As I read this article it dawned on me that the separatist argument is not with Canada. It is with the past 10 years of failed Trudeau leadership. That is no reason to break up a country. Trudeau is gone. Hopefully his amateurish and downright disasterous leadership style will remain in the memories of Canadians for a long time and we do not repeat our own mistakes of voting someone like him into office.
I think this is generally correct. The problem is that there have been 2 Trudeau prime ministers in the lifetime of anyone who is a baby boomer and Trudeau's damage is recent and people are still reactive and less focused on community in the wake of covid. (The pandemic response really did a lot of harm to a lot of areas of life that I'm not sure will ever be fully understood.)
There are people who know Harper was PM for a decade who talk as if the conservatives have never been in government and never will be. I think separatism at it's core is anti-liberal government and the feeling that the West's votes don't influence things enough. What many separatists ignore is that AB has elected liberals and NDP in the past. We are not a uniform bunch. And I don't think we'd be having this conversation if the conservatives had won the election. And that is the fact that really says everything I need to know about the separatists real beefs.
Well, PT, the election last year -and subsequent floor crossings and by-elections returned the exact same clown show to Ottawa.
We still have his tanker ban. We still have the “No More Pipelines” regulatory inertia and bureaucratic slow walk of natural resource project approvals.
We still have the vituperative antisemites like Anand, Miller, Joly, Carney, and the rest of the pro-Palestinian caucus.
We still have growing deficits and debts.
We still have the “blame President Trump for everything” style messaging, and Canadians are sucking it up like maple syrup on poutine with pea meal bacon.
I don't disagree with you. But I'm not sure there is a point in the history of Canada or any country (or province) for that matter where you could not list a pile of policies that don't seem to make sense. You engage politically to change them. And change does not come easy because we live in a democracy and a majority of citizens need to come around to your views. But change eventually happens and we move forward. Carney is a distinct improvement over Trudeau. He may get more done than a Conservative government would have done or that Danielle Smith will do. That doesn't negate that Carney is moving far too slow for my liking.
Why are the Liberals continually given the benefit of the doubt, while Conservatives are unceasingly pilloried, after having been right about everything?
Ken Boessenkool’s article reads like a comforting bedtime story for the Laurentian Elite — a soothing reminder that Alberta should be grateful for the occasional crumbs Ottawa brushes off the table. But Albertans have lived the reality behind the rhetoric, and no amount of selective nostalgia can disguise the fact that this province has spent decades being economically exploited, politically sidelined, and told to be thankful for the privilege. The “we’ve changed Canada before” refrain is not an argument — it’s a pacifier. Alberta didn’t “change Canada”; Alberta bailed Canada out, repeatedly, while being lectured, regulated, and economically kneecapped by the very establishment that now insists we stay quiet and keep paying.
Boessenkool’s triumphalism about past conservative victories conveniently ignores the structural truth: every gain Alberta has ever made inside Confederation has required a herculean effort, a national crisis, or a once‑in‑a‑generation political alignment — and even then, the Laurentian Elite has always found a way to claw back control. Alberta’s successes were not gifts from Ottawa; they were battles won despite Ottawa. And the moment Alberta’s prosperity threatened the central Canadian political economy, the federal government responded with carbon taxes, pipeline blockades, regulatory chokeholds, and a decade-long campaign to cripple the very industry that built modern Canada.
Boessenkool wants Albertans to believe that because a handful of policy wins occurred in the 1990s and 2000s, we should ignore the last 15 years of economic punishment. But Albertans are not suffering from “selective amnesia” — we are suffering from the consequences of a Confederation designed to extract wealth from the West to subsidize political power in the East. Equalization, environmental vetoes, federal court interventions, and the weaponization of national policy against Alberta’s core industries are not ancient grievances. They are current, ongoing, and deliberate.
And the idea that Alberta lacks the entrepreneurial culture, economic capacity, or institutional maturity to stand on its own is an insult so breathtaking it borders on parody. Alberta built a world-class energy sector, a globally competitive agricultural industry, a thriving tech ecosystem, and one of the youngest, most dynamic workforces in the country — all while Ottawa siphoned billions from our economy and used them to entrench political loyalty elsewhere. If anything, Alberta’s success is proof that the province has thrived in spite of Confederation, not because of it.
Boessenkool’s argument boils down to this: “We’ve been abused before, but sometimes we managed to negotiate slightly less abuse, so let’s keep trying.” That is not a strategy — it is a plea for perpetual subservience. Alberta separatists are not driven by nostalgia or bitterness; they are driven by the cold, empirical reality that the current federal structure is economically unsustainable, politically unreformable, and structurally hostile to Alberta’s future.
Alberta doesn’t need to be told to “remain and do what.” The real question — the one Boessenkool avoids — is: Remain and endure what? More federal overreach? More economic sabotage? More pipelines cancelled at the whim of central Canadian politics? More billions drained from Alberta’s economy to buy votes in regions that will never support Alberta’s interests?
Alberta has the resources, the talent, the entrepreneurial culture, and the global market access to chart its own course. What it lacks — and what Confederation will never provide — is the freedom to control its own destiny. After decades of being duped, dismissed, and drained by the Laurentian Elite, Albertans are finally asking the only question that matters: Why should a province that has carried Canada for decades continue to accept a system designed to hold it back?
And that is a question Boessenkool cannot answer — because the answer undermines his entire argument.
Not to mention that the political avatars of the Laurentian Elite rigged the circumstances of an election from prorogation abuse on down, bought off the media repeatedly, and bribed their way to a majority government. The whole current government is built on an illegitimate pile of toxic sand. And that's true regardless of what brainwashed zombies who think we are at war with the US say in a poll.
For me, Alberta separatism is a byproduct of the nation's unseriousness. That's why doom and gloom predictions of Alberta leaving the family are moot: the country is already messed up and cannot fix itself because it is unserious.
For me, Harper didn't rewrite the equalization formula to favor Alberta, which remains a primary grievance of the current separatist movement. Alberta separatism surging after a decade of a Calgary-based Prime Minister suggests says that the Reform/Harper era didn't cure the root causes of Western alienation. It became another status quo government doing the status quo thing,
Want separatism gone? Give Alberta the same deal in confederation as Quebec.
Hmmmm ... what else .... right now we are at the denial/anger stage on the national unity grief scale. The next one will to come will be bargaining, which, I think is the way this gets solved. Negotiation. Constitutional talks.
The ROC needs to understand that this time ... this time ... the separatist movement in Alberta was amateur hour. Canada lucked out. I say again, Canada lucked out. Big time.
The next time it will be organized and strongly led. Should they start a political party? Yes ... but I don't think that is going to matter. The country has just gone through a global pandemic and is witnessing scary AF geopolitical moves every damned day. It's anything can happen time all the time now.
Federalists need to answer this question fast: why stay if Canada is unserious and cannot get anything done.
Well, when you have watched the Country you loved turned into a heritage hating, economically savaged, postmodernist, self-loathing, genocidal, secular, post-national population of money launderers & house flippers for eleven years, you don’t get to just flip the switch in the other direction.
Not all actions are transitive; some things cannot be reset.
The lack of seriousness of which you speak is, in turn, a derivative of the incompetency, apathy, and unaccountability displayed by Canadian politicians, and Canadian voters.
We had choices, and we made them. Now, we need to live with them.
I think Ken presented a very good article, and his arguments are based on the historical record.
Unfortunately, the Canada of which he speaks is long gone; it died a slow, horrible death at the hands of activist judges, Liberal Party politicians whose sole fealty is to the Liberal Party, climate zealots making industrial policies, postmodernist faculty members, a Supreme Court that writes legislation that should be written by legislators, and of a voting populace that was too lazy to notice, or heed the warnings.
I think the whole equalization thing is turned into a much bigger thing than it really should be. Alberta isn't hurt by the equalization formula - we pay the same amount of federal tax per a given income as anywhere else in Canada, and we pay lower provincial taxes than the other provinces and we don't have a provincial sales tax. Would the provincial government like more money from the feds via equalization? Absolutely. Are Albertans paying more? No.
Albertans collectively pay vastly more into the federal system than the province gets back in federal spending and transfers.
Quebec doesn't charge market prices for its power: it doesn't fully show up on paper, making the province look "poorer" to the formula than it actually is. So, even though Quebec is economically powerful,. For Quebeckers, this loophole combined with slightly lower average personal incomes keep it just below the threshold, legally qualifying it to collect billions in federal subsidies every year.
There are legitimate beefs regarding equalization and this is its centerpiece. I think.
The separatist loons on here sound like the deranged maga types in the states (post-modern faculty are destroying the country!). But then the only choice for a land-locked rump territory like Alberta will be to join the U.S.
If Canada can’t be fixed, as some so-called federalists are arguing in the comments, then why were Canadian voters about to give Conservatives a big win before Trump became the issue. And even then, Carney only became PM because he was able to cosplay as center right.
God you are obtuse! Canadians elected someone whom they thought was not Trudeau. Indeed, who promised to undo many of Trudeau’s policies. Ergo, there is political support for changing the post-2015 status quo which upsets many Albertans.
Hi Craig, I don't come on here to lose my sh*t. Perhaps its time to place both hands on your desk and push away from your computer. When you're done losing your sh*t, I'm happy to exchange views with you. Take good care, friend.
Do you come on here to deliberately distort what people say? Why bother replying to my comment with the risible claim that they still lost? That obviously is irrelevant to what I was arguing about the significance of Carney’s election.
Your own police force instead of the RCMP? Just like Quebec has that?
Go ahead. You have that deal you’re just not taking advantage of it.
Iran, separate tax collecting agency? You can do that. Go ahead. (I think you’ll just piss people off, but go ahead).
Your own pension plan? Go ahead. You need to negotiate the withdrawal from the pension plan which Alberta chose to sign up for, but it’s doable. Go ahead.
Something else? You need to be specific because I’m guessing it’s not the ability to raise up politicians with a penchant for playing dress-up on the international stage. (Quebec has that).
You can’t just vaguely say “we want the same deal as Quebec” or “asymmetrical federalism” and complain you’re not getting it.
> Want separatism gone? Give Alberta the same deal in confederation as Quebec.
Okay... That seems reasonable... except what specifically do you mean? Because I don't see Alberta taking advantage of the elements of that "deal" it already has.
Nothing prevents Alberta from making it's own police force just like Quebec did. Go ahead. Me I don't want one in BC, but you go right ahead.
Ditto other things... so what specifically are you asking for?
Because saying "we want the same deal" without saying what "deal" you're talking about seems pretty unserious.
Another Harper win was changing expectations regarding transparency and accountability.
One enduring win was creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which embedded the norm of prosecutorial independence from political interference in law. That change was central to the SNC-Lavalin scandal when Justin Trudeau tried to strongarm a deferred prosecution agreement for a politically-connected company.
Another partial win was when the Harper government instituted transparency and reporting requirements for First Nations band leadership. That created a massive backlash among the band leadership, and also started to stoke some pushback among band membership who finally got a good look at how their elected leaders were spending money. Unfortunately, the Trudeau government walked back those requirements.
AND.......The Parliamentary Budget Officer was established in 2006 by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as one of the independent oversight offices established by the Federal Accountability Act. The act was the Harper government's first piece of legislation.
A constant thorn in the side of the ruling Liberals😁😁😁😁
11 years of leftist climate extremism intended to diminish the Alberta economy, proligate federal spending, higher taxation , chaos in what constitutes a property right , no growth in GDP per capita and endless perfomative leftist gestures.
And over the last two years utter incompetence in dealing with any realism in respect of trade with the US - "elbows up" simply puts Canada further into the penalty box.
Alberta grivance has only grown , and with obvious justification.
What passes for a right wing federal alternative federally in Canada has never been able to fully champion a genuine confrontation with the ruling elites of Canada to alter this decline.
Alberta has options.
If Carney insists on extreme climate conditions in his negotiation with Smith, he can reap the whirlwind of reaction and resentment.
You outline what Mr. Boessnkool ignores. Canada's Parliamentary system has failed, where 40% popular support produces an autocratic majority, with no accountability for four years. Furthermore, the Easterners (and the BC hillbillies) were happy to watch Alberta struggle, providing transfer payments continued and their lives were unaffected.
The federalists will win the October plebiscite, just as they did in Quebec in 1980. The separatists will be forced to coalesce, become more reasoned and provide a more coherent argument next time.
In the mean time, Dr. Carney will deliver or our O&G exports become more dependent on the US (thank you Mr. Trump). Based on the noise coming out of Quebec, as well as the LPC's vote buying, Quebec's perspective will take priority. Even Dr. Carney can't blow and suck at the same time.
More hydrocarbon exports to the US is not a problem.
The real problem is not having "more" to actually sell which is the fundamental objective of Carney via open ended carbon taxes and decarbonization mandates.
Men like Boessenkool and Kenney are political careerists within the context of the Canadian federal system.
I agree with the premise of Lead not Leave, however what canada REALLY needs is constitutional reform, which Quebec and Atlantic Canada will NEVER agree to. An elected senate with half the current number of seats is crucial to our country. If we cannot get an elected senate abolishing it is the next best option. There is NO reason for needing 338 seats in our HOC when we no longer use pony express, rail, snail mail, dial up telephones or even in person meetings to communicate. No EDA country wide should be under 120,000 constituents, Atlantic Canada should be considered a region and some EDAs should cross provincial borders if necessary to equalize the votes across the country. I am not opposed to all regions having seats that cross provincial borders. Finally each region/province of the country should have a voice in Judge selection at every level of the courts.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with regards to MPs, unless you like them being puppets of the leader instead of representing their constituencies. Instead, the number should be increased. Use PEI's population as the basis for riding size with two MPs. This would eliminate the need for the grandfather clause and the senatorial clause for all provinces but PEI. More MPs means more who don't have a hope for a cabinet post or other position, so they're more likely to act more independently and cross the leader.
Yes the Reform Party and the flowing Harper era was a time of positive policy highlighting many of the views of Albertans & the West. But that was then & this is now.
Canada has morphed into more of a socialist/progressive framework and unfortunately we may not see anything resembling common sense center/center right thinking for many years. Canadians have clearly shown over the last number of election this not the path they want to travel.
The Liberal machine has done an exemplary job of convincing most of Central Canada that the Conservative Parties policies & its leaders are not suited for the modern day Canada and the prospects for change at the federal level is slim.
So while your submission is factual and highlights it has happened in the past I cannot seeing anything on the horizon that shows something similar is coming - unfortunately.
Please don’t forget President Trump, his plans to annex Canada, the evil Stephen Harper and his dirty oil, the “Hidden Conservative Agenda” we have been warned about for thirty years, but that never seems to appear, and, oh, the fact Pierre Poilievre has been right about everything.
But, David, please continue to vote exactly the same as have you been, and continue to expect different results.
Be a good Canadian and fall for it a sixth bloody time in a row.
Well, I voted for Harper in 3 of his 4 elections. I think he wanted to lose the last one with that idiotic barbaric cultural practices hotline.
The agenda doesn't appear because they haven't won in a decade, have an asshole for a leader who still, naively, believes there is a tariff-free deal with the US, while another idiot, Dean Allsion, has a petition out attacking women's rights. Pierre supported the Convoy. His judgment is as bad as Trudeau's.
The notion that "Pierre has been right about everything " is absurd since he hasn't, and will never get a chance to implement anything. I don't really understand how you can be upset if the Liberals implement some of his policies. Shouldn't you be jumping for joy? He'll sit on the losing side of the House and whine, and make a fool out of himself until the CPC finally figures out he's an albatross.
The time has come for an adult constitutional conversation at a First Minister's Conference to deal with senate reform and effectiveness, representation in both chambers and the equalization formula. Ain't happening next week but some plans need to start.
Anybody who thinks a pipeline, with no business case or production planned to fill it, solves this needs a serious dose of reality.
Scrapping the "steal scary looking guns" program would also be a step forward.
This is a solid article, and I enjoyed reading it very much.
I especially enjoyed the history lesson.
I hope Alberta chooses to remain in Canada, but, with every day that passes, I understand better why She may not.
Here is the problem, as I see it: the current mindset of this Country has no interest in any type of substantive reform.
The current crop of Canadians are happy as can be with the muddle-through, middle-power mediocrity displayed by eleven years of Liberal incompetency.
High taxes, substandard healthcare, Provincial education systems designed to placate activists and bureaucratic deadweight, while ignoring the needs and wishes of parents and students, rapidly accumulating sovereign & sub-
sovereign debt, concurrent mental health/drug addiction and homelessness crises, activist judges writing laws that should be the purview of the legislatures, the granting of veto rights to Indigenous groups and coastal Premiers, and on, and on, and on, and on.
They feel Canada is just fine as it is.
That conservatives were able to make some gains pre-woke, pre-postmodernist, pre-deconstructionist Canada is a wonderful thing for our history books.
The problem is, from my point of view, there is no appetite for substantive change in the voter, and no courage for change in the leader.
How do you suppose we are going to get a Premier from Quebec to agree to proper representation for the Western Provinces and Ontario, in the House of Commons?
How do you suppose the many have-not Provinces are going to take the suggestion that the Equalization Formula should be changed?
Ken, we are here for a reason, and the reason will continue to fester the longer the reason is ignored.
Again, great article and my best to you and your readers.
The Canada we once knew is long gone, and it will not be replaced given the current mindset of Canadians.
Funny that Boessenkool's listing of "Harper's Legacy" so neatly coincides with the list the Liberals are super-willing to claim as their own accomplishments.
Is there anyone from east of Manitoba who is aware (or willing to admit) that Alberta implemented an Industrial Carbon Tax long before Trudeau decided to impose one on us?
Does any Liberal voter exist who would be willing to admit Harper had increased cash transfers for childcare by 450% BEFORE the Liberal renamed the program, increased the funding slightly - and claimed it as their "signature policy win", using it as a cudgel to differentiate themselves from "those heartless Conservatives"...?
Not one reporter in our supposed news media has found the time or had the inclination to note that Mark Carney has been flying around the world trying to sign trade deals that WE ALREADY HAVE, because they were signed during the Harper era. Seriously - what is the use of a "news-media" which can't point out the giant massive flaws in the story the government is telling?!?!?
...etc.
The problem Alberta has been noticing and reacting to - is that the Liberals have been governing by gaslighting us all for well over a decade. No good idea can exist unless it is THEIR idea, and conversely, nothing bad that happens is ever even slightly their fault.
Many Albertans are simply tired of being lectured, being made the "bad guy" of the Confederation, and otherwise routinely disrepected.
That's what happens when you elect a federal government who want to use one province as a whipping boy for their ideology.
“ Not one reporter in our supposed news media has found the time or had the inclination to note that Mark Carney has been flying around the world trying to sign trade deals that WE ALREADY HAVE, because they were signed during the Harper era. Seriously - what is the use of a "news-media" which can't point out the giant massive flaws in the story the government is telling?!?!?”
No argument about Harper's accomplishments, nor about some of the small wins when the earlier version of the Liberals ran the country. But the last 11 years of these hypocritical climate zealots is no comparison to what came before. The lost decade will stand out as the " dark ages" of politics in this country and will continue as long as Carney and Co are still in power. Carney's fingerprints were all over JT's legacy and he still commands a majority of the same trained seals who clapped for Trudeau. Staying or going will have little effect on how the Libs view the west.
I will credit every one of Mr. Harper's accomplishments and likely a few more (e.g. C-17s) that Mr. Boessenkool didn't mention. And still claim that he left the Liberal Lock on the country undisturbed.
No way could Skippy have ratcheted the country into such extreme terrain if Mr. Harper's accomplishments had actually changed anything!
Ken, I can see your point however I believe that you are missing the larger issue.
Yes, Canada can change. In fact, recent history absolutely proves that thesis. For decades Canada has overstepped and violated the constitution. Some of those violations were with provincial approval, such as the original conception of Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan.
In more recent years, however, we have seen an ideological overstepping based on "we, in the center, know more than you and we know what is best for you and we will tell you what to do and you will do it."
You can argue that the current incumbent has "corrected" that approach. I would respond in two principal ways.
First, I acknowledge that the current iteration in the top job has done SOME things but there are a lot that he has refused to do. So, performative once more? We will see ...
Second, and much, much, much more importantly, if some future incumbent decides that electoral politics (again) or a stupid ideology (again) provides incentive to again violate the constitution, what makes Canada a good bargain for us?
I respectfully state that Canada has proven itself a unreliable and greedy and opportunistic partner with which we should dispense.
Allow me to amplify that point: "Yes, Canada can change; but Canada can also change back to it's odious ways."
In the 1980s we had the National Energy Program but, thankfully, that was subsequently changed and all was just great. Kinda. Somewhat. Until it wasn't great. All it took was someone (in this case, the son of the NEP but it could have been, I don't know, oh, Stephen Guilbeault) to decide to choose lunacy and to attack Alberta and it's industry. The population backed "the son of" - in the last election but one all party leaders - including the Conservative leader - were running on variations of strangling our industry.
The point is that the current constitution provides no safeguards to allow us to stop this periodic overreach and the constitutional amending formula simply makes it impossible, no matter how sincere one is in working for constitutional change, to believe that realistic safeguards can be put into place.
I admire the belief system of so many folks (certainly including you, Sir) in thinking that they can bring about realistic change that will ensure these things will not again occur. It is simply that I don't believe that there will be such changes to the underlying system.
Thank you, Sir, for your passion and your service to your country. Unfortunately, Canada has stopped being my country; oh, I have a Canadian passport and am a Canadian citizen but that is an accident of birth for Canada has periodically chosen to attempt to destroy my province and it's principal industry.
I think you should look at investment in Alberta juxtaposed on global oil prices. A lot of things you blame politics for have a much simpler explanation: price.
I acknowledge that we in Alberta are price takers and definitely not price makers. That means that our economy will fluctuate. Sometimes more and sometimes less but fluctuate it will.
I do not worry about oil prices as we here have long ago learned to deal with those issues. What I worry about are the structural issues that we cannot change in this country and which harm us.
Neither of us will change the mind of the other but it is always useful to have polite discourse.
"Win three: Harper didn’t just cut taxes, he cut spending. With life expectancy and working beyond 65 both going up, Harper raised the eligibility age of Old Age Security from 65 to 67. Less spending, less taxes, lower Alberta contributions."
This is not accurate. Harper passed this, but it was reversed by Trudeau in 2015. So this cannot count as a lasting accomplishment of the Harper government.
While I appreciate the efforts of the Harper government, the problem is that none of these 'wins' involved any kind of structural change. Most have been reversed, in part or whole, by the subsequent Liberal government.
What is the plan for real structural and legislative reform to give Albertans their fair share of political power in Canada? Redistribution of parliamentary seats? Senate balancing? Legislation re-balancing resource development regulations (not just workarounds like the major projects office)? Addressing the extremes of Sec. 35? Reforming judicial appointments? Reviewing the archaic and discriminatory language requirements in the federal civil service? etc. etc.
Is any of this going to happen under the Liberals? Not a chance? Under a Conservative PM? Also unlikely, as all the power is concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, and they would be fools to ever change that.
As I read this article it dawned on me that the separatist argument is not with Canada. It is with the past 10 years of failed Trudeau leadership. That is no reason to break up a country. Trudeau is gone. Hopefully his amateurish and downright disasterous leadership style will remain in the memories of Canadians for a long time and we do not repeat our own mistakes of voting someone like him into office.
I think this is generally correct. The problem is that there have been 2 Trudeau prime ministers in the lifetime of anyone who is a baby boomer and Trudeau's damage is recent and people are still reactive and less focused on community in the wake of covid. (The pandemic response really did a lot of harm to a lot of areas of life that I'm not sure will ever be fully understood.)
There are people who know Harper was PM for a decade who talk as if the conservatives have never been in government and never will be. I think separatism at it's core is anti-liberal government and the feeling that the West's votes don't influence things enough. What many separatists ignore is that AB has elected liberals and NDP in the past. We are not a uniform bunch. And I don't think we'd be having this conversation if the conservatives had won the election. And that is the fact that really says everything I need to know about the separatists real beefs.
Well, PT, the election last year -and subsequent floor crossings and by-elections returned the exact same clown show to Ottawa.
We still have his tanker ban. We still have the “No More Pipelines” regulatory inertia and bureaucratic slow walk of natural resource project approvals.
We still have the vituperative antisemites like Anand, Miller, Joly, Carney, and the rest of the pro-Palestinian caucus.
We still have growing deficits and debts.
We still have the “blame President Trump for everything” style messaging, and Canadians are sucking it up like maple syrup on poutine with pea meal bacon.
I can go on, and on, and on, and on.
I don't disagree with you. But I'm not sure there is a point in the history of Canada or any country (or province) for that matter where you could not list a pile of policies that don't seem to make sense. You engage politically to change them. And change does not come easy because we live in a democracy and a majority of citizens need to come around to your views. But change eventually happens and we move forward. Carney is a distinct improvement over Trudeau. He may get more done than a Conservative government would have done or that Danielle Smith will do. That doesn't negate that Carney is moving far too slow for my liking.
Fair comments, all.
Why are the Liberals continually given the benefit of the doubt, while Conservatives are unceasingly pilloried, after having been right about everything?
Nah, it is with the ROC.
Ken Boessenkool’s article reads like a comforting bedtime story for the Laurentian Elite — a soothing reminder that Alberta should be grateful for the occasional crumbs Ottawa brushes off the table. But Albertans have lived the reality behind the rhetoric, and no amount of selective nostalgia can disguise the fact that this province has spent decades being economically exploited, politically sidelined, and told to be thankful for the privilege. The “we’ve changed Canada before” refrain is not an argument — it’s a pacifier. Alberta didn’t “change Canada”; Alberta bailed Canada out, repeatedly, while being lectured, regulated, and economically kneecapped by the very establishment that now insists we stay quiet and keep paying.
Boessenkool’s triumphalism about past conservative victories conveniently ignores the structural truth: every gain Alberta has ever made inside Confederation has required a herculean effort, a national crisis, or a once‑in‑a‑generation political alignment — and even then, the Laurentian Elite has always found a way to claw back control. Alberta’s successes were not gifts from Ottawa; they were battles won despite Ottawa. And the moment Alberta’s prosperity threatened the central Canadian political economy, the federal government responded with carbon taxes, pipeline blockades, regulatory chokeholds, and a decade-long campaign to cripple the very industry that built modern Canada.
Boessenkool wants Albertans to believe that because a handful of policy wins occurred in the 1990s and 2000s, we should ignore the last 15 years of economic punishment. But Albertans are not suffering from “selective amnesia” — we are suffering from the consequences of a Confederation designed to extract wealth from the West to subsidize political power in the East. Equalization, environmental vetoes, federal court interventions, and the weaponization of national policy against Alberta’s core industries are not ancient grievances. They are current, ongoing, and deliberate.
And the idea that Alberta lacks the entrepreneurial culture, economic capacity, or institutional maturity to stand on its own is an insult so breathtaking it borders on parody. Alberta built a world-class energy sector, a globally competitive agricultural industry, a thriving tech ecosystem, and one of the youngest, most dynamic workforces in the country — all while Ottawa siphoned billions from our economy and used them to entrench political loyalty elsewhere. If anything, Alberta’s success is proof that the province has thrived in spite of Confederation, not because of it.
Boessenkool’s argument boils down to this: “We’ve been abused before, but sometimes we managed to negotiate slightly less abuse, so let’s keep trying.” That is not a strategy — it is a plea for perpetual subservience. Alberta separatists are not driven by nostalgia or bitterness; they are driven by the cold, empirical reality that the current federal structure is economically unsustainable, politically unreformable, and structurally hostile to Alberta’s future.
Alberta doesn’t need to be told to “remain and do what.” The real question — the one Boessenkool avoids — is: Remain and endure what? More federal overreach? More economic sabotage? More pipelines cancelled at the whim of central Canadian politics? More billions drained from Alberta’s economy to buy votes in regions that will never support Alberta’s interests?
Alberta has the resources, the talent, the entrepreneurial culture, and the global market access to chart its own course. What it lacks — and what Confederation will never provide — is the freedom to control its own destiny. After decades of being duped, dismissed, and drained by the Laurentian Elite, Albertans are finally asking the only question that matters: Why should a province that has carried Canada for decades continue to accept a system designed to hold it back?
And that is a question Boessenkool cannot answer — because the answer undermines his entire argument.
Not to mention that the political avatars of the Laurentian Elite rigged the circumstances of an election from prorogation abuse on down, bought off the media repeatedly, and bribed their way to a majority government. The whole current government is built on an illegitimate pile of toxic sand. And that's true regardless of what brainwashed zombies who think we are at war with the US say in a poll.
I am a federalist. Here are a few thoughts.
Canada is not a serious country.
Canada can't get anything done.
For me, Alberta separatism is a byproduct of the nation's unseriousness. That's why doom and gloom predictions of Alberta leaving the family are moot: the country is already messed up and cannot fix itself because it is unserious.
For me, Harper didn't rewrite the equalization formula to favor Alberta, which remains a primary grievance of the current separatist movement. Alberta separatism surging after a decade of a Calgary-based Prime Minister suggests says that the Reform/Harper era didn't cure the root causes of Western alienation. It became another status quo government doing the status quo thing,
Want separatism gone? Give Alberta the same deal in confederation as Quebec.
Hmmmm ... what else .... right now we are at the denial/anger stage on the national unity grief scale. The next one will to come will be bargaining, which, I think is the way this gets solved. Negotiation. Constitutional talks.
The ROC needs to understand that this time ... this time ... the separatist movement in Alberta was amateur hour. Canada lucked out. I say again, Canada lucked out. Big time.
The next time it will be organized and strongly led. Should they start a political party? Yes ... but I don't think that is going to matter. The country has just gone through a global pandemic and is witnessing scary AF geopolitical moves every damned day. It's anything can happen time all the time now.
Federalists need to answer this question fast: why stay if Canada is unserious and cannot get anything done.
It is not gone. It’s lazy and pessimistic to say so.
Well, when you have watched the Country you loved turned into a heritage hating, economically savaged, postmodernist, self-loathing, genocidal, secular, post-national population of money launderers & house flippers for eleven years, you don’t get to just flip the switch in the other direction.
Not all actions are transitive; some things cannot be reset.
I did not say it was gone.
You make a number of very good points, friend.
The lack of seriousness of which you speak is, in turn, a derivative of the incompetency, apathy, and unaccountability displayed by Canadian politicians, and Canadian voters.
We had choices, and we made them. Now, we need to live with them.
I think Ken presented a very good article, and his arguments are based on the historical record.
Unfortunately, the Canada of which he speaks is long gone; it died a slow, horrible death at the hands of activist judges, Liberal Party politicians whose sole fealty is to the Liberal Party, climate zealots making industrial policies, postmodernist faculty members, a Supreme Court that writes legislation that should be written by legislators, and of a voting populace that was too lazy to notice, or heed the warnings.
Good post, Sean.
I think the whole equalization thing is turned into a much bigger thing than it really should be. Alberta isn't hurt by the equalization formula - we pay the same amount of federal tax per a given income as anywhere else in Canada, and we pay lower provincial taxes than the other provinces and we don't have a provincial sales tax. Would the provincial government like more money from the feds via equalization? Absolutely. Are Albertans paying more? No.
Albertans collectively pay vastly more into the federal system than the province gets back in federal spending and transfers.
Quebec doesn't charge market prices for its power: it doesn't fully show up on paper, making the province look "poorer" to the formula than it actually is. So, even though Quebec is economically powerful,. For Quebeckers, this loophole combined with slightly lower average personal incomes keep it just below the threshold, legally qualifying it to collect billions in federal subsidies every year.
There are legitimate beefs regarding equalization and this is its centerpiece. I think.
The separatist loons on here sound like the deranged maga types in the states (post-modern faculty are destroying the country!). But then the only choice for a land-locked rump territory like Alberta will be to join the U.S.
Why would anyone want to join the republic of schoolshootinistan?
why are you asking me?
Rhetorical question.
If Canada can’t be fixed, as some so-called federalists are arguing in the comments, then why were Canadian voters about to give Conservatives a big win before Trump became the issue. And even then, Carney only became PM because he was able to cosplay as center right.
But they didn't win. Big or otherwise.
God you are obtuse! Canadians elected someone whom they thought was not Trudeau. Indeed, who promised to undo many of Trudeau’s policies. Ergo, there is political support for changing the post-2015 status quo which upsets many Albertans.
Hi Craig, I don't come on here to lose my sh*t. Perhaps its time to place both hands on your desk and push away from your computer. When you're done losing your sh*t, I'm happy to exchange views with you. Take good care, friend.
Do you come on here to deliberately distort what people say? Why bother replying to my comment with the risible claim that they still lost? That obviously is irrelevant to what I was arguing about the significance of Carney’s election.
I don't argue in the comments section. It's a mug's game. Sorry, friend.
Again specifically, what do you want?
Your own police force instead of the RCMP? Just like Quebec has that?
Go ahead. You have that deal you’re just not taking advantage of it.
Iran, separate tax collecting agency? You can do that. Go ahead. (I think you’ll just piss people off, but go ahead).
Your own pension plan? Go ahead. You need to negotiate the withdrawal from the pension plan which Alberta chose to sign up for, but it’s doable. Go ahead.
Something else? You need to be specific because I’m guessing it’s not the ability to raise up politicians with a penchant for playing dress-up on the international stage. (Quebec has that).
You can’t just vaguely say “we want the same deal as Quebec” or “asymmetrical federalism” and complain you’re not getting it.
> Want separatism gone? Give Alberta the same deal in confederation as Quebec.
Okay... That seems reasonable... except what specifically do you mean? Because I don't see Alberta taking advantage of the elements of that "deal" it already has.
Nothing prevents Alberta from making it's own police force just like Quebec did. Go ahead. Me I don't want one in BC, but you go right ahead.
Ditto other things... so what specifically are you asking for?
Because saying "we want the same deal" without saying what "deal" you're talking about seems pretty unserious.
What do I mean? That's a pretty unserious question, don't you think,;) Two words that are very very very serious business. Asymmetrical federalism.
Can’t fix itself? Why?
Another Harper win was changing expectations regarding transparency and accountability.
One enduring win was creation of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which embedded the norm of prosecutorial independence from political interference in law. That change was central to the SNC-Lavalin scandal when Justin Trudeau tried to strongarm a deferred prosecution agreement for a politically-connected company.
Another partial win was when the Harper government instituted transparency and reporting requirements for First Nations band leadership. That created a massive backlash among the band leadership, and also started to stoke some pushback among band membership who finally got a good look at how their elected leaders were spending money. Unfortunately, the Trudeau government walked back those requirements.
AND.......The Parliamentary Budget Officer was established in 2006 by the Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, as one of the independent oversight offices established by the Federal Accountability Act. The act was the Harper government's first piece of legislation.
A constant thorn in the side of the ruling Liberals😁😁😁😁
The PBO was a thorn in Harper's side too, as I recall, which highlights why the office is important!
Harper was a good Prime Minister and a decent man. Thank you for reminding us of his legacy.
100% agree. He came off as a hard ass to keep a tight grip on a populist caucus that would easily go rogue. (And still can.)
What?
11 years of leftist climate extremism intended to diminish the Alberta economy, proligate federal spending, higher taxation , chaos in what constitutes a property right , no growth in GDP per capita and endless perfomative leftist gestures.
And over the last two years utter incompetence in dealing with any realism in respect of trade with the US - "elbows up" simply puts Canada further into the penalty box.
Alberta grivance has only grown , and with obvious justification.
What passes for a right wing federal alternative federally in Canada has never been able to fully champion a genuine confrontation with the ruling elites of Canada to alter this decline.
Alberta has options.
If Carney insists on extreme climate conditions in his negotiation with Smith, he can reap the whirlwind of reaction and resentment.
You outline what Mr. Boessnkool ignores. Canada's Parliamentary system has failed, where 40% popular support produces an autocratic majority, with no accountability for four years. Furthermore, the Easterners (and the BC hillbillies) were happy to watch Alberta struggle, providing transfer payments continued and their lives were unaffected.
The federalists will win the October plebiscite, just as they did in Quebec in 1980. The separatists will be forced to coalesce, become more reasoned and provide a more coherent argument next time.
In the mean time, Dr. Carney will deliver or our O&G exports become more dependent on the US (thank you Mr. Trump). Based on the noise coming out of Quebec, as well as the LPC's vote buying, Quebec's perspective will take priority. Even Dr. Carney can't blow and suck at the same time.
More hydrocarbon exports to the US is not a problem.
The real problem is not having "more" to actually sell which is the fundamental objective of Carney via open ended carbon taxes and decarbonization mandates.
Men like Boessenkool and Kenney are political careerists within the context of the Canadian federal system.
Not exactly Alberta first.
Perhaps redirect Enbridge 5's oil.
Great post.
Alberta indeed has options, and She would be wise to explore each of them.
Like there’s no whirlwind now? What if anything would happen?
Polling numbers, post a breakdown between Smith and Carney
I agree with the premise of Lead not Leave, however what canada REALLY needs is constitutional reform, which Quebec and Atlantic Canada will NEVER agree to. An elected senate with half the current number of seats is crucial to our country. If we cannot get an elected senate abolishing it is the next best option. There is NO reason for needing 338 seats in our HOC when we no longer use pony express, rail, snail mail, dial up telephones or even in person meetings to communicate. No EDA country wide should be under 120,000 constituents, Atlantic Canada should be considered a region and some EDAs should cross provincial borders if necessary to equalize the votes across the country. I am not opposed to all regions having seats that cross provincial borders. Finally each region/province of the country should have a voice in Judge selection at every level of the courts.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with regards to MPs, unless you like them being puppets of the leader instead of representing their constituencies. Instead, the number should be increased. Use PEI's population as the basis for riding size with two MPs. This would eliminate the need for the grandfather clause and the senatorial clause for all provinces but PEI. More MPs means more who don't have a hope for a cabinet post or other position, so they're more likely to act more independently and cross the leader.
Agree.
Yes the Reform Party and the flowing Harper era was a time of positive policy highlighting many of the views of Albertans & the West. But that was then & this is now.
Canada has morphed into more of a socialist/progressive framework and unfortunately we may not see anything resembling common sense center/center right thinking for many years. Canadians have clearly shown over the last number of election this not the path they want to travel.
The Liberal machine has done an exemplary job of convincing most of Central Canada that the Conservative Parties policies & its leaders are not suited for the modern day Canada and the prospects for change at the federal level is slim.
So while your submission is factual and highlights it has happened in the past I cannot seeing anything on the horizon that shows something similar is coming - unfortunately.
Your pessimism is unwarranted.
Well, Andrew and Pierre have certainly convinced people of that.
Please don’t forget President Trump, his plans to annex Canada, the evil Stephen Harper and his dirty oil, the “Hidden Conservative Agenda” we have been warned about for thirty years, but that never seems to appear, and, oh, the fact Pierre Poilievre has been right about everything.
But, David, please continue to vote exactly the same as have you been, and continue to expect different results.
Be a good Canadian and fall for it a sixth bloody time in a row.
Well, I voted for Harper in 3 of his 4 elections. I think he wanted to lose the last one with that idiotic barbaric cultural practices hotline.
The agenda doesn't appear because they haven't won in a decade, have an asshole for a leader who still, naively, believes there is a tariff-free deal with the US, while another idiot, Dean Allsion, has a petition out attacking women's rights. Pierre supported the Convoy. His judgment is as bad as Trudeau's.
The notion that "Pierre has been right about everything " is absurd since he hasn't, and will never get a chance to implement anything. I don't really understand how you can be upset if the Liberals implement some of his policies. Shouldn't you be jumping for joy? He'll sit on the losing side of the House and whine, and make a fool out of himself until the CPC finally figures out he's an albatross.
Have a wonderful evening.
And Mr. O'Toole?
Would have made a great PM if the CPC hadn't turned on him. A pragmatic realist who might have brought a lot of people back to the Conservative fold.
100%. What might have been.
The time has come for an adult constitutional conversation at a First Minister's Conference to deal with senate reform and effectiveness, representation in both chambers and the equalization formula. Ain't happening next week but some plans need to start.
Anybody who thinks a pipeline, with no business case or production planned to fill it, solves this needs a serious dose of reality.
Scrapping the "steal scary looking guns" program would also be a step forward.
Thanks Ken.
This is a solid article, and I enjoyed reading it very much.
I especially enjoyed the history lesson.
I hope Alberta chooses to remain in Canada, but, with every day that passes, I understand better why She may not.
Here is the problem, as I see it: the current mindset of this Country has no interest in any type of substantive reform.
The current crop of Canadians are happy as can be with the muddle-through, middle-power mediocrity displayed by eleven years of Liberal incompetency.
High taxes, substandard healthcare, Provincial education systems designed to placate activists and bureaucratic deadweight, while ignoring the needs and wishes of parents and students, rapidly accumulating sovereign & sub-
sovereign debt, concurrent mental health/drug addiction and homelessness crises, activist judges writing laws that should be the purview of the legislatures, the granting of veto rights to Indigenous groups and coastal Premiers, and on, and on, and on, and on.
They feel Canada is just fine as it is.
That conservatives were able to make some gains pre-woke, pre-postmodernist, pre-deconstructionist Canada is a wonderful thing for our history books.
The problem is, from my point of view, there is no appetite for substantive change in the voter, and no courage for change in the leader.
How do you suppose we are going to get a Premier from Quebec to agree to proper representation for the Western Provinces and Ontario, in the House of Commons?
How do you suppose the many have-not Provinces are going to take the suggestion that the Equalization Formula should be changed?
Ken, we are here for a reason, and the reason will continue to fester the longer the reason is ignored.
Again, great article and my best to you and your readers.
The Canada we once knew is long gone, and it will not be replaced given the current mindset of Canadians.
We have no one to blame but ourselves.
Work harder. Win. Change the country. As Nike said “Just do it.”
Ken, I love your enthusiasm, your optimism, and your genuine love of Country.
I think that horse bolted the barn, and hasn’t been seen since.
Put another way, this version of Canada can’t be changed; that is the extent of the diminishment we have endured.
Great post, Ken; that was excellent writing.
Funny that Boessenkool's listing of "Harper's Legacy" so neatly coincides with the list the Liberals are super-willing to claim as their own accomplishments.
Is there anyone from east of Manitoba who is aware (or willing to admit) that Alberta implemented an Industrial Carbon Tax long before Trudeau decided to impose one on us?
Does any Liberal voter exist who would be willing to admit Harper had increased cash transfers for childcare by 450% BEFORE the Liberal renamed the program, increased the funding slightly - and claimed it as their "signature policy win", using it as a cudgel to differentiate themselves from "those heartless Conservatives"...?
Not one reporter in our supposed news media has found the time or had the inclination to note that Mark Carney has been flying around the world trying to sign trade deals that WE ALREADY HAVE, because they were signed during the Harper era. Seriously - what is the use of a "news-media" which can't point out the giant massive flaws in the story the government is telling?!?!?
...etc.
The problem Alberta has been noticing and reacting to - is that the Liberals have been governing by gaslighting us all for well over a decade. No good idea can exist unless it is THEIR idea, and conversely, nothing bad that happens is ever even slightly their fault.
Many Albertans are simply tired of being lectured, being made the "bad guy" of the Confederation, and otherwise routinely disrepected.
That's what happens when you elect a federal government who want to use one province as a whipping boy for their ideology.
“ Not one reporter in our supposed news media has found the time or had the inclination to note that Mark Carney has been flying around the world trying to sign trade deals that WE ALREADY HAVE, because they were signed during the Harper era. Seriously - what is the use of a "news-media" which can't point out the giant massive flaws in the story the government is telling?!?!?”
Tremendous observation, friend.
No argument about Harper's accomplishments, nor about some of the small wins when the earlier version of the Liberals ran the country. But the last 11 years of these hypocritical climate zealots is no comparison to what came before. The lost decade will stand out as the " dark ages" of politics in this country and will continue as long as Carney and Co are still in power. Carney's fingerprints were all over JT's legacy and he still commands a majority of the same trained seals who clapped for Trudeau. Staying or going will have little effect on how the Libs view the west.
Anyone know what a ratchet is?
I will credit every one of Mr. Harper's accomplishments and likely a few more (e.g. C-17s) that Mr. Boessenkool didn't mention. And still claim that he left the Liberal Lock on the country undisturbed.
No way could Skippy have ratcheted the country into such extreme terrain if Mr. Harper's accomplishments had actually changed anything!
Great post, John.
I couldn’t agree more. Nothing to add.
Ken, I can see your point however I believe that you are missing the larger issue.
Yes, Canada can change. In fact, recent history absolutely proves that thesis. For decades Canada has overstepped and violated the constitution. Some of those violations were with provincial approval, such as the original conception of Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan.
In more recent years, however, we have seen an ideological overstepping based on "we, in the center, know more than you and we know what is best for you and we will tell you what to do and you will do it."
You can argue that the current incumbent has "corrected" that approach. I would respond in two principal ways.
First, I acknowledge that the current iteration in the top job has done SOME things but there are a lot that he has refused to do. So, performative once more? We will see ...
Second, and much, much, much more importantly, if some future incumbent decides that electoral politics (again) or a stupid ideology (again) provides incentive to again violate the constitution, what makes Canada a good bargain for us?
I respectfully state that Canada has proven itself a unreliable and greedy and opportunistic partner with which we should dispense.
You should have stopped writing after “Yes, Canada can change. In fact, recent history absolutely proves that thesis.”
It’s a good summary of my piece.
Allow me to amplify that point: "Yes, Canada can change; but Canada can also change back to it's odious ways."
In the 1980s we had the National Energy Program but, thankfully, that was subsequently changed and all was just great. Kinda. Somewhat. Until it wasn't great. All it took was someone (in this case, the son of the NEP but it could have been, I don't know, oh, Stephen Guilbeault) to decide to choose lunacy and to attack Alberta and it's industry. The population backed "the son of" - in the last election but one all party leaders - including the Conservative leader - were running on variations of strangling our industry.
The point is that the current constitution provides no safeguards to allow us to stop this periodic overreach and the constitutional amending formula simply makes it impossible, no matter how sincere one is in working for constitutional change, to believe that realistic safeguards can be put into place.
I admire the belief system of so many folks (certainly including you, Sir) in thinking that they can bring about realistic change that will ensure these things will not again occur. It is simply that I don't believe that there will be such changes to the underlying system.
Thank you, Sir, for your passion and your service to your country. Unfortunately, Canada has stopped being my country; oh, I have a Canadian passport and am a Canadian citizen but that is an accident of birth for Canada has periodically chosen to attempt to destroy my province and it's principal industry.
I think you should look at investment in Alberta juxtaposed on global oil prices. A lot of things you blame politics for have a much simpler explanation: price.
Thank you for your responses, Sir.
I acknowledge that we in Alberta are price takers and definitely not price makers. That means that our economy will fluctuate. Sometimes more and sometimes less but fluctuate it will.
I do not worry about oil prices as we here have long ago learned to deal with those issues. What I worry about are the structural issues that we cannot change in this country and which harm us.
Neither of us will change the mind of the other but it is always useful to have polite discourse.
Thank you, again, Sir, and have a good evening.
"Win three: Harper didn’t just cut taxes, he cut spending. With life expectancy and working beyond 65 both going up, Harper raised the eligibility age of Old Age Security from 65 to 67. Less spending, less taxes, lower Alberta contributions."
This is not accurate. Harper passed this, but it was reversed by Trudeau in 2015. So this cannot count as a lasting accomplishment of the Harper government.
While I appreciate the efforts of the Harper government, the problem is that none of these 'wins' involved any kind of structural change. Most have been reversed, in part or whole, by the subsequent Liberal government.
What is the plan for real structural and legislative reform to give Albertans their fair share of political power in Canada? Redistribution of parliamentary seats? Senate balancing? Legislation re-balancing resource development regulations (not just workarounds like the major projects office)? Addressing the extremes of Sec. 35? Reforming judicial appointments? Reviewing the archaic and discriminatory language requirements in the federal civil service? etc. etc.
Is any of this going to happen under the Liberals? Not a chance? Under a Conservative PM? Also unlikely, as all the power is concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, and they would be fools to ever change that.