What does Alberta want? Behind the resurgence of separatist talk lies a deeper struggle over identity, power and Canada’s future.  

While the movement has deep historical roots, its current form reflects a complex mix of economic frustration, political identity, and political strategy, says Adrienne Davidson, assistant professor of political science.  

“This particular form of separatism is at least a decade old and has had different manifestations both within Alberta and across the broader Canadian federation,” she explains.  

Davidson unpacks the political tensions within Alberta, the challenges facing national parties, and what a constructive federal response might look like. 

What can you tell us about this Alberta separatist movement – where it comes from and how it compares to previous separatist movements?  

This current wave of separatist rhetoric and sentiment in Alberta is being inflamed to varying degrees by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, but it has deeper roots. While it draws on a long history that can be traced back to central tensions with Alberta’s entrance into Confederation in 1905, this particular period of separatist rhetoric began to emerge around 2015.This year marked both the election of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and coincided with a period of significant economic decline in Alberta, particularly due to the drop in oil prices around 2016-2017. During that time, many in the province felt they were in crisis and lacked adequate representation in Ottawa. The mechanisms and institutions of Canadian governance that might have helped in such a moment didn’t seem to be available., Despite the local economic downturn, Canada’s system of equalization, for example, didn’t provide the support people expected. 

This discontent gave rise to broader dissatisfaction within Canadian politics. The “Wexit” movement (a western-Canadian riff on the successful “Brexit” movement in the UK) emerged in 2019. Then-premier Jason Kenney launched the Fair Deal Panel to examine how to improve Alberta’s lot in the federation. Fringe political parties like the Buffalo Party also emerged, giving voice to more discontented factions within Alberta politics. 

This current rhetoric is distinct from earlier political movements in Alberta, such as the “West Wants In” campaign, which focused more on institutional reform, like creating an elected Senate with equal provincial representation, and aimed to place specific policy agendas on the national stage.  

Today’s separatist sentiment is more about a perceived lack of representation and fairness within existing federal structures, rather than specific policy reforms. 

What do you think about how Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has dealt with this situation?  

One of the key dynamics shaping Premier Danielle Smith’s position is that she has to navigate is the presence of separatist ideas and goals within her own political party, while also trying to advance Alberta’s position in the federation. Not long ago, Alberta’s conservative movement was fractured. The emergence of the Wildrose Party in 2008, and led by Smith for a time, was more ideologically right-leaning, focused on an “Alberta first” agenda, and carried stronger separatist undertones. That party was also more rural in its orientation and political priorities. Although the Wildrose and Progressive Conservatives eventually merged to form the United Conservative Party, the ideological divisions at the core of a more fractured right party system haven’t fully disappeared. Those ideological cleavages still exist within the party. 

Smith is trying to engage with the separatist-leaning base of her support, acknowledging their concerns and creating space for their grievances to be heard, while also promoting the broader interests of the province and maintaining a united party front. Not all conservatives support separatist rhetoric, and balancing those competing interests remains a challenge. 

Is this a political bargaining tool or serious threat?  

When we think about the rhetoric and language of separatism, part of it seems to be about creating leverage within the federal system and putting pressure on the federal government to meet Alberta’s demands. 

Looking at the original report from the Fair Deal Panel, one of the first pages includes a series of quotes from Albertans, gathered through surveys and community forums. One quote stands out: “If we’re not willing to separate, then we give up bargaining strength.” That sentiment captures a key part of the strategy: using the threat of separation as a bargaining chip. 

While separation seems to be the goal for some, my hunch is that Smith is leaning into the rhetoric of separation as a means to gain concessions from the federal government on key policy issues. This could include changes to the equalization formula to better support Alberta during economic downturns, reforms to environmental approval processes to limit federal interference in provincially approved projects, or stronger federal support for pipelines to move Alberta crude to market across other provinces. 

In this context, separatist rhetoric functions as a tool to create urgency and force these conversations. It’s not always about actual separation; it’s about using the idea to push for specific outcomes. 

Surveys show that while Albertans tend to have a stronger provincial identity than people in other provinces, many still identify equally with being Canadian. The number of Albertans who see themselves as both Albertan and Canadian is about the same as those who identify primarily with the province (and then there’s at least some who view themselves as “Canadian first”). That suggests there’s a meaningful bulwark against separatism. 

It’s also important to remember that Canada has dealt with separatist threats before – most notably in Quebec. Quebec’s case for separation has historically been stronger, partly because it can credibly lay claim to representing a distinct nation within Canada. Alberta, by contrast, was added to Confederation later and doesn’t have the same national identity cleavage that serves as a foundation for separation. 

Moreover, our past brushes with separation are going to make it harder for any unit within Canada to move ahead. The Supreme Court of Canada has now defined what would be required for separation—including a clear question and a clear majority—two requirements that make separation more difficult. Finally, there has been very strong pushback against separation by Indigenous nations in Alberta who argue that separation would fundamentally undermine Indigenous treaty rights and disrupt the Crown-Indigenous relationship, further complicating the path to actual separation. 

What might a constructive federal response to this look like? 

A constructive federal response is a challenge. That said, Prime Minister Carney has already taken some steps that align with Alberta’s concerns. One of his first actions was to eliminate the carbon tax, which had been a central grievance for many Albertans and for the broader conservative movement in Canada. 

There’s also been discussion about investing federal dollars in infrastructure projects like energy corridors and supporting interprovincial energy initiatives to help move Alberta’s resources to market. These are constructive moves that could help ease tensions. 

However, it’s still unclear what Premier Smith specifically wants from the federal government. While the Fair Deal Panel laid out concrete policy proposals, such as creating an Alberta pension plan, Smith’s current priorities don’t always align with that report. Some of those ideas have since faded from public discussion, making it harder to determine what federal concessions she’s seeking. 

One area where she has been clear is on trade. She’s publicly stated that Alberta’s oil should not be subject to U.S. tariffs and wants firm protections in that area. But beyond that, the broader policy goals remain vague, which complicates the federal government’s ability to respond effectively. 

As for Carney himself, while he differs significantly from Trudeau in both tone and policy, that may not be enough to shift perceptions in Alberta. Trudeau was seen by many in the West as the embodiment of central Canadian elitism, representing the political and economic power concentrated in the Toronto–Montreal corridor. That image has long fueled Western alienation, dating back to Trudeau Sr. and policies like the National Energy Program, as well as earlier grievances over agricultural subsidies and representation. 

Carney, despite being born in the Northwest Territories and raised in the West, has spent most of his professional life in Toronto and Ottawa. That background may still lead to him being cast in a similar light, even if his policies are more moderate or responsive to Western concerns. 

In the last federal election, the Liberals failed to make significant gains in Alberta or even in urban centers like Edmonton and Calgary. Their support remained limited, and the West continues to be dominated by conservative politics. As long as that dynamic persists, feelings of underrepresentation in Carney’s cabinet and within the governing party are likely to continue.