Alberta’s top five biggest political fights of 2025
Alberta became a political cage match in 2025 as Premier Danielle Smith’s government faced down escalating crises over sovereignty, schools, crime, and the future of the province’s energy sector.
Alberta became a political cage match in 2025 as Premier Danielle Smith’s government faced down escalating crises over sovereignty, schools, crime, and the future of the province’s energy sector. These five battles defined the year.
The teachers’ strike and the notwithstanding clause showdown
Alberta saw its largest-ever education walkout when 51,000 teachers went on strike, closing schools across the province. After two rejected agreements, the Alberta Teachers’ Association maintained the province was refusing to meaningfully address “complex classrooms,” while the government warned the strike was causing “irreparable harm.”
The province responded with the Back to School Act, invoking the notwithstanding clause to impose a four-year contract. ATA president Jason Schilling called the legislation a “reckless abuse of power,” while legal experts noted a constitutional challenge would face hurdles because of pending Supreme Court guidance on Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — the notwithstanding clause. Premier Danielle Smith defended the decision, saying “the stakes could not be higher.”
The use of Section 33 also appeared in Bill 9, the Protecting Alberta’s Children Statutes Amendment Act, which restricted gender-related medical procedures for minors and required parental consent for changes to a child’s name or pronouns at school.
The fight over sexually explicit books in schools
The province ordered the removal of sexually explicit material from K–12 libraries after controversial titles were discovered in multiple school districts. An initial Edmonton Public Schools list of more than 200 books included The Handmaid’s Tale, leading Smith to accuse the board of “vicious compliance.”
The government paused the rollout, revised the policy, and reintroduced it with a narrower focus on materials depicting explicit sexual acts.
Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi called the policy “purely performative,” while the government maintained the standard was necessary to ensure inappropriate content is not accessible to students.
Alberta NDP MLA Lori Sigurdson compared the UCP government to Nazis, invoking the Holocaust while criticizing the UCP’s use of the notwithstanding clause. Nenshi later defended her comments.
Alberta blocks Ottawa’s gun-confiscation program
Alberta escalated its opposition to the federal firearms buyback by directing police to treat confiscations as “not an enforcement priority” before invoking the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act to prohibit provincial entities from participating. The government stated the buyback unfairly targeted lawful gun owners.
“It’s time for Ottawa to stop targeting the wrong people. Albertans have the right to protect their homes and their families. No one should hesitate to defend themselves when faced with a threat at their own doorway,” Smith said when announcing the motion.
The province simultaneously advanced a castle law to protect Albertans who defend their homes from intruders.
Pipeline and energy-corridor battles with British Columbia
Alberta’s push for a new bitumen pipeline to a northern British Columbia port sparked months of conflict between Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and B.C. Premier David Eby.
Eby repeatedly dismissed the proposal as “fictional,” claiming it had “no private proponent, no route, no private funding.” Smith, in turn, called his stance “un-Canadian and unconstitutional.”
“There is no universe where Alberta will tolerate being landlocked in our own country by our neighbouring province, especially when the same industry he continues to demonize has generated so much wealth for his province and the country,” Smith said.
On Nov. 27, Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) committing to a privately financed, Indigenous co-owned pipeline to Asian markets. The deal also shelved the federal oil and gas emissions cap and Clean Electricity Regulations.
That same day, Eby said he had “pipeline anxiety” over the deal, and the Coastal First Nations alliance vowed to use “every tool in their toolbox” to keep oil tankers out of northern coastal waters.
Days later, Assembly of First Nations chiefs unanimously passed an emergency resolution rejecting the Alberta–Ottawa MOU, warning the project lacked First Nations consent and was “nothing but a pipe dream.”
The Alberta legislature unanimously endorsed the MOU, voting 63 to zero in favour of a motion that urges Alberta, Ottawa, British Columbia and other involved parties to “take all necessary steps to ensure these commitments can be achieved as quickly as possible.”
Minutes after Alberta’s vote, a similar vote occurred federally, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre sponsored an Opposition motion supporting the MOU.
The federal vote failed after Liberal, Bloc Québécois, and NDP MPs voted against it.
The rise of Alberta separatism
The Alberta Prosperity Project’s independence referendum is expected to start collecting signatures in January or early February 2026.
Jeffrey Rath, General Counsel for the APP, told True North that the group aims to collect one million signatures. He said they will “do everything in their power” to collect more than Thomas Lukaszuk, who surpassed 450,000 signatures for his anti-separation petition. Lukaszuk was later accused of misleading supporters after disavowing a referendum.
Bill 14 removed procedural barriers, making it easier for independence advocates to ask their question on a separation referendum.
The new question will be: “Do you agree that Alberta shall cease to be a province in Canada and become an independent state?”
The question differs slightly from the original separation referendum question unveiled by the group in May, which was: “Do you agree that the province of Alberta shall become a Sovereign Country and cease to be a province of Canada?”
Rath told True North that the change was made to more closely align with Section 1(3) of the Clarity Act.
“In considering the clarity of a referendum question, the House of Commons shall consider whether the question would result in a clear expression of the will of the population of a province on whether the province should cease to be part of Canada and become an independent state,” reads Section 1(3) of the Clarity Act.