Ken Boessnkool: We have changed Canada before. We can do it again.
To hear Alberta separatists talk, one might think that the last 20 years of conservative activism had simply never happened in this country.
The Line is partnering with Lead Not Leave to provide credible arguments for why Alberta should stay in Canada. Click on the link below to learn more about the initiative.
By: Ken Boessenkool
I confess, I am getting tired of the selective amnesia. To hear Alberta separatists talk, one might think that the last 20 years of conservative activism had simply never happened in this country. They seem to have an ironclad memory for every grievance going right back to 1905 — some of which I share — but routinely forget this province’s many successes; the many times Alberta has led, rather than left, this Confederation.
Elder statesman of the conservative movement, and former leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning, is the latest tragic example of this tendency. Manning ought to to be regarded as this movement’s great successes — a man who successfully defeated the complacency of eastern Canadian assumptions, and totally upended conservative politics for a generation, eventually making way for prime minister Stephen Harper. Yet, in a recent National Post article, Manning took the loser’s route. Instead of setting his own story as an example of how the west can win, Manning shifted the burden of proof in this referendum battle to the federalist side by asking: “Remain and do what?”
As if we’ve never done anything before.
That is not just defeatist, it is historically wrong.
In 1991 I was the Policy Chair for the Lethbridge Constituency, and eventually worked for its first MP in Ottawa, Ray Speaker. Just for kicks, I went back to my well-worn version of the 1991 Reform Party Blue Book — the insurgent western political party’s ambitious policy document. Far from a physical record of failure, I counted 41 Blue Book policies that have been implemented since 1991. Pretty good!
My personal favourite is the call for energy development to include the “associated costs of environmental protection … rely(ing) primarily on marketplace mechanisms.” No wonder Danielle Smith and Mark Carney’s Memorandum of Understanding is so popular — it supports a pipeline and carbon pricing, like good ol’ Reformers.
I’m having fun, of course, but it does show that Alberta has been leading, not leaving, the national conversation for decades. The first industrial carbon price was created by Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach. We haven’t won every single policy fight, but we do make progress, and we do score big wins.
For example, the two signature policies of Manning’s Reform Party have been implemented, and are now regarded as standard bearers. Thanks to our work, referendums were implemented for attempts at constitutional change. And previous Conservative and even Liberal governments have prioritized balanced budgets.
Let’s take the first example, the defeat of the Charlottetown Accord in 1992. Initially and ironically, Manning supported the constitutional amendments, but then came around and campaigned against it, while mirroring the Reform Party demand that such changes be approved by referendum.
On deficits, in late 1994 I became Preston Manning’s economic advisor and was the staff lead for “The Taxpayer’s Budget,” built on work created by later prime minister Stephen Harper. I believe the Taxpayer’s Budget was the first fully costed shadow budget produced by an opposition party.
Following its publication we — myself, along with Manning, Harper, Jim Silye and Herb Grubel — met with Finance Minister Paul Martin and his staff to discuss our suggestions. We agreed to support budget cuts like the elimination of the Crow Rate if other cuts were regionally balanced. In other words, Reformers played a significant private and public role in the success of the Chrétien government’s 1995 Budget that cut spending and balanced the budget in only three years.
Win for Alberta. Win for Canada. And Alberta was at the table. I know. I was there.
For the next decade, my political work turned to Alberta, including advising on the design and implementation of Alberta’s single rate tax in the late 90s and coauthoring the Firewall Letter with Harper and a few others in the early aughts.
Harper went on to greater things. I tagged along as his policy advisor and would go on to help co-write many of his leadership and election platforms.
The separatists who would treat Canada as a hopeless cause seem to forget or denigrate Harper’s decade in office, too.
A recent interlocutor on Twitter/X recently demanded of me: “Name one lasting Harper accomplishment.”
I can name ten. (You can find more here.)
Win one: Under Harper, the federal tax burden as a share of GDP fell to its lowest level in more than 50 years. Taxes as a percentage of GDP fell nearly 15 per cent. And that meant Alberta contributed less because Ottawa was collecting less.
Win two: Harper’s reduction in the GST did not just reduce taxes, it created tax room for the provinces to fund health care, education and social services. A tax point transfer has long been a central demand of those who want a stronger Alberta in Canada. Harper did it.
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.
Win four: Conservatives shouldn’t just do things. Certainly, a future Conservative government will have to undo a lot of bad policy from the Trudeau era. But Harper demonstrated how this could be done. He undid a lot of bad policy, from the Kelowna Accord to the Kyoto Agreement to the unfunded institutional childcare plans of the Martin government. Remember that Wheat Board? We killed it.
Win five: Replacing one-size-fits-all institutional childcare with the largest social program in a generation. Instead of attempting to implement the Quebec daycare system across the board, Harper chose instead to give massive cash transfers directly to families with children. Cash transfers for children went from $4 billion when Harper took office to $18 billion when he left. Over a decade later, spending on those programs is $25 billion. We so convincingly won the argument — Choice in Childcare, we called it — that no party opposes these cash payments to families. Alberta has a younger population and more kids. It gets more.
Win six: Harper supported civil society with tax credits to defray the costs associated with starting a family, raising children, managing disability, incurring costs to earn income, acquiring a home, saving for the future, and bolstering civil society. Lower taxes, lower Alberta contributions.
Win seven: When faced with the global recession, almost half of the relief Harper delivered was in the form of corporate and individual tax cuts. The vast majority of the rest was infrastructure spending — much of which was sent to lower levels of government in an Economic Action Plan that respected federalism. This relief was timely, affordable and mostly temporary. Lower taxes, lower burden on Alberta.
Win eight: Within a few short years following the financial crisis of 2008, Harper balanced a budget that he then bequeathed to the Trudeau government. Lower spending, less need for Alberta to support Ottawa. This success need only be replicated by another Conservative government.
Win nine: Canada had free trade deals with five other countries with Harper entered office. By the time he left, we had 51 such deals with countries in the Americas, Asia and Europe, covering more than 60 percent of the global marketplace. Harper paved the way for Alberta’s natural resources and other goods.
Win ten: Harper passed dozens of pieces of crime legislation — including mandatory minimum sentences — and increased resources for law enforcement to make our homes, streets, and cities safer.
He also eliminated the long gun registry, and created a sex offender registry.
He stayed true to the Firewall Letter by becoming Alberta’s (and all other province’s) Firewall in Ottawa. He boosted transfers without boosting conditions. And he made those social policy transfers equal per capita, reducing billions in extra burdens on Alberta. And he balanced the budget in 2015 without cutting provincial transfers.
Harper boosted Canadian history and spoke about Canada’s founding, and its founding prime minister. He cared deeply about northern sovereignty. He promoted our rich military traditions including the Highway of Heroes. He stood with our allies — Ukraine and Israel in particular — while standing against tyranny.
Oh, right. I promised only ten.
The point of raising all this is not to say Harper fixed everything — he didn’t. Nor is it to say that some people won’t find fault with some of his policies, or how he executed them. However, it’s hard to look upon this list and avoid noticing how prescient many of his policy priorities proved to be. Harper was getting Canada very much on the right track, and there’s no reason to think a similarly conservative prime minister, similarly motivated by good ideas and clear thinking, can’t continue to push the ball forward. Harper wasn’t a revolutionary. His incrementalism was part of his conservative disposition. He made Alberta stronger and united Canada.
He answered the question for his time: Remain and do what?
It is time to ask that question again. But not by pretending we’ve never answered it before. We have. I have. In my lifetime. And I’m not that old. We’ve shown that grievances — when channelled productively — can make positive changes in this country.
So let’s do it again. Because we can. Because we must. And because we will.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded. No federal subsidies, no bailouts. If you value our work, please consider supporting us by subscribing or making a donation. Donations are not subscriptions and do not unlock paywalled content, but they help keep The Line independent
To contact The Line with a general inquiry or comment, please email info@readtheline.ca. For other ways to connect with us or to follow us on social media, please see our LinkTree.
 | A guest post by
|
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.
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.