Two former Alberta premiers who once fought bitterly over the province’s direction are now standing on the same side of one of its biggest constitutional questions. Jason Kenney and Rachel Notley have agreed to co-chair a Canadian Chamber of Commerce campaign arguing that Alberta’s future is stronger inside Canada, an unusual partnership shaped by an equally unusual moment.
Albertans are heading toward an October 19 vote on whether to remain in Canada or begin the constitutional process toward a future binding separation referendum. At the same time, Canada and the United States have entered a much sharper tariff confrontation, adding economic uncertainty to an already complicated debate. For Kenney and Notley, the combination has turned Alberta separation from an ideological argument into a question about trade, investment, legal certainty and how much disruption the province can absorb at once.
Two Former Rivals Find Common Ground on Canada
Kenney and Notley are hardly natural political partners. Kenney led the United Conservative Party to a decisive victory over Notley’s NDP government in Alberta’s 2019 election, ending her four-year premiership and establishing himself as the central conservative figure in the province. Their governments differed sharply on taxation, climate policy, labour rules, energy strategy and Alberta’s relationship with Ottawa. That history makes their new partnership more striking than a conventional endorsement from two politicians on the same side of the spectrum.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says the former premiers will co-chair a campaign designed to demonstrate that Alberta can prosper while remaining part of Canada. Details of the campaign are still being developed with chamber members. Notley has acknowledged that she and Kenney continue to disagree on many issues, but says they share the view that the referendum is harmful for business and badly timed during a trade confrontation with the United States. Kenney has likewise spent months arguing that separatism risks distracting from legitimate Alberta grievances that could instead be pursued within Confederation.
October 19 Is Not a Direct Independence Vote
The mechanics of Alberta’s referendum matter because the ballot is more complicated than a simple choice between Canada and independence. Elections Alberta says voters will be presented with 10 referendum questions. The separation-related question is formally numbered Question 10, although it will be handed to voters first. Albertans will choose between keeping Alberta as a province of Canada and directing the provincial government to begin the legal process required to hold a future binding referendum on separation.
That distinction means even a victory for the second option would not make Alberta independent. The October 19 result is explicitly non-binding and would instead push the government toward another stage of the process. The separatist movement nevertheless demonstrated significant organizational strength before the vote. Elections Alberta reported that the independence initiative originally required 177,732 signatures. After verification and statistical sampling, 222,597 signatures were recognized, exceeding the threshold. A separate Alberta Forever Canada initiative had previously secured more than 400,000 verified signatures. Those competing campaigns help explain why the issue cannot simply be dismissed as an internet argument, even though polling still shows a clear advantage for remaining in Canada.
The Canada-U.S. Trade Fight Changes the Economic Calculation
The referendum campaign is unfolding just as Canada’s economic relationship with its biggest trading partner has deteriorated sharply. On August 25, Ottawa announced new retaliatory tariffs covering $27.6 billion worth of American goods after the United States imposed matching-value tariffs on Canadian exports. Canada’s new duties, scheduled to begin September 8, will range from 15 per cent to 50 per cent across products including steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics.
Ottawa also unveiled $7.5 billion in additional support for businesses and workers exposed to the dispute. The confrontation could widen further. President Donald Trump has threatened 50 per cent tariffs on Canadian-made cars, trucks and auto parts beginning January 1, 2027, after the latest trade negotiations collapsed. Alberta’s crude oil industry is not the principal target of this newest tariff package, but that provides only limited insulation from the broader uncertainty. The larger question for businesses is whether this is a moment to introduce another layer of constitutional and trade uncertainty when Canada is already trying to defend market access, diversify exports and manage increasingly unpredictable relations with Washington.
Alberta’s U.S. Exposure Is Enormous
Few provinces illustrate Canada’s reliance on the American market as clearly as Alberta. Parliamentary trade data show that 85.4 per cent of Alberta’s international merchandise exports went to the United States in 2025. Alberta government data put the value of those exports at approximately $151.5 billion. Energy dominates the equation: crude oil and hydrocarbon gases together accounted for 73.6 per cent of Alberta’s merchandise exports that year, making access to continental pipelines, refineries and customers central to the province’s economic model.
The dependence has continued into 2026. Statistics Canada-based trade figures show Alberta exported about $82.3 billion in goods to the United States during the first six months of the year, out of roughly $99.1 billion exported worldwide. That works out to approximately 83 per cent. Those numbers do not prove what an independent Alberta’s economy would ultimately look like, and definitive claims about the cost of separation deserve caution. The University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy has been conducting an independent study of the fiscal and economic implications, examining transition costs, government responsibilities, potential savings and risks. Its existence itself highlights how many economic questions remain unresolved.
Kenney and Notley Represent Very Different Alberta Coalitions
The political symbolism of the partnership becomes clearer when looking back at 2019. Kenney’s UCP won 63 of Alberta’s 87 seats with 54.9 per cent of the popular vote, while Notley’s NDP took 24 seats and 32.7 per cent. They represented competing visions of Alberta and drew support from substantially different groups of voters. Bringing both onto the same pro-Canada campaign gives the federalist side figures capable of speaking to constituencies that would rarely attend the same political rally.
The situation is more complicated than a straightforward Kenney-Notley confrontation with Premier Danielle Smith. Smith has repeatedly said she personally supports Alberta remaining in Canada and that her government and caucus officially favour a strong Alberta within Confederation. Her dispute with critics is largely over whether separatist sentiment should be given a democratic outlet and how aggressively Alberta should confront Ottawa. Notley argues that Smith’s government has allowed separatist politics to occupy too much space, while Kenney has warned fellow conservatives that separation could weaken rather than strengthen Alberta’s bargaining position. The referendum therefore cuts through Alberta’s usual party lines in ways conventional elections rarely do.
Leaving Canada Would Require Far More Than Winning a Provincial Ballot
Canadian constitutional law places major limits on the idea that a province could simply vote itself out of the federation. In the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1998 Quebec Secession Reference, the court concluded that a province cannot secede unilaterally. A clear majority supporting separation on a clear question would create a constitutional obligation for governments to negotiate, but it would not automatically create a new country. Those negotiations would have to reconcile federalism, democracy, the rule of law, minority rights and the interests of the other participants in Confederation.
Parliament’s Clarity Act adds another layer. It gives the House of Commons a role in deciding whether a future separation question is sufficiently clear and whether the result demonstrates a clear majority. Indigenous rights would also be central. Earlier this year, Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench quashed the citizen-led independence petition after finding problems with consultation involving First Nations. Subsequent court proceedings allowed verification of the petition to continue, but the dispute underscored how Treaties 6, 7 and 8 and the Crown’s constitutional obligations cannot simply be treated as provincial assets to be transferred in a breakup. Any genuine separation process would therefore involve years of legal and political negotiation rather than a single election-night decision.
The Remain Side Leads, but the Protest Vote Is Significant
Recent polling suggests Kenney and Notley are entering the campaign with a substantial advantage, although not an overwhelming reason for complacency. An Angus Reid Institute poll conducted August 10 to 13 found 61 per cent of Albertans would choose to remain in Canada on the October question, compared with 33 per cent who would support beginning the process toward a binding separation referendum. When respondents were given a simpler hypothetical choice between actually leaving Canada and staying, support for independence fell to 30 per cent while 65 per cent chose Canada.
The difference between those two questions reveals an important feature of Alberta’s separatist vote. Angus Reid found that 41 per cent of respondents inclined toward leaving said their motivation was more about sending a message to Ottawa than actually creating an independent country. Turnout enthusiasm could also matter. Eighty-two per cent of Albertans said they were certain to vote, but certainty was higher among the leave side at 88 per cent, compared with 81 per cent among those favouring Canada. That leaves the pro-unity campaign with a familiar political challenge: a polling lead does not eliminate the need to persuade supporters to show up.
Their Alliance Is Ultimately About Reducing Risk
The strongest message available to Kenney and Notley may be less about patriotism than about timing. Alberta is already navigating uncertainty over U.S. tariffs, future continental auto and steel rules, energy markets, investment and the approaching future of CUSMA. Canadian businesses are simultaneously being asked to rethink supply chains and reduce dependence on one dominant market. Opening a serious constitutional negotiation over Alberta’s borders, currency arrangements, federal programs, debt, trade access and Indigenous treaties would introduce a second set of unresolved questions at precisely the same time.
That does not erase the grievances driving separatist support. Alberta’s battles with Ottawa over energy policy, federal transfers, environmental regulation and provincial jurisdiction have accumulated over decades, and both Kenney and Notley have challenged federal governments from different directions. What their partnership suggests is that they see a distinction between demanding a different deal inside Canada and leaving Canada altogether. With less than two months remaining before the October 19 vote, two former adversaries are betting that Albertans who disagree intensely about how the federation should work can still agree that breaking it apart during an escalating North American trade conflict carries risks neither side should underestimate.
