Alberta’s Separation Ballot Ended With a Whimper
The result of Alberta’s referendum was widely expected: three-quarters chose to stay in Canada. The referendum’s other questions, and the political tensions they exposed, point to deeper struggles — over immigration and the country’s resource economy.
Alberta’s vote to stay in Canada was predictable. But the political tensions the referendum represented haven’t been fully exorcized by the vote to remain. (John Diep / Bloomberg)
No country treats referendums as less definitive than Canada. Two sovereignty referendums in Quebec have not totally put to bed the independence question in la belle province, and in spite of declining referendum support, the new Parti Québécois government is promising a third when Donald Trump leaves office. Voters rejected a set of constitutional amendments known as the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, but constitutional issues continue to fester with no federal government willing to touch them.
This history matters when considering Alberta’s recent referendum. On the surface, the repudiation of Albertan independence was decisive, with 75.05 percent voting for Alberta to remain a province of Canada instead of beginning the legal process toward a binding referendum on separation. But voters also answered nine other questions, covering immigration, proof of citizenship to vote, and constitutional reform. The four immigration questions passed with between 52 and 54 percent. The proposal to require proof of citizenship to vote also passed, with about 58 percent.
Even with Alberta staying, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith could face a political reckoning reminiscent of UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s after Brexit. To appease Euroskeptics in his party, Cameron called the referendum, campaigned to stay in the European Union, and resigned when voters chose to leave. Both leaders gave their parties’ right wings a vote on a demand they hoped to contain. Cameron’s experience shows how such a vote can spiral out of control, empowering the very forces a leader hopes to manage and having lasting political effects long after the votes are counted.
Smith says she voted to keep Alberta in Canada, but a majority of Albertans think she wants the province to leave. An Abacus poll conducted in February, months before the referendum, found that 53 percent thought she would vote to separate. A June Ipsos poll found that about 40 percent of her United Conservative Party (UCP) voter base backed separation, while 50 percent preferred to remain. Calgary, traditionally more conservative than Edmonton, the provincial capital, voted 85 to 15 to keep Alberta in Canada.
Smith now faces pressure from two directions. Calgary remains essential for the UCP’s political fortunes, but the party recently lost the Calgary-Shaw by-election to the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP). Some UCP constituency associations are pushing for a leadership review at the party’s general meeting this November. The UCP may yet turn on itself, even as the NDP’s political fortunes continue to rise. A Mainstreet poll published right before the referendum had the two parties tied in voting intention, despite NDP leader Naheed Nenshi’s relatively low approval rating.
Smith has other weapons that may save her. Voter approval for the four immigration-related proposals gives her an opening to press Ottawa for greater provincial control over immigration. High oil prices are also helping Alberta’s economy grow faster than the Canadian average. Still, the referendum has left Smith caught between the separatist sentiment within her own party and the clear preference among Albertans to remain in Canada. It may mark the beginning of political headwinds for Smith — and even possibly for the UCP.
A Very Canadian Polycrisis
The results on immigration should come as little surprise. Support for immigration in Canada has plummeted since the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet Canada needs immigration to sustain economic growth, particularly as the country’s population ages and labor force participation declines. At the same time, the labor market is weakening. After some gains earlier in the year, Canada had lost about 41,000 jobs by September, with losses concentrated among young workers. This labor market weakness is occurring as the country attempts to reorient its economy away from the United States.
Statistics Canada has yet to find clear evidence of artificial-intelligence-related employment reduction, but the prospect is on the minds of many workers. A survey of US economists found little expectation of a job apocalypse, but many anticipate difficult sectoral transitions and downward pressure on wages for workers with higher education. If job prospects remain weak, the Left must tread carefully.
Alberta is the clearest expression of Canada’s resource-dependent economy. Mark Carney has doubled down on expanding resource exports, without an extensive industrial policy to promote domestic processing. Meanwhile, the US-Israeli war on Iran is accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels, even as prices are soaring. In time, the shock caused by the war may hasten demand destruction, as costs and supply insecurity push consumers and governments toward alternatives. In this scenario, because of the high cost of oil sands extraction, the province will be hit hard.
This is about more than economics. In Canada, natural resources, especially fossil fuels, have become a culture war flash point. Despite jobs in the Alberta oil sector being automated away, claims that environmentalists want to take jobs away from hardworking Albertans still abound. Canada once organized much of its political economy around manufacturing in Ontario and Quebec, and this history is now invoked to express regional grievances. Today resource dependence means oil booms can strengthen the Canadian dollar at the expense of industry in Eastern Canada.
Escaping from boom-and-bust cycles, regional grievances, and anxieties about labor markets and immigration will require skillful political leadership. It will also require an economic strategy focused on jobs, capable of delivering affordable necessities, including clean energy and housing, as Canada builds a less resource-dependent economy — an economy that moves away from its role as “hewer of wood and drawer of water.”
Until then, Alberta’s contradictions will shape the country one way or another.