By Michael Wernick

June 3, 2026

Watching Canada slide toward another episode of national unity trauma has been profoundly saddening for those of us who lived through the country’s last, near-death encounter with a secession crisis.

In 1995, I was serving as assistant secretary of constitutional affairs in the Privy Council Office, responsible for generating policy arguments and messaging for the federalist coalition. The last stage of the campaign was the most stressful experience of my long career.

And like most Canadians, I was relieved, following that perilously close call, to see the secessionist tide recede and a de facto moratorium on constitutional negotiations emerge.

Our legislatures and governments were free to channel their energies, however imperfectly, into economic and social issues and to privilege policy and delivery over renovation of institutions. That served us well for three decades.

So, here we are again, facing another October referendum that could lead to the secession of a province and a leap into the unknown. My favourite news and current affairs sites and podcasts are starting to clog up with analysis and commentary that sometimes reaches back to 1995 or at least triggers flashbacks. It raises the question: what is new or different this time, and what is similar?

Plus ça change?

The setting is different. Yes, we may be talking about Quebec soon but for now we are discussing Alberta, ostensibly an unlikely candidate to set off on its own.

Unlike Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica, or the irridentist movements around the globe, there is no history to reach back to. Unlike Quebec or the Basque region there is no propulsive force of language, religion or ethnicity.

There is no Alberta version of “Je me souviens”, except perhaps nostalgia for the heyday of oil and gas extraction. Half of Albertans were born in another part of Canada or another country, which makes an appeal to identity politics challenging.

The driving impulse is a feeling of regional grievance, of being disrespected, condescended to, neglected or overruled. That sentiment is often found in secessionist movements in combination, or co-morbidity, with those other, more volatile drivers.

Geography alone has always been fertile ground for politicians, but it is hard to think of another example where it led to the breakup of a state.

This is where the comparisons to Brexit fall apart. Once the United Kingdom left the European Union the two went on with life. An independent Alberta would soon have annexation by the United States looming as an alternative future — an obvious potential consequence of any vote to secede.

The form is different too. Back in 1995, voters were asked whether they wanted to leave Canada. Saying yes was supposed to lead to a leap into negotiations on new arrangements. As we have learned, it would have potentially led to a Unilateral Declaration of Independence and an appeal to foreign governments for recognition.

This time, Albertans are being asked in a pre-emptive referendum question whether they want to stay, with a no vote triggering a process of uncertain form and duration. I leave it to the psychologists to address whether it sways the result to be advocating a positive or a negative.

What is hauntingly familiar is the slippery dishonesty and the unilateralism of secessionist advocates. Voters are beckoned with the prospect that secession will not just avenge and cease past injustices and humiliations, it will usher in a new age of abundant resources and remedies to all current ills. It peddles magical thinking regarding finances and economics.

The unilateralism is always breathtaking.

What is to become of the “rest of Canada”? That is their problem to sort out after the divorce. Moreover, the decoupling will be orderly and painless, as the newly independent country gets to decide what to preserve or keep from the country it is leaving. It promises separation with benefits without asking the other partner.

Yes, the Clarity Act of 2000 is now in place, as is the jurisprudence from the “secession reference” to the Supreme Court, and the Alberta referendum question suggests some deference to it.

But the same old questions arise about who would speak for Canada, and what happens to the members of the federal Parliament from the seceding province.

Will the Clarity Act hold or are we drifting unknowingly toward something like the Spanish showdown with Catalonian politicians in 2017?

Plus c’est la même chose?

It is striking that the Alberta referendum embeds an existential choice in a long set of other ballot questions.

The other questions assume a round of constitutional and non-constitutional bargaining would take place through 2027 to obtain greater autonomy for Alberta within a united Canada. These other questions are presumably intended to strengthen the hand of the Premier, for the talks, or perhaps for the provincial election due by October of next year.

Unlike the thumbs up or down choice voters had in 1992 to endorse the complicated compromises of the Charlottetown Accord’s constitutional amendments, this ballot allows voters to opine, or abstain, on each item without bundling.

Unlike Charlottetown, which voters could assume would have proceeded, there can be no certainty that any of the up-ballot propositions in Alberta can or would be implemented.

We can expect the Premier to make acceptance or rejection of these changes a test of whether Canada “works”  and to raise the stakes of any rejection. So, it won’t be over in the aftermath.

Also changed since 1995 is the emergence of legal doctrine and jurisprudence imposing a duty to consult Indigenous peoples before making decisions or taking actions that might negatively impact their established or potential treaty rights.

This duty, underscored by an Alberta judge on May 13th, is now being challenged by Premier Smith and will quite likely be back before the Supreme Court. It is relevant not just to the referendum, but to all scenarios that could follow.  I am reminded of the railway blockades of 2013 and can imagine, given the stakes in this debate, more volatile scenarios.

What is the Best Response?

In 1995, very able Quebec separatists, holding control of the levers of the provincial state, were defeated by very able Quebec federalists. Some were in the national government, and some were in the provincial Opposition. Other voices from the private sector, unions and civil society spoke up.

This time, it will primarily be up to federalists/unionists from Alberta to make the case against secession and for Canada.

And this time, the political ecosystem is different. The way voters consume information has changed, and with it the way politicians and advocates engage with them. Willful disinformation has been normalized as a political tactic. Foreign interference in elections and referendums is now commonplace and we face adversaries that would be happy to see Canada hobbled and fragmented.

Running plays from the past won’t be as effective. Tactics will have to be updated.

Federal governments, provincial politicians, academics and pundits have tried a number of approaches to counter the centrifugal forces of separatism and regional alienation. They aren’t mutually exclusive, and each brings pros and cons.

Examples from our past include:

• Pre-emptive accommodation to remove “irritants” that have become the source of grievances
• Promising post-referendum accommodation in general or specific terms
• Attacking the premise of painless divorce and a soft landing
• Making economic arguments that raise the potential price of leaving for firms and households in retail political terms
• Attacking the viability and geopolitical prospects of a newly independent country, stressing the potential loss of influence in global affairs
• Appealing to patriotism, reminding voters of shared history and the accomplishments of a united Canada
• Stepping up the visibility and presence of the federal government and pan-Canadian institutions
• Highlighting all the connections and interdependencies with the rest of Canada that are being put at risk
• Highlighting the contributions of prominent people from the province to national affairs

Over the coming months, we will see many opinion pieces offering advice on which of these approaches to deploy and who would be the best messenger.

A lot may depend on who successfully frames the unwritten polling booth question. By the time we get to voting day, will the onus be on separatists to convince sceptical voters of the case for leaving? Or will the onus be placed on federalists to prove Canada works?

It is 2026, the world is far more dangerous and uncertain, and I remain confident that most Albertans, most Quebecers and indeed most Canadians will decide that spending precious time and energy on whether to destroy this country is a wasteful indulgence.

We have better things to talk and argue about and big decisions to take together. We should be solving problems, not creating them. We have a common future to build for our children on the firm foundation we have inherited.

Michael Wernick served as the 23^rd Clerk of the Privy Council. His work as the Jarislowsky Chair in Public Sector Management at the University of Ottawa can be found on Linked In and secteur-public-sector.ca. His book Governing Canada: A Guide to the Tradecraft of Politics was published in 2021.