By Daniel Béland

October 20, 2026

In Alberta on Monday, about three quarters of voters opted to remain in Canada instead of choosing the path to a binding independence referendum.

Once the results became clear, Prime Minister Mark Carney expressed satisfaction at the outcome.

“On October 19, Albertans made a clear choice,” Carney said in a statement. “They chose unity, to build together, and to take care of each other.”

He added that the results “on the defining question of separation mean that Albertans and all Canadians will move forward together with renewed purpose and high ambition.”

For the Prime Minister, the decisive victory of the “remain” camp in Alberta is certainly a source of relief. Although public opinion data gathered in the weeks and months before the Alberta referendum clearly indicated that the “remain” side would likely win, a key issue was whether it would win big, and it did.

For the Carney government, which seeks to concentrate on “securing new trade partners around the world, fast-tracking major, nation-building projects in every part of the country, and unleashing our full potential as a global energy superpower with Alberta at its core,” per Carney’s statement, this is great news.

In a sense, these results defuse the Nightmare Before Halloween scenario that October’s Quebec election and Alberta referendum held for Mark Carney that Policy Magazine Editor Lisa Van Dusen warned of in a column last month.

The Quebec election produced a minority PQ government, and the Alberta secession threat has been rebuffed for now. Carney heads into the crucial Canada-EU Summit in Montreal at the end of the month in a much better position than might have otherwise been the case.

Without a majority, it will be much harder for the PQ government to trigger a referendum, as it would require securing support from Québec Solidaire in the National Assembly.

Interestingly, a recent Léger poll suggests that, without its campaign promise to hold a referendum by 2030 if elected, the PQ would have secured enough support to reach majority territory. The poll also shows that support for a third referendum under the PQ government currently stands at 20%.

Considering this, if the PQ tries to move forward with a referendum before the next election, it could create a backlash that could cost the PQ in the next provincial general election.

National unity in Canada has been a work in progress since confederation, and this work must continue even when immediate threats are in retreat.

In other words, the odds of an independence referendum taking place in Alberta or Quebec anytime soon are low, which is certainly a source of relief for the federal government. This is particularly true in the context of the trade war between Canada and the United States, and the acute level of economic and geopolitical uncertainty the country faces.

These remarks do not mean that national unity is no longer an issue for the Carney government and, more generally, for the country, now and soon.

First, territorial grievances about federal institutions and policies in Alberta are unlikely to go away. This is the case in areas such as energy policy but also immigration, a topic covered by five of the 10 questions in Monday’s referendum. Western alienation and its Alberta variant have been around for a long time and are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Second, while support for independence is low in Quebec right now, if the PQ plays its cards well, they could generate enough support to win a majority government. Just like Alberta regionalism, Quebec nationalism and the independence movement are not going to disappear.

Right now, the popularity of prime minister Carney and the presence of the Trump administration in the White House are favourable to national unity but they do not eliminate regional tensions, and the federal government must tread carefully, even if the immediate risk of an independence referendum has been reduced.

But as we approach the third year of his tenure, the prime minister’s popularity will likely start falling sooner rather than later and new infrastructure initiatives are likely to foster additional intergovernmental tensions. To this we can add Indigenous political mobilization, which is especially crucial regarding the resource sector.

More generally, territorial politics in Canada remain centred on the urban-rural divide, which is apparent is the early results of the Alberta referendum where, as economist Trevor Tombe shows, support for the “remain” side was much stronger in Calgary and Edmonton than in small towns and rural areas.

At the same time, in Quebec, the PQ won big in areas outside the three biggest cities of the province, but they won zero seats in Laval and in Quebec City, and only two seats out of 27 on the island of Montreal. The urban-rural divide is grounded in specific demographic factors, including the relative level of racial and ethnic diversity, and it is related to the issue of national unity, even if it is not necessarily understood as such.

As Alasdair Roberts wrote in his book The Adaptable Country, no country can be taken for granted and we must pursue long term strategies to adapt our institutions and policies to changing pressures and circumstances. This applies to federalism, intergovernmental relations and, especially, national unity.

As a large, multinational and highly decentralized federal country, Canada needs to address its internal tensions partly through new forms of “federal-provincial diplomacy,” even when the odds of an independence referendum in one province or another are low in the short run.

National unity in Canada has been a work in progress since confederation, and this work must continue even when immediate threats are in retreat.

It’s the only way to keep Canada both adaptable and sustainable, institutionally and politically.

A fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, Daniel Béland is professor of political science and director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada at McGill University.