That’s an unfortunate perspective. Truly. What’s important to understand is most Albertans are not separatists. The 30% support you hear of is “soft.” It’s driven by a 10-15% of legitimate hardcore separatists who largely have “made feeling hard done by a core part of their identity.” The rest are disillusioned and cynical. They feel unappreciated, unheard and disregarded as Canadians - by Eastern Canadians. And that sediment is not at 15% or even 30%… it’s higher than that. It may be much closer to or even over 50%.
So the majority of Albertans are still federalists. They want to Canada to work. They want to feel an appreciated and respected part of it.
You’re not going to covert any of the 15% by naming an AB GG. You might not even move the needle on the next 15% that make up the 30% (and that’s not even close to a given). But - you probably do move the needle with those that truly want Canada to work - but just aren’t sure anyone over there actually gives a shit about that or them.
Winning and losing lives at the margins. In the details. Gurney is right. I live in that 20% between the 30% of separatist support and the 50% (ish) total of disillusioned, disaffected Albertans.
Funny how, when the subject of Quebec separatism came up in the past, few outside that province thought of the hardcore separatists as "legitimate", yet Alberta's separatists see things differently now.
The fact that this the is top liked comment indicates exactly why smart federalists are worried about the referendum, despite the polls. They know that other federalists, inside and outside Alberta, will do their unconscious level best to ensure a yes vote.
I don't think anyone in Canada who's that aggrieved gives the slightest of a shit who the Governor General is. I sure don't.
Of course it's going to be some insufferable out of touch self-caricaturing elite. But it doesn't matter substantively at all.
If it were up to me I would appoint some utterly trolling far-right figure, just to be equivalent. If Jordan Peterson weren't on death's door he would have made an excellent candidate. I'd even let him write his own throne speech, with no restrictions on length or content. It would be epic. Then I'd let him leave in disgust at the absurdity of the office to which he was just appointed, and collect the GG's salary and call himself 'his excellency' for the rest of his term to live in Arizona or wherever.
Just because you don’t understand the importance and value of the role (especially as a constitutional backstop) doesn’t mean it’s absurd. Unless you see the absurdity in human existence… in which case, never mind. It’s a valid perspective.
Matt's theme is "missed opportunity ", which is correct, however I feel the PM is getting a bigger pass than he deserves. Whether he is uninformed, poorly advised, or just plain obtuse, if you wanted to send the wrong message to the west ( not just Ab), job well done.
Thats true in the sense that every decision to do something closes the other opportunities. Doesn't seem worth a whole article, especially without presenting any evidence that such a move would have mattered.
Is this really what the people currently pushing to create a new country out of Canadian territory are looking for? Gestures? Seems unlikely.
My God, think of all the places that aren't blessed with such an office, or - perish the thought - entirely lacking a foreign hereditary symbolic head of state altogether. They must be hell on earth.
You’ve convinced me entirely. Just imagine all those republics, doing so much better than Canada, mostly because they replaced their ceremonial head of state with… a different less ceremonial head of state. The efficiency gains from not sending $0.00 to nobody (as Canada does for our King) must be staggering.
And some of them, the really ambitious ones - to be emulated, managed to democratically elect a king-shaped object. No hereditary nonsense there, just pure democratic autocratic monarchy. Truly the future we deserved.
The question of whether Alberta's grievances are genuine might be the wrong place to start. Authenticity isn't really the core problem. Credibility is.
And credibility has been severely damaged from multiple directions at once.
There's the foreign interference layer: documented evidence that separatist sentiment has been amplified, and in some cases manufactured, by external actors who benefit from Canadian instability. A much bigger deal than is commonly recognized.
There's the cynical political layer: successive provincial governments that discovered Ottawa grievance is a more reliable path to power than governance. It's an old song but it's still being played - ever louder.
And then there's the performative layer. The cottage industry of outrage that has grown up around this Alberta alienation, where the louder and more extreme the complaint, the more attention and funding it attracts.
None of that means there's nothing real underneath.
Every region in a federation carries legitimate tensions. Fiscal imbalances, resource jurisdiction disputes, cultural distinctiveness that doesn't always feel respected at the centre. These exist in Alberta and elsewhere. Canada has never been in perfect equilibrium, and it never will be. That's federalism.
The problem is that by the time you've stripped away the astroturfing, the political theatre, and the disinformation ecosystem, most people, including many Albertans, can no longer clearly see where the legitimate grievance ends and the manufactured outrage begins.
That's the damage. Not that the grievances are fake. But that honest conversation about the resolvable issues has been made nearly impossible.
Stop impeding Alberta's economy and (possibly even or) taking their money. The point of an Albertan GG is to make the case that this may someday happen.
What does "stop taking our money" mean? No equalization? No federal income tax for Albertans?
Out of curiosity, how many more pipelines do the feds have to build for you before you declare yourself satisfied that the rest of Canada no longer "impedes your economy"?
I'm actually Ontarian, but eliminating equalization, carbon taxes, and the West coast tanker ban, and asserting the federal right to impose linear infrastructure rights of way to the coasts would likely do the trick. No federal money needed.
1. I think it's easy, maybe too easy, for a province with no coastline to be indifferent to the potential environmental impacts to somebody else's coastline.
2. Alberta seceding will not move the province one inch closer to the Pacific Ocean, so unless they are planning to annex British Columbia on the way out the door I'm not sure how succession from Canada would help.
I had the same thought, but with all due respect to Ms. Gerson, absolutely no more journalists! What we want in a Governor General is someone who knows how to be apolitical to a fault.
Journalists, (certainly Canadian journalists) can't do that.
Jen Gerson displays too much strength of character and independence of thought to become the kind of lackey to tradition required of a GG. Ms. Gerson is more of a lead hand, or ramrod on a project with actual goals.
Was Queen Elizabeth II a "lackey" of parliament? Did she lack goals? I think not. It's easier to see with her than with King Charles because Charles is new to the role, but despite doing what the Prime Minister"recommends" they do, they are not lackeys.
Neither is a (good) Governor General a lackey. A political lackey would be a bad Governor General.
They are a symbol and representative of the crown which is our non-political head of state. It's an important role and not that of a "lackey".
This is a very good point. We have reached the stage where it is nearly impossible to be a loyal Albertan and to be loyal to a Canadian Liberal government. Interests and goals are too divergent.
My wife started taking French lessons about 5 years ago for a month long trip she took to France in 2022. But when asked why she was taking French I joking told my friends it was because she wanted to to GG. Of course they did not ask this time. maybe next time.
Living in BC, I'm not up on my Alberta academics, community and business leaders, but surely there's someone in Alberta who can do the job very well... as long as Mr. Carney isn't looking for someone with the correct political views.
You asked Matt to name a person that would have worked for Carney and Alberta and Canada.
With respect, I think that first criteria should be tossed out and incinerated. And that's because "works for Carney" is a different criteria than "works for Harper" or any Prime Minister. If it's a valid criteria to consider, then it follows that the Governor General should be handing in their resignation whenever we get a new Prime Minister. After all, the new Prime Minister can't have one who "works for" their political opponent. This makes the Governor General role a political one.
Leaving that aside then... surely there's an Alberta business leader, academic or community leader who can do the job well. I'm not from the place, but as long as we leave "is an LPC type" in the trash where it should be, I'd be shocked if there aren't a surplus of options.
I don't want to misrepresent what you said, but I'm not sure how else to read "works for Carney" other than as "has LPC friendly political views".
Appointing someone hostile to the sitting government as Governor General would let us see what other things are "technically allowed" by our constitution.
"There's 'governor' in my title, and I intend to govern!"
I have to agree as I sit here in Alberta there is no one who comes to mind with sufficient respect in the province and the country. Even people I respect as much as Willie Littlechild fail, if only for not having fluency in both official languages which is where the current GG has been vulnerable to partially legitimate criticism.
This is Standard Operating Procedure so there are no surprises here at all. Plus, you know, Louise Arbour is from Quebec. That worries me because the focus is yet again on Quebec.,
My point was and is neither of us know what went on in the negotiations but you assume you should get everything you want. I on the other hand want accountability first.
You don’t get more by demanding it you get more by earning it. And right now our whinging bitching uncooperative premier is not playing well with others nor is she being accountable
The fact that you think you need to be bought into resource extraction is the problem. Natural resource development is provincial responsibility and ensuring free movement of goods, services, people and capital within the country, including access to ports of entry, is the fedral government's primary resin to exist. Opinions are irrelevant as these are absolute, indisputable requirements.
The minister is correct. While the announcement was not a surprise, the consultations have not yet started. There is an overarching aim and the feds are now going to try to push the provinces to join in. There is no arbitrary decision where someone that should have been consulted was not. My thinking is that this is a fiction fabricated by the perpetually aggrieved.
Has the Carney government actually even advanced this issue in any major way yet? From what I have seen, Carney’s focus so far has been far more on economic growth, energy infrastructure, internal trade, and national projects than aggressively pushing new land restrictions.
Canada is still formally committed to the “30 by 30” biodiversity framework from the Trudeau era, but that is not the same thing as Ottawa suddenly declaring 30% of Alberta permanently off-limits to development. Provinces still control most natural resources and Crown land, and Canada as a whole is still nowhere near the 30% target anyway.
Ironically, Alberta’s own government has argued that the province has already effectively met or exceeded the benchmark when multi-use Crown lands and conservation areas are counted.
I understand the broader frustration many Albertans feel about cumulative federal policy, but some of these claims are starting to drift away from the actual facts.
Ah yes , now I recall the two Harper/Mulrooney pipelines.
Twinning of the railway, twinning the trans Canada, increasing runways all positives.
As I see it Alberta is the whinging bitch in this relationship. And before you beak off I’m a 70 year old Albertan.
We would get more if we at least tried to be team players, we’re not.
Notley understood cooperation, got a pipeline out of T2.
Instead of this being quid pro quo we should take the longer vision of the confederation and our finite resources
While I don’t fully understand the NEP my interpretation is that we would be selling oil and gas to ourselves at a discounted rate. Instead Alberta rebelled and now we no longer have control of our oil and gas but we sell at a discount to the US.
We have had, since Lougheed, a successive regime of grossly incompetent management of our province, our resources, our institutions and our treasury by conservative governments. This latest dumpster fire being the worst yet.
So who would you have put forward as the Alberta GG?
There's a difference between federal politicians pandering to Quebec out of fear of antagonizing separatists sentiments, and pandering to Quebec just because it is one of the most populated and therefore vote-rich provinces in the country.
No federal politician is arguing that the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois should be appeased with the implicit expectation that such appeasement would not encourage further demands. There is no "ransom" that the ROC has clearly been paying to Quebec in response to separation threats.
It's not about "given" it's just that it takes time to make up for things. And yes, I know it's not all one way, but consider how long Ottawa has been to some degree or another treating Alberta as "second class".
As someone with total contempt for all separatists, I can still say Ottawa has a lot to make up for with Alberta and it will take time because it's been going on a long time.
"Ottawa" has spent half my life crapping all over Alberta's biggest industry which is VASTLY more critical to Alberta than cars are to Ontario. We elected a Prime Minister who insisted that the problem with Canada was that Albertans were in charge.
Before Ottawa was crapping on that industry Pierre Trudeau had the National Energy Policy to "redistribute" the oil wealth outside of Alberta. (Can you imagine how an Albertan Prime Minister would be perceived in Quebec if one of his signature policies was a plan to "redistribute" the wealth from resources in Quebec back to western Canada?
Even the LPC and progressive culture war against people who accept biological reality about male and female is to a large degree regionally coded.
That's been going on a long time. Things don't get fixed overnight.
At the risk of appearing semantic, I feel the need to make a correction here. Trudeau's November 2010 interview comments were not intended to communicate that Albertans being in power is intrinsically a problem; he was telling a Quebecer audience that if they kept voting for the Bloc rather than for federal parties, that the inevitable consequence would be an over-representation of Albertans in federal government, He then later apologized for the "Albertans" comment. Make of that what you will.
You ask, "Can you imagine how an Albertan Prime Minister would be perceived in Quebec if one of his signature policies was a plan to "redistribute" the wealth from resources in Quebec back to western Canada?"
Well he would probably end up losing the federal election - just as happened to the Liberals when they were devastated in the 1984 election, including in Ontario and Quebec.
Whatever mistakes may be made in policies incidentally affecting Albertans, I really don't see how Ottawa is systemically treating Albertans as "second-class".
> Trudeau's November 2010 interview comments were not intended to communicate that Albertans being in power is intrinsically a problem; he was telling a Quebecer audience that if they kept voting for the Bloc rather than for federal parties,
That's one way of looking at it... I think that's pure political spin that obfuscates what he said. According to the CBC, the quote was:
"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's **ALBERTANS** who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work,"
Emphasis added. I think it's a big stretch to believe that spin is what he really meant, since Mr. Trudeau is perfectly capable of saying "Conservative" when he means Conservative party and "Albertan" when he means people from Alberta.
The plain reading of the quote is that he really did think that the biggest problem Canada faced was Albertans running the show, especially since he had already agreed with the statement that Canada is better when it has more Quebeckers than Albertans running things AND he tied that to him being Quebecois.
Obviously, outing himself as a parochial "Quebec uber alles" guy who looks down on Alberta and Albertans was awkward when he was looking for votes outside of Quebec, but his words really do seem to speak for themselves. It's up to others to say if we believe his "I didn't mean those words" later explanation.
With regards to the NEP... you're right. He would lose an election... but I think the larger point is that the LPC actually DID that and still regards Pierre Trudeau in a positive light... no one would EVER consider extracting Quebec national resources in order to enrich Western Canada at Quebec's expense... and if they did, they wouldn't be an honoured Prime Minister decades later.
I am not sure that I have ever heard any Liberal defend the NEP after-the-fact. To the extent that Pierre Trudeau's legacy is celebrated, it seems to be more a celebration of his general record (elsewhere) in spite of the NEP, not because of it. It's therefore really a stretch to tie celebration of the elder Trudeau to an "Albertans are second-class" mentality.
For better or for worse, Justin Trudeau was a fairly gaffe-prone politician in general prior to becoming Prime Minister. Even if he had sincerely meant some prejudice towards Albertans with the comments, the very fact that he felt the need to not make them a national message would actually demonstrate that mainstream public opinion is supportive of Alberta, not condescending to it. It would mean that public opinion had more of an effect on Trudeau's tone than the other way around.
I’ve heard left leaning people defend the NEP. I can’t speak to their party affiliation.
Your points are valid, but again you’re actually making my point for me from a different direction.
Any Prime Minister from Alberta with mirror policies of extracting Quebec wealth for the benefit of the west wouldn’t be remembered positively in any way, shape or form. He’d be the political devil. And the LPC certainly wouldn’t follow up by making his son the leader after he gives a radio interview saying that Canada’s problems is that we let Québécois people lead Canada instead of Albertans which he thinks is better.
That’s the difference.
The Alberta mirror of Pierre and Justin Trudeau would be top of the Canadian list of worst prime ministers in history. We wouldn’t have an airport named after him and the federal government wouldn’t be giving $125 million to a slush fund in his name to fund, (among other things), leadership development in the social sciences.
And if it needs to be said, I’m not from Alberta. I think their separatist movement is even more dumb than the Quebec version. (Which is incredibly dumb). But I still know a double standard when I see one.
I don't think that there's any Canadian Prime Minister who is only remembered for just one thing, good or bad - certainly not any Prime Minister who served a decade or so in power. The Prime Minister who accepted an envelope full of $300,000 in cash was still celebrated later in his life and in his death. This is not a reflection of some anti-Albertan bias in public perceptions, just the inevitable reality of the complicated and polarizing legacies that each Prime Minister leaves behind.
There's certainly Canadians who feel that the Stephen Harper government was propping up the oil industry at the expense of the wealth or at least the democratic integrity of the rest of the country. You are entitled to disagree with that notion, but your disagreement would be politically fraught nonetheless. Both of the Trudeaus and Harper are perceived by mainstream Canadians to be the worst ever Prime Ministers, with differences matching alongside partisan and regional divides. There is no objective criteria from which to allege a double-standard.
It's the French thing. If the GG doesn't speak French, you're just trading one national unity problem for another. I don't know how many accomplished Albertans also speak French at a standard higher than that of Mary Simon, but I don't imagine the list is very long. It's irrational to think Carney could just ignore that requirement in order to put an Albertan in the position.
What was the biggest public criticism of Mary Simon? The French thing, far and away. Job one for Carney was to solve that. If Gurney or another can suggest a bilingual Albertan of similar public profile and professional merit as Arbour, I would support that choice wholeheartedly. I disagree with Peter Menzies that it never would have occurred to them. I just don't know of any Albertan who checks all the boxes, and French is a box. If they hadn't just gone through the Mary Simon experience, Carney might have been OK with a Western candidate who couldn't speak French but professed a willingness to learn. That option probably becomes more palatable with distance/time from Simon, but having had Simon fail on that front, I don't think he was willing to go that route again and create more national unity problems than he solved.
And to be clear, as a veteran, I think Arbour is a poor choice, one who has an axe to grind against the CAF but now will serve as their commander-in-chief. And I don't disagree with Gurney's contention that selecting an Albertan could have helped on the national unity front, everything else being equal. But you can't wave away the French thing. The GG represents the Crown in a constitutionally-bilingual nation. It's a must-have.
> It's the French thing. If the GG doesn't speak French, you're just trading one national unity problem for another.
I'm sorry, but Quebec is just going to have to get over that particular hangup. Mandatory bilingualism for "important" jobs is effectively a western exclusion policy.
Reality doesn't care about any of our feelings and the reality is that Canada isn't a bilingual country. It's a country with some bilingual areas with growing linguistic variation and that's a crucial difference. The west is not and will never be bilingual. The likelihood is right up there with the Quebecois become mass fluent in Portuguese. It's just not going to happen.
We have more people who speak Punjabi, Mandarin & Cantonese (counted separately of course) than who speak French fluently.
Now maybe Quebec can get over this hangup and accept reality. Or maybe they can't. I can't change what they'll do. (Just like I can't convince Albertans that "landlocked Puerto Rico with snow and with British Columbians HATING your guts" isn't the nirvana they imagine.)
But neither can I make Canada bilingual or make Westerners accept the continuation of an artificial barrier against their participation in their own country. As Matt has pointed out, Francophone culture does much better with a strong and united Canada than it does with a broken country with a culturally dominant USA.
The sooner people figure this out, the better. Or maybe they won't and shared poverty is just our future.
Edit… just to clarify on the “hate” thing. That’s not remotely true at present. But if you get forced into an acrimonious divorce by a spouse, you don’t end up with pleasant thoughts about your former spouse.
I would agree insofar as I believe we should put less emphasis on the Prime Minister being bilingual (to the point that I think that I could live with a PM who is francophone-only, provided that they have English-speaking Ministers serving them). Bilingualism is more important for the GG though, given the explicit constitutional and ceremonial obligations of that office. The Constitution's official bilingualism would need to be changed for Canadian state integrity to be fundamentally consistent.
The implication of what you're saying is that Westerners are basically unsuited to represent Canada.
In terms of numbers, that's similary to insisting to Quebecois that they'll only be considered for the job if they're fluent in Spanish or to a lesser extent Arabic. AI answers says 6% of Albertans are conversational in French and just under 6% are fluent Spanish speakers in Quebec. (It's 4% for Arabic)
Think about the implications for our country if you told Quebec in a world where the vast majority of Albertans just happened to meet that requirement.
Telling people that people from where they live will effectively always be unsuited to top jobs while they also get fewer economic benefits from the administration of the central government... it has consequences.
You and I can wish them away, but they won't go away.
Yep. Like applying constitutional jujitsu to block Alberta independence with tactics such as getting the 5% of the Canadian population that is “First Nation” ( if you count in the Métis) to stymie the affairs of the other 95%.
I hope you know I was being sardonic. What I actually want them to do is secede, call themselves "Real Canada", have a new constitution, and let select provinces (or pieces of provinces) join on well-considered terms. This would be much easier than fixing our current constitution and institutions.
Absolutely correct, Matt... Thought the same myself... there are a number of Albertans who are fluently bilingual... even in the francophone community... may not be household words, but are there... and it matters not whether it would move the needle... it would have shown a willingness to get beyond the "Laurentian Elite" mentality...
I think Arbour is a poor choice for a number of reasons, not just that she is another one from Quebec. Surely Carney could have found a fully bilingual distinguished Canadian from western Canada to fill the role. I do not agree that it had to be a woman-four of the last five have been women! There are a number of qualified people in Manitoba who I think Alberta would be okay with.Arbour will be trouble because she is not really a monarchist and she will have trouble keeping her mouth shut on controversial topics. I hope she understands her role.This appointment clearly shows Carney’s worldview — Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto elite. After all, that’s where the votes are.
I understand wanting stronger Western representation, but reducing Louise Arbour to “another person from Quebec” ignores the fact that she has one of the strongest constitutional and legal resumes of any Governor General in modern Canadian history.
Former Supreme Court justice, international war crimes prosecutor, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — that is not some lightweight partisan appointment. And despite the claims being made, Arbour has spent decades operating within institutions where restraint, neutrality, and constitutional limits matter enormously.
As for the “Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto elite” populist comment, Arbour’s career was not built through party politics or Bay Street networking. It was built through the courts, international law, and public service at the highest levels.
Criticizing the appointment is fair. Pretending she lacks the discipline, independence, or stature for the role is not.
MOU. “Hand me some paper. I’ll get a fire started to BBQ some Alberta Beef Ribs.” Sorry Jen,I’m swinging over to the separatists side. Alberta has been trying to build an oil pipeline to the East since 1955. Now the East is Pooh Pooh ing a line South of Hardisty to the US. “Colony Canada” selling our oil! No! Alberta selling its oil
I don't think people really "switch." The greed and grievance driving this attempt to take Canadian territory and form a new country is not something that just happens.
It is a foreign supported disruption trying to create instability in Canada - and people get sucked in.
Aside from the current activities in Alberta, I was thinking the next GG should have been from a coast, East or West. The reason being, New Brunswick excepted, there are the only provinces currently excluded (Michener being born in Lacombe, NWT later Alberta).
I am not surprised by the appointment of Arbour, she is prominent, well respected, and part of the self-absorption Central Canada has.
Trudeau canning the commission for Vice-Regal positions was short sighted and led to these discussions.
One positive I took from Matt’s column is his acknowledgment of being a Laurentian Elite with little understanding of the lay of the land in Alberta. As a westerner who spends half his existence in the “separatist strongholds” of small-town Alberta, I’m relieved Carney didn’t make such a clumsy appointment as filling the GG position with an Albertan in response to an overblown collection of butthurts semi-articulated by a minority of blowhards.
Appointing a francophone (an actual one like Ms Arbour, not just a fluent French speaker) was the correct call, given we haven’t had one in several years. Any risk of real separation comes from la belle province, not from a half-coherent gaggle of farmers following a piper who’s eaten far too much pie: a corpulent lawyer in a cartoon Stetson.
Yes it’s time Canada woke up and rose to squash this ridiculous western separatist notion, but placating their exaggerated grievances isn’t the way to do so.
Perhaps, but only marginally. I’m sorry, but their woes are largely a result of chronic misunderstanding of fiscal equalization schemes, historical insecurities & resentment (daddy don’t like the feds, so neither do I), a sense of lack of federal representation (they’re only 12% of the national population so maybe that’s why), damned energy & environmental regulations, and a desire for full resource control unlike any other province.
When they can voice their concerns beyond waving a F*ck Carney flag, perhaps they’ll gain an audience. Until they act like adults, they won’t be treated as such.
This goes far back and has embedded itself in the culture of Alberta. You can google NEP easy enough. It predates that by a wide margin. I'm a federalist who grew up in Ontario, moved out west with something like 2500 people a month at the time doing the same thing. It was 1980. I witnessed what the NEP did to Calgary. It was awful and it wound itself in the province's DNA as a result.
The real estate market as I remember was one of the first impacted. Homeowners lost everything. The oil industry collapsed.
From the google machine: It subsidized consumers and industries in Ontario and Quebec, but it cost Western producers billions in lost revenue. It felt like the federal government was forcing one province to go broke so the others could stay warm and productive.
For me, this is where it gelled but lay dormant until Katy Perry's boyfriend spend a decade demonizing the province whilst going after the oil industry. Oil jobs disappeared overnight.
The ROC's beefs about Alberta (see what I did there? Alberta beef. Nothing better.) are largely a result of it continuing to tell Albertans (and those who lost everything) they have historical misunderstanding as it sounds like you might possibly?
What would have to exist for you to agree that Alberta has a legitimate beef? (See, I did it again.)
OK, a point of agreement: Alberta beef is the best in Canada, and amongst the best in the world (the Argentinians & Uruguayans are tough competition here).
And what little I know about the NEP sounds like a ham-fisted assault on an industry with little regard for the people employed within. But Albertans themselves haven’t been very wise during the high-revenue boom times oil & gas provides, and have squandered billions pursuing short term baubles over long-term security.
Trudeau Junior turned out to be an embarrassing anchor on Canada’s productivity, and his disdainful demeanour also alienated many outside Alberta. Let’s not forget that every province and territory holds legitimate grievances, but most are mature enough not to issue constant ‘pick up my ball and go home’ threats of enacting a series of actions that will absolutely devastate their province’s prosperity, respect or ability to hold any real influence outside its own borders.
Sure, the NEP did real damage…45 years ago…and today’s Albertans need to figure out that they will continue to prosper within a strong Canada, and will become a landlocked rump state if they attempt to go it alone (which constitutionally they can’t, so why do we spend so much time discussing their tantrums)?
Speaking of butthurt, I’m just imagining the faces of those suddenly realizing they can’t simply visit their Shuswap cabin, or go camping on Vancouver Island, or skiing in the East Kootenays, sledding in Blue River or wine tasting in Osoyoos without a passport. These fools don’t fully understand how the rest of Canada - and most sensible Albertans themselves - would exact some fearful revenge upon the half-baked wexiteers.
the NEP did do real damage, not least because it brought up past grievance. It reminded us that no war is won by one battle. Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1930 won a battle in Supreme Court to gain control of resources (that every other Province had from confederation). PET's NEP was a blatant attempt to endrun that judgement.
It's fair to dismiss a faction that barely controls the governing party of Alberta and which has no serious cross-partisan support as a "butthurt minority". Danielle Smith might find it fashionable to be two-faced about whether she considers Mitch Sylvestre or Cameron Davies to be champions of Albertans' interests, and she might still be on track for her party to have the support of most Albertans. But that does not even mean that most Albertans want their province to play such a silly game, let alone expect that the ROC engage in this silly game, let alone be sensitive towards the ROC stating the obvious that almost anyone can in fact see,
I’m not convinced that Alberta separatism represents the greatest threat to Canadian unity, nor am I persuaded that Ottawa responding too aggressively to separatist rhetoric would necessarily strengthen the country. In fact, there is a real danger that excessive concessions could simply reinforce the belief that threatening separation is the most effective way to extract political leverage from the federal government.
Alberta’s frustrations are real and should not be dismissed. Many Western Canadians feel economically and politically alienated, particularly over energy policy, equalization, and the perception that central Canada dominates federal decision-making. However, Alberta separatism is fundamentally different from Quebec sovereignty. Quebec nationalism is rooted in a centuries-old cultural, linguistic, and historical identity, supported over decades by political parties, intellectual movements, and near-successful referendums. Alberta’s movement is driven far more by regional anger and economic grievance than by a distinct national identity. Those are serious concerns, but they do not necessarily translate into a durable independence movement.
For that reason, I believe Quebec separation remains the more significant long-term risk to Confederation, even if it appears quieter today. The underlying sense of Quebec nationhood has never disappeared, and history has already shown that support for sovereignty can rise rapidly during periods of constitutional or political tension. Alberta separatism may currently be louder and more visible in media and online discourse, but volume should not be confused with depth.
Canada’s response should therefore be balanced and measured. The federal government should address legitimate regional grievances, improve federal-provincial relations, and ensure that Western Canadians feel heard within Confederation. But there is an important distinction between responding to concerns and validating the idea that national unity is conditional. A country cannot function if every regional disagreement is treated as a potential breakup crisis. Strengthening Confederation requires fairness and dialogue, but also confidence in the value and permanence of the country itself.
The appointment of Louise Arbour as Governor General also signals a far firmer and more constitutionally serious approach to national unity than many separatists may expect. Arbour’s reputation has been built on the rule of law, constitutional order, and institutional stability, not political theatrics or appeasement. A Governor General with that kind of legal and international stature reinforces the message that Confederation is not simply a temporary arrangement to be renegotiated whenever regional tensions rise, but a constitutional framework that requires negotiation, compromise, and responsibility from all sides.
That is why it was somewhat surprising to see Mr. Gurney appear to gently dismiss or minimize Arbour in his opening paragraphs. Whatever one’s political perspective, Louise Arbour possesses one of the most formidable legal and institutional legacies of any modern Canadian public figure. Former Supreme Court justice, Chief Prosecutor for the international tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights — these are not ceremonial accomplishments. They reflect decades spent defending constitutional order, international law, and democratic institutions at the highest levels. In a period where questions of national unity and constitutional stability are again being openly discussed, that kind of experience and stature should probably be taken more seriously, not less.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting stronger Western representation in national institutions. A Governor General from rural Alberta absolutely could have been symbolically valuable at this moment. But reducing the role purely to regional appeasement misses what the office is actually for.
The Governor General is not a provincial ambassador or a national unity mascot. The office exists to uphold constitutional continuity, democratic legitimacy, and institutional stability, especially during periods of political tension. That is why someone like Louise Arbour matters. Her background is not symbolic fluff. Former Supreme Court justice, international war crimes prosecutor, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Tjat is one of the strongest constitutional and legal resumes any Canadian public figure has ever brought to Rideau Hall.
And frankly, if the country is genuinely entering a period where separatist rhetoric is escalating, constitutional seriousness may matter more than regional optics.
Also, I think people should be careful not to infantilize Alberta politically. The implication behind comments like this is often: “Give Alberta a symbolic gesture so they feel included.” But Alberta is a major province, not a fragile colony requiring ceremonial reassurance. Real respect means engaging seriously with policy concerns ie. energy, infrastructure, equalization, federal-provincial relations, and not assuming national unity can be maintained through token appointments. It is with that thought in mind, that leads me to disagree with Mr. Gurney.
Finally, it is worth remembering that national institutions are supposed to belong to the whole country. A Governor General from Quebec is not “Quebec’s GG” any more than one from Alberta would belong only to Alberta. If Canadians only see federal offices through a regional quota lens, that itself reflects part of the deeper problem with our political culture right now.
In my opinion, Louise Arbour is an exceptionally strong choice. I could not care less where in Canada she was born.
Quebec separatism is absurd. The French empire has been declining for 200 years. English is the global language of technology, finance and entertainment. Those are indisputable facts that cannot be changed by Canadian government policy.
I don't agree with this take. I suspect that appointing an Albertan to be Governor General would probably have little influence on Alberta separatists: they're bought into their narrative, and would likely twist such an appointment into a new accusation that the Liberal government in Ottawa is trying to "manipulate" Albertans.
An Albertan appointee could also be counterproductive. A Governor General needs to keep a relatively low profile and avoid entanglement in politics (a current running through the "On the Line" podcast by Jen Gerson this week), not be aimed at addressing an active political debate. Further, it'd be far too easy to provide grist for Quebec separatists if an Albertan candidate lacked high fluency in French, particularly after that was a controversy with Mary Simon. Of course, the appointment of a French Canadian like Arbour will also be turned into a point of grievance by Alberta separatists: you can't win with them.
Overall, though, a pick like Arbour ends up being a choice of doing the least harm. Don't give Quebec separatists a talking point, don't unnecessarily politicize the vice-regent, and deal with the fact that the Alberta separatists are going to be aggrieved in any case.
Doubtful that an AB GG would have moved the needle much with aggrieved Albertans who've made feeling hard done by a core part of their identity.
Goalposts on wheels.
Maybe it would help if more people called us hillbillies and tried to pretend we have no legitimate grievances.
That certainly seems to be the main approach I am seeing from the ROC.
That’s an unfortunate perspective. Truly. What’s important to understand is most Albertans are not separatists. The 30% support you hear of is “soft.” It’s driven by a 10-15% of legitimate hardcore separatists who largely have “made feeling hard done by a core part of their identity.” The rest are disillusioned and cynical. They feel unappreciated, unheard and disregarded as Canadians - by Eastern Canadians. And that sediment is not at 15% or even 30%… it’s higher than that. It may be much closer to or even over 50%.
So the majority of Albertans are still federalists. They want to Canada to work. They want to feel an appreciated and respected part of it.
You’re not going to covert any of the 15% by naming an AB GG. You might not even move the needle on the next 15% that make up the 30% (and that’s not even close to a given). But - you probably do move the needle with those that truly want Canada to work - but just aren’t sure anyone over there actually gives a shit about that or them.
Winning and losing lives at the margins. In the details. Gurney is right. I live in that 20% between the 30% of separatist support and the 50% (ish) total of disillusioned, disaffected Albertans.
It would have mattered to me.
"legitimate hardcore separatists"
Funny how, when the subject of Quebec separatism came up in the past, few outside that province thought of the hardcore separatists as "legitimate", yet Alberta's separatists see things differently now.
I mean legitimate in the colloquial sense. Not the literal.
Fair enough. Sorry for pressing you on that point.
The fact that this the is top liked comment indicates exactly why smart federalists are worried about the referendum, despite the polls. They know that other federalists, inside and outside Alberta, will do their unconscious level best to ensure a yes vote.
I don't think anyone in Canada who's that aggrieved gives the slightest of a shit who the Governor General is. I sure don't.
Of course it's going to be some insufferable out of touch self-caricaturing elite. But it doesn't matter substantively at all.
If it were up to me I would appoint some utterly trolling far-right figure, just to be equivalent. If Jordan Peterson weren't on death's door he would have made an excellent candidate. I'd even let him write his own throne speech, with no restrictions on length or content. It would be epic. Then I'd let him leave in disgust at the absurdity of the office to which he was just appointed, and collect the GG's salary and call himself 'his excellency' for the rest of his term to live in Arizona or wherever.
Just because you don’t understand the importance and value of the role (especially as a constitutional backstop) doesn’t mean it’s absurd. Unless you see the absurdity in human existence… in which case, never mind. It’s a valid perspective.
Matt's theme is "missed opportunity ", which is correct, however I feel the PM is getting a bigger pass than he deserves. Whether he is uninformed, poorly advised, or just plain obtuse, if you wanted to send the wrong message to the west ( not just Ab), job well done.
Thats true in the sense that every decision to do something closes the other opportunities. Doesn't seem worth a whole article, especially without presenting any evidence that such a move would have mattered.
Is this really what the people currently pushing to create a new country out of Canadian territory are looking for? Gestures? Seems unlikely.
My God, think of all the places that aren't blessed with such an office, or - perish the thought - entirely lacking a foreign hereditary symbolic head of state altogether. They must be hell on earth.
Who said anything about the King? No matter.
You’ve convinced me entirely. Just imagine all those republics, doing so much better than Canada, mostly because they replaced their ceremonial head of state with… a different less ceremonial head of state. The efficiency gains from not sending $0.00 to nobody (as Canada does for our King) must be staggering.
And some of them, the really ambitious ones - to be emulated, managed to democratically elect a king-shaped object. No hereditary nonsense there, just pure democratic autocratic monarchy. Truly the future we deserved.
Your aghastness has been most illuminating.
What would have to exist for you to believe there is genuine aggrievement?
The question of whether Alberta's grievances are genuine might be the wrong place to start. Authenticity isn't really the core problem. Credibility is.
And credibility has been severely damaged from multiple directions at once.
There's the foreign interference layer: documented evidence that separatist sentiment has been amplified, and in some cases manufactured, by external actors who benefit from Canadian instability. A much bigger deal than is commonly recognized.
There's the cynical political layer: successive provincial governments that discovered Ottawa grievance is a more reliable path to power than governance. It's an old song but it's still being played - ever louder.
And then there's the performative layer. The cottage industry of outrage that has grown up around this Alberta alienation, where the louder and more extreme the complaint, the more attention and funding it attracts.
None of that means there's nothing real underneath.
Every region in a federation carries legitimate tensions. Fiscal imbalances, resource jurisdiction disputes, cultural distinctiveness that doesn't always feel respected at the centre. These exist in Alberta and elsewhere. Canada has never been in perfect equilibrium, and it never will be. That's federalism.
The problem is that by the time you've stripped away the astroturfing, the political theatre, and the disinformation ecosystem, most people, including many Albertans, can no longer clearly see where the legitimate grievance ends and the manufactured outrage begins.
That's the damage. Not that the grievances are fake. But that honest conversation about the resolvable issues has been made nearly impossible.
What would have to happen to ameliorate that aggrievement?
Oh, real changes. You know, the kind that terrifies ROC.
Stop impeding Alberta's economy and (possibly even or) taking their money. The point of an Albertan GG is to make the case that this may someday happen.
What does "stop taking our money" mean? No equalization? No federal income tax for Albertans?
Out of curiosity, how many more pipelines do the feds have to build for you before you declare yourself satisfied that the rest of Canada no longer "impedes your economy"?
I'm actually Ontarian, but eliminating equalization, carbon taxes, and the West coast tanker ban, and asserting the federal right to impose linear infrastructure rights of way to the coasts would likely do the trick. No federal money needed.
A couple of comments on the tanker ban:
1. I think it's easy, maybe too easy, for a province with no coastline to be indifferent to the potential environmental impacts to somebody else's coastline.
2. Alberta seceding will not move the province one inch closer to the Pacific Ocean, so unless they are planning to annex British Columbia on the way out the door I'm not sure how succession from Canada would help.
So, no consultations with locals, including indigenous groups, who happen to be "in the way"?
You are proud of Trudeau's role in the TMX story?
Never would have crossed their minds and would have been swiftly condemned in Montreal if it did.
I suspect it did cross their minds, and they were right not to do it. A fairly rare disagreement with Matt from the front lines in Alberta.
And to make my point, I would just ask Matt a follow up to his column: name a person that would have worked for Carney and Alberta and Canada.
I can’t.
Jen Gerson for GG!
I had the same thought, but with all due respect to Ms. Gerson, absolutely no more journalists! What we want in a Governor General is someone who knows how to be apolitical to a fault.
Journalists, (certainly Canadian journalists) can't do that.
Jen Gerson displays too much strength of character and independence of thought to become the kind of lackey to tradition required of a GG. Ms. Gerson is more of a lead hand, or ramrod on a project with actual goals.
I think "lackey" is the wrong term.
Was Queen Elizabeth II a "lackey" of parliament? Did she lack goals? I think not. It's easier to see with her than with King Charles because Charles is new to the role, but despite doing what the Prime Minister"recommends" they do, they are not lackeys.
Neither is a (good) Governor General a lackey. A political lackey would be a bad Governor General.
They are a symbol and representative of the crown which is our non-political head of state. It's an important role and not that of a "lackey".
In a second!!
Well done, Jerry.
We don’t want a GG who works for anyone except Canada. What we do want is someone who accepts all parts of Canada.
This is a very good point. We have reached the stage where it is nearly impossible to be a loyal Albertan and to be loyal to a Canadian Liberal government. Interests and goals are too divergent.
My wife started taking French lessons about 5 years ago for a month long trip she took to France in 2022. But when asked why she was taking French I joking told my friends it was because she wanted to to GG. Of course they did not ask this time. maybe next time.
Living in BC, I'm not up on my Alberta academics, community and business leaders, but surely there's someone in Alberta who can do the job very well... as long as Mr. Carney isn't looking for someone with the correct political views.
You asked Matt to name a person that would have worked for Carney and Alberta and Canada.
With respect, I think that first criteria should be tossed out and incinerated. And that's because "works for Carney" is a different criteria than "works for Harper" or any Prime Minister. If it's a valid criteria to consider, then it follows that the Governor General should be handing in their resignation whenever we get a new Prime Minister. After all, the new Prime Minister can't have one who "works for" their political opponent. This makes the Governor General role a political one.
Leaving that aside then... surely there's an Alberta business leader, academic or community leader who can do the job well. I'm not from the place, but as long as we leave "is an LPC type" in the trash where it should be, I'd be shocked if there aren't a surplus of options.
I don't want to misrepresent what you said, but I'm not sure how else to read "works for Carney" other than as "has LPC friendly political views".
Alberta has been far more federalist than Quebec and that didn’t stop us getting Michelle Jean. There were candidates.
Pierre Poilievre
Another great "get two birds stone at once" idea!
(From a Liberal standpoint).
They don’t want PP to leave.
Appointing someone hostile to the sitting government as Governor General would let us see what other things are "technically allowed" by our constitution.
"There's 'governor' in my title, and I intend to govern!"
I have to agree as I sit here in Alberta there is no one who comes to mind with sufficient respect in the province and the country. Even people I respect as much as Willie Littlechild fail, if only for not having fluency in both official languages which is where the current GG has been vulnerable to partially legitimate criticism.
Is a Flip The Line incoming?
I’ve said all I need to say.
You are correct. The bilingual filter alone would have eyes rolling in Alberta.
Stephen Harper.
🙄🤪🙄
Paula Simons, perhaps? I believe she speaks French, although I don't know how well.
This is Standard Operating Procedure so there are no surprises here at all. Plus, you know, Louise Arbour is from Quebec. That worries me because the focus is yet again on Quebec.,
At what point is Alberta to quit whinging?
What more has to be given?
The short answer is gifting the GG to an Albertan sends the signal that the more you play victim, the more you get. So when does it stop
How about this, the best person gets the gig regardless of origin in the country.
Quebec has done very well playing the victim card and holding the ROC to ransom with their continuous whinging for years now.
How about a hot new take. Instead of comparing victim status we get together and work cooperatively towards a better country.
This “ they got more than I did” bullshit has to stop. Thats playground behaviour Rise above
How about every Alberta premier since Lougheed, with the exception of Notley has been obstructive with the Feds, that’s not how business operates.
In My Alberta we’re not victims, though you wouldn’t know that from Smith and the upc.
In My Alberta we solve problems at scale, we’re entrepreneurial, we’re nation builders but we’re not victims
Except we don't work cooperatively. Ottawa just unilaterally promised to increase Alberta's total land unavailable for resource extraction to 30%.
Do you get everything you ask for?
Some of us aren’t bought into resource extraction at any cost, sorry.
Some of us want accountability for the environmental concerns already in play and unaddressed by oil and gas.
Some of us want oil and gas to pay their bills but guess what - we don’t seem to be getting that either.
And those "some of us" dictate the terms. Not very cooperative.
You ever actually listen to Smith bloviating?
My point was and is neither of us know what went on in the negotiations but you assume you should get everything you want. I on the other hand want accountability first.
You don’t get more by demanding it you get more by earning it. And right now our whinging bitching uncooperative premier is not playing well with others nor is she being accountable
The fact that you think you need to be bought into resource extraction is the problem. Natural resource development is provincial responsibility and ensuring free movement of goods, services, people and capital within the country, including access to ports of entry, is the fedral government's primary resin to exist. Opinions are irrelevant as these are absolute, indisputable requirements.
Nothing unilateral about it. It requires negotiation and is Canada. Not just Alberta.
This is more successionist adjacent grievance narrative amplified by foreign bots and trolls.
The Alberta Minister of the Environment said he hadn't been consulted before "Farce of Nature" was announced.
The minister is correct. While the announcement was not a surprise, the consultations have not yet started. There is an overarching aim and the feds are now going to try to push the provinces to join in. There is no arbitrary decision where someone that should have been consulted was not. My thinking is that this is a fiction fabricated by the perpetually aggrieved.
Has the Carney government actually even advanced this issue in any major way yet? From what I have seen, Carney’s focus so far has been far more on economic growth, energy infrastructure, internal trade, and national projects than aggressively pushing new land restrictions.
Canada is still formally committed to the “30 by 30” biodiversity framework from the Trudeau era, but that is not the same thing as Ottawa suddenly declaring 30% of Alberta permanently off-limits to development. Provinces still control most natural resources and Crown land, and Canada as a whole is still nowhere near the 30% target anyway.
Ironically, Alberta’s own government has argued that the province has already effectively met or exceeded the benchmark when multi-use Crown lands and conservation areas are counted.
I understand the broader frustration many Albertans feel about cumulative federal policy, but some of these claims are starting to drift away from the actual facts.
As with many things, we can only judge the Carney government on announcements. I guess the land could come exclusively from the territories.
That’s not entirely true Gerry. There is a lot of publicly available information. This is not a new initiative.
You have that backwards. Every PM except Harper has been obstructive to the growth and development of Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Wrong
So the National Policy, Crow Rate, National Energy Policy and Impact Assessment Act are figments of my imagination?
Ah yes , now I recall the two Harper/Mulrooney pipelines.
Twinning of the railway, twinning the trans Canada, increasing runways all positives.
As I see it Alberta is the whinging bitch in this relationship. And before you beak off I’m a 70 year old Albertan.
We would get more if we at least tried to be team players, we’re not.
Notley understood cooperation, got a pipeline out of T2.
Instead of this being quid pro quo we should take the longer vision of the confederation and our finite resources
While I don’t fully understand the NEP my interpretation is that we would be selling oil and gas to ourselves at a discounted rate. Instead Alberta rebelled and now we no longer have control of our oil and gas but we sell at a discount to the US.
We have had, since Lougheed, a successive regime of grossly incompetent management of our province, our resources, our institutions and our treasury by conservative governments. This latest dumpster fire being the worst yet.
So who would you have put forward as the Alberta GG?
Sounds like we're dippers....
There's a difference between federal politicians pandering to Quebec out of fear of antagonizing separatists sentiments, and pandering to Quebec just because it is one of the most populated and therefore vote-rich provinces in the country.
No federal politician is arguing that the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti Quebecois should be appeased with the implicit expectation that such appeasement would not encourage further demands. There is no "ransom" that the ROC has clearly been paying to Quebec in response to separation threats.
It's not Alberta.
It is a relatively small group of Albertans fuelled by foreign actors and (mis)informed by years of greivance politics.
A bullshit comment "informed" by ignorance of the actual conditions.
How about this: give Alberta the same deal as Quebec.
Informed by ignorance. Good one. Thanks for your contribution.
Bill there’s a lot of innuendo from some of these commentators. It’s the I heard, she said, they did. Evidence free !
That can carry a lot of weight if it supports one's existing view.
Sadly
It's not about "given" it's just that it takes time to make up for things. And yes, I know it's not all one way, but consider how long Ottawa has been to some degree or another treating Alberta as "second class".
As someone with total contempt for all separatists, I can still say Ottawa has a lot to make up for with Alberta and it will take time because it's been going on a long time.
"Ottawa" has spent half my life crapping all over Alberta's biggest industry which is VASTLY more critical to Alberta than cars are to Ontario. We elected a Prime Minister who insisted that the problem with Canada was that Albertans were in charge.
Before Ottawa was crapping on that industry Pierre Trudeau had the National Energy Policy to "redistribute" the oil wealth outside of Alberta. (Can you imagine how an Albertan Prime Minister would be perceived in Quebec if one of his signature policies was a plan to "redistribute" the wealth from resources in Quebec back to western Canada?
Even the LPC and progressive culture war against people who accept biological reality about male and female is to a large degree regionally coded.
That's been going on a long time. Things don't get fixed overnight.
At the risk of appearing semantic, I feel the need to make a correction here. Trudeau's November 2010 interview comments were not intended to communicate that Albertans being in power is intrinsically a problem; he was telling a Quebecer audience that if they kept voting for the Bloc rather than for federal parties, that the inevitable consequence would be an over-representation of Albertans in federal government, He then later apologized for the "Albertans" comment. Make of that what you will.
You ask, "Can you imagine how an Albertan Prime Minister would be perceived in Quebec if one of his signature policies was a plan to "redistribute" the wealth from resources in Quebec back to western Canada?"
Well he would probably end up losing the federal election - just as happened to the Liberals when they were devastated in the 1984 election, including in Ontario and Quebec.
Whatever mistakes may be made in policies incidentally affecting Albertans, I really don't see how Ottawa is systemically treating Albertans as "second-class".
> Trudeau's November 2010 interview comments were not intended to communicate that Albertans being in power is intrinsically a problem; he was telling a Quebecer audience that if they kept voting for the Bloc rather than for federal parties,
That's one way of looking at it... I think that's pure political spin that obfuscates what he said. According to the CBC, the quote was:
"Canada isn't doing well right now because it's **ALBERTANS** who control our community and socio-democratic agenda. It doesn't work,"
Emphasis added. I think it's a big stretch to believe that spin is what he really meant, since Mr. Trudeau is perfectly capable of saying "Conservative" when he means Conservative party and "Albertan" when he means people from Alberta.
The plain reading of the quote is that he really did think that the biggest problem Canada faced was Albertans running the show, especially since he had already agreed with the statement that Canada is better when it has more Quebeckers than Albertans running things AND he tied that to him being Quebecois.
Obviously, outing himself as a parochial "Quebec uber alles" guy who looks down on Alberta and Albertans was awkward when he was looking for votes outside of Quebec, but his words really do seem to speak for themselves. It's up to others to say if we believe his "I didn't mean those words" later explanation.
With regards to the NEP... you're right. He would lose an election... but I think the larger point is that the LPC actually DID that and still regards Pierre Trudeau in a positive light... no one would EVER consider extracting Quebec national resources in order to enrich Western Canada at Quebec's expense... and if they did, they wouldn't be an honoured Prime Minister decades later.
I am not sure that I have ever heard any Liberal defend the NEP after-the-fact. To the extent that Pierre Trudeau's legacy is celebrated, it seems to be more a celebration of his general record (elsewhere) in spite of the NEP, not because of it. It's therefore really a stretch to tie celebration of the elder Trudeau to an "Albertans are second-class" mentality.
For better or for worse, Justin Trudeau was a fairly gaffe-prone politician in general prior to becoming Prime Minister. Even if he had sincerely meant some prejudice towards Albertans with the comments, the very fact that he felt the need to not make them a national message would actually demonstrate that mainstream public opinion is supportive of Alberta, not condescending to it. It would mean that public opinion had more of an effect on Trudeau's tone than the other way around.
I’ve heard left leaning people defend the NEP. I can’t speak to their party affiliation.
Your points are valid, but again you’re actually making my point for me from a different direction.
Any Prime Minister from Alberta with mirror policies of extracting Quebec wealth for the benefit of the west wouldn’t be remembered positively in any way, shape or form. He’d be the political devil. And the LPC certainly wouldn’t follow up by making his son the leader after he gives a radio interview saying that Canada’s problems is that we let Québécois people lead Canada instead of Albertans which he thinks is better.
That’s the difference.
The Alberta mirror of Pierre and Justin Trudeau would be top of the Canadian list of worst prime ministers in history. We wouldn’t have an airport named after him and the federal government wouldn’t be giving $125 million to a slush fund in his name to fund, (among other things), leadership development in the social sciences.
And if it needs to be said, I’m not from Alberta. I think their separatist movement is even more dumb than the Quebec version. (Which is incredibly dumb). But I still know a double standard when I see one.
I don't think that there's any Canadian Prime Minister who is only remembered for just one thing, good or bad - certainly not any Prime Minister who served a decade or so in power. The Prime Minister who accepted an envelope full of $300,000 in cash was still celebrated later in his life and in his death. This is not a reflection of some anti-Albertan bias in public perceptions, just the inevitable reality of the complicated and polarizing legacies that each Prime Minister leaves behind.
There's certainly Canadians who feel that the Stephen Harper government was propping up the oil industry at the expense of the wealth or at least the democratic integrity of the rest of the country. You are entitled to disagree with that notion, but your disagreement would be politically fraught nonetheless. Both of the Trudeaus and Harper are perceived by mainstream Canadians to be the worst ever Prime Ministers, with differences matching alongside partisan and regional divides. There is no objective criteria from which to allege a double-standard.
It's the French thing. If the GG doesn't speak French, you're just trading one national unity problem for another. I don't know how many accomplished Albertans also speak French at a standard higher than that of Mary Simon, but I don't imagine the list is very long. It's irrational to think Carney could just ignore that requirement in order to put an Albertan in the position.
What was the biggest public criticism of Mary Simon? The French thing, far and away. Job one for Carney was to solve that. If Gurney or another can suggest a bilingual Albertan of similar public profile and professional merit as Arbour, I would support that choice wholeheartedly. I disagree with Peter Menzies that it never would have occurred to them. I just don't know of any Albertan who checks all the boxes, and French is a box. If they hadn't just gone through the Mary Simon experience, Carney might have been OK with a Western candidate who couldn't speak French but professed a willingness to learn. That option probably becomes more palatable with distance/time from Simon, but having had Simon fail on that front, I don't think he was willing to go that route again and create more national unity problems than he solved.
And to be clear, as a veteran, I think Arbour is a poor choice, one who has an axe to grind against the CAF but now will serve as their commander-in-chief. And I don't disagree with Gurney's contention that selecting an Albertan could have helped on the national unity front, everything else being equal. But you can't wave away the French thing. The GG represents the Crown in a constitutionally-bilingual nation. It's a must-have.
> It's the French thing. If the GG doesn't speak French, you're just trading one national unity problem for another.
I'm sorry, but Quebec is just going to have to get over that particular hangup. Mandatory bilingualism for "important" jobs is effectively a western exclusion policy.
Reality doesn't care about any of our feelings and the reality is that Canada isn't a bilingual country. It's a country with some bilingual areas with growing linguistic variation and that's a crucial difference. The west is not and will never be bilingual. The likelihood is right up there with the Quebecois become mass fluent in Portuguese. It's just not going to happen.
We have more people who speak Punjabi, Mandarin & Cantonese (counted separately of course) than who speak French fluently.
Now maybe Quebec can get over this hangup and accept reality. Or maybe they can't. I can't change what they'll do. (Just like I can't convince Albertans that "landlocked Puerto Rico with snow and with British Columbians HATING your guts" isn't the nirvana they imagine.)
But neither can I make Canada bilingual or make Westerners accept the continuation of an artificial barrier against their participation in their own country. As Matt has pointed out, Francophone culture does much better with a strong and united Canada than it does with a broken country with a culturally dominant USA.
The sooner people figure this out, the better. Or maybe they won't and shared poverty is just our future.
Edit… just to clarify on the “hate” thing. That’s not remotely true at present. But if you get forced into an acrimonious divorce by a spouse, you don’t end up with pleasant thoughts about your former spouse.
I would agree insofar as I believe we should put less emphasis on the Prime Minister being bilingual (to the point that I think that I could live with a PM who is francophone-only, provided that they have English-speaking Ministers serving them). Bilingualism is more important for the GG though, given the explicit constitutional and ceremonial obligations of that office. The Constitution's official bilingualism would need to be changed for Canadian state integrity to be fundamentally consistent.
The implication of what you're saying is that Westerners are basically unsuited to represent Canada.
In terms of numbers, that's similary to insisting to Quebecois that they'll only be considered for the job if they're fluent in Spanish or to a lesser extent Arabic. AI answers says 6% of Albertans are conversational in French and just under 6% are fluent Spanish speakers in Quebec. (It's 4% for Arabic)
Think about the implications for our country if you told Quebec in a world where the vast majority of Albertans just happened to meet that requirement.
Telling people that people from where they live will effectively always be unsuited to top jobs while they also get fewer economic benefits from the administration of the central government... it has consequences.
You and I can wish them away, but they won't go away.
Two quick comments:
Prime Minister Carney has repeatedly demonstrated that he has very little interest in Canada’s traditions, conventions, processes, or institutions.
They only exist to serve his needs.
By circumventing the selection process, he further degrades the glue holding us together.
Secondly, Prime Minister Carney has now a significant streak of making really bad decisions.
For having been lauded as a crisis management expert and business savant, he has a habit of snatching mediocrity from the grip that holds greatness.
Alberta will be kept in Canada through procedural shenanigans, not sincere efforts at reconciliation.
And they will be taught their place.
Yep. Like applying constitutional jujitsu to block Alberta independence with tactics such as getting the 5% of the Canadian population that is “First Nation” ( if you count in the Métis) to stymie the affairs of the other 95%.
What is their place?
I hope you know I was being sardonic. What I actually want them to do is secede, call themselves "Real Canada", have a new constitution, and let select provinces (or pieces of provinces) join on well-considered terms. This would be much easier than fixing our current constitution and institutions.
A big upvote.
Ontario (or at least Southern Ontario) can be a territory. We've failed at leading the country and would be better off without a vote.
I am going to start RuralOntExit.
On their knees chanting “yes sir, boss man”
I suspect it may have crossed the minds of the PMO and was quickly dismissed as "Alberta...whining again".
Every misstep that is perceived as a slight against Alberta, whether it is done intentionally or not, adds another yes vote to the independence vote.
Alternatively, every intentional slight against Alberta is downplayed as a misstep. Either way, I agree it is building separation momentum.
I wonder if there would be interest in rural Ontario to separate from the "Golden" Horseshoe.
Or the Golden Horseshoe joining the EU.
Rona Ambrose
Absolutely correct, Matt... Thought the same myself... there are a number of Albertans who are fluently bilingual... even in the francophone community... may not be household words, but are there... and it matters not whether it would move the needle... it would have shown a willingness to get beyond the "Laurentian Elite" mentality...
g.w.
I think Arbour is a poor choice for a number of reasons, not just that she is another one from Quebec. Surely Carney could have found a fully bilingual distinguished Canadian from western Canada to fill the role. I do not agree that it had to be a woman-four of the last five have been women! There are a number of qualified people in Manitoba who I think Alberta would be okay with.Arbour will be trouble because she is not really a monarchist and she will have trouble keeping her mouth shut on controversial topics. I hope she understands her role.This appointment clearly shows Carney’s worldview — Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto elite. After all, that’s where the votes are.
I understand wanting stronger Western representation, but reducing Louise Arbour to “another person from Quebec” ignores the fact that she has one of the strongest constitutional and legal resumes of any Governor General in modern Canadian history.
Former Supreme Court justice, international war crimes prosecutor, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — that is not some lightweight partisan appointment. And despite the claims being made, Arbour has spent decades operating within institutions where restraint, neutrality, and constitutional limits matter enormously.
As for the “Ottawa-Montreal-Toronto elite” populist comment, Arbour’s career was not built through party politics or Bay Street networking. It was built through the courts, international law, and public service at the highest levels.
Criticizing the appointment is fair. Pretending she lacks the discipline, independence, or stature for the role is not.
MOU. “Hand me some paper. I’ll get a fire started to BBQ some Alberta Beef Ribs.” Sorry Jen,I’m swinging over to the separatists side. Alberta has been trying to build an oil pipeline to the East since 1955. Now the East is Pooh Pooh ing a line South of Hardisty to the US. “Colony Canada” selling our oil! No! Alberta selling its oil
I don't think people really "switch." The greed and grievance driving this attempt to take Canadian territory and form a new country is not something that just happens.
It is a foreign supported disruption trying to create instability in Canada - and people get sucked in.
Insulting the intelligence of Albertans is the best make them reconsider separation.
Assuming too much.
Aside from the current activities in Alberta, I was thinking the next GG should have been from a coast, East or West. The reason being, New Brunswick excepted, there are the only provinces currently excluded (Michener being born in Lacombe, NWT later Alberta).
I am not surprised by the appointment of Arbour, she is prominent, well respected, and part of the self-absorption Central Canada has.
Trudeau canning the commission for Vice-Regal positions was short sighted and led to these discussions.
One positive I took from Matt’s column is his acknowledgment of being a Laurentian Elite with little understanding of the lay of the land in Alberta. As a westerner who spends half his existence in the “separatist strongholds” of small-town Alberta, I’m relieved Carney didn’t make such a clumsy appointment as filling the GG position with an Albertan in response to an overblown collection of butthurts semi-articulated by a minority of blowhards.
Appointing a francophone (an actual one like Ms Arbour, not just a fluent French speaker) was the correct call, given we haven’t had one in several years. Any risk of real separation comes from la belle province, not from a half-coherent gaggle of farmers following a piper who’s eaten far too much pie: a corpulent lawyer in a cartoon Stetson.
Yes it’s time Canada woke up and rose to squash this ridiculous western separatist notion, but placating their exaggerated grievances isn’t the way to do so.
You had me until butthurts. For me, the separatists will be helped significantly if that is the attitude the ROC has to Alberta.
Perhaps, but only marginally. I’m sorry, but their woes are largely a result of chronic misunderstanding of fiscal equalization schemes, historical insecurities & resentment (daddy don’t like the feds, so neither do I), a sense of lack of federal representation (they’re only 12% of the national population so maybe that’s why), damned energy & environmental regulations, and a desire for full resource control unlike any other province.
When they can voice their concerns beyond waving a F*ck Carney flag, perhaps they’ll gain an audience. Until they act like adults, they won’t be treated as such.
This goes far back and has embedded itself in the culture of Alberta. You can google NEP easy enough. It predates that by a wide margin. I'm a federalist who grew up in Ontario, moved out west with something like 2500 people a month at the time doing the same thing. It was 1980. I witnessed what the NEP did to Calgary. It was awful and it wound itself in the province's DNA as a result.
The real estate market as I remember was one of the first impacted. Homeowners lost everything. The oil industry collapsed.
From the google machine: It subsidized consumers and industries in Ontario and Quebec, but it cost Western producers billions in lost revenue. It felt like the federal government was forcing one province to go broke so the others could stay warm and productive.
For me, this is where it gelled but lay dormant until Katy Perry's boyfriend spend a decade demonizing the province whilst going after the oil industry. Oil jobs disappeared overnight.
The ROC's beefs about Alberta (see what I did there? Alberta beef. Nothing better.) are largely a result of it continuing to tell Albertans (and those who lost everything) they have historical misunderstanding as it sounds like you might possibly?
What would have to exist for you to agree that Alberta has a legitimate beef? (See, I did it again.)
OK, a point of agreement: Alberta beef is the best in Canada, and amongst the best in the world (the Argentinians & Uruguayans are tough competition here).
And what little I know about the NEP sounds like a ham-fisted assault on an industry with little regard for the people employed within. But Albertans themselves haven’t been very wise during the high-revenue boom times oil & gas provides, and have squandered billions pursuing short term baubles over long-term security.
Trudeau Junior turned out to be an embarrassing anchor on Canada’s productivity, and his disdainful demeanour also alienated many outside Alberta. Let’s not forget that every province and territory holds legitimate grievances, but most are mature enough not to issue constant ‘pick up my ball and go home’ threats of enacting a series of actions that will absolutely devastate their province’s prosperity, respect or ability to hold any real influence outside its own borders.
Sure, the NEP did real damage…45 years ago…and today’s Albertans need to figure out that they will continue to prosper within a strong Canada, and will become a landlocked rump state if they attempt to go it alone (which constitutionally they can’t, so why do we spend so much time discussing their tantrums)?
Speaking of butthurt, I’m just imagining the faces of those suddenly realizing they can’t simply visit their Shuswap cabin, or go camping on Vancouver Island, or skiing in the East Kootenays, sledding in Blue River or wine tasting in Osoyoos without a passport. These fools don’t fully understand how the rest of Canada - and most sensible Albertans themselves - would exact some fearful revenge upon the half-baked wexiteers.
the NEP did do real damage, not least because it brought up past grievance. It reminded us that no war is won by one battle. Alberta and Saskatchewan in 1930 won a battle in Supreme Court to gain control of resources (that every other Province had from confederation). PET's NEP was a blatant attempt to endrun that judgement.
I still won't buy gas at Petro-Canada.
It's fair to dismiss a faction that barely controls the governing party of Alberta and which has no serious cross-partisan support as a "butthurt minority". Danielle Smith might find it fashionable to be two-faced about whether she considers Mitch Sylvestre or Cameron Davies to be champions of Albertans' interests, and she might still be on track for her party to have the support of most Albertans. But that does not even mean that most Albertans want their province to play such a silly game, let alone expect that the ROC engage in this silly game, let alone be sensitive towards the ROC stating the obvious that almost anyone can in fact see,
I’m not convinced that Alberta separatism represents the greatest threat to Canadian unity, nor am I persuaded that Ottawa responding too aggressively to separatist rhetoric would necessarily strengthen the country. In fact, there is a real danger that excessive concessions could simply reinforce the belief that threatening separation is the most effective way to extract political leverage from the federal government.
Alberta’s frustrations are real and should not be dismissed. Many Western Canadians feel economically and politically alienated, particularly over energy policy, equalization, and the perception that central Canada dominates federal decision-making. However, Alberta separatism is fundamentally different from Quebec sovereignty. Quebec nationalism is rooted in a centuries-old cultural, linguistic, and historical identity, supported over decades by political parties, intellectual movements, and near-successful referendums. Alberta’s movement is driven far more by regional anger and economic grievance than by a distinct national identity. Those are serious concerns, but they do not necessarily translate into a durable independence movement.
For that reason, I believe Quebec separation remains the more significant long-term risk to Confederation, even if it appears quieter today. The underlying sense of Quebec nationhood has never disappeared, and history has already shown that support for sovereignty can rise rapidly during periods of constitutional or political tension. Alberta separatism may currently be louder and more visible in media and online discourse, but volume should not be confused with depth.
Canada’s response should therefore be balanced and measured. The federal government should address legitimate regional grievances, improve federal-provincial relations, and ensure that Western Canadians feel heard within Confederation. But there is an important distinction between responding to concerns and validating the idea that national unity is conditional. A country cannot function if every regional disagreement is treated as a potential breakup crisis. Strengthening Confederation requires fairness and dialogue, but also confidence in the value and permanence of the country itself.
The appointment of Louise Arbour as Governor General also signals a far firmer and more constitutionally serious approach to national unity than many separatists may expect. Arbour’s reputation has been built on the rule of law, constitutional order, and institutional stability, not political theatrics or appeasement. A Governor General with that kind of legal and international stature reinforces the message that Confederation is not simply a temporary arrangement to be renegotiated whenever regional tensions rise, but a constitutional framework that requires negotiation, compromise, and responsibility from all sides.
That is why it was somewhat surprising to see Mr. Gurney appear to gently dismiss or minimize Arbour in his opening paragraphs. Whatever one’s political perspective, Louise Arbour possesses one of the most formidable legal and institutional legacies of any modern Canadian public figure. Former Supreme Court justice, Chief Prosecutor for the international tribunals on Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights — these are not ceremonial accomplishments. They reflect decades spent defending constitutional order, international law, and democratic institutions at the highest levels. In a period where questions of national unity and constitutional stability are again being openly discussed, that kind of experience and stature should probably be taken more seriously, not less.
What do you think? It couldn't have hurt to do have a new GG say, from Cremona or Camrose, right?
There’s nothing wrong with wanting stronger Western representation in national institutions. A Governor General from rural Alberta absolutely could have been symbolically valuable at this moment. But reducing the role purely to regional appeasement misses what the office is actually for.
The Governor General is not a provincial ambassador or a national unity mascot. The office exists to uphold constitutional continuity, democratic legitimacy, and institutional stability, especially during periods of political tension. That is why someone like Louise Arbour matters. Her background is not symbolic fluff. Former Supreme Court justice, international war crimes prosecutor, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Tjat is one of the strongest constitutional and legal resumes any Canadian public figure has ever brought to Rideau Hall.
And frankly, if the country is genuinely entering a period where separatist rhetoric is escalating, constitutional seriousness may matter more than regional optics.
Also, I think people should be careful not to infantilize Alberta politically. The implication behind comments like this is often: “Give Alberta a symbolic gesture so they feel included.” But Alberta is a major province, not a fragile colony requiring ceremonial reassurance. Real respect means engaging seriously with policy concerns ie. energy, infrastructure, equalization, federal-provincial relations, and not assuming national unity can be maintained through token appointments. It is with that thought in mind, that leads me to disagree with Mr. Gurney.
Finally, it is worth remembering that national institutions are supposed to belong to the whole country. A Governor General from Quebec is not “Quebec’s GG” any more than one from Alberta would belong only to Alberta. If Canadians only see federal offices through a regional quota lens, that itself reflects part of the deeper problem with our political culture right now.
In my opinion, Louise Arbour is an exceptionally strong choice. I could not care less where in Canada she was born.
It could actually hurt if that person was a poorer choice for the role.
Quebec separatism is absurd. The French empire has been declining for 200 years. English is the global language of technology, finance and entertainment. Those are indisputable facts that cannot be changed by Canadian government policy.
Very well said.
Another key difference between the Quebec and Alberta scenarios is the amount of absolute noise.
This has more to do with the times, perhaps, than anything else but a great deal of the online activity is traced back to foreign "influencers."
Multiple indicators suggest the notion of creating a new country out of part of Canada has not increased in popularity - just noise level.
I don't agree with this take. I suspect that appointing an Albertan to be Governor General would probably have little influence on Alberta separatists: they're bought into their narrative, and would likely twist such an appointment into a new accusation that the Liberal government in Ottawa is trying to "manipulate" Albertans.
An Albertan appointee could also be counterproductive. A Governor General needs to keep a relatively low profile and avoid entanglement in politics (a current running through the "On the Line" podcast by Jen Gerson this week), not be aimed at addressing an active political debate. Further, it'd be far too easy to provide grist for Quebec separatists if an Albertan candidate lacked high fluency in French, particularly after that was a controversy with Mary Simon. Of course, the appointment of a French Canadian like Arbour will also be turned into a point of grievance by Alberta separatists: you can't win with them.
Overall, though, a pick like Arbour ends up being a choice of doing the least harm. Don't give Quebec separatists a talking point, don't unnecessarily politicize the vice-regent, and deal with the fact that the Alberta separatists are going to be aggrieved in any case.