By Don Newman

June 15, 2026

As the October Alberta referendum looms closer, politicians representing the province are discovering the joys of needle threading.

The most vivid example was Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s June 8th Calgary speech, in which the Alberta born-and-raised, more recently Alberta-elected MP, presented an argument to the province’s separatists for remaining in Canada.

“The answer therefore for Albertans is not to pull away from our friends in other provinces,” Poilievre said, “but to lock arms with them to make Canada affordable, safe, self-reliant, and united here at home.”

As an Alberta Conservative MP who also leads a federal party, Poilievre has the toughest needle to thread — to remain true to his role as federal party leader while not alienating the right-wing base where most of the province’s separatist vote is concentrated.

After more than a year of rollercoaster headlines — holding a 20-point lead over Justin Trudeau, then losing the election to Trudeau’s successor, Mark Carney; losing his own Ottawa riding in the process, winning his leadership review, losing four MPs to the Liberals — Poilievre would definitely be out of his leader’s job if he did not stand up for Canada and actively fight any attempt to break up the country.

The October 19th referendum question — one of nine and added to the ballot by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to placate separatists in her United Conservative Party government — is a double-barrelled one.

To refresh readers’ memories, here’s the wording:

“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

So, in response to what is not a “Yes” or “No” question but an “A” or “B” question, Albertans could vote to trigger constitutional negotiations as a means to add leverage to their bargaining position with Ottawa, while intending to vote “No” in an actual independence referendum.

This is a risky path to follow.

Even the possibility of leaving Canada will dry up investment in Alberta, lead to outward migration of people who would rather leave Alberta than leave Canada, and cripple what is the country’s fastest growing, most prosperous province.

It is that prosperity that is at the heart of the separation issue.

Resource-rich Alberta is not only the most affluent place in the country, it is also a major driver of Canada’s economic prosperity.

Some Albertans resent the fact that part of that prosperity is redistributed by Ottawa via the federal government’s equalization program. Resentment that Quebec receives that largest percentage of those payments has fuelled the independence debate.

Quebec is also used as a model by people urging a separation referendum. They portray Quebec’s independence referendums of 1980 and 1995 as a brilliant tactic for extracting concessions to the province from the federal government. That is at least partially true. But it largely misses the point.

It fails to factor in the price Quebec has paid. Montreal, which, before the Parti Québecois government of René Lévesque was elected in 1976, was Canada’s largest city, suffered a population and investment exodus due to political uncertainty whose generational impacts continue to this day.

But it is the small-town and rural parts of Alberta that are Smith’s and the United Conservatives’ political base. That is why she has made it easier for people seeking a separation referendum to get one, even as says she is not a separatist; another needle being threaded.

It is into this quagmire of Smith’s creation that Poilievre and other Alberta federal politicians have stepped. Now they must tread carefully.

The other nine other questions on the referendum ballot deal with greater provincial autonomy and power, including the power to appoint judges up to the King’s Court level and abolishing the Senate.

Other questions deal with control over immigration and social services — policy areas that under other right-wing populist governments, including in the United States, have been used for the scapegoating of immigrants and visible minorities.

Even if some or all of those questions receive referendum approval, the results will be likely be dismissed by Ottawa or the Supreme Court.

The danger is, of course, that the question to hold a second referendum passes and the federal rejection of the power grab in the other questions fuels more yes votes in the binding separation referendum.

It is into this quagmire of Smith’s creation that Poilievre and other Alberta federal politicians have stepped. Now they must tread carefully.

Poilievre is arguing that to make Canada more acceptable to the residents of his home province, they must vote to change federal policies seen as hurtful to Alberta’s energy economy. Many were propagated under the more environmentally conscious Liberal government of Justin Trudeau and some have already been rolled back as part of the nation-building agenda of Prime Minister Carney.

But urging independence-minded Albertans to vote against those policies is preaching to the choir. For more than 50 years a large majority of Albertans have denied the Liberal Party their support.

Through many elections over decades, with the exception of Stephen Harper’s nine years in power, this has relegated their interests to the opposition benches, which has further fuelled the problem.

That Canada now has its first Liberal prime minister with Alberta roots has seemingly influenced policy, but Poilievre is not going to be the one to point that out.

But with the political realities facing this misguided referendum project, it is a good thing for Poilievre to declare himself firmly on the “No” side, and prevail upon his fellow Alberta members to do the same.

For now, he has saved his own job. He may have also helped save the county.

Policy Columnist Don Newman is an Officer of the Order of Canada, and a lifetime member and a past president of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery.