Methodology
This site tracks specific claims about Alberta independence and checks them against the public record. The goal is to be useful to people on any side of the question, so claims are stated fairly, verdicts span the full range, and every point links to a source you can read yourself.
How a claim is stated
Each claim is written the way its strongest advocates would put it, in plain language, before any assessment. A claim is not rephrased to make it easier to challenge. Where a person or organization is on record making the argument, they are named.
How claims are selected
Claims are chosen when they recur in public debate about Alberta separation — in campaigns, media, social discussion, or official statements — and when primary or authoritative sources exist to test them. The registry does not aim to cover every possible argument, only claims that can be stated clearly and checked against evidence.
Source hierarchy
Evidence is prioritized in this order when available:
- Legislation and regulations
- Court decisions and official court materials
- Statistics Canada and Elections Alberta data
- Government of Alberta and Government of Canada publications
- Parliamentary Budget Officer, Department of Finance, Bank of Canada, and similar official fiscal institutions
- First Nation, treaty organization, and Indigenous government primary sources
- Peer-reviewed research
- Reputable polling with dated methodology when the claim concerns public opinion
- Credible secondary analysis only where primary material does not answer the question
When a political actor is the source of a claim, the entry distinguishes who made the claim from the evidence used to evaluate it.
Independence and funding
separationfacts.ca is an independent, self-funded personal project. It is not affiliated with, directed by, or funded by any political party, campaign, government body, or advocacy organization on either side of the independence question. See the about page for details on editorial independence and corrections.
Review and update process
Each entry records when it was last reviewed. When new evidence materially changes an assessment, the review date is refreshed and, if needed, a major-update note explains what shifted. Superseded entries link forward to the current analysis rather than silently replacing history.
The five verdicts
A verdict describes what the evidence currently supports. It can confirm a claim, qualify it, or point to where it breaks down. Each verdict has its own color and icon so it can be told apart at a glance, and so meaning never depends on color alone.
- True
- The claim, as written, is true according to the settled evidence. Every verdict answers the same question: is this claim, as stated, true? Claims the evidence contradicts are marked False. Claims that are accurate only with important context are marked Needs context, not True. When a True entry still has background worth knowing, that context appears in the summary and sources, not in a different verdict.
- Needs context
- The claim, as written, is accurate, but a key piece of context changes how most people would read it. The fact is not wrong; the impression it leaves can be, so the entry supplies the missing context. A common example is a figure that is true in total but looks very different per person.
- Contested
- Credible sources disagree, or the outcome depends on negotiations and decisions that have not happened yet. The claim may turn out to be right, but it is not settled, and this site does not pretend otherwise.
- False
- The claim, as written, is false according to the settled evidence. The verdict points to the gap between the claim and the underlying record.
- Unverifiable
- There is not enough reliable public information to reach a verdict. The claim is neither supported nor ruled out, and the entry says so plainly.
True does not mean the whole story
A True verdict means the claim checks out. It does not mean there is nothing more to read. Some facts are accurate on their own but mean more once you know what sits behind them.
One example: Alberta does pay far more into federal finances than it gets back, and that is marked True. But the summary also explains that part of the picture is demographic. Many workers move here for jobs in their prime earning years, while some retirees later live and collect benefits in other provinces. That does not make the headline fact wrong. It helps you understand why the number looks the way it does.
The verdict answers whether the claim, as written, holds up. The summary and linked sources are where we spell out what else matters.
Sourcing standard
- Every evidence point links to a real, named source. Where a precise link is still being confirmed, the source is named and marked as having a link pending rather than pointing somewhere unverified.
- Sources are drawn from government documents, courts, peer-reviewed research, and established news and policy organizations across the spectrum.
- Summaries are written in the site's own words. Phrasing is not copied from the sources.
- Each entry records the date it was last reviewed, so readers can see how current the assessment is.
MLA and MP positions
The MLA and MP tracker uses a stricter rule than claims: a stance is recorded only from each member's own dated public statement or documented action, never inferred from party membership. Confirmed positions require a self-stated view on separation. A separate documented action, no stated position label covers sourced facts (such as an action taken, or how a source characterized the member) that do not amount to a personal position, and those entries are not counted as confirmed stances.
Corrections
Verdicts can change as the record changes. If a source is wrong, a link is broken, or new evidence shifts the picture, the entry is meant to be updated and its review date refreshed.