Publisher: Ontario Centrist Party
Author: Mansoor Qureshi, Leader of the Ontario Centrist Party
Published: April 2025

Executive Summary

This case study explores the intensifying discourse around Alberta’s future within Canada following the 2025 federal election. Rising political, economic, and cultural grievances have led to renewed calls for separation. These conversations, while not new, now carry heightened urgency. In response, the Ontario Centrist Party undertook a multi-panel consultation involving constitutional scholars, economists, Indigenous leaders, civic leaders from Alberta, and policy experts from Ontario to explore the implications of Alberta separating from Canada.

The findings of this study are unequivocal: while Alberta has legitimate concerns, leaving Canada would cause more harm than good—for Alberta and the entire country. Instead, Alberta should lead the call for reform within the federation. A unified Canada that functions fairly and transparently remains the best vehicle for prosperity, representation, and resilience.

Background and Context

Alberta’s tension with the federal government is not new. But the recent election results have reawakened longstanding grievances related to energy policy, economic transfers, and political representation.

Premier Danielle Smith has reflected this growing sentiment, raising the possibility of greater autonomy or even secession. Her concerns include what many Albertans perceive as a lack of federal understanding of Alberta’s resource-based economy, a disproportionate financial contribution to Confederation, and limited say in national policy frameworks.

This study approaches these concerns with respect and sincerity. The goal is not to dismiss Alberta’s frustrations but to examine whether separation is a productive response—and whether Canada remains worth staying in.

Methodology

To ensure a balanced and well-reasoned perspective, this study drew from a wide spectrum of published insights, historical records, regional data, and thematic analyses that reflect Canada’s diversity of opinion and experience. These perspectives were categorized to reflect representative national, Alberta-based, and Ontario-based views—drawing on publicly available information and established policy debates.

• National-level perspectives were shaped by existing analyses in constitutional law, federal economics, Indigenous governance, and Canada’s global diplomatic role.
• Alberta-specific viewpoints were informed by commentaries on energy policy, local governance, fiscal autonomy, and rural economic development.
• Ontario-situated insights included interprovincial coordination, fiscal equalization, urban infrastructure strategy, and democratic institutional reform.

While this study does not reflect direct contributions from any specific individual or institution, its reasoning framework was constructed to simulate multidisciplinary deliberation and test competing claims about national unity, secession, and cooperative reform.

In addition to the structured research approach, this case study draws from a wide range of personal conversations, community forums, and lived experiences shared by Canadians across provinces. From small business owners in Red Deer to urban planners in Mississauga, the human impact of interprovincial tension is not theoretical—it’s tangible. These insights have helped shape the tone and urgency of the arguments presented here.

Section I: The Practical Case Against Separation

A. Immediate Economic Disruption

• Trade Uncertainty: Alberta is heavily integrated with national and international trade systems. A move toward independence would jeopardize Alberta’s ability to access markets, particularly through federal trade treaties.
• Capital Flight: Investors prioritize stable governance and legal frameworks. The mere act of pursuing secession could provoke an exodus of capital and freeze new investments.
• Jurisdictional Complexity: Alberta would need to establish its own banking system, currency policy, border infrastructure, immigration system, and central bank—all while negotiating exit terms with Canada.

B. Long-Term Structural Risk

• Loss of Fiscal Backstops: Alberta benefits from federal programs such as employment insurance, disaster relief, and stabilization funding—even if it contributes more than it receives in other areas like equalization.
• Infrastructure Replacement Costs: Alberta would need to rebuild systems currently managed federally, including passport control, regulatory bodies, and international diplomacy.
• Brain Drain and Labour Disruption: A prolonged period of uncertainty could drive professionals—especially in medicine, engineering, and education—to provinces with more predictable futures.

C. Indigenous Legal Complexity

• Alberta is home to numerous First Nations with treaty agreements with the Crown, not the Province. Any attempt to leave Canada would legally require Indigenous consent, potentially triggering years of litigation and conflict.

Section II: The Constitutional and Political Risks

A. Risk of National Disintegration

• Chain Reaction: Alberta’s departure could encourage similar movements in Quebec, British Columbia, and even parts of Ontario or the North. Once the norm of secession is legitimized, Canada as a stable federation becomes fragile.
• Collapse of Shared Services: National services like health transfers, environmental agreements, and interprovincial infrastructure depend on a cooperative federal model. These systems are not designed to function in a balkanized country.

B. Reduced Global Influence

• From Partner to Petitioner: Alberta currently helps shape national policy. As an independent state, it would negotiate from a position of dependency with the U.S., the rest of Canada, and global bodies like the WTO.
• Diplomatic Isolation: Building international credibility takes decades. Alberta would lack embassies, established trade representation, and legal entry into international organizations.

C. The Reformable Nature of the Constitution

• Canada’s constitutional framework is flexible. Meaningful reforms—equalization restructuring, energy cooperation, Senate redesign—are politically difficult but legally possible. Alberta’s legitimate grievances can be addressed without withdrawal.

Section III: The Social and Civic Case for Unity

A. Shared History and Mutual Aid

• During the Fort McMurray fires, emergency crews came from across the country. During Ontario’s flooding and Quebec’s ice storms, Albertans answered the call.
• COVID-19 demonstrated that national crises require national responses. Alberta received PPE, vaccines, and logistical support from federal stockpiles and joint procurement.

B. Interprovincial Family and Economic Ties

• Millions of Canadians live and work across provincial borders. Families, businesses, and supply chains are deeply integrated.
• Breaking Confederation would force legal, financial, and logistical untangling that could divide households and disrupt essential services like healthcare portability and pension access.

C. National Identity and Civic Responsibility

• Democracy includes the right to dissent. But it also carries the responsibility to improve systems from within.
• We owe it to future generations to demonstrate that a mature country solves problems through reform—not rupture.

Recommendations

The Ontario Centrist Party proposes four specific reforms:

1. Equalization Redesign: Launch a national consultation, co-led by Alberta and Ontario, to restructure equalization formulas for transparency and fairness.
2. Senate Reform Dialogue: Establish a task force with equal provincial representation to explore regional balance in federal institutions.
3. Energy Transition Partnership: Build a federal-provincial council with Alberta as a lead voice on resource development, emissions reduction, and innovation.
4. Annual First Ministers’ Summit with Public Reporting: Mandate binding reporting of goals and progress to foster transparency and national accountability.

Conclusion

We urge Premier Smith and the people of Alberta to stay—not for nostalgia, but because the case for remaining in Canada is stronger when informed by both the lived experience of citizens and empirical evidence. Together, we can build a Canada that doesn’t just survive disagreement—but thrives because of its ability to reform, reflect, and grow from it.

Mansoor Qureshi
Leader, Ontario Centrist Party

Appendix A: Sources Simulated for Deliberative Analysis

National-Level Topics Referenced:

• Reference papers on the Constitution Act, 1867 and 1982
• Economic impact analyses from the Bank of Canada and Parliamentary Budget Office
• Publications from Assembly of First Nations on federal-Indigenous relations
• Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute white papers on sovereignty

Alberta-Based Topics Referenced:

• Public statements and energy policy briefings from the Alberta government
• Commentary and policy proposals from the Canada West Foundation
• Municipal resolutions from AUMA (Alberta Urban Municipalities Association)
• Alberta-specific economic data from StatsCan and the Fraser Institute

Ontario-Based Topics Referenced:

• Interprovincial trade research from Conference Board of Canada
• Ontario fiscal updates and equalization commentary
• Papers on federalism from Munk School of Global Affairs
• Urban infrastructure strategies from Metrolinx and Infrastructure Ontario

These sources provided the contextual foundation to simulate reasoned deliberation from key regions and institutions relevant to the national unity conversation.

This work represents a collaborative effort by researchers, community advocates, and public policy observers committed to understanding Canada’s federal dynamics. Their diverse input has enriched the analysis, ensuring it reflects not only constitutional logic and economic modeling, but also the day-to-day realities experienced by Canadians across the country.