Beyond Polarity

STAMPEDE IN CALGARY is a time for cowboy hats, boots, and big questions.

Last week, in a convention centre ballroom, I moderated a debate between Derek Fildebrandt, pro-separatist publisher of the Western Standard news and self-described “mosquito in the tent they just can’t quite kill,” and Duane Bratt, Mount Royal University political science professor who was making the case for staying in Canada.

The room was lively and mixed. You would be correct to think the Western Standard event attracted pro-separatists. Emotions ran high, as they rightly should on a question this profound. Yet the evening stayed civil, substantive, and respectful. No spectacles. No walkouts. Just two sharp minds defending their positions while an audience listened — really listened.

Many have asked why I agreed to moderate.

The answer is simple: because someone has to insist on better questions.

I’ve worn many hats in my life — farmer’s daughter, elected politician, lawyer, energy executive, writer — but mother to three sons probably prepared me best for the role. Keeping two passionate debaters on track, ensuring each got a fair shake, and working for the audience rather than the loudest voices in the room felt like familiar territory. 

My job wasn’t to pick a side. It was to frame the exchange so Albertans could hear arguments tested, not slogans repeated. In an era of conflicting data, algorithms feed us tailored realities, and with AI amplifying every grievance, asking better questions has never been more urgent. 

We cannot navigate this October’s referendum on autopilot or outrage. Alberta’s future — and Canada’s — demands scrutiny of both the numbers and the emotions driving this moment.

I opened by acknowledging the obvious: many in the room had already saddled up on one side or the other. This debate wasn’t designed to flip minds overnight. It was meant to hold assertions up to scrutiny, recognize the gravity of the choice, and move us beyond “all hat, no cattle” rhetoric.The questions probed both substance and feeling. 

To Bratt: Support for separation and for triggering a binding independence referendum in October may cool. Yet this entire conversation — and all the “stay” versus “leave” campaigning — has put Alberta independence firmly on the national map. Other provinces are watching. Whatever the outcome of the October 19 referendum, if we don’t meaningfully change how Confederation works, the threat to Canadian unity will only grow bigger. Agree or disagree?

To Fildebrandt: The heart of Alberta’s frustration is a sense of unfairness. But how is an independence referendum fair to the many Albertans who want to remain Canadian? How is it fair to First Nations who object? A “Yes” vote means carving out federal parks, military assets, Indigenous reserves — unworkable partitions. And how is Alberta going it alone fair to the rest of Canada? Voting to move forward with an independence referendum is inevitably polarizing for Albertans and will cause more harm than pursuing greater sovereignty within Canada, as Quebec has done. Yes or no?

We drilled into economics.

To Bratt: Economists have been busy crunching the numbers on staying in Confederation versus going independent — equalization, federal rules, transition costs, and the price of running a new country. Pro-independence voices talk of windfalls and some say the numbers don’t even matter — independence is worth any cost. On the other side, big-city mayors and chambers of commerce warn that uncertainty will drive away investment and shrink Alberta’s economy. The argument has been put forward by pro-separatists that continuing as a province within Canada costs Alberta too much. Agree or disagree?

Governance realities followed.

To Fildebrandt: Governing a brand-new sovereign country isn’t simple — what’ll it be? Constitutional monarchy, republic, or something invented on the fly? How would immigration rules be decided? Rebuilding trust with Canada, the world, and even our own citizens will be a steep climb. Add in Indigenous rights, and the Trump factor — his potential willingness to recognize Alberta’s unilateral declaration of independence and chatter about joining the United States. Governance of a truly independent Alberta would be extremely challenging and very risky without Canada. Yes or no? 

We probed federal signals. 

To Bratt: Albertans are watching the Carney government’s next moves on the energy MOU as a litmus test of trust. There’s been progress, and Premier Smith has been clear she wants the expanded TMX west-coast oil pipeline on the national project list by October. But a recent Fraser Institute study warns that the energy MOU’s carbon tax and carbon-capture conditions make Alberta’s oil and gas uncompetitive. Albertans’ ballot-box decision this October will be heavily influenced by whether and how a new west-coast oil pipeline actually moves forward. Yes or no?

To Fildebrandt: Mark Carney and the Liberals have been in Alberta, flipping pancakes and announcing pipeline progress, but still warning the province’s flirtation with separation is dangerous. Federal Conservatives are also campaigning to keep us in Canada. Beyond pipelines, the federal government and federal players still need to — and can — take concrete steps to lower the temperature and reduce the risk of a “Yes” vote in October. Agree or disagree?

A telling follow-up went to both debaters: Is there anything Prime Minister Carney could realistically do in the coming months that would change your mind?

These weren’t gotcha questions. They were designed to surface trade-offs, emotions, and practical realities. Grievances are real — decades of feeling like the cash cow funding everyone else’s priorities have built legitimate frustration. But independence isn’t a simple escape hatch; it involves profound human, legal, and economic dislocation.The evening proved Albertans can handle this discussion maturely. Passionate groups gathered in the foyer afterward. People stayed, engaged, and left talking to neighbours rather than past them.

October 19 isn’t just another ballot. It’s a referendum asking whether Alberta should remain a province of Canada or begin the legal process toward a binding separation vote. Whoever frames the question well may shape the outcome — Brexit taught us that. 

Moderating wasn’t about neutrality on the issue. It was about fidelity to process: good-faith argument, evidence over assertion, emotion acknowledged but not weaponized. Alberta deserves a future decided by informed, engaged citizens — not by whoever yells loudest or memes best. That’s why I said yes. And I’d do it again.

What questions do you need to be answered on this question of Alberta independence? It’s a serious question.

BEYOND POLARITY is the consensus opinion of the writers Donna Kennedy-Glans & Don Hill. If you haven’t already, please subscribe — scroll down on your phone or tablet, or look to the right in the panel beside this post. Enter your email to FOLLOW, a wheel spins, hamsters get fed.