Alberta is not Quebec. Danielle Smith is not a cultural nationalist. So why is the language starting to sound familiar? And why is no one calling it what it is?

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith keeps insisting she is not a separatist. She just wants “autonomy,” “sovereignty,” “control,” and “freedom from Ottawa.” In other words, all the ingredients of separatism served on a plate labelled “Absolutely Not Separatism, Please Don’t Panic.”

This is not confusion. It is a strategy.
The silence around the S-word is deliberate political engineering.

And the more you compare this movement to Quebec’s, the more the difference becomes impossible to ignore. Quebec’s struggle was a centuries-long story of cultural identity. Alberta’s is a modern grievance movement fueled by economics, populism, and political marketing.

Before we dive in, here is the core truth.

Quebec did not suddenly wake up one morning craving independence. The roots stretch back to 1759, when New France became British territory. For generations, francophones lived with a persistent fear of cultural extinction. That long memory shaped everything that followed.

The 1960s Quiet Revolution modernized Quebec, weakened the Church, and created a confident middle class. Cultural nationalism became political nationalism. Independence was framed as a way to protect Quebec’s future.

Francophones consistently viewed themselves as a distinct people within Canada. Their language, traditions, and institutions were unique and vulnerable. Independence was not about tax distribution. It was about existence. Quebec nationalists believed that without political power, assimilation was inevitable.

Agree or disagree, the argument had historical depth and internal logic.

Bill 101 entrenched French as the official language of public life. Schools, courts, and workplaces adapted to protect that identity.

This language-driven identity was the backbone of the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois, and decades of openly stated independence policies. Quebec never whispered about separation. They put it on referendum ballots.

Alberta’s grievances are not cultural. There is no language under threat. No distinct civil code. No heritage at risk of erasure. Alberta’s identity is Canadian with a cowboy hat, not a distinct nation.

The roots of Alberta’s resentment lie in political and economic disputes, especially around:

These are policy fights, not cultural ones.

Where Quebec nationalism was existential, Alberta’s sovereignty movement is transactional. It is about money, power, and jurisdiction. Resource wealth has always shaped Alberta’s political emotions. Smith taps into this frustration and converts it into populist momentum.

Danielle Smith did not invent this sentiment. She packaged it. Her language of “control” and “sovereignty” is a modern populist toolkit borrowed from movements abroad. What’s missing is the nationhood argument that makes Quebec’s case coherent.

Alberta’s argument boils down to: Ottawa is annoying us and costing us money. Hardly the stuff of nationhood.

Quebec’s separatist movement grew from:

They framed independence as an act of cultural continuation.

Alberta’s sovereignty movement grows from:

There is no claim to being a distinct nation. The motivation is leverage, not identity.

Quebec held two referendums: 1980 and 1995. Nearly half the province voted for independence. Political parties existed solely to pursue nationhood. Civil society organizations openly backed it.

Quebec did not avoid the S-word. It was the platform.

Support for Alberta separation hovers around 15-25 percent. Not even close to viable. Smith knows that uttering “separation” would:

So she relies on gentler substitutes.

Terms like:

These are not harmless political slogans. They are coded language. The Sovereignty Act itself is constitutionally weak but symbolically potent. It signals independence without admitting it.

Quebec’s independence movement had:

It was a legitimate democratic movement.

Alberta has:

The support base consists of fringe separatist groups and angry Facebook uncles.

The Supreme Court’s 1998 ruling recognized Quebec’s right to pursue independence through:

Alberta is not a distinct society under Canadian law. It cannot nullify federal law. It cannot unilaterally exit national programs. And it certainly cannot trigger separation through symbolic legislation.

The Constitution does not bend to provincial press conferences. The Sovereignty Act is political theatre, not a legal blueprint.

If Smith is labelled a separatist, she must either:

She prefers to float above the question.

Soft language allows her to:

It is political wordsmithing, not policy clarity.

The moment the public and media shift the vocabulary, the entire strategy collapses.
Markets react. Moderates recoil. Ottawa responds.
Smith loses control of the narrative.

That is why the silence is so loud.

Quebec’s project was grounded in a distinct identity and cultural survival. It grew from a historical narrative spanning centuries.

Alberta’s project is grounded in economic and political resentment. It is a movement for better bargaining position, wrapped in the language of existential struggle.

One wanted a country.
The other wants a better deal.

Danielle Smith’s sovereignty movement is not a continuation of Quebec’s cultural nationalism. It is not nationhood. It is not identity. It is grievance politics. The refusal to use the S-word is not confusion or politeness. It is a strategy.

Calling her a separatist would force clarity.
Avoiding the word protects the project.
And that silence is precisely the point.