A FEW WEEKS AGO, on my Calgary doorstep, a polite woman from Stay Free Alberta invited me to sign a petition for a separation referendum. She was nervous. I was firm: I’m pro-Canada. We talked for 15 minutes anyway—calmly. No yelling. She left saying the civil exchange felt rare. That small moment crystallized everything I’ve written this year for the National Post: the real test for Alberta and Canada isn’t who shouts loudest; it’s whether we can listen.
Alberta’s frustrations are real and they’ve been building: I’m not endorsing the status quo. In November I warned that a pipeline deal alone won’t tame the separatists. Premier Danielle Smith was already walking a tightrope ahead of the UCP AGM—negotiating with Ottawa while her own base demanded more. Grievances run deeper than one pipeline: federal debt, regulatory chokeholds on our resources, and the sense that Quebec gets latitude Alberta is denied. Western patience, as one National Post story put it, is wearing thin.
Yet Smith has refused the binary trap of “separatism or status quo.” In February I reported on her televised address offering Albertans a third choice: a referendum on provincial immigration powers and interprovincial collaboration to amend the Constitution for more autonomy—inside Canada. Political veteran Norman Spector said there was “no knife in what she’s now proposing.” It divides the dissatisfied vote and takes pressure off Ottawa. If the feds engage, it could deflate the secessionists. If they don’t, the heat rises again.
That’s the tightrope. Separatist groups are better organized than they’ve been in four decades. Petitions are rolling. Polls inside the UCP show strong support among members, though province-wide it’s still a minority. But as anti-separatist Thomas Lukaszuk has noted, a small core of angry voices can punch above its weight.
And any serious secession faces a massive speed bump: First Nations. Their treaties are with the federal Crown. Scholars point out that without Indigenous consent, an independence bid lacks legitimacy and would trigger legal chaos.
There’s another complicating factor: external actors. As Laval University constitutional law professor Patrick Taillon noted in April, Quebec and Alberta are quietly learning from each other about leverage, identity, patience, and the limits of brinkmanship. Alberta’s movement lacks Quebec’s deep linguistic and institutional roots, but it has something Quebec doesn’t: strong economic and political affinities south of the border. Taillon flagged the risk that a Trump administration—unpredictable as it is—could signal willingness to recognize a unilateral declaration of independence. That possibility, however remote, would dramatically reshape any post-referendum negotiations and add dangerous volatility to an already tense situation.
I’ve also highlighted voices who channel the anger constructively. Veteran oilman Bryan Gould echoes separatist complaints about the demonization of resource extraction and endless regulatory hurdles. Yet he’s no separatist. His Jewish refugee parents found safety here; Canada, he says, is “precious” and “worth fighting for.” His prescription? Free markets, ditch the virtue-signalling mandates, build pipelines the customers will actually pay for. Save Canada by letting Alberta do what it does best.
This is Beyond Polarity in action. I’m not interested in ridiculing neighbours who sign petitions or demonizing Ottawa. I worked in places like Yemen; I learned that acknowledging someone’s deeply held beliefs doesn’t mean agreeing with them. The same principle applies at home. Online, my social media post about the doorstep chat triggered partisan noise and toxicity—each side painting the other as traitors or fools. In person, it was different.
Alberta’s economic heft makes us central to Canada’s prosperity. We don’t need to blow up the federation to be heard. We need Ottawa to stop treating every provincial ask as a threat. We need faster infrastructure, fairer rules, and recognition that our energy sector isn’t the enemy—it’s the foundation. And we need leaders, provincial and federal, who remember Peter Lougheed’s lesson: strong provinces make a stronger country.
As campaigns for unity ramp up and referendum talk simmers, the choice before us is clear. We can keep polarizing—louder petitions, angrier memes, more division. Or we can do the harder, braver thing: listen, acknowledge legitimate grievances on all sides, and build the next chapter inside Canada.
I’m betting on the latter. Because this country—flawed, messy, still worth fighting for—has given generations of us a shot at something better. Let’s not throw that away because the conversation got too loud to hear each other.
Donna’s National Post columns referenced:
- The real test for Alberta and Canada is not who shouts loudest… (April 12, 2026)
- Ottawa versus Danielle Smith, but not vice-versa (Feb 22, 2026)
- A pipeline deal won’t be enough… (Nov 26, 2025)
- News flash: Canada’s restless problem children are conspiring (April 5, 2026)
- Saving Canada via the free market (March 29, 2026)
- Separation speed bump: Negotiating with First Nations (March 15, 2026)
Donna, unlike you, I have signed the petition and I will vote in the affirmative when the question is put in the referendum.
Now, having said that, thank you for your polite discourse. I would note that I have frequently asked a question of those who are opposed to separation whereas we separatists have made our case for separatism and we accept that you are not yet convinced of the merits of that case. Having said that, I continue, what are the merits of remaining in Canada?
When I offer that query the responses are typically in a few flavors:
– outright hostility that I should be positive about separation;
– a response that “We would miss you so much!” which is no response at all;
– the argument that Alberta would be landlocked but a) no recognition that that is nothing new so there is no change, and b) no recognition that the rest of Canada would also have that sort of problem as it would have to transit Alberta to get to both the east west of us;
– a listing of so many geographic wonders of Canada which ignores the idea that we might well visit as tourists in subsequent years, etc.;
– an assertion that Canada is democratic and has free speech, rule of law, etc., etc. but ignores the fact that Alberta already has those things and will not change those attributes;
– an accusation that I (or everyone supporting separation) only wants to join the US when anyone who is at all sentient can determine that the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of we separatists simply want independence and do not want to join the US as a new overlord. We want to have our neighbors to the west, east, north and south of us as friends but not as fellow citizens;
– but the natives! the natives! and ignoring the fact that all leaders of the petition drive have a) welcomed natives, as citizens of Alberta, to sign the petition, i.e. to have their voices heard; and b) we separatists understand that they are attached to the current relationship with the Crown and we have no desire to cause that relationship to cease.
and so forth.
The curious thing is that I have not received any commentary about a wonderful thing about Canada that we in Alberta do not already have and would not have in an independent nation.
So, my query of you is, just what are the merits of remaining in Canada? I do not want to concentrate of the things that are negative such as “you will lose …” or similar assertions which, as noted above are typically silly because we “already have …” and so forth. Instead, I am looking for such commentary that tells me about a particular aspect of Canada that is absolutely unavailable to me if I am a citizen of a country other than Canada.
Again, thank you for your polite commentary.