In an early comment by the prime minister about the upcoming referendum on separation in Alberta – an off the cuff remark that was prompted by a journalist’s question at a press conference on an entirely different issue — Mark Carney casually declared that “Alberta is essential to Canada.” Perhaps he assumed this was a harmless statement that would settle the matter once and for all. [i] Sadly, it was neither harmless nor did it settle the issue. As it turned out, it was also unforgettable. This was hardly surprising, since the premiers of the other nine provinces immediately wondered if he thought Alberta was more essential than they were. Equally unsurprising, his statement was immediately reported around the world, from the BBC and the Guardian in Britain and the Times in America to Al Jazeera, Paris Match and El Pais, making it even harder to ignore.
The prime minister’s remark was a classic example of standing a legitimate argument on its head. The point that needs to be made by any federal leader in the face of a separatist threat is, of course, that membership in the federation is essential to the subnational unit, in this case the province of Alberta, not the other way around. Then this leader must explain why this is so. This in turn requires a discussion of the benefits of federalism, national unity and the shared values and beliefs that shape the national identity.
Unfortunately Carney’s response was not only wrong-headed, it was symptomatic of the lackadaisical approach of the federal government on the whole issue of Alberta separatism, seemingly treating it until very recently as an afterthought. By contrast the prime minister’s comment a week later about the referendum being a “dangerous bluff”, based on his personal experience with Brexit, was at least a step in the right direction. But it was another one-off remark that did not receive any follow-up from him or anyone else on the federal side.
To say that Carney and his team have been slow off the mark is an understatement. The referendum is fast approaching and the federal government has yet to launch a significant campaign of any kind to counter the separatists’ erroneous claims, or to present a compelling argument for the benefits of the federation. Indeed, only in the past week or so has there been any indication the government is giving the matter serious thought.
In fairness the prime minister has had his plate full. He has been incredibly busy saving Canada from other threats great and small, including Donald Trump’s tariffs and renewed calls for Canada to drastically increase its defence spending in a more dangerous world. Between travelling the globe to strike new trade deals, launching a massive economic development plan for the next decade or more, and orchestrating billions in new defence expenditures, it is perhaps not surprising that the man has not had his eye firmly fixed on the Alberta issue as well.
This lack of focus is even more understandable since economics, not national unity, is this prime minister’s principal preoccupation and his area of expertise. In choosing Carney, Canada has essentially elected its own version of Mario Draghi, the highly regarded technocrat who left his European Union bank post to save Italy from bankruptcy. Similarly Mark Carney, former governor of two national banks, was the right man at the right time to lead the Liberal Party and the country in the face of these emerging threats. But no one anticipated that barely a year later the premier of Alberta would recklessly throw a spanner in the works in order to save her political hide.
And let us be clear. That is exactly what Danielle Smith is doing. She is premier only by the grace of the far-right wing of the United Conservative Party (the former Wild Rose extremists that she brought with her to the merger of two parties) and she is deeply beholden to them to retain her leadership, never mind her role as premier. And they, of course, are a small but highly vocal minority of malcontents who also were at the heart of the so-called Truckers’ Convoy. Yet these committed separatists represent an insignificant number of Alberta voters. At the start of this debacle most polls were putting them as low as 11%, while others reached 25-30% only by including those who were thinking of voting yes just to vent, or to get the attention of the federal government. Either way, this small group would not have caused anyone else to consider holding a referendum on such a non- issue. Giving in to this perceived threat is bad enough, but to do so in the middle of the “existential crisis” Carney has identified for the Canadian economy, and sovereignty, is simply mind boggling. Yet for Danielle Smith their numbers represent the difference between staying in power or losing it and she knows it. Apparently that is all she cares about.
As a result, she has been trying to appease this group since the day she became premier, desperately introducing a series of increasingly extreme right wing measures that have appalled the rest of the province and the country. But nothing has worked. Then she latched on to the idea of a referendum, one asking a long list of misleading and constitutionally meaningless questions on issues that consume the attention of this small disgruntled group. But still it was not enough. Now backed into a corner by her own citizen initiative legislation, she has added a specific but confusing question on separation to this lengthy list, thereby launching the province and the country into a pointless and highly divisive exercise that could well derail any progress being made on Carney’s economic agenda. It has also provided fuel for the Trump/MAGA fire and led to foreign interference claims on top of everything else. And so, as a result of one of the most unexpected and unreasonable political decisions in recent memory, the country finds itself in the throes of another, different existential crisis.
So what has the federal government been doing about this? As already indicated, the short answer is almost nothing. For Canadians who lived through the 1980 and 1995 Quebec referenda, this is almost inconceivable. There is clearly a lead role for the federal government to play in opposing a YES vote, in countering the falsehoods and misleading claims promoted by the separatists and in passionately defending the values and beliefs that Canadians share that make belonging to the Canadian federation the best possible option.
Unfortunately, this is a role for which the current prime minister is unsuited by training and temperament. But there is clearly a crying need for someone else to fill the role of a Pierre Trudeau (1980) or Jean Chretien (1995) to lead the federal government in a NO campaign, and of a Stephane Dion, who as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Minister in the post-1995 referendum period relentlessly attacked every false claim and erroneous statement made by Lucien Bouchard until the latter cried ‘uncle’ and left politics entirely. So why has this not happened? Why is the federal government essentially Missing in Action on this file? Surely the prime minister could designate a lead minister and cabinet team to take on this role in his stead?
In normal times the current Intergovernmental Affairs Minister, Dominique LeBlanc, a veteran politician who is an excellent communicator with a national profile, would have been the ideal candidate to take over the job. As bad luck would have it, however, he is currently wearing two hats. He is also the minister totally engaged in the tariff/trade war with the Americans over CUSMA. So he too has no time to waste on Alberta. Sadly, there is an obvious lack of other prominent ministers who could lead the charge, especially given the cabinet’s heavy reliance on members of the business community and other newcomers to politics, especially from Toronto.
Although many, including this writer, would disagree that the lead federal spokesperson must be a prominent minister from the province of Alberta, or at least hail from the west, it is also true that the Liberal cabinet does not have such an individual. (Efforts by some of his advisers to portray Carney himself as an Albertan have, needless to say, been unsuccessful. Despite his early origins in the west he is widely seen by almost everyone as a central Canadian Rhodes scholar more comfortable in the boardrooms of Bay Street and the halls of power in Europe.) Indeed, the only Liberal cabinet minister from Alberta is Eleanor Olszewski, a virtual unknown elected for first-time in 2025 from Edmonton Centre and currently serving as the obscure Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience.
However it is worth noting that there is actually a Liberal backbench MP from Calgary who could be a valuable member of a federal response team. Corey Hogan, a former senior civil servant, university executive and political pundit, currently serves as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and has a professional background in communications. He also apparently has strong views on the subject. An obviously frustrated Hogan attended a local pro-Canada rally in his riding on May 12 where he stressed that “it’s time for federal MP’s to take a stand and fight against those who want to tear Canada apart. “ He went on to warn that “the proposed plebiscite is only five months away and political leaders need to let the public know why separation is a bad idea.”[ii]
Fully six weeks later, after delaying for far too long before giving this issue the serious attention it deserves, the Prime Minister’s Office proudly announced that they had appointed a senior staffer, one Gary Breitkreutz, to “quarterback” the government’s response. According to the PMO, he will be expected to “play a role in co-ordinating all aspects of the government’s response to the vote, including organizing, operations, policy, stakeholder relations, issues management and communications.” [iii] Mr. Breikreutz is described as “an experienced political operator” and well-regarded “field agent,” qualifications which may well provide some reassurance in terms of process. But who exactly Mr. Breikreutz will be coordinating is not yet specified, nor is there any indication as to what policy or policies are being considered in terms of the content of the government’s plan.
And this is the crux of the matter. Content matters, and so does context. In order to mount an effective and appropriate federal NO campaign, one would need to have a communications strategy based on facts, figures, institutional memory and a comprehensive set of solid arguments. But no team to create this content has been identified publicly and no such framework plan appears to be in the works.
Three crucial reasons for a comprehensive federal intervention need to be underlined here. First, with the federal government MIA the gap is being filled by the likes of Pierre Poilievre, Jason Kenney, Stephen Harper and – believe it or not – allegedly Danielle Smith herself. Do Canadians want to see their future rest in the hands of these dubious federalists? Second, while it is true that committed separatists constitute a small minority of Albertans, it is also true that the question Danielle Smith has placed on the referendum ballot is sufficiently opaque and misleading that many voters may vote YES without any real sense of what is at stake or what happens next, skewing the result, as in the so-called Brexit phenomenon to which Mark Carney has already correctly alluded. Pollara polling’s Dan Arnold has already found that the idea of “sending a message to Ottawa” on a first question, thereby agreeing to a second referendum, has already raised the potential YES vote from the bedrock numbers to closer to 40%.[iv]
Third, it is true that the tiny group of committed separatists are not likely to be swayed by any rational or patriotic arguments of the federal government or anyone else. This has been demonstrated repeatedly in the area of human rights/discrimination issues by polls which consistently reveal that there is a small percentage of citizens in every democracy who will remain prejudiced. You simply cannot convince everyone. The trick is to ensure that this number remains very low and, by contrast, that the rest of the population is well-informed on the subject. The same holds true here. Unless the federal government wants to continually be faced with resistance to various proposals, caused by the Alberta alienation sentiment that has been encouraged by countless provincial premiers, the government must make a concerted effort to inform and explain, not only during a referendum but on an ongoing basis.
In the hope that parliament’s summer recess will see an effort being made to create a dedicated committee to flesh out such a plan, the members of that committee would be wise to take into account the lessons learned about other federal referenda here in Canada and abroad, and some of the received wisdom of Canadian scholars specializing in federalism and Canadian political culture.
Specifically there are at least six major points to keep in mind for those who wish to successfully reinforce most Albertans’ belief that it is better to remain.
- What Not To Do
- Do Not Base All or Even Most of Your Arguments on Economic Advantage
It should hardly be necessary to make this point after all the examples of why this is a flawed tactic. Think of Robert Bourassa’s “federalisme rentable” phrase, for example, a concept which translates roughly as “profitable federalism” and immediately suggests that a subnational unit such as a province should only remain in a federal system if it benefits financially. Otherwise all bets are off? With this reasoning as the base argument for remaining, the story never ends. Think Switzerland’s Jura, a canton whose allegiance is regularly called into question based on the relative financial well-being of that country and its neighbour, France. And now we have the prime minister promoting more pipelines and other economic benefits so that Albertans will choose to stay…..who knows what other requests could be made down the road if that is the principal argument for staying in Canada? Clearly most of the federal policies targeted in the other referendum questions, such as equalization, the RCMP and the CPP, could easily become pawns in a never-ending tousle for economic advantage with the threat of separation hanging over the country’s head indefinitely if it does not comply.
- Appeasement is Never a Good Idea
Surely Neville Chamberlain’s “Peace in our Time” mistake is one that every sentient politician has taken to heart for any number of issues, let alone for an issue as foundational as national unity. Appeasement, as Chamberlain proved, simply does not work, especially when one is dealing with irrational actors. So it would seem self-evident that the very last strategy to employ when dealing with Alberta separatists is to offer them something they have been demanding.
Yet that is exactly what the prime minister has, perhaps inadvertently, done. Take, for example, the recently announced pipeline deal with Alberta that is part of the PM’s economic development package of major projects, revealed at the same time as another major initiative in BC. It is obvious that these projects and others announced across the country, will provide regional benefits in addition to their broad national purpose. There is no need to make the point. But by specifically declaring the pipeline is a “win” for Alberta and stating that ““Today, is about building trust in a Canada that works…”[v] Carney has turned this into a bribe to the separatists, and worse still, as several commentators have noted, one that will not work.[vi] Surely the lack of appreciation the Trudeau government received for buying and successfully completing the Trans Mountain Pipeline – a project which has poured millions into the Alberta government’s coffers, and was done over the vociferous objections of environmentalists within and outside of the Liberal caucus – should have made that reality crystal clear. This pipeline, even if it is actually built, will never be enough for them.
Even worse is the 17-minute video released on June 26 in which the PM refers to his Alberta roots, an understandable if futile tactic which then goes off the rails with critical references to the National Energy Program and earlier environmental policies of previous Liberal governments led by Pierre Trudeau and Justin Trudeau respectively, thereby once again reinforcing rather than combatting the separatists’ arguments. “I remember how Ottawa made Albertans feel like our resources weren’t our own” Carney opines, “and then, more recently, we were made to feel that our energy contributions were running against the tides of history.”[vii]
Not only does this misguided effort to curry favour help the separatists’ cause, but it violates a cardinal rule of the Liberal Party by criticizing not one but two former Liberal prime ministers. It is perfectly acceptable to change earlier policies of the party but not to criticize one’s predecessors. If necessary, such changes can always be explained neutrally by noting that that was then and this is now and the world has changed, a favourite line of Danielle Smith. But Carney’s approach is simply pandering to separatists at the potential expense of party loyalists as well as progressives in the Liberal Party and elsewhere. Hopefully few Canadians outside of Alberta actually saw or paid attention to this damaging video, but this is an approach that must be stopped in its tracks.
- This is No Time for Partisan Politics
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has once again demonstrated why he is not fit to be prime minister, and Liberals would do well to take note. His alleged pro-Canada speech on June 8 in Calgary was the exact opposite of what it claimed to be. It was really an attack on all things Ottawa, a message that satisfied no one apart from the very separatist contingent whose views he was allegedly attempting to change. If anything, it was a gift to them, reinforcing their arguments that the current situation is intolerable. It was also a repetition, almost word for word, of every policy position he has ever put forward under the Conservative banner since he became leader, including such extreme proposals as the withdrawal of almost all policies designed to combat climate change, the introduction of many more “tough on crime” measures and the transfer of full jurisdiction for immigration to the province. Put another way by Poilievre himself, “We do not need a different country, Alberta, we need different government policies in Ottawa.”[viii] Which is essentially saying ‘Vote for me and all your concerns will be addressed.’
As former Alberta environment minister Shannon Phillips wrote on her website, “this is a moment that calls for a lot more than sounding petty, repetitive and small.” But that is who Poilievre is, and all he is capable of being. Even Jason Kenney and Stephen Harper (who now claims not to have signed the Firewall Letter) have managed to sound more moderate and positive than Poilievre, although they, too, leave a lot to be desired in terms of their arguments in favour of the federation.
The fact is that using such an important issue for partisan purposes is not only unacceptable but counterproductive. To enhance the credibility of their own arguments the federal Liberals should instead make a deliberate effort to recruit individuals from across the political spectrum, who have the right motivation and share the same approach, to serve on a non-partisan committee. The irony is that the Carney government has already done this in terms of the CUSMA negotiations, appointing individuals such as former Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and Conservative minister Lisa Raitt and former Quebec premier Jean Charest to their advisory board.[ix] Now it needs to be done for this far more pressing issue.
(B) What to Do
- Rebut All False and Deliberately Misleading Claims
As former Progressive Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell once declared, an election is no time to discuss major policies. While this comment was widely ridiculed, it contained a grain of truth. What Campbell meant, of course, is that a five-week campaign heavy on partisan rhetoric offers little opportunity for serious discussion of issues. Similarly, the 1995 referendum proved that a referendum campaign is no time to try to set the record straight on deeply ingrained separatist falsehoods and unfounded claims. The close call in that vote was due not only to unprecedented developments — such as the change in YES side leadership from Jacques Parizeau to Lucien Bouchard, and the extraordinary change in the actual question mid-campaign — but to the fact that Quebec separatists had been allowed to make all manner of farcical claims in the years leading up to the second referendum.
After the narrow federal win in the Quebec referendum, Prime Minister Jean Chretien launched a 10-point plan to reinforce support for the federalist option in the province. Chief amongst those points was the hugely popular Clarity Act, and a concerted plan by Chretien’s intergovernmental affairs minister, Stephane Dion, to immediately address any and all misleading or false claims by the separatist premier, Lucien Bouchard, and his point man on the file, minister Joseph Facal. The result? Support for separation fell to its lowest level since the 1970’s by the time Chretien left office in 2003 and Lucien Bouchard resigned as premier, declaring there was no chance that the “winning conditions” for another referendum would develop in the foreseeable future.
This lesson is as valid for the Alberta situation as it was for Quebec, and the sooner a ‘war room’ type squad is set up to provide factual rebuttals for the various outrageous claims being made by Alberta separatists, the better.
- Provide a Comprehensive List of Benefits Albertans Receive as Canadians
As mentioned above there is a tendency, especially among Conservatives, to view the rationale for belonging to a federation solely in terms of a strict financial cost-benefit analysis. But even here many Conservatives, and certainly the delusional Alberta separatists, are guilty of focusing only on those aspects of the federation bargain that suit their purpose and ignoring others. And, of course, they are also capable of misleading and false conclusions.
Take, for example, the notion that Alberta is magnanimously paying for equalization in the Atlantic region. Since the equalization program is funded entirely by the federal government this is patently absurd, but the calls to eliminate equalization because it is a drain on Alberta’s coffers continue. (And this argument also ignores entirely the fact that Alberta itself benefitted from equalization payments for much of its history, to say nothing of the fact that all premiers including Lougheed of Alberta agreed to entrench equalization in the constitution as an important Canadian value.)
Then there is the tired argument that Albertans contribute more overall to the federation than other Canadians and receive less in return. This old chestnut is based on several erroneous assumptions. While it is indeed true that the average Albertan pays more in income tax than residents of other provinces, this is for the simple reason that Albertans have the highest average incomes in the country, and the progressive income tax system recognizes this fact. Put another way, all Canadians living in other parts of the country who report the same income are paying the same amount of income tax. Similarly, Albertans receive less money from Ottawa for the shared-cost healthcare program not because of unfair bias for central Canada, but because it is based on a per capita formula, and Alberta is a far less populous province than Ontario or Quebec.
It is also important to note that the Alberta government denies itself income by refusing to introduce a sales tax (the only province to do so) and that successive premiers have repeatedly dipped into the Heritage Fund established by premier Lougheed in order to cover deficits.
But such an accounting approach to the benefits of Canadian federalism also ignores some of the most important reasons for Alberta to remain, including programs that provide universal health care and pension funds, access to excellent postsecondary education, employment insurance, child welfare benefits and a national childcare system. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. There are literally hundreds of federal programs that protect or support every Canadian in such areas as health and safety, transportation, building codes, agriculture, industry and communications that are largely unknown because their impact is indirect, and/or they are taken for granted. Calculating the financial “value” of these federal programs is a fool’s task but enhancing citizen’s knowledge of them is well worth the effort.
- Outline Shared Values and Beliefs That Bind Canadians and Make Canada Distinct
Unknown to many Albertans and no doubt many Canadians, Canada is often seen as a role model by its contemporaries in the western democratic world. As Pierre Trudeau once remarked, Canada, not Quebec, is the distinct society, largely due to its political stability, peaceable accommodation of diversity, multiculturalism and bilingualism and rapid settlement and political integration of immigrant communities. Values such as compromise and consensus, accommodation of differences and a deep commitment to fundamental human rights and freedoms are seen as benchmarks of Canadian political culture.
There are also empirical measurements which underline Canada’s enviable place internationally, demonstrating its high standard of living and quality of life as well as one of the lowest levels of economic disparity, courtesy of its numerous social programs. Typical examples of the country’s high scores include “safest country in which to live,” “best country in which to retire”, “most egalitarian, non-discriminatory society”, and “best country to raise a child.” (See the attached chart and links for more details.)[x]
Conclusion
| All of this leads to some obvious conclusions. The federal government needs to up its game in its response to the Alberta referendum separation question. And the time to make this case is now, not in the fall. The objective should be not merely to ensure that it is defeated, but that the whole exercise serves as an information and education program to provide Albertans with facts, not falsehoods and fantasies, about existing federal programs and benefits for all citizens. Mark Carney is right to argue that there are areas in which the federal government can do better, but in combatting Alberta’s separatist sentiment the most important point is to underline how much worse Albertans would fare without Canada. |
[i] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy42w778e72o
[ii] https://www.youtube.com/@CdnPress
[iii] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-carney-taps-new-adviser-to-lead-response-to-alberta-separatism/
[iv] https://www.nationalobserver.com/2026/04/13/opinion/alberta-separatism-canada-response
[v] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/05/15/canada-alberta-west-coast-oil-pipeline-00923681
[vi] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-will-albertas-pipeline-proposal-help-tamp-down-separatist-sentiment/
[vii] https://nationalpost.com/news/mark-carney-reflects-on-trudeau-policies-that-have-alienated-albertans-ahead-of-canada-day
[viii] https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/poilievre-to-prescribe-new-policies-as-an-antidote-for-alberta-separation-sentiment/
[ix] https://www.pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2026/04/21/prime-minister-carney-announces-new-advisory-committee-canada-us
[x] See for example the Human Development Index https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/specific-country-data#/countries/CAN
