The Pearson Centre recently met with Stéphane Dion, former federal Liberal leader and Cabinet Minister, and Corey Hogan, a current Member of Parliament for Calgary, for a conversation about the legal and political dimensions of Canadian separatist movements, and what Canadians should do about it. Among democratic nations, Canada is unique. It is one of the only countries in the world that formally acknowledges the legal possibility of provincial secession, through a constitutional process contingent on clear popular support for separation. Comparable democracies such as in France or the United States are indivisible, with no option for secession.
However, as Dion emphasized, this secession process cannot occur unilaterally. The Clarity Act, shaped in large part by Dion’s political contributions after the 1995 Quebec referendum, establishes that any future referendum question must be clear and have a clear majority in favour to initiate negotiations. What is now happening in Alberta and Quebec is testing the limits of that framework, and exposing the risks of treating secession as a routine political instrument rather than the profound constitutional act it is.
What Is Happening in Alberta?
As Hogan noted, Alberta’s separatist movement is not new. Historically, roughly one in five Albertans has held some level of separatist sentiment, rooted in a century-old cultural conviction that the rest of Canada governs with indifference, or outright hostility, toward the province. The oil and gas economy has long served as a proxy for that grievance.
What has changed is the speed and the volume. Separatist sentiment has recently climbed to approximately 30% in some recent polling, with roughly 20% holding firm rather than soft views on the issue. The provincial government has become notably more sympathetic to the cause, and separatist voices now dominate much of the public conversation in Alberta.
Most significantly, there may be a referendum as early as October 2026, a timeline that has accelerated faster than the province, or the country, has had time to seriously prepare for. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government recently lowered the threshold required to place a question on the ballot, and a question on separation could appear alongside as many as nine other referendum questions on a single ballot. This last point is controversial. Bundling a question about the dissolution of a province from Confederation with nine other policy questions is, in the view of those familiar with the Clarity Act, potentially in violation of both the spirit and the letter of that legislation. Breaking up a country cannot be one item in a list. Premier Smith did not campaign on lowering the referendum threshold, which raises serious questions about whether her government has a democratic mandate for a process that could, in theory, set in motion the most consequential constitutional event in Canadian history.
In Quebec, there is also a resurgence in separatist movements. As Dion put it, nobody wants to talk about this topic, especially the issue of how to secede because people who want to stay in Canada don’t like to contemplate the possibility of secession, and people who do want to secede don’t like to be reminded of the difficulty of the process by which it might be done. However, Dion warns it is a big mistake not to talk about it because it trivializes the potential breakdown of Canada.
Why Silence Is the Wrong Response
There is a temptation among federal politicians, media commentators, and ordinary Canadians to avoid “fanning the flames” by engaging too directly with separatist arguments. The fear is that serious engagement might lead to unwanted conflict, and legitimize a movement that might otherwise fizzle out.
However, both Dion and Hogan agreed that this strategy is not the right one. The Brexit comparison is instructive: the outcome of the UK’s separation from the EU looked implausible until it wasn’t. The current silence from elected officials in Alberta, including those who oppose separation, is, in Hogan’s words, “deafening.” When those who disagree with separatism stay quiet, they allow a vocal minority to create the false impression of consensus. People who might otherwise speak up hold back, assuming they are alone. The spiral reinforces itself.
The Sources of the Movement and the Risk of Foreign Interference
Separatist views in Canada draw largely on the same polarizing forces reshaping democratic politics across the Western world: anxieties about immigration, deep divisions over climate and energy policy, and a widespread erosion of trust in political institutions. What distinguishes the Canadian case is that these tensions have been channelled, in a way without parallel in comparable democracies, into active separatist political movements.
There is also a foreign dimension that deserves attention. The 2017 Catalan independence referendum in Spain was subject to documented Russian interference. The same playbook of exploiting and amplifying domestic divisions for geopolitical advantage is well-established. Both Dion and Hogan expressed concern that it would be naïve to assume similar interference will not be attempted in Alberta and Quebec if referendums do happen.
The United States under its current administration adds an additional layer of risk. President Trump has on multiple occasions expressed interest in absorbing Canada. A fragmented Canada would be far easier to pressure and take resources from than a united one. Unlike virtually every other democratic government in the world, which typically opposes unilateral secession, the current U.S. administration might find reasons to encourage one. Canadians would be wise to state clearly, now and loudly, that foreign interference in a constitutional referendum is entirely unacceptable, and that this is a Canadian issue.
What Needs to Happen?
The conversation that Canada has been avoiding needs to happen, clearly and calmly, before the chaos begins. Several things are particularly urgent:
Clarity on process: The rules governing any referendum must be unambiguous, publicly understood, and legally compliant. A question about separation cannot be buried in a multi-question ballot. Citizens deserve to know, in advance, that a “yes” vote would initiate an extensive and complex constitutional negotiation, not an immediate change.
Misinformation prevention: The antidote to separatist blackmail is not appeasement; it is honest, direct engagement. “Mythical thinking”, such as the claim that an independent Alberta would automatically be granted pipeline access through Canadian territory under international law, needs to be challenged with facts, not ignored in the hope that it will go away.
Protection of all Canadians: Any negotiation about territorial change must explicitly account for the constitutional and treaty rights of Indigenous peoples, many of whom may wish to remain in Canada.
Misinformation Prevention: Canadians who believe in the country need to say so, to prevent the minority from dominating the conversation in the public sphere.
Federal leadership: The federal government has a long habit of deferring these conversations in the hope they will resolve themselves. However, that approach has costs. Difficult questions about secession, about constitutional obligations, need to be addressed publicly and plainly.
The conversation Canada has been avoiding is now unavoidable. The question is whether it will happen on thoughtful terms, or chaotic ones.