Alberta’s separatist movement has endured a crushing setback at the polls, while Quebec’s separatists remain in the mix but face an uphill climb that is unlikely to yield quick success. Illustration: Lex Villena
Back in June, this space examined Canada’s two active secessionist currents: one centered in Alberta and the other in Quebec. Since then, notable shifts have taken place. Alberta’s bid for independence has faced a pronounced defeat, whereas Quebec’s effort remains more resilient, even if the path to victory is fraught with obstacles. Nevertheless, both movements could conceivably continue to persist for years to come.
Yesterday’s result in Alberta was a resounding rejection of any move toward secession, as voters chose to reject the secession question by a substantial 75-25 margin. Pollsters had anticipated a strong victory for the anti-secession side, yet the margin landed at the outer reaches of those expectations. More importantly, the way the question was framed may have understated the depth of opposition to secession within the province. As highlighted in the earlier analysis, the ballot did not ask directly whether Alberta should part from Canada; instead it sought to determine whether the provincial government should begin the constitutional process to present a binding referendum on separation. In essence, it was a vote on whether to hold another referendum at some point in the future. Some voters who favored holding a subsequent referendum could have responded “yes” on the surface, but planned to vote “no” for the immediate question.
Premier Danielle Smith of the United Conservative Party, who played a key part in setting up yesterday’s vote although she personally opposes secession, has vowed not to stage any new referendums on the issue. Her stance may be designed to keep a divisive issue off the table, particularly since Alberta secessionists are overwhelmingly drawn from the UCP’s right-leaning base. Taken together, these dynamics spell trouble for the secessionist cause in Alberta. Yet a movement that suffers a defeat does not instantly vanish. As discussed previously, secessionist currents often endure for many years, even in the face of defeats in referendums and other political blows. Scotland, Quebec, and Catalonia serve as well-known illustrations of this perseverance. Moreover, roughly a quarter of Alberta voters expressed some level of support for secession, despite opposition from the leaders of all major parties. That figure represents a minority, but it is by no means negligible.
Across the country, Quebec presents a somewhat different outlook. On October 5, the secessionist Parti Québécois (PQ) won the provincial election, but with only 28% of the vote—the lowest tally ever recorded by a winning party in a Canadian provincial contest. The result is a minority government with 59 seats in Quebec’s National Assembly, five short of a majority. As argued in the prior discussion, support for secession remains soft, with polls frequently showing a two-to-one margin against it. For deeper dives into the Quebec results and their consequences, readers can consult the analyses produced by Canadian polling specialists Eric Grenier and Philippe Fournier. Fournier stresses that PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon (often referred to by the initials PSPP) remains committed to pursuing a secession referendum. Yet the constrained nature of a minority government makes it unclear whether the PQ can secure enough votes to enact the necessary legislation to move forward.
The left-wing Quebec Solidaire, which holds nine seats, also leans pro-independence, though cooperation with the PQ is not guaranteed. In addition, PSPP has pledged not to call a referendum so long as Donald Trump is the U.S. president, arguing that it would be too precarious to attempt such a vote while Trump maintains his tariff wars with Canada and otherwise threatens the country. Unless Trump exits the presidency through death or impeachment (an unlikely prospect in the near term), he is expected to remain in office until January 2029. In Canada, minority governments typically do not endure beyond two years, so PSPP could be in power for a relatively short window—perhaps not long enough to outwait Trump.
While the prospect of a Quebec secessionist victory in the near future remains remote, the fact that the PQ returned to governance signals the movement’s stubborn persistence. The secessionist impulse has survived earlier referendum defeats in 1980 and 1995, and it is likely to continue presenting challenges to federal authorities in Ottawa for years to come. In terms of overall endurance, the Quebec movement demonstrates greater staying power than its Alberta counterpart.
Many Canadians contend that Trump’s threats against the United States have undercut secessionists in both Alberta and Quebec. PSPP’s stance is one piece of that broader pattern. Trump’s tariff policies and his threats to redefine Canada’s relationship as something akin to a “51st state” have fostered a sense of national unity and have boosted the Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Mark Carney in ways that might not otherwise have occurred. It is possible that, in the eyes of some, Trump’s actions have, paradoxically, helped the Liberals and hindered the secessionist cause. If this analysis holds any truth, Trump’s objectives in Canada may be more complex than they first appear.
Turning to the June commentary, the author argued that Alberta’s secession movement seemed to hold more merit—rooted in conservative economic views and frustrations with federal fiscal transfers and energy policy—than Quebec’s, which are tied more to Francophone ethno-nationalism. While acknowledging the Alberta case’s relative strength, there remains skepticism that independence for Alberta would yield net benefits. The piece also explained why these movements resonated beyond Canada’s borders and why an American observer might choose to weigh in: such developments are of interest to scholars of federalism and secession, as well as to anyone concerned about the future of Canada, a key ally and neighbor to the United States. History, it was noted, shows that secessionist currents often endure even after electoral defeats. From a U.S. standpoint, there is a worry that a successful Canadian breakaway could render Canada a weaker partner. Yet, unlike the U.S. president at the time, maintaining a robust Western alliance is deemed essential.
Some readers might find an American commentator inappropriate when discussing Canadian politics, but the author argued otherwise. Canadians and others frequently comment on U.S. politics, and such commentary should be judged on its substance rather than the author’s nationality. Moreover, Canadian secessionism potentially affects the United States in various ways and raises broader questions about the morality of secessionist experiments that interest many observers. The author identified as a long-standing scholar of federalism and secession and noted fluency in both French and English, asserting that these qualifications lend credibility to the analysis. Whether readers deem the commentary valuable or not remains for them to decide.
