(Version française disponible ici)
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith waited precisely one day after Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney’s federal election victory in April before introducing Bill 54, the Election Statutes Amendment Act, which lowers the barriers to a provincial referendum on sovereignty.
While the United Conservative Party (UCP) government frames this legislation as promoting “democratic renewal,” it is actually accelerating Alberta’s already-simmering separatist movement.
Bill 54 became law on May 15. It represents the most significant change to Alberta’s referendum process in the province’s history. It dramatically reduces the threshold for allowing citizen-initiated referendums from 20 per cent of all eligible voters to just 10 per cent of votes cast in the previous election.
This makes referendums approximately 70 per cent easier to trigger, requiring only about 177,000 signatures – roughly 3.5 per cent of Alberta’s population – rather than the previous 600,000. The legislation also extends the signature-collection period to 120 days from 90 days.
These changes have energized Alberta’s separatist organizations.
Dennis Modry, co-leader of the Alberta Prosperity Project, told the CBC his organization is preparing to launch a signature drive as early as this summer despite previously acknowledging: “In many respects we didn’t want it changed because we figured that the hurdle of getting to 600,000 would get us closer to the referendum plurality as well.”
Cameron Davies, leader of the Republican Party of Alberta, declared after Carney’s election: “Today is the birthday of many new separatists in Alberta” and positioned his party as “the leading movement to hold a binding independence referendum.”
Although Smith maintains she believes in “Alberta sovereignty within a united Canada,” her government’s actions suggest a different agenda.
Rob Smith, the UCP president, explicitly indicated to pro-separation followers that the premier’s electoral reforms would advance their cause. When asked about a path to independence or becoming the 51st state, he replied: “Please read her announcement . . . It’s in there.”
Treaty rights and Indigenous opposition
One of the most formidable constitutional obstacles to Alberta separation comes from First Nations leaders, who have united in fierce opposition to Bill 54.
The Confederacy of Treaty Six First Nations, representing 16 First Nations in Alberta, issued a statement condemning the referendum initiative as reckless and a “direct violation of the Treaty relationship.”
Chiefs from the territories covered by Treaties 6, 7 and 8 have forcefully reminded the province that their agreements predate Alberta’s entry into Confederation in 1905 and were signed by the First Nations and the Crown (i.e., Canada), not the provincial government.
As Alberta’s anger deepens, it gets harder to turn off
Alberta’s Bill 18 is another strategy from Quebec’s playbook
Chief Troy Knowlton of the Piikani Nation has been particularly direct, stating: “This is treaty country. Any talk of separation is really insanity because there is no pathway to separation.”
At a recent press conference, Chief Billy Joe Tuccaro of the Mikisew Cree First Nation declared: “You will not do what you want without the approval of Treaty people . . . Bill 54, this is what we think of you,” he added as he tossed a copy of the proposed legislation on the floor. “You’re garbage, like that.”
Chief Sheldon Sunshine of Sturgeon Lake Cree Nation and Chief Tuccaro sent the premier a cease-and-desist letter, accusing her of “attempting to manufacture a national-unity crisis” and concluding with the pointed suggestion that anyone unhappy living on treaty lands “is free to apply for citizenship elsewhere.”
The UCP’s political approach
The timing of Bill 54 appears strategically calculated, arriving precisely as Albertans process the reality of a fourth consecutive Liberal government in Ottawa. An Angus Reid poll in April found that only about 30 per cent of Albertans would support separation despite the federal Liberal victory.
While this remains a minority position, it represents a significant bloc that the UCP cannot afford to ignore.
Smith is executing a delicate political balancing act. By not personally advocating separation but creating mechanisms that make it easier to achieve, she can simultaneously appeal to both moderate conservatives and the more radical elements within her party, giving her plausible deniability.
The Alberta separatist movement inevitably draws comparisons to Quebec’s sovereignty efforts, which included referendums in 1980 and 1995. The latter came within a tiny margin of achieving a simple majority.
In the aftermath, the federal government passed the Clarity Act, establishing that a “clear majority” would be needed before it would recognize or negotiate any province’s secession, although the act conspicuously fails to define what constitutes a clear majority.
Bill 54 alters Alberta’s existing referendum framework, established in 2021, by dramatically lowering the barriers to trigger such votes and extending signature collection periods.
The UCP has essentially constructed a separation threat that can be activated any time the provincial government or 177,000 signatories want.
The future of Alberta separatism
Smith has committed to putting the question on the 2026 provincial referendum ballot if separatism supporters collect enough signatures – a task made significantly easier by Bill 54.
What’s clear is that this legislation has fundamentally altered Alberta’s political landscape.
By dramatically lowering referendum barriers and introducing electoral changes that advantage conservative interests, the UCP has created conditions conducive to a more organized and potentially viable separatist movement.
These reforms include restoring corporate political donations, which historically benefited conservative parties, and eliminating voter-vouching procedures that helped ensure ballot access for marginalized communities.
However, significant obstacles remain. Between the unified First Nations opposition, constitutional hurdles and the fact that roughly 70 per cent of Albertans still oppose separation, independence remains a distant prospect.
The more realistic outcome may be that the threat of separation becomes Alberta’s ultimate bargaining chip in negotiations with Ottawa over energy policy, climate regulations and provincial autonomy.
The question now is whether Smith’s carefully calibrated “sovereignty within a united Canada” approach will satisfy enough Albertans to forestall more radical separatist ambitions or whether Bill 54 has opened a constitutional avenue that even the UCP cannot control.
Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the Policy Options discussion, and send in your own submission, or a letter to the editor.
