For me, this piece is essentially an establishment defense of the Canadian status quo that everyone knows is broken badly. It asks Albertans to play the "long game" of building national consensus and changing federal politics from within, rather than flipping the table.
Why is it Alberta's job to lead? Ottawa spent the last 10 years sh*tting on the province. Also, consensus? Because Ottawa has been doing a bang up job of it? Consensus? In Canada?
Not effing likely.
Saying no to everything has worked pretty darned well for Quebec. Shouldn't this piece be directed at Quebeckers? Why Albertans?
The country is badly broken. The Line has done a stellar job alerting me to this fact over the two years since I became a subscriber. We can't fix things in Canada. We can't get anything done. We are not a serious country.
The only saving grace at the moment is observing the cluster f@ck that comprises the separatists in Alberta. A five alarm fire of dysfunction, piss-poor planning and garbage communications. Hard to take seriously when they actually come off more unserious that Canada itself. They lack any kind of unifying leadership and it shows.
The family metaphor just made me snort coffee through my nose.
Look at how 'Canada' is doing with investment: 5 declining quarters. Look how media reports it: a 'technical' recession'. Look how the federal government responds to this growing economic crisis: double the deficit.
The term 'broken' resonates because it's true. Sure, the older one is, the less it resonates because one is importing previous wealth to buffer the decline. But the younger one is, the more it resonates (youth unemployment now above 14%) because conditions are getting worse by every metric. This trend is what needs federal leadership and it's absent. It's not even on the horizon. As one typical example, how's the leadership in dropping interprovincial trade barriers going (or does Quebec cheese still outweigh Alberta's oil and gas production in federal concern and action?)?
'Broken' is about the nicest, calmest, most polite, most 'Canadian' way of describing the nation not as it should or might or possibly be, but as it is. Provincial separation might not be the solution, but it is a solution, and a perfectly understandable one that has support to fundamentally address the broken national state. Unless and until what's broken is elevated to be the national issue of the federal government and addressed with meaningful proposed change, this kind of verbal drivel the article offers will be yet another symptom of an undiagnosed fatal condition.
You nailed it with this comment, well done. Editorials full of platitudes and, dare I say it, virtue signalling feel-goodery from the Lead Not Leave initiative are only going to generate resounding critiques and responses such as yours, and serve as a reminder of how it was that Canada came to be broken and a thoroughly unserious and dysfunctional country. Assuming the initiative does come up with some sound ideas, I am certain that: a) they will be nothing new, and b) such ideas emanating from Alberta will land with a resounding thud in the rest of Canada, where the delusion of this being a serious country still persists.
It cannot be lost on the Lead Not Leave team that their initiative was triggered only by the referendum they so criticize…..
For me, I believe we need to make huge changes to confederation. Constitutional talks are the place to start. Of course we won't have any constitutional talks, so that'll work for sure.
The fact that the disorganized and largely unsophisticated separatist factions have momentum demonstrates that federalism needs considerable work. The authors allude to some solutions, but I would suggest the most importsnt to be:
1) A federal government that agressively promotes near free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the country. This would mean no ability for provinces or indigenous groups to block pipelines or to require electricity to be sold to a provincial utility to transmit it across that province or for provincial procurement to discriminate against out of province bidders
2) Re-allocation of tax revenues to better reflect jurisdiction. Instead of Ottawa allocating funds for services such as health and education, why not lower federal income tax rates and have provinces collect most of the required revenue directly?
3) Close to true representation by population in the HoC, a Triple E Senate and focusing official bilingualism to relevant regions (suggested by Lament of a Notion back on the 90s). The current structure of federal institutions is biased towards a distant past when Western Canada has much smaller in population and economy
How about some recognition of the way our HOC and Senate provide for a very unbalanced representation of the various components of our confederacy with that imbalance heavily biased towards the maritimes and segments of Eastern Canada. Maybe by collectively addressing and correcting these imbalances a good start would be made towards a stronger case for confederation and a weakening of separatist sentiment. At the same time maybe the federal government could start by reducing their meddling in what are and should be provincial / territorial concerns. The separatists aren’t necessarily the only bad guys here. A much stronger case than mere sentimentality needs to be made and concrete steps taken to address the reasonable elements of the separatist concerns and case. That might help contribute to a strengthened confederation .
While I agree with the points you are making, one area of contention between provinces and the Federal Government is the environment. At the time of Confederation the concept of the environment and protection was unknown and not considered. The natural world does not respect the artificial lines drawn on a map. In the interests of both environmental and human health, it is one area where national standards should exist.
I agree with respect to artificial boundaries but on the other hand in the last 50 years we’ve had two Trudeaus who both in their own way either punished or vilified Alberta (and to some extent Saskatchewan & BC) rather unfairly while hypocritically reaping the rewards of resource development in those jurisdictions.
I’ll leave some constructive criticism in that I found this article uncompelling as a defense of federalism. I think the promise of Confederation, and our founding Constitution is compelling. But I think our Federal Government, the SCC, and our Provincial Governments have fallen short in their upholding and execution of these ideals. This is a problem, and we’re best not to sweep it under the rug.
We need a return to first principles as it pertains to our interpretation of, and actions in accordance to our Constitution and Confederation. Section 121 for example needs no further complication. To me it is simple for a reason and effective in that simplicity. Every provincial non-tariff barrier to trade in both goods and services is an affront to it. Every act of another province and/or the Federal government to hamper another Province’s ability to pursue their own jurisdictional economic prosperity or governance is an attack on Confederation. Does this mean there aren’t still competing interests that need to be managed? Of course not.
But it means in all instances good faith and adherence to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution needs to be kept. We need to agree that it is important each Province is respected and supported in the pursuit of their fullest economic development - insomuch as it is defined within the division of powers of the Constitution.
So what is my criticism beyond feeling it just isn’t compelling? Sell me something that gives me hope, that we’re going to do better. We can, and there is support, not just in AB, but across the country to do so. And that there is a foundation we can rely on to insure it. Truly, if we only had the last 10 years to go on, I’d probably be voting in the separatists ranks. Or more likely leaving Canada altogether. It hasn’t been a good run friends.. but there are some nuggets of good things here that should be able to provide some hope no?
If we’re purporting to lead, then let’s lead. Show us where and what that means and let’s see who else there is who jumps on board. The status quo hasn’t been good enough to defend (and don’t convince yourself it has - that’s not going to end well), and running on fear isn’t going to land well with Albertans. So looks like there is only one place to go. Hoping to see it from this group.
Isn't September 2027 just when the agreement to agree becomes the agreement to actually plan the thing? It doesn't finish getting built until sometime in the 22nd century if the usual timeline for these things holds. And everyone whose family history suggests their 6-times-great-grandfather once collected acorns within 100km of it gets an eight figure payoff first.
The submission reads to me like a wish list of how things should be and maybe could be if we all just tried & respected each other. I agree with most of what the article proposes but feel I must say if we had most of this over the last decades we most likely wouldn't be where we are now.
Do I see large portions of Canada suddenly realizing a new path forward and many or the wrongs Albertans have perceived being changed -NO.
Alberta is different from the vast majority of Canada in that we have a CORE BELIEF in conservatism while the rest is much more progressive/socialist. Alberta has overwhelmingly voted for a right of center political party for 55 straight years with just one 4 year pause. The vast majority of other provinces & federally voters have swung back & forth and voted for which ever flavor was best at the time.
I'm not saying what has happened in Alberta is the best way, but my god, this truly reflects a commitment to voting based on perceived values & what most believe is a better way.
All the other issues are based on this measuring tool; family, religion, work ethic, fairness for all and yes a strong community based ethos. Just take a moment and ask yourself why are so many people going to Alberta while many other provinces are losing people?
While Alberta may not be a distinct society it is unique.
I think Albertans need to travel more and broaden their parochial view. Kelowna isn't that different from Calgary in terms of culture. You'd be hard-pressed to figure out if a farmer was from rural Alberta or rural Saskatchewan unless they told you. A Cape Bretoner is likely just as flinty about conservative values as anybody from around Red Deer. What's different is the Alberta mythology that they're conservative while demanding high levels of government spending and apparently being oblivious to the inconsistency of having a government-run bank like Alberta Treasury Branch.
I have not lived there. I love the area. I’m currently on Vancouver Island but by family homesteaded near Trochu and had a farm there until the early 2000s. I spend parts of my summers there growing up, then managed the farm for 5 years - remotely. Not the same as living there (they still call me “city folk”). I’ve always been acutely aware of the politics though. I share the belief that the sentiment will not die down after a referendum but if things, including political winds, blow one way it could go back to the fringes.
The point is valid but none of that is unique to the Canadian federation. Even small non-federal states have significant regional differences. Canada due to our size and nature has more diversity than most but I would argue it is continuing to build us into the most interesting and resilient country. Our challenges are real and some of them are solvable, some we’ll likely grow out of, and new ones will be created.
It’s worth noting that even Alberta is not some homogeneous monolith. We are speaking about statistics and majorities - not absolutes. If an election were held today - it’s probably too close to call.
Not sure where you live but I am in Central Alberta so here's my two bits. The wording of the Referendum could result in a Leave vote of around 35% so this should put the issue to bed for a number of years. However, similar to Quebec the issue will always be simmering & waiting for another opportunity.
Totally agree to this view of federalism. However we must also face differences within a province looking towards municipal entities. Provinces must stick to their roles and allow munipicalities to oversee libraries, EMS,etc.
Municipalities exist at the whim of their provincial government. While I agree service provision should generally be devolved to the most local level possible, drawing parallels to Federal vs. Provincial jurisdiction is false.
One of the areas where Ottawa has an intrusive heavy hand, and needs to back off, is in the area of policing and gun control.
As it is the standards are urban and Quebec dominated. This is because of a quarter millennium Quebec was ruled by the British with the complicity of the Catholic Church. Firearms were effectively not allowed or even considered except for predator control and game harvesting during this period.
So now you have the RCMP basically morphing into a red serge wearing Stetson hatted Geheime Staatspolizei whose main function appears to be enforcing Ottawa bureaucratic edicts and where DEI and the ability to speak French are keys to promotion. Like police forces everywhere they are not mandated to protect you as an individual only come in and clean up the mess afterwards and hope to nab someone and have him/her/it tried before the two year maximum time expires. This basically screws any Canadian living outside urban areas since if they need to defend themselves effectively they will become criminals or at least charged with firearms offenses at great legal expense.
The answer is pretty evident. Have each province set up its police force and priorities, administer firearms law
In accordance with local necessity, and take over criminal law. I live half the year in one of the many states where the county sheriff is elected and this leads to a level of support for the law unheard of in Canada where the provincial RCMP heads are appointed by faceless Laurentian bureaucrats, and viewed as primarily loyal to the Ottawa Borg.
I think the firearm bans were a hugely underrated source of radicalization over the past several years, including boosting Alberta separatism.
Most gun owners in Canada won't tell you they are gun owners, nor will they tell you this is why they suddenly went from mildly annoyed to completely fucking furious with the Liberals or the federal government in general. This program was (edit: and continues to be) a huge slap in the face to anyone affected and anyone close to them, done for what has been proven over and over again to be no justifiable reason other than wedge politics.
I bet every resident in rural Alberta had something banned or has a friend who did.
Quebec was “ruled by the British” for a quarter millennium Misleading Britain took Quebec in 1763. Direct British colonial rule lasted until Confederation in 1867 — about 104 years, not 250. If someone loosely counts from 1763 to today, that reaches about 263 years, but that is not the same as saying Quebec was continuously “ruled by the British” in the same colonial sense.
Encyclopedia Britannica
1
This happened with the complicity of the Catholic Church Partly true, but oversimplified The Catholic Church did become a major social and political force in Quebec, and British authorities accommodated it to help stabilize rule after conquest. But “complicity” is a political interpretation, not a settled historical fact. A more defensible statement is that the British worked with Catholic institutions and the Church often acted as a conservative stabilizing force in Quebec society.
Wikipedia
2
Firearms were effectively not allowed in Quebec under British rule False Historical evidence does not support a broad firearms ban. There was a short post-conquest military period when authorities seized or restricted arms, but those measures ended in 1764 when civil government replaced military rule. Later militia laws even required inspection of arms, and historians note that many rural households had hunting guns, though firearms were not universal.
Firearms were only considered for predator control and game harvesting Too narrow / misleading Hunting was important, but firearms were also tied to militia service, local security, and later sporting/shooting culture. The idea that guns existed only for predator control and hunting is not historically accurate.
Ok my bad my math was off. More like 200 years Plains of Abraham battle 1759 to the 1959 Death of Duplessis and start of the quiet revolution and the removal of the Catholic Church from power.
Were militias using their personal firearms? Would have been a real mess with no common ammunition standards. I understood that firearms were kept in armories to be issued to militias. Definitely hunting guns were allowed yes.
Sporting shooting culture is well on its way to destruction in the last 30 years. Acquisition and use in many cases of firearms effective for sport shooting is now prohibited by Order in council. Local security is now moot since permits to carry for self protection are impossible to get. (Except for protecting money - not your life) The only exception is Olympic style where a few handgun models are still allowed.Even cowboy shooting which restricts firearms to 1898 and earlier designs will die off since handgun transfers are now prohibited.
At a recent debate the federalist side argued that Alberta was the most Canadian of all the provinces. I would agree.
I was born in Ontario, raised in Alberta, met my future partner , another native Ontario while working in Calgary. Went to Toronto to start my career and became engaged and returned to Alberta to get married in front of friends and families. We left Toronto permanently when starting a family became a priority. We knew Calgary was home in our hearts. We both left good jobs with the confidence that Alberta would “provide” and it did.
My family has a long history in Alberta. Long before it ever became a province. The United States was up in “our grill” back then. Whatever your thoughts about our first Prime Minister he clearly saw the potential for a united Canada which included first nations.
Interesting and insightful. The balance of federal vs provincial control over various aspects of life is difficult.
Recently, there has been a push from Ottawa regarding the removal of interprovincial trade and mobility barriers. The provinces have, for the most part, given lip service to the concept but have done little in the way of concrete action.
Based on the issues that you have noted as examples, where do you think the line is with regard to regulations for things like trucking, cross border sale of goods, or licensing of professions and trades?
To the contrary. We have the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA). works well. Alas who doesn't play well with others, ON an QC. shocking I know.
The NWPTA is better than nothing but is sadly lacking in all three of the areas that I noted. While Alberta may be slightly less protectionist than some provinces, all provinces are nearly equally responsible for the many barriers that exist.
But dreams, generally, don't come true. Confederation would work if it wasn't for people. The next few years will be turbulent and the cultural differences between areas of the country are such that it is unworkable. Most readers have not lived in 2 or more non-contiguous provinces, have multiple citizenships (nationalistic polygamy), and do not speak French. There is no tie that binds us. No common culture or belief system. There is no Canada, and so, no Canadians.
John A’s vision of Canada as an economic union from coast to coast and the BNA of 1867 are in an odd relationship 159 years later. We are stuck with a political structure from 1867 that is neither logical or practical in today’s world and John A’s vision of of economic union seem impossible to achieve despite politicians preaching about the need for that union. We desperately need to turf the BNA structure we seem stuck with and race toward that economic union.
A lot of people share your view but clearly not everyone. The claim that “everyone knows” the country is broken doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. According to a May 2026 Abacus Data poll (linked below), 47% of Canadians believe the country is heading in the right direction - the highest proportion since 2017. Only 39% say it’s on the wrong track (deeper polling shows most of those do not agree that we’re badly broken). Notably, 76% say the rest of the world headed in the wrong direction. If your argument is supported by the premise that Canadians en masse have concluded the country is fundamentally broken, the data doesn’t support your argument.
Grievances about specific governments are legitimate and often well-founded. Many Canadians felt disrespected and poorly served under the Trudeau government, especially in the latter years. That’s a fairly common position arrived at (at least from time to time) in all countries. Many Albertans feel that way about Smith and the CPC. But bad governments are not a permanent condition. They’re a recurring feature of democratic life. They can’t be avoided, but they do end.
Alberta has a genuine opportunity here. The country’s attention is on the province right now, and there’s a real opening to model something constructive - a practical, forward-looking alternative to the rhetoric of “irreparable damage.” Publications like The Line are already doing that work.
The stronger and more persuasive argument isn’t that Canada is broken. It’s about what the province of Alberta, and Canada as a whole, could be doing better, and how. That question is always valid but particularly so at this moment in our collective history.
Provinces can and should lead - they bring their experience and expertise to problems that affect us all, but in more localized ways. In areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction, the federal government needn't set the table, and certainly not force a common menu. Provinces individually or those like minded or with common interests can lead.
When ever people recommend "a national policy for ..." I cringe. A national policy for resources, energy, environment all run into problems when the "national" policy is a federal policy dominated by voices from one part of the country. National policies need to work for the whole nation and that means finding ways to bring all parts of the country together to find solutions and opt out if the shoe doesn't fit.
Our institutions don't support cooperation among orders of government. One off national tables pit region against region, independently across issues. Provinces and federal government ongoing priority setting for infrastructure, trade, immigration, labour mobility, regulatory harmonization, internal trade .... the list goes on .. would allow governments to better understand the priorities of the rest of the country and make compromises to achieve what is important to them.
Australian is an example - its not easy but its better than threats of separation to get attention.
The balance of the country is off. It's apparent that Ottawa works to "Ontarioize" the whole of English Canada, pushing it's values onto the rest of "lesser Canada." Weirdly strict gun and health care laws as two small examples that don't jive with the west.
The only votes that matter are the ones in GTA, Montreal and Ottawa. There is no balance to the force at the moment. Actually, all my life. Can it be fixed? I believe it can and absolutely must. It can't be scrawled on the back of a napkin. For me, you can't run a country on Alberta’s money while treating Alberta’s interests as morally suspect and politically optional. Western discontent is always framed by the eastern establishment as a kind of a pathology. (Best word I can come up with.)
I'm a federalist. I'm sick of the national unity debates. It seems that ever since the days of the kitchen accord we have become far more disunited than at any time in our history. (Global pandemic was surely an accelerant.)
Confederation is built on shaky firmament when one region pays, another is appeased, and the press calls the imbalance virtue. That's where we're at.
As mentioned before: the best thing for CBC, for Canada and for the taxpayer is to move the whole works to Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Edmonton/Calgary. Get CBC the hell out of Toronto.
Absolutely agree. Canada's elites behave as if they are embarrassed of how their bills are paid. They would love to be this white collar country but they aren't quite good at it, so they have to pay the bills with blue collar work. Like a struggling actor who has to work construction but won't admit it to anyone.
For me, this piece is essentially an establishment defense of the Canadian status quo that everyone knows is broken badly. It asks Albertans to play the "long game" of building national consensus and changing federal politics from within, rather than flipping the table.
Why is it Alberta's job to lead? Ottawa spent the last 10 years sh*tting on the province. Also, consensus? Because Ottawa has been doing a bang up job of it? Consensus? In Canada?
Not effing likely.
Saying no to everything has worked pretty darned well for Quebec. Shouldn't this piece be directed at Quebeckers? Why Albertans?
The country is badly broken. The Line has done a stellar job alerting me to this fact over the two years since I became a subscriber. We can't fix things in Canada. We can't get anything done. We are not a serious country.
The only saving grace at the moment is observing the cluster f@ck that comprises the separatists in Alberta. A five alarm fire of dysfunction, piss-poor planning and garbage communications. Hard to take seriously when they actually come off more unserious that Canada itself. They lack any kind of unifying leadership and it shows.
The family metaphor just made me snort coffee through my nose.
Look at how 'Canada' is doing with investment: 5 declining quarters. Look how media reports it: a 'technical' recession'. Look how the federal government responds to this growing economic crisis: double the deficit.
The term 'broken' resonates because it's true. Sure, the older one is, the less it resonates because one is importing previous wealth to buffer the decline. But the younger one is, the more it resonates (youth unemployment now above 14%) because conditions are getting worse by every metric. This trend is what needs federal leadership and it's absent. It's not even on the horizon. As one typical example, how's the leadership in dropping interprovincial trade barriers going (or does Quebec cheese still outweigh Alberta's oil and gas production in federal concern and action?)?
'Broken' is about the nicest, calmest, most polite, most 'Canadian' way of describing the nation not as it should or might or possibly be, but as it is. Provincial separation might not be the solution, but it is a solution, and a perfectly understandable one that has support to fundamentally address the broken national state. Unless and until what's broken is elevated to be the national issue of the federal government and addressed with meaningful proposed change, this kind of verbal drivel the article offers will be yet another symptom of an undiagnosed fatal condition.
You nailed it with this comment, well done. Editorials full of platitudes and, dare I say it, virtue signalling feel-goodery from the Lead Not Leave initiative are only going to generate resounding critiques and responses such as yours, and serve as a reminder of how it was that Canada came to be broken and a thoroughly unserious and dysfunctional country. Assuming the initiative does come up with some sound ideas, I am certain that: a) they will be nothing new, and b) such ideas emanating from Alberta will land with a resounding thud in the rest of Canada, where the delusion of this being a serious country still persists.
It cannot be lost on the Lead Not Leave team that their initiative was triggered only by the referendum they so criticize…..
For me, I believe we need to make huge changes to confederation. Constitutional talks are the place to start. Of course we won't have any constitutional talks, so that'll work for sure.
The fact that the disorganized and largely unsophisticated separatist factions have momentum demonstrates that federalism needs considerable work. The authors allude to some solutions, but I would suggest the most importsnt to be:
1) A federal government that agressively promotes near free movement of people, goods, services and capital within the country. This would mean no ability for provinces or indigenous groups to block pipelines or to require electricity to be sold to a provincial utility to transmit it across that province or for provincial procurement to discriminate against out of province bidders
2) Re-allocation of tax revenues to better reflect jurisdiction. Instead of Ottawa allocating funds for services such as health and education, why not lower federal income tax rates and have provinces collect most of the required revenue directly?
3) Close to true representation by population in the HoC, a Triple E Senate and focusing official bilingualism to relevant regions (suggested by Lament of a Notion back on the 90s). The current structure of federal institutions is biased towards a distant past when Western Canada has much smaller in population and economy
Happy you mentioned Quebec!
How about some recognition of the way our HOC and Senate provide for a very unbalanced representation of the various components of our confederacy with that imbalance heavily biased towards the maritimes and segments of Eastern Canada. Maybe by collectively addressing and correcting these imbalances a good start would be made towards a stronger case for confederation and a weakening of separatist sentiment. At the same time maybe the federal government could start by reducing their meddling in what are and should be provincial / territorial concerns. The separatists aren’t necessarily the only bad guys here. A much stronger case than mere sentimentality needs to be made and concrete steps taken to address the reasonable elements of the separatist concerns and case. That might help contribute to a strengthened confederation .
While I agree with the points you are making, one area of contention between provinces and the Federal Government is the environment. At the time of Confederation the concept of the environment and protection was unknown and not considered. The natural world does not respect the artificial lines drawn on a map. In the interests of both environmental and human health, it is one area where national standards should exist.
I agree with respect to artificial boundaries but on the other hand in the last 50 years we’ve had two Trudeaus who both in their own way either punished or vilified Alberta (and to some extent Saskatchewan & BC) rather unfairly while hypocritically reaping the rewards of resource development in those jurisdictions.
Makes sense in theory but alleged environmental causes are often Trojan horses for other issues.
I’ll leave some constructive criticism in that I found this article uncompelling as a defense of federalism. I think the promise of Confederation, and our founding Constitution is compelling. But I think our Federal Government, the SCC, and our Provincial Governments have fallen short in their upholding and execution of these ideals. This is a problem, and we’re best not to sweep it under the rug.
We need a return to first principles as it pertains to our interpretation of, and actions in accordance to our Constitution and Confederation. Section 121 for example needs no further complication. To me it is simple for a reason and effective in that simplicity. Every provincial non-tariff barrier to trade in both goods and services is an affront to it. Every act of another province and/or the Federal government to hamper another Province’s ability to pursue their own jurisdictional economic prosperity or governance is an attack on Confederation. Does this mean there aren’t still competing interests that need to be managed? Of course not.
But it means in all instances good faith and adherence to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution needs to be kept. We need to agree that it is important each Province is respected and supported in the pursuit of their fullest economic development - insomuch as it is defined within the division of powers of the Constitution.
So what is my criticism beyond feeling it just isn’t compelling? Sell me something that gives me hope, that we’re going to do better. We can, and there is support, not just in AB, but across the country to do so. And that there is a foundation we can rely on to insure it. Truly, if we only had the last 10 years to go on, I’d probably be voting in the separatists ranks. Or more likely leaving Canada altogether. It hasn’t been a good run friends.. but there are some nuggets of good things here that should be able to provide some hope no?
If we’re purporting to lead, then let’s lead. Show us where and what that means and let’s see who else there is who jumps on board. The status quo hasn’t been good enough to defend (and don’t convince yourself it has - that’s not going to end well), and running on fear isn’t going to land well with Albertans. So looks like there is only one place to go. Hoping to see it from this group.
Couldn't agree with you more.
That said, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour (no context here!), so in September 2027 we have a pipeline, or not.
Isn't September 2027 just when the agreement to agree becomes the agreement to actually plan the thing? It doesn't finish getting built until sometime in the 22nd century if the usual timeline for these things holds. And everyone whose family history suggests their 6-times-great-grandfather once collected acorns within 100km of it gets an eight figure payoff first.
The submission reads to me like a wish list of how things should be and maybe could be if we all just tried & respected each other. I agree with most of what the article proposes but feel I must say if we had most of this over the last decades we most likely wouldn't be where we are now.
Do I see large portions of Canada suddenly realizing a new path forward and many or the wrongs Albertans have perceived being changed -NO.
Alberta is different from the vast majority of Canada in that we have a CORE BELIEF in conservatism while the rest is much more progressive/socialist. Alberta has overwhelmingly voted for a right of center political party for 55 straight years with just one 4 year pause. The vast majority of other provinces & federally voters have swung back & forth and voted for which ever flavor was best at the time.
I'm not saying what has happened in Alberta is the best way, but my god, this truly reflects a commitment to voting based on perceived values & what most believe is a better way.
All the other issues are based on this measuring tool; family, religion, work ethic, fairness for all and yes a strong community based ethos. Just take a moment and ask yourself why are so many people going to Alberta while many other provinces are losing people?
While Alberta may not be a distinct society it is unique.
I think Albertans need to travel more and broaden their parochial view. Kelowna isn't that different from Calgary in terms of culture. You'd be hard-pressed to figure out if a farmer was from rural Alberta or rural Saskatchewan unless they told you. A Cape Bretoner is likely just as flinty about conservative values as anybody from around Red Deer. What's different is the Alberta mythology that they're conservative while demanding high levels of government spending and apparently being oblivious to the inconsistency of having a government-run bank like Alberta Treasury Branch.
Uh, no.
Many of us Capers love Alberta. We’ve been making a decent living there for years and our hard work has been appreciated. Thanks Alberta!!
So true, and why the separation question keeps getting worse as central Canada becomes more left/socialist all the time and we can’t escape it.
I have not lived there. I love the area. I’m currently on Vancouver Island but by family homesteaded near Trochu and had a farm there until the early 2000s. I spend parts of my summers there growing up, then managed the farm for 5 years - remotely. Not the same as living there (they still call me “city folk”). I’ve always been acutely aware of the politics though. I share the belief that the sentiment will not die down after a referendum but if things, including political winds, blow one way it could go back to the fringes.
The point is valid but none of that is unique to the Canadian federation. Even small non-federal states have significant regional differences. Canada due to our size and nature has more diversity than most but I would argue it is continuing to build us into the most interesting and resilient country. Our challenges are real and some of them are solvable, some we’ll likely grow out of, and new ones will be created.
It’s worth noting that even Alberta is not some homogeneous monolith. We are speaking about statistics and majorities - not absolutes. If an election were held today - it’s probably too close to call.
Not sure where you live but I am in Central Alberta so here's my two bits. The wording of the Referendum could result in a Leave vote of around 35% so this should put the issue to bed for a number of years. However, similar to Quebec the issue will always be simmering & waiting for another opportunity.
Totally agree to this view of federalism. However we must also face differences within a province looking towards municipal entities. Provinces must stick to their roles and allow munipicalities to oversee libraries, EMS,etc.
Municipalities exist at the whim of their provincial government. While I agree service provision should generally be devolved to the most local level possible, drawing parallels to Federal vs. Provincial jurisdiction is false.
Trying to point out that boundaries are imperative for sound stewardship at all levels of government governence.
One of the areas where Ottawa has an intrusive heavy hand, and needs to back off, is in the area of policing and gun control.
As it is the standards are urban and Quebec dominated. This is because of a quarter millennium Quebec was ruled by the British with the complicity of the Catholic Church. Firearms were effectively not allowed or even considered except for predator control and game harvesting during this period.
So now you have the RCMP basically morphing into a red serge wearing Stetson hatted Geheime Staatspolizei whose main function appears to be enforcing Ottawa bureaucratic edicts and where DEI and the ability to speak French are keys to promotion. Like police forces everywhere they are not mandated to protect you as an individual only come in and clean up the mess afterwards and hope to nab someone and have him/her/it tried before the two year maximum time expires. This basically screws any Canadian living outside urban areas since if they need to defend themselves effectively they will become criminals or at least charged with firearms offenses at great legal expense.
The answer is pretty evident. Have each province set up its police force and priorities, administer firearms law
In accordance with local necessity, and take over criminal law. I live half the year in one of the many states where the county sheriff is elected and this leads to a level of support for the law unheard of in Canada where the provincial RCMP heads are appointed by faceless Laurentian bureaucrats, and viewed as primarily loyal to the Ottawa Borg.
I think the firearm bans were a hugely underrated source of radicalization over the past several years, including boosting Alberta separatism.
Most gun owners in Canada won't tell you they are gun owners, nor will they tell you this is why they suddenly went from mildly annoyed to completely fucking furious with the Liberals or the federal government in general. This program was (edit: and continues to be) a huge slap in the face to anyone affected and anyone close to them, done for what has been proven over and over again to be no justifiable reason other than wedge politics.
I bet every resident in rural Alberta had something banned or has a friend who did.
Verdict: Mostly false / misleading.
Claim Fact check Why
Quebec was “ruled by the British” for a quarter millennium Misleading Britain took Quebec in 1763. Direct British colonial rule lasted until Confederation in 1867 — about 104 years, not 250. If someone loosely counts from 1763 to today, that reaches about 263 years, but that is not the same as saying Quebec was continuously “ruled by the British” in the same colonial sense.
Encyclopedia Britannica
1
This happened with the complicity of the Catholic Church Partly true, but oversimplified The Catholic Church did become a major social and political force in Quebec, and British authorities accommodated it to help stabilize rule after conquest. But “complicity” is a political interpretation, not a settled historical fact. A more defensible statement is that the British worked with Catholic institutions and the Church often acted as a conservative stabilizing force in Quebec society.
Wikipedia
2
Firearms were effectively not allowed in Quebec under British rule False Historical evidence does not support a broad firearms ban. There was a short post-conquest military period when authorities seized or restricted arms, but those measures ended in 1764 when civil government replaced military rule. Later militia laws even required inspection of arms, and historians note that many rural households had hunting guns, though firearms were not universal.
Firearms were only considered for predator control and game harvesting Too narrow / misleading Hunting was important, but firearms were also tied to militia service, local security, and later sporting/shooting culture. The idea that guns existed only for predator control and hunting is not historically accurate.
Department of Justice Canada
1
Ok my bad my math was off. More like 200 years Plains of Abraham battle 1759 to the 1959 Death of Duplessis and start of the quiet revolution and the removal of the Catholic Church from power.
Were militias using their personal firearms? Would have been a real mess with no common ammunition standards. I understood that firearms were kept in armories to be issued to militias. Definitely hunting guns were allowed yes.
Sporting shooting culture is well on its way to destruction in the last 30 years. Acquisition and use in many cases of firearms effective for sport shooting is now prohibited by Order in council. Local security is now moot since permits to carry for self protection are impossible to get. (Except for protecting money - not your life) The only exception is Olympic style where a few handgun models are still allowed.Even cowboy shooting which restricts firearms to 1898 and earlier designs will die off since handgun transfers are now prohibited.
At a recent debate the federalist side argued that Alberta was the most Canadian of all the provinces. I would agree.
I was born in Ontario, raised in Alberta, met my future partner , another native Ontario while working in Calgary. Went to Toronto to start my career and became engaged and returned to Alberta to get married in front of friends and families. We left Toronto permanently when starting a family became a priority. We knew Calgary was home in our hearts. We both left good jobs with the confidence that Alberta would “provide” and it did.
My family has a long history in Alberta. Long before it ever became a province. The United States was up in “our grill” back then. Whatever your thoughts about our first Prime Minister he clearly saw the potential for a united Canada which included first nations.
Interesting and insightful. The balance of federal vs provincial control over various aspects of life is difficult.
Recently, there has been a push from Ottawa regarding the removal of interprovincial trade and mobility barriers. The provinces have, for the most part, given lip service to the concept but have done little in the way of concrete action.
Based on the issues that you have noted as examples, where do you think the line is with regard to regulations for things like trucking, cross border sale of goods, or licensing of professions and trades?
To the contrary. We have the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA). works well. Alas who doesn't play well with others, ON an QC. shocking I know.
The NWPTA is better than nothing but is sadly lacking in all three of the areas that I noted. While Alberta may be slightly less protectionist than some provinces, all provinces are nearly equally responsible for the many barriers that exist.
"I dreamed a dream".
But dreams, generally, don't come true. Confederation would work if it wasn't for people. The next few years will be turbulent and the cultural differences between areas of the country are such that it is unworkable. Most readers have not lived in 2 or more non-contiguous provinces, have multiple citizenships (nationalistic polygamy), and do not speak French. There is no tie that binds us. No common culture or belief system. There is no Canada, and so, no Canadians.
John A’s vision of Canada as an economic union from coast to coast and the BNA of 1867 are in an odd relationship 159 years later. We are stuck with a political structure from 1867 that is neither logical or practical in today’s world and John A’s vision of of economic union seem impossible to achieve despite politicians preaching about the need for that union. We desperately need to turf the BNA structure we seem stuck with and race toward that economic union.
A quick reality check worth considering.
A lot of people share your view but clearly not everyone. The claim that “everyone knows” the country is broken doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. According to a May 2026 Abacus Data poll (linked below), 47% of Canadians believe the country is heading in the right direction - the highest proportion since 2017. Only 39% say it’s on the wrong track (deeper polling shows most of those do not agree that we’re badly broken). Notably, 76% say the rest of the world headed in the wrong direction. If your argument is supported by the premise that Canadians en masse have concluded the country is fundamentally broken, the data doesn’t support your argument.
Grievances about specific governments are legitimate and often well-founded. Many Canadians felt disrespected and poorly served under the Trudeau government, especially in the latter years. That’s a fairly common position arrived at (at least from time to time) in all countries. Many Albertans feel that way about Smith and the CPC. But bad governments are not a permanent condition. They’re a recurring feature of democratic life. They can’t be avoided, but they do end.
Alberta has a genuine opportunity here. The country’s attention is on the province right now, and there’s a real opening to model something constructive - a practical, forward-looking alternative to the rhetoric of “irreparable damage.” Publications like The Line are already doing that work.
The stronger and more persuasive argument isn’t that Canada is broken. It’s about what the province of Alberta, and Canada as a whole, could be doing better, and how. That question is always valid but particularly so at this moment in our collective history.
https://www.cp24.com/news/canada/2026/05/24/highest-proportion-of-people-since-2017-say-canada-is-on-the-right-track-poll/
This leaves me wondering if Alberta is small enough for its separatists or if their problem is recursive.
"Ottawa can be intrusive. National programs can be designed with too little regard for provincial differences."
...can be...?
Provinces can and should lead - they bring their experience and expertise to problems that affect us all, but in more localized ways. In areas of provincial or shared jurisdiction, the federal government needn't set the table, and certainly not force a common menu. Provinces individually or those like minded or with common interests can lead.
When ever people recommend "a national policy for ..." I cringe. A national policy for resources, energy, environment all run into problems when the "national" policy is a federal policy dominated by voices from one part of the country. National policies need to work for the whole nation and that means finding ways to bring all parts of the country together to find solutions and opt out if the shoe doesn't fit.
Our institutions don't support cooperation among orders of government. One off national tables pit region against region, independently across issues. Provinces and federal government ongoing priority setting for infrastructure, trade, immigration, labour mobility, regulatory harmonization, internal trade .... the list goes on .. would allow governments to better understand the priorities of the rest of the country and make compromises to achieve what is important to them.
Australian is an example - its not easy but its better than threats of separation to get attention.
The balance of the country is off. It's apparent that Ottawa works to "Ontarioize" the whole of English Canada, pushing it's values onto the rest of "lesser Canada." Weirdly strict gun and health care laws as two small examples that don't jive with the west.
The only votes that matter are the ones in GTA, Montreal and Ottawa. There is no balance to the force at the moment. Actually, all my life. Can it be fixed? I believe it can and absolutely must. It can't be scrawled on the back of a napkin. For me, you can't run a country on Alberta’s money while treating Alberta’s interests as morally suspect and politically optional. Western discontent is always framed by the eastern establishment as a kind of a pathology. (Best word I can come up with.)
I'm a federalist. I'm sick of the national unity debates. It seems that ever since the days of the kitchen accord we have become far more disunited than at any time in our history. (Global pandemic was surely an accelerant.)
Confederation is built on shaky firmament when one region pays, another is appeased, and the press calls the imbalance virtue. That's where we're at.
As mentioned before: the best thing for CBC, for Canada and for the taxpayer is to move the whole works to Winnipeg, Saskatoon or Edmonton/Calgary. Get CBC the hell out of Toronto.
100 upvotes, "For me, you can't run a country on Alberta’s money while treating Alberta’s interests as morally suspect and politically optional."
Absolutely agree. Canada's elites behave as if they are embarrassed of how their bills are paid. They would love to be this white collar country but they aren't quite good at it, so they have to pay the bills with blue collar work. Like a struggling actor who has to work construction but won't admit it to anyone.