in favour of banning both types of fishing.

In Alberta’s case, such could happen with two questions. Albertans, like many Canadians from coast to coast to coast, are not happy about how things are. Food prices are high; wages are stuck in place (especially minimum wage); our public healthcare and education systems are teetering.

But it seems the same problems or worse would exist in an independent Alberta, and perhaps even more so if the U.S. grabs Alberta after secession.

We have seen independent movements fail in the past in the world. The Biafran humanitarian crisis of the 1960s arose from the move by an oil-rich part of Nigeria to split off on its own. And old newspapers carried blood-drenched photos of outrages that happened in Belgian Congo  when the diamond-rich province of Katanga broke off. The bloody U.S. War of Independence when it broke from the British Empire, and the burned cities and body-filled battlefields of that country’s civil war are two other examples of the human cost paid in the past for secession. 

I would just as soon see Danielle Smith try to assert Alberta sovereignty within Canada, rather than lead a secession and expose Alberta to the risk of suffering like those historical examples. At least until the next election when the will of the voters can be tested in a true test of their vision for Alberta, as personified by the NDP, the Conservatives, or another party. 

Even within Canada, a range of possibilities exist. Let’s explore them together.

====================================================================

Other notes and early draft of article

Will Alberta ask voters for their opinion on both whether to stay and whether to leave. It would be telling to see both fail. Many voters are not happy bout high prices of food, relatively low wages, minimum wage not being increased since 2019, struggling health care and educational  services, etc.) so many don't want to stay as is but don't want to leave either - they just want things better.

An independent Alberta would be landlocked and the oil producers in Alberta would likely see the U.S. as their main customer.  In the past Alberta oil has been sold as an ethical product based on Canada's human rights record and democracy but if UCP get all pushy about its conservative backward-looking political agenda, and especially if it leaves Canada , Alberta will not have Canada's record to prove its ethics.

Amidst the chaos and uncertainty of secession. and the rowdiness of embittered yahoos we shouldn't an independent Alberta to show much regard for human rights . The government's soft approach to the trucker's  convoy a few year ago shows that in its mind, might, white and right (wing) have special rights, especially if hey have might (raw physical power)

Its book bans, retrenchment against non-binary youths, and  moves to control judges smack of the authoritarian.  Clampdown on scienttific assessment of climate change and sustainable energy (solar and wind) shows that under an independent Alberta oil will be king.

It is doubtful Alberta can claim that is oil is ethical oil if its political climate takes on aspects of the authoritarianism seen in the unethical oil countries overseas. Despite Danielle's gender, it is not likely an independent oil-based Alberta will have much place for feminists or even outspoken women.

Quebec

Alberta referendum will not be first on a province voting to leave or stay. Quebec has held two referendum on a new relationship with Canada. The question used in 1980 was ambiguous- .. any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?" A majority of Quebecois voted against even this wordy statement.

A second referendum in 1995 had this question "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership..." Again a majority voted against.

These referendums were held because the government wanted to determine public opinion before proceeding. 

Other referendums are held under provincial law giving citizens the right to demand a vote on a certain question. This was used in Alberta in 1915 to push the Albert a government to either pass a liquor Prohibition law or put it to a public vote.  Under Alberta law, such a vote would be binding the government. A majority voted to shut down private liquor stores, and several months later Prohibition came into effect in Alberta. The question was not a part of either Liberal nor Conservative party ideology - each party had drinkers and prohibitionists. A referendum in 1923 saw a majority vote for government-owned liquor stores. 

Those were the only times a referendum has been initiated by citizens until what might happen this year coming.

Referendums occur sometimes when a government decides to ask the average voter of their choice, say on an issue where the voters are known to be divided or where the topic is outside the normal party platform or ideology. Such was the issue of conscription (draft of soldiers) during WWII. A majority, but not everyone, in English Canada voted in favour; a majority, but not everyone, in Quebec voted against. The government did not just wholeheartedly take the result and run with it but instead first said that conscripts wold serve only inside Canada. Only after Canadian units fighting in France suffered heavy casualties did the government decide to put conscripts in the front lines. This announcement caused a five-day riot in an army camp in Terrace, BC.

It just goes to show that even when governments decide, the picture on the ground can look quite different.

Alberta referendum will not be first on a province voting to leave or stay. Quebec has held two referendum on a new relationship with Canada. The question used in 1980 was ambiguous- .. any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?" A majority of Quebecois voted against even this wordy statement.

A second referendum in 1995 had this question "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership..." Again a majority voted against.

These referendums were held because the government wanted to determine public opinion before proceeding. 

Other referendums are held under provincial law giving citizens the right to demand a vote on a certain question. This was used in Alberta in 1915 to push the Albert a government to either pass a liquor Prohibition law or put it to a public vote.  Under Alberta law, such a vote would be binding the government. A majority voted to shut down private liquor stores, and several months later Prohibition came into effect in Alberta. The question was not a part of either Liberal nor Conservative party ideology - each party had drinkers and prohibitionists. A referendum in 1923 saw a majority vote for government-owned liquor stores. 

Those were the only times a referendum has been initiated by citizens until what might happen this year coming.

===

There is still much uncertainty about how far the government will go and what sort of rules will apply to the referendum. Two different groups are (or have finished) collecting signatures to force a referendum - one on whether to stay in Canada the other on whether or not to leave and become an independent country.

It seems funny to have both questions which are just different sides of the same thing.

But the intent of the stay-in-Canada question is to set the agenda - to "nudge" the voter to say "yes stay."

Certainly it would be surprising if Albertans, known to be a conservative lot, would risk what they have by voting for a radical move. Even the Quebecois, with a strong linguistic identity different from most of rest of Canada, could not find a majority in favour of separation, or even of voting to empower their government to negotiate with that weapon in its hand. 

We have seen independent movements fail in the past in the world. The Biafran humanitarian crisis (for those who recall) arose from the move by an oil-rich part of Nigeria to split off in the late 1960s. And also, old newspapers carried blood-drenched photos of  outrages that happened in Belgian Congo  when the diamond-rich province of Katanga broke off. The bloody U.S. War of Independence (from the British Empire) and the flame-filled result of the U.S civil war are two other examples of the human cost paid in the past for secession. 

Will or can Canada be split up without such scenes of horror?

Referendums are an instrument of direct legislation. unlike our normal politics where elected politicians act as representatives and make their own decision, Referendums are where citizens directly vote themselves on policy. They were popular in Western U.S. and western Canada in the early 1900s after free-thinking westerners learned to distrust their elected politicians. 

It is not likely Alberta's Liberal government of 1905-1921 wold have brought in Prohibition, or even a public vote on such, if not for the push from a 24,000-name petition asking for the government to either adopt Prohibition or conduct just such a vote

And a few year later a new government was happy to hold a vote on its removal, taking responsibility for the decision off its hands.

However it would be irresponsible for a government to make the decision to take Alberta out of Canada ripping up a 150-year old country without literally taking responsibility for that decision.

NDP leader Nenshi is right to ask the UCP government and Premier Danilele Smith to state their position on such a critical issue. 

One might also ask the Conservative Party of Canada how it feels about the prospect of losing about a seventh of its Conservative supporters if Alberta leaves. Alberta section wold leave the Conservative well behind the Liberals in popularity in the new Canada)

The first known referendum was conducted in 1527 on a shift in national borders, just as Alberta 's secession wold cause

That referendum was held in 1527 to test the opinion of people living in Burgundy on whether or not they would agree to being moved from France to Spain. They rejected the idea.  (Oxford p. 367)

The United Conservative government was elected with barely more than half the voters; those in support of separation are less then 35 percent so say the polls.

Amidst the chaos and uncertainty of secession. and the rowdiness of embittered yahoos we shouldn't an independent Alberta to show much regard for human rights. The government's soft approach to the trucker's  convoy a few year ago shows that in its mind, might, white and right (wing) have special rights, especially if hey have might (raw physical power)

=========================

but to win in the actual referendum will take many more than the basic 177,000 votes required in the petition.

(It could be that the government assumed the separation cause could not raise 294,000 (the number required and achieved by the Canada Forever petition campaign). That might have been the reason why the Alberta government dropped that high requirement for the leave Canada petition, which is only required to collect 177,000 signatures.

(In fact, the Canada Forever campaign raised 456,000 signatures. The total of signatures on the two petitions, perhaps as many as 1M, will leave many voters  in Alberta undeclared, more than enough to defeat whichever side they decide not to support. And votes in the referendum will be secret votes unlike the petitions, so even if people felt pressured to sign the leave-Canada petition, they will be free to vote how they truly want in the referendum. 

In the last referendum held at same time as a general election back in 1971, almost as many people voted in the referendum as voted in the election and to win a majority required taking as many votes as  about 49 percent of the votes cast  in the election. Based on voter turnout in 2023, that same percentage would be 868,00.

Will a simple majority be enough to determine the winer. ? Even Quebec's first referendum indicated a second referendum would be held before such a radical move.

referendums first used in 1527 actually fitting Alberta's upcoming one

 it was to test the opinion of people living in Burgundy to be moved from France to Spain  Oxford p. 367

British conservatives used the referendum as people's veto on radical Labour party proposals  Oxford, p. 367

sometimes referendum used by politicians who were barred from election and try to get their way another way. Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 369

Labour back-benchers opposed to European Union back in 1970s pushed for  referendum on it to try to get around blocks in the HofC Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 369

Conservatives did the same thing in 2016 when a majority vote to leave Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 370

referendums held on electoral reform but even that is not always the norm  Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 370

=======

my prediction

in the vote to stay in Canada 55 percent yes, 45 vote for no.

in the vote to leave 15 percent for yes, 85 percent for no

Oxford Handbook of Election Systems says higher "no" vote when government has been in for long time (and is not trusted)

also says higher "no" vote when turnout is high (but the opposite is said - it is easier to get people out to vote against a government than it is to get out to show agreement with government already in power.

in referendum on separation, voters are worried about leap of faith that separation would men, but also they are unwilling to show much gratitude to federal government and Canada. 

it says referendum is way to get government policy to reflect the median voter - which would definitely be anti-separation but unclear how patriotic to Canada they are.

FVC says referendum are slanted toward the status quo, and that confirms the 85 percent projection against leaving, and may dampen the 45 percent projection against staying.

===

another question will we have two different questions substantially the same although in opposite directions? 

Or will the government have to say just the question on staying in Canada will be used, which already has been submitted with more than enough signatures. (whether authorities will confirm that that number has been accepted is up to question.)

===

1938 Anschluss vote, meant as rubber stamp on Nazi German's domination of the country of Austria,  was unbalanced with the circle for the yes vote being much larger than the circle for the no vote.

This was a clear example of a "nudge" to push voters a certain way. Another nudge is seen in Amsterdam's airport where an etching of a housefly in the bowl of the men's urinals improves aim and lowers cleaning costs.

nudge

any strong nudges will make Smith's government appear to be clearly manipulating the result and breaking with the Canadian tradition of fair play. Of course such tradition is limited- in federal elections in Alberta, it takes 2 percent of votes to elect a Conservative MP, 6 percent to elect a NDP MP and 14 percent to elect a Liberal, and very few see or complain of that unfairness.

Whether or not Smith actually wants Alberta to separate she would like to to be able to use a vote for separation as a weapon against the federal government.

so we can expect the campaign to be heavy in education, 

but in Alberta's case Smith has majority of seats. but is assisting in the holding of a referendum as a way to get it without committing herself.

she says she does not want to demonize separatists, the 30 percent of he Albertans, because they who have "legitimate issues. she certainly is wiling it demonize the 40 percent of Alberta who vote NDP and demonize trans and gay youth but  perhaps in her mind they do not have legitimate issues.

====

we have had several national referendums in Canada 

only four democracies in the world have never had a national referendum - U.S., Japan, Israel and India. Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, p. 367

referendum

ask the people what they think.

But we can expect serious TV ad campaign giving just one side of the question how Albertans will be better off without equalization.

We saw this in 2018 in BC with the referendum on changing the election system for the better. BC currently uses the same election system that Alberta uses and there has been no significant push for electoral reform but in BC cries for an over haul three times since 2005 caused the holding of referendums.

But under equalization, Alberta does not pay money to the federal government.

Wealthy Albertans who pay taxes pay their income tax to the federal government, it gets mixed in with other general revenues, and then some comes back to Alberta.

with separation, it is assumed that wealthy Alberta will either not pay that tax in which case poorer Albertans will be in same position as now, or wealthy Albertans will continue to pay and then the money now flowing to Alberta government can be used to fill in the role formerly performed by the federal government, or to improve the lives of all Albertans.

certainly the present situation in Alberta hospitals and schools are easily seen as needing more investment.

the idea that Albertans can both pay less taxes and cover the costs of being an independent country, seems to be impossible

there is no one Albertan:

there are Albertans who make more than about $130,000 annually who pay say a quarter of their wages or salaries to federal government. Those who make money through capital gains (profts made through real estate or other investments) pay only at half the rate paid by those who make money from wages or salaries.

There are Albertans who make no money (stay at home parents) and those who work part-time (about 80 hours per month) who make less than $17,000 annually and pay no federal tax.

====

Separatists says independence would give the Alberta government the ability to set their own policies on energy, climate, and taxes.

meaning continued expansion of oil and gas mining would be given precedence over the world's significant fears of climate change and environmental degradation. Alberta oil production continues to grow even under the rule of the Canadian Liberal party. Last year Alberta set a new record production of more than 4M barrels per day. Alberta exports 3M barrels per day to the U.S., which consumes about 20 million barrels per day. 

Some time we will have to ask ourselves how much is enough.

and separation also would allow a made-in-Alberta tax policy  

a made-in-Alberta tax policy is likely to be more lenient on the wealthy while not aiding in any way with income equalization with the needy in our society.

another effect of Alberta separation - the remaining Canada, if all other things remain the same, would see Liberal dominance even more than presently.

In the recent elections a large chunk of both the overall Conservative vote total and the Conservative caucus comes from Alberta.

Without Alberta in Canada, the Conservative Party would drop perhaps 6 percent in popularity, would be hard-pressed to take 35 percent of the votes, and would likely lose about 34 seats, a significant portion of the 144 seats it won in 2025,

Without Alberta, Canadian Liberals  might suffer just a small drop of 3 percent and go down to 40 percent, leaving it even more firmly in the driver's seat.

=======

Recent revelations that some of the leading separatists have met with high ranking U.S. officials both puts the project in a bad light and also opens the initiative to charges of treason.

This shows that the U.S. might be hoping to cash in on Alberta secession. An independent Alberta could go the way of two areas that broke from Spanish Mexico 200 years ago.  Texas (an independent republic from 1836 to 1846) and California (an independent republic for just three weeks) were gobbled up by the U.S.

In the U.S. the national government has jurisdiction over natural resources so if Alberta was to become part of the U.S., Alberta would not have freed its oil from outside control but put itself even more under the control of a national government - only now it would be located in Washing ton DC, not in Ontario.

===

The fight of the two separate referendums on staying/leaving is actually a form of nudge. 

The Canada Forever petition, started by Thomas Lukaszuk, is actually meant to be a nudge to voters to affirm staying in Canada. However, just at the end of October last year, Lukaszuk said he would prefer for the MLAs to simply put the issue to bed by voting to cease discussing separation. He had realized that holding a referendum on staying in Canada was also a referendum on leaving and he did not think it was necessary to hold a referendum at all if the government would stand up for Canada. In TV show Alberta Prime time the premier said a panel would be struck to decide if a referendum had to be held on staying or leaving if the government announced it was in favour of the goal of the referendum.

The Alberta government passed the “Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada” law in 2022. It says Alberta would stay in Canada but would have a legal right to push against federal laws and policies that it deems unconstitutional or harmful to provincial interests. We have seen this recently with Danielle Smith’s invocation of the “notwithstanding clause” of our constitution to defend its slapdown on transgender youth and when it ordered the teachers back to work last fall.

But the government looks to be positioning itself to defend (and extend) the fossil fuel industry, and to move against federal involvement in healthcare in the province (a signal to potentially expect privatization and user fees). As long as Alberta is in Canada, the sovereignty of Alberta may be said to exist but  would necessarily be of limited nature as Canada would still oversee foreign relations, international trade, federal taxation, and many other national responsibilities.

===

But in my view Danielle Smith can say Alberta is sovereign as much as she likes as long as progressive federal policy in the area of public healthcare and human rights, our adherence to treaties on climate change, and such are still accepted. For the world has moved on past fossil fuels and lucky for the average Canadian, public healthcare is a right. Many of us don’t want to go back to old ways and don’t want to sacrifice the environment in pursuit of Big Oil profits. As Smith likes to point out, it is indeed a different world.

in addition to nudges, we likely will see education (and propaganda), and also legislation and enforcement, if Smith feels particularly authoritarian.

in the 1938 Anschluss vote, those suspected of being prone to vote against Hitler were imprisoned or put in concentration camps.

we can expect misinformation.

promises of a golden future for Albertans - of money staying in Alberta producing wealth for all.

but if money stays in Alberta due to reduction in taxes, then the less-well-off is in no better place, except if you believe that trickle down economics work to the benefit of the less-well-off.

meantime, money and services that comes into Alberta from the federal government will cease.

=====

Germany uses referendum see wiki

Referendums in Germany - Wikipedia

In addition there was a referendum on the merger of Baden and Württemberg into Baden-Württemberg in 1951 (accepted) and a referendum on the merger of Berlin and Brandenburg into Berlin-Brandenburg in 1996 (rejected).

argument in support of holding a referendum on the German reunification in 1989/1990, but no referendum held at that time.

================================