Alberta lawyer Jeffrey R.W. Rath responded today to my announcement that I am running for Vice President of Membership on the United Conservative Party’s Provincial Board. His response was direct and left little doubt about his views on Premier Danielle Smith, Alberta independence, and my suitability to serve on the board.

Here is what he wrote:

Dear Vince,

Given that you refuse to acknowledge that @ABDanielleSmith IS UNELECTABLE because she has split the party by telling Albertans to embrace federalism or find a new party, and that you refuse to acknowledge that Alberta will never be independent as long as Smith leads the UCP, I do not believe you are suitable for any elected position within the UCP.

Jeffrey R.W. Rath

What follows is my response to Jeffrey Rath.

Read more

The referendum is over. Albertans have spoken. The results are a disappointment for those of us who supported Option 2, but it would be a serious mistake to judge this magnificent grassroots effort a failure. Far from it. What we have achieved will likely go down as one of the most important moments in Alberta history. More importantly, it has now created a solid foundation for a glorious future for Alberta, and quite possibly for the rest of Canada and the world.

That’s because we now have an official measure of support for Alberta independence, recorded in a way that no-one can contest: the ballot box. One in four Albertans — who have been ridiculed, accused of treason, wasters of taxpayer money, even physically attacked — have nevertheless stood strong, braved bitter cold for hours in long line ups to sign the petition or to faithfully wait by lonely roadsides though rain, sleet and snow for days.

And regardless of mountains of money thrown against us in poll after poll our numbers held amazingly strong; too small to win but astonishly constant throughout the entire campaign.

As a result of this heroic effort, Alberta independence is no longer a possibility. It has been fiercely forged into certitude from the fires for freedom that burn brightly in the hearts of so many Albertans absolutely determined to protect the futures of their families. I could not be prouder the work done by so many beautiful Albertans during this very challenging campaign.

The single battle may be lost, but the war to win independence is far from over. Now is the time to pause, take a well-deserved rest, celebrate the tremendous gains made regardless of the overall outcome, and reflect on the campaign overall: what went well and what could have been done better. If we don’t learn from our mistakes then we will inevitably repeat them.

But above all, we must never lose hope. Never give up. Never surrender. Here are seven important lessons we should take from this experience.

LESSON 1. THE MAJORITY MUST ALREADY BE IN PLACE: Never ask a question unless you already know the answer

I remember reading that a good lawyer knows not to asks a witness in court a question without knowing the answer in advance. The same rule should hold true for referendum strategies. It is not wise to demand from taxpayers a referendum unless we know we can win. Not hope. Know.

That means knowing that most voters are on your side before the writ is dropped. Even 50 percent is cutting it too close. 60 percent is the safer target, and even better: two-thirds. At least we now know how much money our adversaries are prepared to throw into their campaigns to thwart us: essentially limitless funds. Whatever it takes. I suspect they could have applied even more pressure, but chose to hold back because they knew they were winning.

When Mitch Sylvestre told me of his plans to launch a Citizens Initiative petition, I advised him to wait. The time was not right, and no sound poll had shown support for Alberta leaving Canada beyond 43 percent. Once our adversaries launched a blitzkrieg campaign of fearmongering, my gut told me we would be lucky to have 25 percent hold fast, but I kept that estimate to myself. Once the campaign was launched, such pessimistic talk is out of the question. Nobody likes a party pooper, least of all when good people are giving their all for such an important cause.

Let’s Talk Alberta founder and Alberta Prosperity Project Director Chris Scott has since raised an interesting point I wish we’d considered more carefully at the time. When former Tory cabinet minister Thomas Lukaszuk tried to pre-empt us with his idiotic referendum question to essentially change nothing, some in our camp saw the need to rush to hold our own referendum with an actual question on independence (which we did not get, by the way, so UCP policy needs to be put forward at the 2027 AGM forbidding government to change the question in future).

But why let our adversary set our schedule? If we had waited, Lukaszuk might have pulled back his bid (which he later actually tried to do), and there would have been no vote. Or his vote might have gone ahead, leaving him to take the heat for the cost to taxpayers, instead of us. Lukaszuk may yet come out ahead. He has essentially now laid the groundwork for a comeback of the Alberta Liberal Party, and I would not be surprised if theyt became the main threat to the UCP during next October’s election.

Once the starting gun had gone off, though, there was only one thing left to do. Fight to win. Mitch did just that, and I take my hat off to him. I wish I could say the same of myself. I backed the cause, collected about a hundred signatures, but my heart was not as much in the fight as it should have been. I was pretty sure we would lose, and that held me back.

Don’t take any of this as a knock on Mitch. I still hold tremendous respect for the man and what he has done for Alberta. For the first time, we have a vote count that tells us how much support there is for Alberta leaving Canada. No more wild guesses about a few angry cranks who could all fit into one room. Roughly one in four of those who cast a ballot chose Option 2. That’s a fact our foes can no longer brush aside.

That alone makes this vote a mark in Alberta’s history. We now have a firm base from which to judge how far we have come and how far we still have to go. Mitch and those who stood with him deserve much of the credit for that. I wish we’d won, of course, but there is no shame in giving credit where it is due.

Premier Danielle Smith has asked those of us who backed Option 2 to now respect the result. I have yet to meet anyone on our side who does not. What I think she means is that she does not want another vote on independence anytime soon. In fact, she went so far as to say “not while she is premier.” These are words I wish she had not uttered. In spite of it all, we owe our premier much gratitude. I know that she works incredibly hard, incredibly selflessly, and genuinely cares for the people of this province.

But I do agree with the premier in this respect. The referendum is over, and it fiscally irresponsible to even talk of another for a substantial amount of time. I think it best that the next referendum be tied to a milestone: properly conducted randomized polls consistently showing independence sentiment well above 50%. That day in my view will not come soon, but one never knows the future until it arrives. And in fairness to Albertans convinced independence sentiment will never consistently clock higher than fifty, this means that if this minimum threshold of more than one in two is never met, then it is my belief we should never waste public funds again on another referendum. Ever.

In the meantime we must solidly support our premier's vision of a stronger, more sovereign Alberta within Canada.

I must repeat this point. We should not even think of another vote until most Albertans back either full independence or what I call refederation (which I’ll deal with in Lesson 5 later). And I suspect when the polls show support north of 50 percent that our premier may see things in a new light. That’s how politics works. When the voters change their minds, those in office tend to change theirs as well.

So here endeth Lesson One, plain and simple: build the majority first; hold the referendum second.

LESSON 2. EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION: The good news is we have far fewer people to persuade than ever before

The second lesson may be the most important of all. More than one in three rural Albertans voted for Option 2, while in Edmonton and Calgary it was closer to one in six. I was a bit surprised by the latter, given what I saw in my own part of Edmonton.

In my little Lessard neighborhood, I felt very much alone with my beautiful blue lawn signs because we were surrounded by dozens, perhaps even a hundred, Forever Canadian signs and flags. Going by the signage I never would have predicted that a full one in six of my fellow Edmontonians would endorse the independence path.

That tells us two things. We have a solid base of support, even in our two largest cities, but we have a great many more hearts to warm and minds to inform. Fortunately we have two big strengths to support our work: the facts and the truth. This is best evidenced by the conspicuous absence of leader Lukaszuk in debates. Nevertheless, in spite of all the hard work done to date, there are still too few Albertans who know those facts, or much about the history of how their province came to be governed from Ottawa. We need to find new ways to reach them.

One of the more telling things about the vote was how little the polls moved. Janet Brown, considered by many to be the most professional pollster in Alberta, found support for independence stuck near 25 percent through much of the campaign, despite all the speeches, ads, and news stories. Normally, a hard-fought campaign can shift the polls by five or ten points. This time, the numbers barely moved at all.

I find that rather heartening. Once a person learns about the long list of historic injustices, theft and grievances perpetrated on our province for generations by Ottawa, it is impossible to unlearn. This is why so few people changed sides during the campaign.

Ezra Levant made a point on Rebel News that caught my ear. He thought the Option 1 side may have spent as much as a hundred dollars for every dollar spent by Option 2. Due to all the deceptive ways used by our opponents that figure is obviously a guesstimate, but there is no doubt that the case against independence had a great many powerful voices behind it, from city halls and the Alberta legislature to Parliament Hill. And yet, is spite of all that effort and money spent, the polls barely budged.

This means that going forward we are building on rock, not sand. That is worth keeping in mind as we plan what comes next.

Most of the credit for educating Albertans thus far belongs to Dr. Dennis Modry and the people who have worked with him for years through the Alberta Prosperity Project. They realized Albertans needed to learn not only our provincial history, but also our current constitutional pickle, and most importantly the benefits that could come through either refederation or independence. They have put years of work into making that case, and Chris Scott now seems keen to give the effort fresh life. I wish him well, and I hope more of us will step up to lend a hand.

I include myself in that last point. I have backed the APP’s aims but have become a member nor done nearly enough to help with its work. Part of my problem has been finding the funds to support my own efforts, but that is no excuse. I need to do more, especially when I see Chris accomplishing so much on similarly humble means.

Sufficient education is the most important milestone yet to be achieved

Until that one in six in Edmonton becomes at least two in six, I don’t think we should be talking about another referendum. The same goes for Calgary and the rest of the province. We have to win people over long before we ask them to vote again.

So how do we do it? I would start by bringing back the public debate. Not another town hall where we all gather with friends to hear someone tell us once again what we already believe. Instead I propose moving the discussion into new environments where smart, well-read people on both sides, deliver effective debates with each making the best case they can while facing tough questions from the other.

Our schools and universities would be fantastic places to start. Almost all teachers in this province are members of unions. They are supposed to maintain neutrality when delivering instruction to our kids, but let’s be realistic. Unions are extremely effective in politics and are famous for their ruthless methods and highly disciplined political activism. Do we seriously think they will remain neutral when discussing political issues with our kids?

I believe the time has come to level the playing field. Not by continuing the pretence of unbiased humanities teachers, but to challenge them in proper debates on school grounds. Rather than fight over whose views should be taught, why not let students hear both sides? Give them the facts, let the two sides test each other’s claims in a public forum, and see what the students make of it.

I would go one step further and ask the crowd to vote before and after each debate. Have we changed any minds? Did support rise or fall? How many people left still not sure? Then publish the results, win or lose, so we can learn which points work and which do not.

A recent Munk-style Canada Strong and Free debate in Calgary and hosted by National Post’s Tristin Hopper gave us a taste of what this could look like. I was keen to see the before-and-after poll, but those results were curiously missing at the end of the video I watched. To my mind, that was one of the most useful parts of the whole event. If we’re going to test our case in public, let’s find out what the test showed.

Now here is an idea I’d love to see tried. Why not turn these debates into school fundraisers? Charge $10 or $20 at the door, give the money to the school for a new playground or some other project, and invite parents, grandparents, and students to take part. The school gets some much-needed cash, and the rest of us get a chance to talk about Alberta’s future.

I suggest pairing an Albertan elder with a student for each side. One pair would make the independence/refederation case, while the other would defend continuing to trust the Canadian government. Think what those young people might learn, and all the while, we’d be raising money for a good cause. The crowd could vote before the debate and once more at the end. We could track of how many minds were changed and learn with each successive debate how to deliver them more effectively in future.

Imagine doing this in schools across Alberta, year after year. Grandparents working with students, parents filling the gym, and local schools raising funds for things they need. It would be good for the schools, good for the towns, and good for the young people who will one day have to make these choices for themselves.

The point is not to tell young Albertans what to think. It is to give them the facts and the chance to think for themselves. If we believe our case is sound, we should welcome the test, not shy away from it.

And let’s not leave our seniors out of this. During this referendum campaign I heard reports of people going into care homes and telling those who live there that voting Option 2 would cost them their pensions and health care — both of which are completely false. Our side needs to spend more time in seniors’ homes and centers, and I don’t mean going in to give them our own one-sided pitch. Just like our schools, bring in people from both camps, let them debate, and give those in the room all the time they need to ask questions. Take a vote before and after, just as we would in the schools to learn what arguments are most effective. Our seniors have earned the right to hear the full case, not just the side that gets to them first.

All of this will take time, but it is essential to complete it successfully before we proceed with another referendum, which must not fail again. Here endeth Lesson 2.

LESSON 3. MONEY MATTERS: A Little Each Month Can Go a Long Way

Money isn’t everything in politics, but try running a campaign without it. We learned that lesson the hard way. Even though our cause is both true and just, we need to get much better at raising money and making it last.

There were some serious concerns about how the Option 1 side was funded. Many of the Option 1 Third Party Advertisers (or TPAs) filed their reports late or not at all, leaving voters in the dark about who was paying for what. Rebel News reporter Sheila Gunn Reid and lawyer John Williamson took the issue to court, but by then much of the campaign was over.

That wasn’t the only problem. As I wrote in an earlier column, the Alberta government had changed the rules in ways that gave Option 1 a huge four million dollar edge. Add to that all the federal politicians, provincial politicians, mayors, sports and entertainment celebrities who lined up against independence, and you get some idea of what we were up against. So we can spend the next four years griping about it, or we can do something useful. We can’t stop our foes from raising money. We can, however, get much better at raising our own.

One of the biggest problems with raising money for a political cause is that we keep having to do it over and over again. Every new campaign means another appeal, another round of phone calls, another fundraiser, and another scramble to pay the bills. All that takes time, money, and people who could be doing something much more useful.

There is a better way. Instead of asking people to make large donations whenever a crisis arises, why not ask them to make a small commitment each month? Ten dollars a month is not much for most households, but when thousands of people make that same commitment, the results can be quite remarkable.

Let’s say half a million Albertans support Option 2. What if just one in ten gave $10 a month? That’s 50,000 people, each giving about the price of a couple of coffees. Together, they’d raise $500,000 a month, or $6 million a year. Not a bad war chest, and no one would have to break the bank to build it.

And think what that would mean. Instead of spending half our time raising money, we could spend it putting that money to work. We could plan educational programs years in advance, hold debates in schools and town halls across Alberta, and make good books, videos, and other facts available to people who have never heard our side of the case. Best of all, we could keep doing it month after month, year after year.

But there is another way of looking at that $10 a month. What might we and our families stand to gain if we succeed?

Consider Alberta’s contribution to federal finances. According to the Alberta government’s own figures, Albertans contributed an average of more than $4,000 per person each year to Ottawa above what they received back in federal spending and transfers during the years 2015 to 2019. That’s $16,000 a year for a family of four. And that is just the net fiscal balance, before we even begin to discuss the economic gains that might come from greater control over our natural resources and access to world markets.

Now, suppose a new deal with Ottawa, or independence if necessary, allowed Alberta to retain even half of that net contribution. That’s a potential $2,000 per person each year that could be put toward lower taxes, better services, debt reduction, or some mix of the three. Of course, that is an illustration, not a promise. The actual savings would depend on the terms of any new arrangement and the costs Alberta would have to take on.

But consider the scale of what is at stake. We’re talking about contributing $120 a year toward an effort that, if successful, could help bring about fiscal changes worth thousands of dollars annually to Alberta families. And that’s before we consider what new markets for our oil and gas, less red tape, and greater control over our own affairs might mean for the next generation.

Nor should we forget the thousands who come to Alberta each year from the rest of Canada and from abroad. Many know little of our past or why so many Albertans are upset with Ottawa. Why not make sure they have a chance to learn? They live here now, and Alberta’s future is their future too.

So yes, money matters. But what matters even more is having enough of it coming in each month to keep the work going. We don’t need a handful of wealthy donors writing enormous cheques. We need thousands of ordinary Albertans willing to put a little aside each month for the future of their province, their children, and their grandchildren.

Ten dollars a month. A hundred and twenty dollars a year. A modest commitment today toward what could be a much brighter future for all of us.

LESSON 4. MOVEMENT UNITY: Together we are greater than the sum of our parts

Corralling Alberta conservatives toward a common goal is a challenge even at the best of times, and the independence movement is no exception. If anything, it may be our greatest challenge of all. Yet in recent years, for all our differences, I has seen far more cooperation — enough to form and hold government — which makes the latest quarrel within the UCP all the more sad.

Lawyer Jeffrey Rath wants the UCP to embrace Alberta independence as its official cause. Premier Danielle Smith has pushed back, saying the UCP is not an independence party and that those who insist on making it one should find another political home. Some have taken her words to mean that the UCP must now be a federalist party. I disagree with Jeff, but I also disagree with any move to make support for a united Canada a test of official party loyalty. To insist that constituency association directors, provincial board directors, MLAs, cabinet ministers, or even the Premier herself must publicly profess loyalty to a united Canada would mean that members holding office could no longer freely express their own views on Alberta’s future. Telling them they may hold those views privately, but must keep them to themselves, would be a serious restriction on freedom of speech. It would effectively create two classes of UCP members: those free to speak their minds and those expected to remain silent. Neither strikes me as consistent with the spirit of freedom that runs so strongly through our party.

The issue goes right back to the UCP’s birth in 2017. When Progressive Conservative leader Jason Kenney and Wildrose leader Brian Jean signed their Agreement in Principle, they set out the principles they hoped would guide the new party. Among them was a pledge of loyalty to a united Canada, along with a duty to defend Alberta’s place and rights within the federation. Yet when the new party adopted its Statement of Principles, that pledge was not included. The other founding principles were carried forward, but this one was left out.

I do not believe that omission should now be brushed aside. Whether it was the result of a clear vote or some other choice made during the founding process, the fact remains that the pledge is not in the party’s adopted principles. If members wish to add it now, the proper place to settle that question is at an AGM or SGM, under the party’s own rules. It is not for the Premier, or for Jeff Rath, to declare on behalf of the membership such a fundamentally important party principle.

This latest dispute threatens to turn a question of conscience into a test of party loyalty. I wish the Premier had not added to it, especially when our party needs unity more than ever. I have supported her through many difficult fights, and I have no wish to see her fail. But I cannot agree that the UCP should become an official federalist party any more than I can agree that it should become an official independence party. We have operated very successfully in seeking, winning and maintaining government without this principle in place. Now, just a year before the next election, is definitely not the time to make such a divisive and risky move.

There is a better way to handle this, and it comes from Elbert Van Hierden, the UCP’s provincial regional director for Alberta South. For months, Elbert has been telling constituency boards that this issue independence vs federalism is best left to careful personal reflection and not as an official party declaration either way. Each member must be free to make up his own mind, no matter which party he belongs to. His remarks have drawn strong applause wherever he has spoken, and I think he has it exactly right.

That is the sort of unity we need, and it brings me to the people who have done so much to build this movement. Every great cause has its heroes, and ours has more than a few. I use the word heroes rather than leaders on purpose.

The first man I want to thank is David Parker. I doubt I would be as active in Alberta politics today had it not been for David, and I suspect there are thousands who could say the same. He has a gift for getting people off the couch and into the fight, and Alberta is a much better place for it.

Next is Dr. Dennis Modry. He saw early on that we could never make a wise choice about Alberta’s future unless we first knew our own past. Through the Alberta Prosperity Project, he helped bring that history to light and gave the cause a sound base on which to build. We owe him a great deal for that work.

Then there is Mitch Sylvestre. Mitch first made his mark by getting UCP members active, most of all in northern Alberta, and then took the case for independence across the province. He gave well over a hundred talks, drove more miles than I care to guess, and gave up a great deal of his own time and money to do it. Without Mitch, we would not now have the official, magnificent, rock-solid foundational support we now know to exist of one Albertan in four. Independence is now a real movement that is not going anywhere.

We would be nowhere close to where we are today without the work of these men. I look forward to the day when there are schools named after them. But there is a catch, and we need to face it for our movement to succeed. The same traits that make these men so good at what they do can also get in the way. Strong wills, firm beliefs, and a refusal to back down are fine things when you’re up against a foe. They are less helpful when the person you’re fighting is on your own side.

We’ve seen far too much of that. Good people who agree on nine things out of ten end up fighting fatally over the tenth. When pride takes over, and no one wants to give an inch, we wind up wasting valuable time and effort that ought to be spent on the real task at hand.

And of course, one of the best things about this cause has been the astonishing diversity of Albertans it has brought into the political fray. We’ve seen people step up from business, the trades, farms, schools, churches, social media and homes across Alberta. Some have spent years in public life, but many others have never been to a party meeting before. I’ve met men and women who gave up countless nights, weekends, and much their own hard-earned cash to help. It has been inspiring to witness, and I salute you all.

We need all of you, and we need to hear what you have to say. No one has a lock on good ideas, and no one is right all the time. That goes for our heroes too. A wise man knows when to lead, but also when to listen. That may be the hardest lesson of all. We need to stop treating each new idea as a threat to someone else’s place in the cause. We need to hear the hard truths before we make the big calls, not after the damage is done. The rush to hold this vote should have taught us that much.

Although the referendum failed to meet our expectations, the results are beyond dispute. We may have questions about some of the tactics used leading up to the vote, but having taken part in scrutinizing the special ballots, advance voting, and election-day voting, I am satisfied that the vote itself was free and fair. The majority of Albertans do not presently support independence. That is a decision we must recognize and respect.

Now is not the time to react rashly but instead to rest, reflect, recognize our gains, and learn from our losses. A setback becomes a failure only when we refuse to learn from it. For the first time in Alberta’s history, we have an official province-wide measure of support for taking the next step toward independence. Despite enormous political and financial pressure, one in four Albertans stood their ground. That is no small achievement, and it gives us a solid foundation for the future.

But moving from one in four to one in two will not happen overnight. The next few years would be better spent learning from this experience, building unity, and working with our Premier on the many areas of greater provincial autonomy where we already share her goals. And we must address the problem that has troubled Alberta for nearly half a century: the Constitution Act of 1982 and the need to forge a new constitutional relationship between Alberta and the rest of Canada. That brings us to the question of refederation.

LESSON 5. REFEDERATION: The option our opponents don’t want Albertans to know about

Premier Danielle Smith gave Prime Minister Mark Carney a list of nine federal laws and policies she wanted changed. She has made gains on other fronts, but those nine issues are still with us. That is not a knock on the premier. It shows just how hard it is to get Ottawa to change its ways.

NO HOPE FOR CPC: Failed four times to form government; Increased equalization payments even when in

For years, Albertans have pinned their hopes on the federal Tories. Yet they have lost four consecutive federal elections, and even when they held power, the big issues stayed with us. Take Stephen Harper. Back in 2001, he called for an end to the $8000 per Alberta family per year “tax and transfer” system. Five years later, he achieved the highest office possible: Prime Minister of Canada. In spite of this power, equalization not only stayed in place but he actually increased the payments while under his watch.

If Harper couldn’t fix it, who can? He knew the West, knew the issues, and achieved a position that people thought could get things done. Yet the same old deal stayed in place. This fact should speak volumes to Albertans about the limits of trying to fix Canada from Ottawa.

REFEDERATION IS CANADA’S LAST HOPE: 1982 Constitution is essentially unfixable; Independence forces talks for a new one

This is why I keep coming back to refederation. Many Albertans think Canada is in deep trouble and no longer believe the old deal can be fixed from within, but nevertheless still want to save the idea of Canada. There are a great many of us in that camp, and we deserve to have our case heard.

Here is the point our foes so often miss. We don’t have a quarrel with Canadians as people. Our issue — essentially our only issue — is with the terms under which we are forced to live with one another. Change those terms, and you may find a great many Albertans quite happy to remain part of a new Canada.

The Constitution Act of 1982 was not written by the people of Alberta. It was negotiated by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the premiers, with little say from the rest of us. Premier Peter Lougheed reluctantly agreed after securing two key safeguards: stronger provincial control over natural resources and the notwithstanding clause.

Forty-four years later, both remain in the Constitution, but Ottawa continues to test their limits. Liberal governments have used federal environmental powers to intrude on Alberta’s control over its resources, at times unlawfully, as the Supreme Court confirmed in 2023. Meanwhile, the federal government is challenging the scope of the notwithstanding clause. If Alberta must constantly fight just to defend its powers already guaranteed by the Constitution then surely it is time to consider a better, more stable arrangement.

Refederation would take a different route. Alberta would declare independence, not as an end in itself, but as a means of opening talks with the other provinces and three territories on an entirely new constitution. The goal would be a new Canada, built on terms that every member would not merely be willing to accept, but eager to embrace.

In short, rather than spend the next forty years asking Ottawa to fix a deal it has no wish to change, why not begin the process now of creating an exciting new agreement? We could take the best of what Canada has been, leave behind what has failed, and build a country worth handing on to our children. That, to me, is a far better goal than spending the rest of our lives fighting the same old battles.

That is why I think the time to talk about refederation is now. There may still be a chance to build a better Canada, but we should not assume that chance will always be there. Wait too long, and the very people who might once have helped save the country may decide it is no longer worth saving.

LESSON 6. FIRST PRINCIPLES: Let us create a vision for Albertans that will last a millennium

My father did a great many things in his life, but he had one great asset that few people knew much about. Her name was Virginia Byfield, my mother. Dad was never shy about telling you what was wrong with the world, but Mom had a rule about that. If you don’t have a way to fix it then why are you making such a fuss? And if you can’t think of one then perhaps you’d best keep your trap shut.

Dad took that advice to heart, and consequently rechanneled his energies to solutions. This in turn helped give rise to Preston Manning and the Reform Party, with its cry that The West Wants In. Rather than just gripe about Ottawa, they set out ways to fix the country, not least an equal, elected, and effective Senate. They didn’t get what they sought, but at least they had a plan.

I think Mom would have a few choice words for us today. We’ve spent years telling each other what’s wrong with Canada, and much of it is true. But what do we want in its place? If we can’t answer that then we have more work to do before we ask Albertans to vote on their future.

I’ve read a few proposed drafts for a new Alberta constitution, and I have a problem with most of them. They start with some fine words about rights and freedom, then go on for page after page until you can barely find those fine words again. In some cases, the rules that follow seem to work against the very ideals set out at the start. I think we’re putting the cart before the horse.

A few weeks ago I penned a four-part series called The First Principles of Alberta. In it, I went back through history to see how other people had dealt with the same problem. One of the best examples came from Rome, some 2,500 years ago.

Back then, the new city stat of Rome was beset by political bickering between the rich (called the Patriarchs) and the working class (or Plebians). They finally agreed to the Twelve Tables, a simple set of standards put in writing and taught to every young Roman. Think about that. A child could learn the basic rules of the state, rather than having to hire a lawyer to find out what they meant.

Why shouldn’t Alberta do the same? Why don’t we agree on a short list of first principles drawn from the wisdom of the ages and written in words so clearly that a child can learn and an adult can trst? Those would be the guide stones by which we judge the laws that come later. The constitution, in a separate document, would then spell out how those principles are to be put to work, rather than burying them under a mountain of legal text.

I have a four-part series on this topic designed to get the conversation started. on a proposed new constitution a first kick at the can. I put forward some ideas, and readers can find all four parts through the first column. But I don’t claim to have found all the answers. Far from it. I would love to hear what other Albertans think, and I suspect some of their ideas would be much better than mine.

Why not spend part of the new year holding talks in towns and cities across Alberta? Bring people together and ask them what sort of province they want their children to inherit. What rights should no state ever take away? What duties do we owe each other? What rules should bind those who hold power, no matter which party wins the next election?

And let’s not get bogged down in the latest row over some law or program out of Ottawa. Those fights will come and go, as will the people who hold office. We’re talking about rules that ought to stand for hundreds of years, perhaps a thousand. If we do this well, our great-grandchildren should be able to read them and find as much sense in them as we do.

Think what a change that would make from the past few months. Instead of arguing all day about what is wrong with Canada, we’d be asking what a better country ought to look like. We could talk about what is good, what is just, and what sort of life we hope our children will lead. I think Albertans are ready for that sort of talk.

We have some fine examples to draw upon. The Romans gave us the idea of laws known to the people. The British built a system of Parliament and courts that helped place limits on those in power. The Americans went a step further with a written constitution that set out the rights of the people and the powers of the state.

We need not copy any of them word for word. Each had its faults, and each has lessons worth learning. But why should we settle for less than the best they have to offer? We have the chance to take the best of the Romans, the best of the British, and the best of the Americans, and create the most perfect union yet.

That would be a task worth taking on, not just for us but for those who come after us. It would give Albertans a goal to work toward, whether they seek a new Alberta or a new Canada. And it would give us something worth far more than another round of campaign signs and speeches: a future worth building.

LESSON 7. HUMBLE OURSELVES BEFORE OUR MAKER: We cannot succeed through mortal means alone

My final lesson is addressed particularly to those who believe in a higher power. For most Albertans who share that belief, it is faith in Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity. But I believe the lesson applies equally to all who acknowledge a Creator and recognize that there is an authority greater than any earthly government.

We cannot do this alone. We must learn to humble ourselves before our Lord, acknowledge His supremacy, and seek His guidance in all that we do. We must learn to fear God and the consequences of disobeying His laws far more than we fear the powers of government or the judgments of men.

And we must repent. Not merely of the wrongs we see in others, but of our own sins, both personal and collective. We must examine our own conduct, acknowledge where pride, anger, resentment, and selfish ambition have led us astray, and seek forgiveness for the harm we have done.

We must also learn to forgive. We must forgive those within our own movement who have hurt or disappointed us. We must forgive those who opposed us in the referendum, including those who may have treated us unfairly. And we must remember Christ’s commandment to love not merely ourselves and our neighbors, but even our enemies.

Above all, we must pray. Not simply for victory in some political contest, but for the salvation of this province, for our children and grandchildren, for all of Canada, and indeed for people far beyond our borders. Our prayers must be for something greater than our own interests or ambitions.

I believe that unless we humble ourselves before our Creator, our efforts will ultimately come to nothing. We may organize, raise money, educate, debate, and draft the finest constitution imaginable, but none of these things can take the place of faith, repentance, forgiveness, and obedience to God.

We cannot accomplish this through our own works alone. But through His grace, and by allowing ourselves to become His willing vessels, His instruments, and His servants, I believe extraordinary things are possible. Not our will, Lord, but Thine be done.

PRACTICAL NEXT STEPS: Here’s what we can do right now.

Premier Danielle Smith has asked Albertans to respect the result of the vote. I agree with her. We lost, and there is no point in trying to pretend we didn’t. But since when did losing a vote mean you had to give up what you believe? We are still free to make our case, and we have every right to keep working for the Alberta we want to leave to our children.

So where do we go from here? I’ve laid out seven lessons, but they won’t do us much good if we put them on a shelf and forget about them. There are things we can start doing right now, without waiting for another election, another vote, or a nod from anyone in office.

First, let’s get one thing straight. One in four is not enough to win a referendum. We need to get that number well past half before we even think of holding another one. Build the support first, then call the vote. We got that order wrong this time, and we paid for it.

Second, we have a lot of teaching to do. We need to know our own history, and we need to be able to tell it to people who may not agree with us. Let’s hold debates in schools, town halls, and seniors’ homes, and let both sides make their case. If our facts are sound, we should have no fear of putting them to the test.

Third, we need to pay for the work. Ten dollars a month from one in ten of our half-million supporters would bring in $6 million a year. Think what that could do if we spent it well. We could keep the work going year after year, instead of passing the hat each time a new vote comes along.

Fourth, we need to get along with one another. We’ve been blessed with some fine men and women who have given a great deal to this cause, but even the best of us can let pride get in the way. We need to listen more, fight less among ourselves, and make room for good ideas no matter who brings them to the table. There is more than enough work for all of us.

Fifth, let’s give Albertans a chance to hear the case for refederation. Wanting a new deal does not mean we hate Canada or our fellow Canadians. It may mean we want a better Canada, one built on terms that all its members can accept. We should at least be willing to talk about what that might look like.

Sixth, let’s start writing down the first principles on which such a country ought to rest. Not a thick book of laws that only a lawyer could love, but a short set of rules that a child could learn and a grown man could use to judge those who govern him. I’d like to see us take that task to towns and cities all across Alberta in the new year. Ask people what they want to pass on to their children, then listen to what they have to say.

Seventh, and most of all, those of us who believe in God need to get down on our knees. We have our own sins to answer for, and we have people we need to forgive. We must learn to love our neighbors, even those who fought us at the polls, and pray for the good of this whole province. It is His will we should seek, not merely His help in getting our own way.

My mother used to tell Dad that there wasn’t much point in griping about a problem if you had no idea how to fix it. I can still hear her saying it, and she was right. We’ve spent more than a hundred years telling Ottawa what is wrong with Canada. Maybe it’s time we put just as much work into showing what a better Canada could be.

We have a great deal to draw upon. The Romans, the British, and the Americans all left us things worth keeping, as well as faults we would do well to avoid. Why not take the best of each and see if we can create the most perfect union yet? That is a task I would be proud to help with, and one I hope my children and their children might one day thank us for.

That, to me, is a future worth building.

Waking up this morning what greeted me was this message from Tymothy Hawrysh, a friend I came to know through my father’s involvement at St. Herman’s Orthodox Church in West Edmonton:

“You wrote many people to vote Option 2 send a message to Ottawa, not actually to separate. Unless, you were being disingenuous with those Albertans?

Are you for Separating …

Read more

Jason Kenney, Kevin Lowe, and Mark Carney have all warned Albertans about the price Quebec paid for its independence movement. I’ve now examined the figures, and I cannot find the economic disaster they describe. Quebec’s real GDP per capita continued to grow over the long term, wages rose in nominal terms, and unemployment shows no clear surge around the second referendum. An examination of Quebec suicide rates reveals interesting information when compared to Alberta and Canada, but even there the results are inconclusive.

Quebecers voted on independence twice, first in 1980 and again in 1995. If the warnings we’re hearing today are true, there ought to be evidence of the damage in Quebec’s economic record. I’ve gone back through 80 years of GDP figures and compared them with unemployment, wages, and suicide rates. I also looked at Alberta’s own economic setbacks, since we managed to suffer those without holding a single independence referendum. Let’s dig into the data.

Read more

Below is a transcript of the speech delivered by Prime Minister Mark Carney on Thursday afternoon, October 15, 2026, at the BMO Centre in Calgary, along with my responses to various points he raised.

Mr. Carney’s words appear in pink, while my responses appear in blue below. Each excerpt is marked with a timestamp so readers can follow the speech and consider both what the Prime Minister said and what I have to say in response.

Read more

On October 19, Albertans will conclude voting in a referendum with profound consequences for our province, our country and, perhaps most immediately, the United Conservative Party. Whatever the outcome, many Albertans will be dispirited, demoralized, despondent, angry, frustrated, or all of the above. For independence supporters, an Option 1 victory could mean another opportunity lost, while those determined to preserve Confederation could see an Option 2 victory as the beginning of the end of a country they love.

Both groups exist within the UCP, and that should concern us. The party was created to unite conservatives after years of division, yet this debate threatens to split us again as we approach the 2027 election. Regardless of what happens October 19, neither group is going away. The question is whether they remain together in one party or end up in two.

KEEPING THE “UNITED”: Is there a third way?

For too long, we’ve framed Alberta’s choice as independence or subjugation. Either we leave Canada or remain under the present Constitution and hope Ottawa eventually treats us differently. I believe there’s a third possibility: Refederation.

Our problem isn’t Canadians. It’s Ottawa, and even Ottawa isn’t really the root of the problem. The real problem is the Constitution that allows Ottawa to keep doing what it’s doing. Canada is a pretty good house. It’s the foundation underneath it that worries me.

We’ve spent decades patching cracks, fixing walls and repairing the plumbing while ignoring the foundation underneath. But what if the foundation itself is cracked, leaking and incapable of supporting the house we want? Perhaps it’s time to stop renovating and start planning something better.

My father, Ted Byfield, made much the same argument 25 years ago. Responding to the Firewall Letter in Alberta Report in 2001, he argued that meaningful constitutional change required a credible alternative to accepting the status quo. He wrote:

“Unless we make credible threats to set up on our own we will get absolutely nothing by way of constitutional change, or any other kind of change.”

Dad explicitly said he wasn’t advocating separatism as the desired outcome. Two years later, he argued that meaningful negotiations might require something more fundamental than another attempt to reform Confederation from within. He wrote:

“It cannot negotiate from within the present framework. Paradoxically, therefore, it must get out before it can enter Canada on anything like an equitable basis.”

FOLLOWING QUEBEC’S EXAMPLE: Without following Quebec’s path

Quebec understood something similar nearly half a century ago. It didn’t wait for Ottawa to provide a constitutional road map before creating its own referendum process and holding sovereignty referendums in 1980 and 1995. Alberta needn’t repeat Quebec’s experience, but history doesn’t have to repeat itself to rhyme.

We need to find our own way forward, and it has to be lawful. That may mean telling Ottawa plainly that Alberta is prepared to become independent if we cannot fix Canada. Independence may be the road we have to take to get somewhere better.

“Physician, heal thyself.” But what if the physician can’t? Our Constitution may be so badly designed that it cannot repair its own most serious flaws. If that’s the case, tinkering with it is pointless. We need to start from scratch, and this time ensure the new structure can actually fix itself.

Premier Danielle Smith has spent years seeking a better deal for Alberta within the existing framework. But what if the framework itself is the problem? Quebec was prepared to enter political territory for which no complete federal road map existed, and Alberta may have to do likewise.

Here’s the irony. Danielle’s instinct has always been to serve, listen and find a way through. That’s normally a strength, but right now I think it may be holding her back. Alberta needs her to be bold enough to say, yes, independence is an option. If that’s what it takes to build something better, we have to be prepared to go there.

In the military, there’s a distinction between legal authority and moral authority. An inexperienced lieutenant may hold the rank, but a seasoned sergeant major often commands greater respect and wisely influences his decisions. In my view, Mark Carney holds Canada’s highest political office, but Danielle Smith is increasingly assuming the role of its moral leader. She needs to embrace that role and help not just Albertans, but all Canadians imagine a better, fairer nation.

BUILDING A BETTER HOUSE: Design the new foundation first

Before tearing down the old house, we’d better know what we’re replacing it with. What’s wrong with the present foundation, and how do we build one that won’t suffer the same fate? Refederation should begin with a plan, not a demolition crew.

So let’s start with first principles. What rights belong to us that no government should be allowed to touch? What should Ottawa actually be responsible for, what should the provinces control, and what belongs closer to home? And here’s the big one: how do we write the rules so government remembers that it works for us, not the other way around?

Then take it to the rest of Canada and say: here’s what we’re proposing. You don’t have to choose between putting up with what we’ve got and blowing the country apart. There’s another choice. Let’s build something better together. And if the rest of Canada says no? Fine. Alberta still has independence on the table.

AN EVEN MORE PERFECT UNION: Can Alberta lead again?

The Americans set out almost 240 years ago to form “a more perfect Union.” We’ve since accumulated another two centuries of experience, including the successes and failures of the American, British and Canadian systems. Why shouldn’t Albertans learn from those mistakes and build something better?

Alberta has done this before. We’ve challenged the way Canada works and forced the rest of the country to pay attention. Why not do it again? What we’ve got isn’t working. So let’s start figuring out what would.

Dad understood that sometimes you have to get out before you can get back in. Refederation takes that idea further: before leaving the old house, let’s design a better one. Don’t ask Albertans merely what they’re prepared to leave. Ask them what they’re prepared to build.

This is our moment, Alberta. We have an opportunity to think beyond the choices that have divided us for decades and perhaps save the “United” in the United Conservative Party. Let’s seize it with gusto.

The year was 1975. I was living at Waverly Place, a three-story apartment building at 149th Street and 91st Avenue in Edmonton. One winter evening, four of us neighborhood boys built a snow fort behind a big bush and began doing what boys occasionally do when temporarily liberated from good judgment: throwing snowballs at passing cars.

The bush concealed us nicely. Unfortunately, it also concealed the cars. We saw headlights, launched, and only afterward discovered what we’d hit. I will never forget seeing our snowballs hurtling toward the windshield of a police car.

Then came the classic movie-style meme: the four of us stared, mouths open, followed by an immediate scattering. Stephen Lambert headed north while I dashed south to Don’s Foodland, doubled back through the alleys, climbed onto our second-floor balcony and crawled under the couch. Thomas and Dickie chose a less successful route.

Our babysitter was an old family friend called Wild Bill Cochrane, a tough old Indian on leave from working up north in the patch. Mom and Dad were probably at the office on deadline night, cranking out the next edition of what would later become Alberta Report. Bill peered upside down beneath the couch. “You okay?” he asked. “Yep,” I replied. “Okay,” he said, and went back to his beer and TV show.

Soon Wild Bill opened our door to two police officers with Thomas and Dickie, who had run straight into our building. As the officers explained they were letting them off with a warning, my little brother furiously repeated, “Vincent was in it too! Vincent was in it too!” I remained beneath the couch, and to the best of my knowledge the Edmonton Police Service has never reopened the investigation.

I make this confession now of a 51-year-old unsolved crime because of where it happened. Waverly Place had 21 apartments, seven on each floor, and had replaced three single-family homes. Mayor Andrew Knack warned yesterday that changes to Edmonton’s infill policy would “set our city planning back to the 1960s.” Funny he should mention the 1960s. They provide a valuable lesson for Mayor Knack today. Let me explain.

THE TEMPORARY TOWN OF JASPER PLACE: What can Mudville teach us?

In 1913, 149th Street became Edmonton’s western boundary. People settled beyond it on cheaper land with lower taxes, but few city services. Roads, sewers, sidewalks and running water could be scarce.

Former resident Maxine Hébert recalled, “We didn’t just have mud roads, we had pure gumbo.” Hence the nickname Mudville, although Dogpatch was another. Yet people kept coming because housing was affordable.

Jasper Place incorporated as a town in 1950 with 9,139 residents. By the time it joined Edmonton in 1964, it had roughly 38,000. That explosive growth required roads, sewers, water, schools and other services, and somebody had to pay for them.

After amalgamation, many homes along the west side of 149th Street gave way to three-story walk-up apartments. Waverly Place replaced three houses with 21 apartments, yet still had roughly one parking space per apartment, a common yard and centralized garbage collection. That was infill too, but purpose-built for the density being added.

Everything planners did in the 1960s wasn’t brilliant. But they understood something we shouldn’t forget: increasing housing density and planning responsibly for it aren’t necessarily the same thing.

PROPER CITY PLANNING: Responsible infill versus reckless infill

Knack argues that limiting infill pushes growth outward, requiring new roads, pipes, fire halls and bus routes. He has a point. Existing infrastructure should be used efficiently, but existing doesn’t mean unlimited.

Edmonton’s current rules can allow eight dwellings on a residential lot of at least 600 square meters, and some corner lots can accommodate even more. Meanwhile, minimum parking requirements were eliminated in 2020. But surely there has to be a limit to how many additional homes you can keep hooking up to the same water and sewer system before somebody has to start digging up streets and putting in bigger pipes. And who pays for that?

We still build apartment buildings today, although now they’re more likely to be five stories than three, with elevators and underground parking. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Put more people along the major arteries, where the buses already run, give them somewhere to park and leave them at least a little green space. That makes sense to me.

Contrast that with massive infill on a single lot deep inside an established neighborhood where one home once stood. Residents may walk several blocks to transit, while properties deeper inside may be cheaper than those along main arteries. Does today’s zoning encourage maximum density on cheaper lots rather than sites best suited to accommodate it?

Then consider 16 garbage bins jumbled together out front, crowding out curb space so virtually no cars can park there. Are we creating well-planned higher-density neighborhoods or overcrowded neighborhoods we’ll regret 20 years from now? The issue isn’t infill. It’s whether we’re planning infill wisely.

There’s another irony. Knack invokes the 1960s while Edmonton still funnels rapid transit downtown because that’s where everybody once worked. In a recent column, I examined 65 large Canadian and American cities and found successful downtowns increasingly becoming places where people live as well as work. These cities also encourage office development throughout the city rather than piling it all downtown, creating more livable, pleasant places throughout the city.

G.K. Chesterton famously warned against tearing down a fence before you know why somebody put it there. That’s worth remembering before we sneer at how Edmonton planned neighborhoods in the 1960s. Maybe those old planners knew a few things we’ve forgotten.

CITY TAXES: Can Edmonton keep outrunning inflation?

There’s another historical irony. People originally moved beyond Edmonton’s western boundary partly because land was cheaper and taxes were lower. Jasper Place eventually discovered that growth requires infrastructure, and somebody has to pay for it.

Knack says he’s building an affordable city with low taxes. Yet Edmonton’s municipal property tax levy increased 4.96% in 2023, 8.9% in 2024, 5.7% in 2025 and 6.9% in 2026, a compounded increase of roughly 29%. Administration projects another 5.6% for 2027, although council hasn’t approved it. Edmonton’s tax increases seem to keep coming in at roughly twice inflation.

Knack argues infill controls costs by using existing infrastructure. But Jasper Place learned that growth eventually requires more infrastructure whether it occurs outward or within existing neighborhoods. Those costs don’t disappear.

Perhaps that’s the lesson from the 1960s. Understand why earlier planners did what they did, keep what worked and improve what didn’t. Planning means thinking not merely about how many homes we can build today, but what those neighborhoods will look like decades from now.

Andrew, I have to be careful here not to throw stones, or in this case snowballs. But I think you’re in danger of making the same mistake I made as a ten-year-old: launching before you can see what’s coming down the road. City planning should encourage far more foresight and do far less to encourage those looking to make a fast development buck.

The Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills UCP board has just passed a motion that speaks volumes about the state of our party. This is the same part of Alberta that elected Gordon Kesler of the Western Canada Concept in 1982, the only MLA ever elected on a clear call for Western independence. And now, more than four decades later, they’re sticking with Danielle Smith.

The motion, passed at the board’s regular meeting on the fourth anniversary of Danielle becoming UCP leader, states that the board “categorically supports” her leadership. It also pledges to back her in the October 2027 election and looks ahead to the next leadership review in 2028, 2029 or 2030. That’s quite a statement from a riding with such deep roots in the independence cause.

Our premier is doing an amazing job keeping our rowdy gang of Confederates and Independents together. That’s no small task, given the fierce views on both sides of the issue. But it’s a task that matters more than ever.

CANADA’S ALAMO: We are the remnant

We must never lose sight of the fact that the communists, who clothe themselves as Liberals, NDP and Greens, have broken down the door of nearly every other Canadian province. And once their rotten rob-peter-to-pay-Paul mindset becomes terminal, it’s almost impossible to save democracy there. We are it. We are the remnant. We are Canada’s Alamo. Let me explain why this is so fundamentally important not just for Alberta, but for all of Canada.

We simply have to learn to work together. And when we do, we create great things. That’s what our big blue tent is all about.

THE PREMIER’S JOB: Serving all Albertans

Danielle has to work with Carney. She has to work with Trump. That’s her job, whatever we or she thinks of them. And in my opinion, she’s damn good at it.

A pipeline and no tariffs, while the rest of Canada feels the result of dissing its biggest customer. She continues to be the only adult in the room. God bless her!

And it’s her job as premier (you know, the part that she gets paid for) to serve all Albertans, not just the ones who want independence right now. And right now, most Albertans still want to save Canada. What they don’t understand (yet!) is that Canada’s Constitution has made it unsavable.

Don’t blame Canadians for that, and don’t blame Danielle. Blame the Constitution. And the only way to fix the Constitution is to kill it.

That can only happen, in my view, by Alberta declaring independence. Then the chance for refederation begins, and all 13 provinces and territories can sit around the table and draw up a brand-new Constitution, one that everyone actually wants to be part of. Or they don’t, and Alberta becomes a nation.

Either way, we’re all far better off than staying on the current constitutional train wreck. We would at last have a chance to build something that works for all of us. And that, to me, is worth the fight.

THE INDEPENDENCE DIAL: Change takes time

In the meantime, is Danielle moving the independence dial? Yes. The RCMP have been served notice, and soon they will be gone, with Alberta Sheriffs set to take over in full.

As for the other issues, it’s not as easy as Independents like to think. She can’t just flip a switch and move us to an Alberta Pension Plan. She always has to be mindful that every four years she needs to keep government.

Keeping Communist Zombie Borgs like Nenshi from greasing their way through with a split vote win must always be her top concern. We cannot afford to lose what we’ve built. And we won’t keep it if we tear each other apart.

As to her leadership, 2028 will be here soon enough. Save your angst for then. Who knows? You might find yourself liking her again. Things change.

CONCLUSION: Have faith

As for me, I thank the Big Guy every day that Danielle’s at the helm. Do I want her to be more independence-minded? Of course. But things can change there too.

Have faith, my friends. Our rowdy gang of Confederates and Independents has more in common than we sometimes care to admit. And when we learn to work together, we create great things.

Vince

Canada’s new Foreign Influence Transparency Commissioner has been on the job for barely two months. So far, his office has publicly announced action involving just one specific political event: Alberta’s referendum. More than 60 people and groups taking part in the debate have so far been contacted.

Nothing similar has been announced about Quebec’s recent election which has now been won by the separatist Parti Québécois. And nothing has been announced about alleged incessant Chinese government interference in B.C. and Ontario. So why only Alberta?

Read more

Read more

Yesterday Mark Carney came to Fort McMurray with Danielle Smith with some pretty big news. Pacific Link is now a project of national interest, with another million barrels of Alberta oil a day headed for the West Coast and Asian markets. The target is to have everything in place by September 1, 2027, so they can start digging.

I think it probably will happen, and that is good news for Alberta. Smith has put a great deal of her own political capital behind getting this built, and she deserves credit if she succeeds. But before we start celebrating, we should be clear about what we won—and what we lost.

The northern route Alberta originally sought has been defeated (again). Instead, Pacific Link will follow a southern route, largely along the existing Trans Mountain corridor, to the southwest B.C. coast. The North Coast tanker ban also remains firmly in place, so the northern coast remains closed to the oil-tanker traffic Alberta had sought. And that leads to a much bigger question.

THE PIPELINE: A battle won, but not the war

Another million barrels a day reaching world markets would be a very big deal for Alberta. It would give our producers much more access to Asian markets and reduce our dependence on the United States, which still takes about 90 per cent of Alberta’s oil. Trans Mountain will lead the development, with Pembina involved as a private investor, while Canada and Alberta plan to share ownership and offer Indigenous communities at least a 10 per cent stake.

That is real progress, and Smith deserves credit for helping to get it this far. But one pipeline does not settle the much larger arguments Alberta has with Ottawa. The “equalization” program still steals $4000+ per Albertan per year, our federal representation in Ottawa remains ridiculously unfair, the Notwithstanding Clause is under attack in Ottawa along with other fundamental freedoms. Those problems will still be there after the first shovel goes into the ground.

Which brings me to something that may seem much less important than pipelines, constitutions or billions of dollars, but isn’t.

Words.

THE WORD: What we say shapes what we see

“In the beginning was the Word.”

Those are the opening words of the Gospel of John, and they deliberately take us back to Genesis. God does not pick up a hammer and begin building the universe; He speaks: “Let there be light,” and there was light. Words express thought, thought leads to action, and actions create our world.

I have been ruminating on the words we often use when discussing Alberta’s future. Words matter. They put pictures in our heads, and sometimes those pictures are wrong even when nobody has actually lied to us. I think we’ve done exactly that to ourselves in this referendum with words like separation and leaving.

Take the word separation. It brings to mind something being torn apart: a marriage ending, a family breaking up, people going their separate ways. Yet that isn’t really what we’re talking about when we discuss Alberta changing its constitutional relationship with the rest of Canada. On the whole, the “independence” movement has learned to avoid the “S Word” but we still see it used against us.

Case in point, the wording for Referendum Question 10 Option 2 reads:

“The Government of Alberta should commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.”

We also need a UCP policy that stops any future government from changing the wording of a petition question. Period.

But we have another problem of our own making: we keep talking about “leaving Canada.”

NO MORE TALK OF LEAVING: We’re not going anywhere

But we continue to use other problematic language; “Leaving Canada,” for example. Where exactly would Alberta go? Calgary isn’t moving, Edmonton isn’t moving, the Rocky Mountains aren’t moving, and neither are our neighbors or our families.

So what are we really talking about? I suggest that what Albertans really want is to finally change the deal between Alberta and the rest of Canada to something that actually works and works well.

CONFEDERATION CLUB: It’s time to drop our membership

Think of Confederation as a golf club. Alberta joined the club in 1905 and has been playing the same course ever since 1905 under one set of constitutional terms. Those terms have not really changed a great deal during the 121 years since. Today we have every right to ask: “Is the membership worth the price?”

If you belong to a club and no longer like the rules, you don’t have to burn down the clubhouse or declare the other members your enemies. You can tell them that the present terms no longer work and begin discussing different ones. You can still trade with them, work with them, visit them and remain friends with them.

Suppose you, dear reader, and I were businessmen, and we had been doing business together for 121 years. One day I came to you and said, “I’m sorry, Sam, but I can’t keep doing business under these terms.” Once Sam gets past whatever emotions he may have about that, what do you think his most likely response would be?

After 121 years of doing business together, chances are Sam would say, “Okay, what kind of terms would work for you?” And then the negotiations begin. A new deal, a better deal, a fairer deal—one where everybody wins.

That is a much better way to describe the choice Alberta may eventually face. An independent Alberta would still have to negotiate with Canada over trade, borders, defence, pensions, currency, transportation, citizenship, Indigenous rights and a long list of other matters. A new arrangement within Canada would require serious negotiations too.

But our opponents don’t like it when we use more accurate terms like objecting to a bad deal. Why? Because talking this way is much harder for them to use scaremongering tactics on.

That is why we need to get away from words such as separation and leaving. They tell people what is being lost before we’ve even discussed what might replace it. The better question is whether the present deal works, and if it doesn’t, what a new deal should look like.

A COMPLETELY NEW DEAL: One where everybody wins

So what happens if Option Two wins? We start the legal process to terminate the current confederation agreements. And that gives Alberta a remarkable chance to put a new deal on the table.

This is an opportunity for Alberta to present a vision that could appeal to every province and territory in Canada. We can set out the beliefs and values on which a free and just society not only survives but thrives. We can show what a new Confederation might look like instead of simply complaining about the old one.

And I am convinced that Albertans would love to begin crafting that new vision. That’s why I’m talking now with other Albertans to set up just such an exercise in Edmonton and Calgary in the new year.

Maybe we end up with an independent Alberta. Maybe we end up creating a new union that other provinces and territories actually want to join. I don’t know where this ends, and frankly none of us does yet.

But what an opportunity! We have a chance to put forward the beliefs and values on which we think a free and just society should actually be built, and then invite the rest of Canada to take a look.

The time has come for a new deal and for Alberta to once again lead this nation, as we have done so often in the past, so beautifully.

On Tuesday, September 29, I interviewed former Alberta MLA Drew Barnes, one of the founders of a proposed new federal party called Alberta Now. The idea is simple but potentially disruptive: field candidates only in Alberta’s 37 federal ridings and represent Alberta in Ottawa much as the Bloc Québécois represents Quebec. That is also how Barnes has publicly described the project.

I pressed Drew on what may be the biggest problem facing such a party: vote splitting. Could Alberta Now take enough votes from Conservative candidates to elect Liberals or New Democrats in seats they otherwise could not win?

We also explored a very different route to building the party. Instead of waiting for the next federal election, what if a group of Alberta MPs left the Conservative caucus and created an Alberta Now caucus in the House of Commons? I put the possibility of a mass move by rural Alberta MPs directly to Drew. His answer surprised me — and led our conversation somewhere I hadn’t expected it to go.

I hope you enjoy the conversation as much as I did. The full video interview is below, followed by a lightly edited transcript.

Vince Byfield: You were born in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan.

Drew Barnes: Yes.

Vince Byfield: Oh, you’re a Saskatchewan boy. Well, I would try to say something disparaging about Saskatchewan, but being a Saskatchewan-born boy myself, I thought, if I live in a glass house, best not to throw stones.

Drew Barnes: Good idea.

Vince Byfield: But we’re both Albertans now, right?

Drew Barnes: Very much so.

Vince Byfield: And you must have spent most of your life, I think it’s fair to say, in Medicine Hat, correct?

Drew Barnes: Absolutely. Since 1974, other than my four years at Camrose Lutheran College and the University of Alberta. Southern Alberta is where I am and where I want to be.

Vince Byfield: Right on. Before we get into the hard-hitting questions, you’ve already given us your education CV, but just tell us a little bit about yourself, your family, what drew you into politics and, generally, why you’re doing what you’re doing right now, which is founding a new federal party called Alberta Now.

Drew Barnes: Thank you, Vince. First of all, I’m a grandfather and a father, a family man and a community man. Three sons, five grandkids, three granddaughters. I love all those grandkids, and those granddaughters are extra special.

I was attracted to politics in 2012. I was successful for three terms as a Wildrose MLA, and then, of course, that morphed into the UCP, and then I became an independent after Jason Kenney kicked me out of caucus.

What attracted me to politics, Vince, is that way back in 2012 you could see that Canada, and Alberta in particular, weren’t reaching our potential. We should be the freest, most prosperous place, with our people’s ability to work hard and create things, with our oil and agriculture industries, and we weren’t.

So along came the Wildrose. I could tell that people wanted change, and the talk of smaller government, lower taxes, more family values and more choice met very strongly with what the people of Cypress-Medicine Hat believed. I could tell they weren’t happy and they wanted change. I believed that with smaller government we could make people not only more prosperous but happier.

So I decided to give provincial politics a go. Three terms later, it was clear that was not an effective way to get change. The system was too onerous. The leadership wasn’t there. So I decided to step back.

Then, Vince, especially in the last six months, Medicine Hatters and Albertans have been telling me consistently that they feel they don’t have any representation in Ottawa — at least not effective representation — and they want a voice in Ottawa to represent them and represent Alberta. So some others and I have decided to start a party called Alberta Now. We are going to be Alberta’s voice in Ottawa, a way to represent Alberta with an Alberta accent.

Vince Byfield: I didn’t know we had an accent, but I guess we must.

It’s funny. My dad, Ted Byfield, said often that people who travel to Ottawa to champion Western causes, particularly Alberta causes, come back with a different frame of mind. Dad referred to it as being “Ottawa-ized,” and there were very few, if any, exceptions to this rule.

Something happens — something must be in the water, who knows — but when you go to Ottawa and come back, it’s a different kind of switch. It’s hard to explain. It’s couched in odd terms like, “We have to be a team player,” et cetera.

What I sense, Drew, is that people elect Albertans because those Albertans typically utter values and beliefs that are common to that electorate. Then, when they wind up going into Ottawa or Edmonton’s legislature, they’re confronted with a new culture, one they didn’t expect. I don’t think they’re properly equipped for it, and very soon the values that got them elected are challenged.

You might be able to speak to a little bit of that because you spent how many years at the legislature?

Drew Barnes: Eleven. I was there eleven, and of course endured the floor crossings of 2014, when Danielle Smith led eight of my colleagues across the floor to join the governing party. I was one of the five who stayed behind. I immediately put my foot down.

Then along came Jason Kenney, who sold and met expectations. When I spoke up for greater autonomy and sovereignty for Alberta, and when I spoke up for more freedom for everybody under the COVID rules, I got kicked out of caucus.

So my reward was to sit in the back row, and that was a very unstimulating time in my life. I tried hard to keep my constituents’ values and ideas on the floor, but the system wasn’t geared for it.

Vince, one of the things that happens is that when elected people get to Ottawa or Edmonton, they forget who the team is that sent them. They immediately join the caucus team and the leader’s team, forgetting that, in my case, it was 50,000 Cypress-Medicine Hatters who were my team. They were the ones who elected me.

That is principally one of the reasons I didn’t cross the floor. Cypress-Medicine Hat believed in the values of the Wildrose. They believed in respect and integrity and the election process, so it would have been a betrayal to cross the floor. I just couldn’t do it.

When it comes to Ottawa, there are 343 members of Parliament. How often do we see our federal Alberta members of Parliament abandon their constituents, abandon Alberta’s needs, and let their vote be whipped for what the 905 and Toronto need, or Quebec or the Maritimes, forgetting who sent them to Ottawa?

It’s even harder, Vince, when we’re only 37 of 343 seats. We’re a small part. We’ve been treated unfairly there for years, and change is not going to happen as long as we allow our votes to be whipped to the benefit of Eastern Canada.

Vince Byfield: Well, you’re preaching to the choir a bit here, but I’m going to have to hit you with a few questions, so I think we should get right into it.

Mr. Barnes, what are the primary distinguishing characteristics of this new party you’re forming, Alberta Now?

Drew Barnes: Thank you. Number one is, like the Bloc Québécois, we will be there for Albertans. If a vote, direction or policy in Ottawa is good for Alberta, we will consider supporting it. If it’s good for Alberta, the Alberta Now MPs will be there.

We will not allow our votes to be whipped to the benefit of Quebec, the Maritimes, Toronto or Vancouver. We will not forget that we are there for the benefit of Alberta and Alberta families.

Of course, that means getting Ottawa out of our environmental regulations and how they stop our oil and gas development with things like the tanker ban, carbon tax and nationalizing our pipelines.

Vince, we’re also going to be solidly conservative. We’re at a very exciting time where our members get to decide our policy and our strategy. But let’s not forget that at the halfway mark of the last federal election, Pierre Poilievre had all but stopped campaigning on eliminating the subsidies to the CBC, eliminating the carbon tax and reform for Alberta.

One of the things I’d like to see our party do is work toward abolishing the Senate. We don’t need a hundred more patronage appointments in Ottawa. Let’s focus instead on Alberta families. Let’s focus on smaller government, lower taxes and more choice.

Maybe the first thing, Vince, and certainly one of the most important, is that we want to be the voice for Alberta in Ottawa. When there’s an issue that is going to affect Alberta, instead of hiding behind a curtain, we will be front and centre saying why this is bad for Alberta, why it needs to change, or why it may be good for Alberta and why we support it.

We will be Alberta-focused. We will also be fiscally and family-conservative focused. Thirdly, we will become the voice of Alberta, not lost in the wilderness of a national party where Alberta is taken for granted.

Vince Byfield: By the way, I need to correct you. Earlier you said there were 34 Conservatives in Alberta. It’s actually 33.

Drew Barnes: Thank you. Matt Jeneroux, right?

Vince Byfield: Right.

Drew Barnes: I forgot about Matt crossing the floor.

Vince Byfield: I think you deliberately made it 34 so I would bring that up.

Drew Barnes: Well, weren’t there seven of them altogether who crossed the floor? That’s my company.

Vince Byfield: So I have a follow-up to that question. I think you’ve pretty much covered it, but if I were to ask you again about the key differentiators between you and every other party, particularly the Conservative Party of Canada here in Alberta, it would be making the needs of Albertans your highest priority. Am I correct in that? Are there any other differentiators? There don’t necessarily need to be; I just want to know for the purposes of the people watching this show.

Drew Barnes: That’s the chief one. If it’s good for Alberta, Alberta Now members of Parliament will support it. We will not let our votes be whipped.

But let’s also look at what could be a real key win. This is a bit of speculation, but we have a key referendum vote on October 19. I absolutely believe that we all should vote yes for Option 2 and support Option 2. Even if you’re unsure how much sovereignty or independence you want Alberta to have, if you don’t support Option 2, you are basically saying to Ottawa: keep it business as usual, keep scope-creeping into our environmental regulations, keep nationalizing our oil and gas industry, keep printing money so inflation destroys our families.

It’s time to send that message.

Let’s say we get strong support for Option 2 and we have a lot of Albertans saying they want change from Ottawa. All of a sudden Alberta Now is going to be their representative. The two federal legacy parties, the Conservatives and Liberals, would represent those who want the status quo.

Vince Byfield: Two wings of the same lame duck.

Drew Barnes: Two wings of the same lame duck. It’s sad that in our system we end up with two parties crowded in the centre, scared to split the vote. But it’s time for Albertans to step up.

We’re not living the free and prosperous life that we could and should. It’s time for free-minded Albertans, liberty-minded Albertans, to step up, take the risk and let Alberta Now be the one that represents them in more sovereignty and greater strength for all Alberta families.

Vince Byfield: Another follow-up question: what could an Alberta Now MP advocate or accomplish that an Alberta Conservative MP cannot or will not do today?

Drew Barnes: Again, we’ve seen Conservative Party of Canada people let their votes be whipped. If the Conservative Party of Canada thinks it needs to win seats in the 905 — and I think there are 47 seats there compared with 37 in Alberta — they fall in line. They forget about Alberta’s needs. We will be solely focused on that.

Let’s talk about things like the carbon tax, the tanker ban, the net-zero emissions law, even this law now where they’re cracking down on free speech and liberty and the attack on Christians. I don’t hear Conservative MPs coming out strongly against those things and focusing on those things. That will be a start.

Secondly, again back to the outcome on October 19, I believe a significant number of Albertans are going to say they want change from Ottawa. Some totally want to separate and some want to push for a fair deal and see what’s on the table.

I have not seen Conservative Party of Canada members focus on that, or on any of those 25-year-old firewall items that Alberta should be doing, like our own police force, our own tax collection and our own pension.

Alberta Now MPs can advocate solely for that. And, Vince, my goodness, not only will we be the voice for Albertans in Ottawa, where people are saying they’re not respected and haven’t had effective representation, could you imagine if we got the balance of power?

The NDP sometimes, with five or ten seats, has the balance of power. Of Alberta’s 37 seats, if we could elect 37 and support a Conservative government on the condition that we reform equalization, or end equalization; on the condition that we have more Supreme Court justice representation; on the condition that Alberta picks more of our own appeal court judges; on the condition that we do something about the Senate, preferably abolishment — open up the Constitution in a way that, of course, is going to be very, very hard, but change has to start somewhere.

This gets back to what the federal Conservatives have abandoned: ending the subsidies to the CBC, ending the carbon tax. We will be fiscally conservative, focused on smaller government and lower taxes, Vince, not only because that’s good for Alberta families. If we do stay in Canada, that’s good for Canadian families too.

Vince Byfield: A bunch of questions are coming up that I want to add, but this will turn from a one-hour interview into a ten-hour interview, so we’ll have to do it again.

Here’s your first tough question: vote splitting, Drew.

The first objection you probably have already heard many times is simple: you, sir, are going to split the Conservative vote. Under first-past-the-post, Alberta Now doesn’t have to win a seat to change who wins it. If you take enough votes from the Conservative candidate, you could elect a Liberal or NDP MP who otherwise would have lost.

So what is your strategy for preventing Alberta Now from actually reducing Alberta’s influence in Ottawa by turning Conservative seats into Liberal or NDP seats?

Drew Barnes: Thank you for that, Vince. First of all, I disagree with the vote-splitting premise totally.

We are going to be the party that represents Albertans who want their voice heard in Ottawa, from all parts of the spectrum. Voting for the Conservative Party of Canada is a vote for letting votes be whipped for the benefit of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Ottawa. It’s forgetting that this is our representation in Ottawa.

The other two parties are the vote splitters. They’re the ones voting to continue the status quo. We’re looking for a stronger position for Alberta in its representation in Ottawa, and of course we’ll fall in line with what Alberta wants after October 19.

Secondly, let’s not forget the influence that your dad and Alberta Report, Preston Manning and the Reform Party had. When they formed the Official Opposition, when they were sending as many as, I think, 53 MPs to Ottawa, Chrétien and Paul Martin got solidly conservative and started to balance budgets, reduce the size of government and cut taxes. It made Canada stronger.

Think of the influence we can have that way by focusing on what Albertans’ needs are and ending so much of this progressive socialism that has only increased in Canada.

So I don’t see vote splitting as an issue. We’ll be there to represent Alberta interests. The other two parties will be there to represent Canadian interests, which so often turn out to be Quebec and Ontario’s interests.

Vince Byfield: Another point to what you’re saying: I did a piece about a month or two back. I analyzed the last 14 federal elections and looked at what was the leading party when the polls closed in Ontario, and compared that with who formed government once the polls closed in B.C.

I discovered that out of 14 elections, there was only one where votes west of Ontario made a difference in terms of who got elected.

Part of the problem you’re talking about is: even if we did elect an NDP or Liberal, are we really any different than electing a CPC MP who doesn’t actually accomplish anything?

Although I’m very concerned about vote splitting, I think there are a lot of Albertans who are fairly disappointed with the performance of our Conservative Party of Canada in the last four elections.

It starts with myself. I ran into issues with election integrity in the 2025 election, and I brought them to the attention of Elections Canada. I was concerned about this policy of letting deputy returning officers take the ballot boxes to their homes for a period of a week. I didn’t believe it, so I had to get it confirmed. I got it confirmed by Elections Canada.

Then I asked for a list of all the people who actually did just that, and I am yet to get a response. They will not tell me how many.

I brought all this to the attention of the Conservative Party of Canada. If that was going on, I would be shouting it from the rooftops, and that’s just one of many concerns over the last election.

Drew Barnes: Do me a favour and scream from the rooftops if you sense any form of election-integrity issues.

Vince Byfield: All right, thank you.

Drew Barnes: We absolutely will. They become part of the club instead of representing their constituents.

Vince Byfield: That actually is a question I want to ask you. How do you prevent yourself from being Ottawa-washed?

We saw it with the Reform Party. Something seems to happen to those individuals once they’re there. Stephen Harper himself is perhaps the best example. In 2001, he wrote this letter with a number of other Alberta dignitaries and argued to get rid of what he called the tax-and-transfer system, which is essentially the equalization program and other programs.

Then, four or five years later, he is in the ultimate position of power. But not only does he not get rid of it, he arguably increased it.

So how can we be sure that you’re not just going to do the same? What can you tell us that would change? How can we trust you?

Drew Barnes: Thank you for that. You’re absolutely right: Stephen Harper didn’t meet expectations and let us down on so many of those key things.

But there are lots of things we’re going to do differently. First of all, no leader-appointed nominations. We’re going to have the constituents determine who their representative is going to be. That will help them stay connected to the people who sent them there. That, of course, is Albertans, whether it’s in Medicine Hat or St. Albert or Fort McMurray or Grande Prairie.

Secondly, leadership has to make sure that party MPs always have a chance to speak for their constituents.

Thirdly, something we’re trying to put in our policy and bylaws — and we need our members to do this — is that we need to look at term limits. We need to say that members of Parliament can only go there for a certain period of time. I’m planning on advocating for nine years, which is basically three elections, but let’s see what our members decide.

Again, the Bloc Québécois is our example. They routinely send 25 or 30 MPs to Ottawa on behalf of Quebec, and you hear time and time again: if it’s good for Quebec, we will support it. If it’s not good for Quebec, we will stand up against it.

Our focus will remain solely on Alberta. One of our founding principles is to only ever run in the seats — which right now is 37 — that are 100 per cent within the province of Alberta.

Vince Byfield: On the point of engagement with your electorate, or your MPs, I would encourage you to take a few tips from the UCP when it comes to AGMs and engagement at that time, because that has been a real distinguishing characteristic between the provincial Conservative party here and other provinces.

Drew Barnes: I would agree. We need to keep the costs very affordable, and we need to have people come for more reasons than trying to get rid of the leader. We need good turnout, for sure.

Vince Byfield: Next question. Are you committed to running candidates in all 37 ridings regardless of the circumstances? Or would Alberta Now strategically decline to run, or withdraw a candidate, in a riding where your own polling showed that splitting the vote could elect a Liberal or an NDP?

Drew Barnes: Yes, we are committed to running in all 37 Alberta federal constituencies.

Again, the Liberals and Conservatives are the two that split the vote of those who want the bad treatment for Alberta to continue, those who believe that a Conservative member of Parliament should allow their vote to be whipped for the benefit of Quebec or the Maritimes. We will be the only voice that is there solely for Alberta voters.

Vince Byfield: I’ll leave it at that.

Next question: rural-urban strategy. You have pointed out in the past that we tend to think about Alberta’s political demographics in ideological terms — conservative versus liberal — but that another important divide is rural versus urban.

Given that, does Alberta Now intend to run candidates — oh, you’ve answered this question. Sorry, that’s bad on my part.

I guess I’m asking whether you would consider a strategic approach, concentrating first, say, on rural Alberta, where you believe the party might have the strongest opportunity to win, and then moving into urban ridings only when you’ve built enough momentum to be competitive there?

Drew Barnes: Thanks again, Vince. What’s been really heartwarming and refreshing about this three-week experience so far is that tens and tens of Albertans from everywhere in Alberta — Edmonton, Calgary, Fort McMurray, Grande Prairie — have reached out, signed a membership request form and said they were going to be captains or candidates.

So our goal is 37 captains in each of the federal constituencies, then 37 candidates.

You’re absolutely right, though. There is a huge split between rural and urban. There’s also a split between public and private employees in the country. There’s a huge unfairness and split between the West and the political power Quebec and Ontario have.

Those are three things that need to be focused on and changed. There are many ways to do it, but it starts, Vince, with sending Alberta Now members of Parliament to be Alberta’s voice in Ottawa. We will focus on stronger representation for the rural parts of Alberta. We will focus on stronger opportunity for private enterprise, and we will focus on Alberta first.

Vince Byfield: Next question: forming a caucus now — before the next federal election.

Of Alberta’s 37 federal seats, roughly 14 are predominantly rural. One of these is Battle River—Crowfoot, represented presently by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre himself. Realistically, that leaves 13 predominantly rural Alberta MPs who could conceivably be approached to cross the floor and form, with you, the Alberta Now Party.

You need 12 MPs to meet the conventional threshold for recognized party status in the House of Commons. So why wait for the next election?

If 12 of those 13 rural Alberta MPs crossed the floor, you and your Alberta Now Party could potentially establish a recognized Alberta Now caucus in Parliament immediately.

Is that something you would consider actively working toward? Would you approach those MPs and ask them to join Alberta Now? And if not, why not?

Drew Barnes: Thank you, Vince. No, we would not. We do not believe in the floor-crossing philosophy.

We would be happy to accept a Conservative MP who would resign and seek an Alberta Now nomination in their constituency or somewhere in Alberta, of course.

The voter in each federal constituency in Alberta — I think it’s about 110,000 or 120,000 citizens — needs to be honoured. These are people who go to work every day, obey the law and pay their taxes. It starts there. It starts with making their vote more effective.

What’s also interesting is I’ve heard from a couple of MPs about the frustration in Ottawa, in opposition, and how ineffective it is. That was my time in opposition. That was my time after I got kicked out of caucus. That was done deliberately. It takes away your voice and, sure, maybe makes the leader’s life slightly easier, but again, think of those voters. Think of the Albertans who have lost their voice. It’s so wrong. It’s so unfair.

But, Vince, let me tell you a story. Here’s how effectiveness happens. We have Pierre Poilievre holding an open house in Medicine Hat in the next day or two, and four or five days ago that wasn’t advertised anywhere.

So is it possible that the Conservative Party of Canada leader is showing up in Medicine Hat? Wow. Look at that. We’re not even registered yet and hopefully we’re already having some impact. Hopefully that’s just a small portion of the effectiveness we can have.

Vince Byfield: You raised a very interesting point that I should have considered in my preparation for this interview, and I didn’t.

You’re absolutely right. The right way is not to cross the floor. The right way is to step down and give the people who elected you, with the understanding that you would be part of that party, the opportunity to choose another person from that party or go with you, presumably, to the new party that you are becoming part of.

Given your background, Drew, there was a famous time when a bunch of people crossed the floor provincially and you were there. You did not cross the floor, but many of your partners in the Wildrose Party did, including our Premier, Danielle Smith.

What do you think would have happened if Danielle Smith had adopted at that time what you just suggested?

Rather than just crossing the floor, what if she had said: “Look, this is our issue. We’re about to split the vote. We’re about to bring in the NDP. We think we have to hold our nose and rejoin with this Progressive Conservative Party, but we insist on bringing it back to our constituents.”

In other words, either through a by-election or stepping down and joining, what do you think would have happened? Do you think things would have played out differently?

Drew Barnes: Yes, things would have played out way differently, but a little differently than the question you posed.

In the Wildrose there were 16 of us in opposition. We were the Official Opposition. Janet Brown did a poll showing that we were poised to form government — and in spades, Vince. We could have formed government just a year after they crossed the floor.

Think of the things the Wildrose stood for in those days: more direct democracy, more grassroots involvement, smaller government, lower taxes, more choice, enhancement of property rights and free enterprise.

Alberta would be different today if she hadn’t crossed the floor and ruined the Wildrose’s chances.

Again, I think back to places like Claresholm, Consort or Castor, and the number of people who went to the coffee shops and shared their ideas and were so hopeful about more involvement in their democratic process and more involvement in their communities. That was all thrown away.

I don’t think we can forget what happened in 2015 after she crossed the floor and after Albertans so rejected her and the idea. Of course, Jim Prentice’s famous line about “look in the mirror,” and his inability to put a conservative campaign mandate forward.

Look at what happened. The Wildrose just asked to stay alive, so voters granted us that and put us in opposition. The PCs got what they deserved and were wiped out, and the NDP was the only party asking to be put in government, so the voters did that.

The 2015 campaign was terrible. The Wildrose should have campaigned strongly. Even though we were in a bit of disarray after the floor crossings, we still had good people. We should have asked to be put in government.

Vince, that’s back to where Alberta Now is now. Alberta Now is going to be the only voice in Ottawa saying: respect Albertans. Change equalization. Change the things that are broken in Canada for Alberta. And if you won’t do that, Alberta will have to push in a different way to make our families free and prosperous.

That was the message of the floor crossings. It just perpetuated the system of two parties where everybody crowds into the middle, where you send the best representative you’ve ever met to Edmonton or Ottawa and all of a sudden it’s just the party line you’re getting back.

That was the opportunity we lost in 2015, and here we are 11 years later still struggling.

Vince Byfield: You said something interesting. You said the polls — and you mentioned Janet Brown, who I think is universally considered one of the most trusted pollsters in Alberta — showed you were poised to form government.

Drew Barnes: Yes, we were.

Vince Byfield: I think you and I would both agree, regardless of where we stand in terms of ideology and Premier Danielle Smith, that she’s not a dumb woman. So why would she have disregarded those polls?

Drew Barnes: I don’t know. Whenever you guess at somebody’s motives, you’re bound to get that wrong, so I’d have to say I don’t know.

Listening to the wrong people? Not strong enough in herself? I don’t know. Maybe not a deep enough commitment to what she was driving around the province claiming she believed in.

I, for one, am committed to more free enterprise, smaller government, lower taxes, more choice in our health care and our education — and not just talking about it. It’s easy to be a spectator. It’s harder to be a participant.

Vince, we’re so blessed. Albertans every day get out of bed and work hard and take risks.

I’ll never forget three or four years ago, I was in Fort McMurray. It was minus 40, and a group of young men and women — it was about midnight, somewhere in there — had just come in from one of the oil sands areas. They were getting on the elevator and they all had ice stuck to their beards and their hair and their eyebrows.

But they were all happy. They had just finished a nice long shift. They had kept my house in Medicine Hat warm for the night and made some good money, no doubt.

To me, that’s what it’s all about. Give Albertans that chance to be free and prosperous. That’s the opportunity that the 2014 floor crossings, at the very best, delayed and, at the very worst, eliminated.

Vince Byfield: Getting back to your speculation about what Danielle Smith might have been thinking at that time, you said she may have been listening to bad advice. I think there’s no doubt about that.

My limited experience with the Premier is that she is very open to other people’s opinions, sometimes to a fault. But I think she is extraordinary as premiers go. I don’t think we’ve ever had a premier who travels the province like she does, constantly getting people’s opinions.

Whether that sinks in or not is another matter, but she’s definitely doing it. So she has a pretty good pulse on what her membership wants. There are other parts to the equation, but that’s not what we’re here to talk about today.

Back to the issue. One more follow-up on that caucus idea: would there be practical and symbolic advantages to Alberta Now achieving recognized party status before the next federal election?

Drew Barnes: Yes, but only if we did it the right way.

I can’t imagine 12 by-elections and maybe we could be successful in 12, but I think it’s important that when you build a house, you do the foundation right. Get it solid. Get it proper. Get it square.

Let’s put in the policies so that, down the road, people can join the party and say, “Yes, these guys are honourable. They’ve stuck to their values. They’ve stuck to their principles.” We’ll be rewarded for that over time.

Will Alberta ever leave Canada? Who knows? But let’s start to push for what Alberta deserves, and that’s a fair deal. That’s a better deal.

We’re a young province. In 1905, I think there were something like 60,000 of us here — 30,000 First Nations and Métis and 30,000 settlers — and now we’re five million.

Compared to Quebec, we still have way less power, way less representation. Compared with the Maritimes, you could say the same thing. Equalization and socialism haven’t helped them be stronger either.

So let’s push for change. Let’s push for a long-term game. And let’s not forget that people respect and honour values and commitment.

Vince Byfield: My last follow-up questions are all pretty much things you’ve answered definitively, so I don’t want to belabour the point. But I do want to bring up something you just said.

If you were to have something like 12 by-elections — just hearing that from you now, I hadn’t considered that. I would have to say that’s the sort of thing Albertans would love. I think that would go down in the books as an absolutely extraordinary event.

I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it just yet, Mr. Barnes. It could be a wonderful way to draw attention to your party.

But going back to your point, regardless of whether that happens or not, the best thing I’ve been hearing from you today is: serve your electorate, serve your electorate, serve your electorate.

Right now, when you’re starting a party, that means building a platform, building policy and building governance. You will find that conservatives love doing that sort of thing. They really do.

You may find that you get knockings on the door, because the more you get people involved at the membership level, they’re going to be coming from pretty much only one place.

Those MPs, if they are not completely Ottawa-washed and once in a while talk to their members, will start to discover: “Well, there were fewer people at that last constituency meeting. We didn’t get as many volunteers out for that event,” et cetera.

They may start to realize that you’re having an impact.

Serve, serve, serve. I think you’re going to bring interesting times to this province, Mr. Barnes, and the Chinese say “interesting times” is a curse.

Drew Barnes: In some ways, I suppose.

Vince Byfield: But they also say interesting times are an opportunity, right?

I’ve never known Alberta voters to steer clear of doing the right thing. I think that’s mainly where you’re at. We have to, sooner or later, stand up for our own long-standing grievances.

So I think what you’re doing is a move in that direction — a right move in that direction. I commend you, sir.

Drew Barnes: Thank you. I appreciate that.

The feedback from Albertans has been amazing so far. The number of people from all parts of life in Alberta who have reached out and said they like the idea and want to be involved has been very, very good.

I’m looking forward to helping Alberta families and helping Alberta communities be freer and stronger.

Vince Byfield: All right. I think we’re done. Did you want to say anything else, sir, or do you want to wrap it at that?

Drew Barnes: The last thing I’d say to you and to all Albertans is, first of all, thank you. Thanks for giving me this opportunity to embrace servant leadership and help make Alberta stronger, and our families stronger.

If you’re willing to help and be involved, please go to the Alberta Now website. Please download the membership form. Be one of our founding members.

Don’t be a spectator. Be a participant. Help us make Alberta free and strong.

Vince Byfield: Wonderful. I will include it, but the party website — if you could just say it — I’m thinking AlbertaNowParty.ca. Did I get that right?

Drew Barnes: You got it right.

Vince Byfield: Okay. All one word: AlbertaNowParty.ca.

By the way, you’re not a party yet?

Drew Barnes: No. We need 250 verified signatures. We’re going to submit 500 to Elections Canada in about three more weeks.

We just started about three weeks ago at a conference in Calgary, which was very good, by the way. We’re at about 200 signatures now, but we’re going to go to 500.

One of the really refreshing things is, Vince, the first day we had our website live, which was about four days ago now, we were having three people an hour sign up.

So we’re going to continue to increase the visibility.

Vince Byfield: That doesn’t surprise me at all, Drew.

READER’S NOTE: This is the fourth and final article on my series proposing a “First Principles of Alberta.” The first article introduced the eight principles. The second examined the history and precedents leading to them, and the case for this approach. The third provided a more detailed description of the first four principles and the rationale for each. Links to the earlier pieces:

• Article One: First Principles of Alberta

• Article Two: Building a Firm Foundation

• Article Three: Who Should Hold The Power?

The first four First Principles asked where our rights come from, where responsibility begins, and where authority should properly rest. They began with God, the person and the family, then worked outward through the principle that decisions should be made as close as practical to the people they affect.

The next four deal more directly with what happens when those principles are put to work. What really is ownership? How should we balance, to quote Spock from Star Trek: “the needs of the many” versus the “needs of the few… or the one”? What actually qualifies a government as good? How does history provide guidelines on the optimal balance of government assistance before it becomes intrusion or oppression? What have we learned over time when it comes to best practices when entrusting taxes to government? Each of the final four principles serves to strike the right balance to ensure peace and prosperity for all.

PROPERTY AND STEWARDSHIP: Where does property come from?

Property is entrusted by God to the person whose stewardship shall be respected by all.

Property is more than something a person happens to possess. It begins with the understanding that God is the ultimate owner of creation and that human ownership is therefore a form of stewardship. From the first command to mankind to tend and subdue the earth, people have been given the right to take what God has provided, work with it, improve it, create from it and call the result their own. Even something made entirely by a person’s own hands is made from materials, abilities and opportunities that ultimately came from God.

If stewardship is real, then ownership has to be real too. Your home, your land and the things you have worked for aren’t yours simply because government allows you to keep them. But stewardship cuts both ways. What I own is entrusted to me, and that doesn’t give me the right to use it to harm my neighbour. Property gives me rights. Stewardship gives me duties.

JUSTICE AND DEFENCE: How shall the accused be protected?

Every person is innocent until proven guilty, with the right to provide a full defence and to judgment by their peers.

The presumption of innocence places the burden of proving guilt upon the accuser, never upon the accused to prove innocence. No person should lose liberty, property or lawful rights merely on the judgment of the authority that accuses him. The right to judgment by one’s peers therefore stands as a safeguard between the individual and the power of the state. How that safeguard is applied may vary with the nature of the case, but the right itself must remain available to the person whose liberty or lawful rights are at stake.

Ultimately, judgment belongs to God. The rest of us can get it wrong. That’s why Biblical law required evidence, more than one witness in serious cases and penalties for false testimony. Our common-law tradition added another safeguard: judgment by our peers. The government can accuse you. It should not, by itself, also get to decide that you’re guilty.

GOOD GOVERNANCE: What makes government good?

Selfless service dedicated to fostering order and answerable to those it serves.

So what makes government good? I think it starts with a fairly simple idea: those who govern are there to serve, not to be served. Their job is to help keep order so the rest of us can get on with our lives. But with that power comes trust. Break the trust and there have to be consequences.

Good government depends upon trust, but trust alone is not enough. Those given power must be held to a high standard, with real consequences when that trust is broken. As Paul described the parts of the body, each has its own role while depending upon the others for the good of the whole. Good governance therefore requires both service and accountability, so that authority remains a trust exercised for others rather than a power exercised for oneself.

FISCAL AND MONETARY DISCIPLINE: What should we entrust to government?

Money shall remain sound, taxation truly representative and restrained, while matched in equal measure as entrusted by the people for the aid of others.

Sound money protects the value of what people earn and save. Government should do only what people cannot reasonably do for themselves, leaving other duties with people, families and communities. Taxes should therefore be set by those who represent the people paying them and kept only as high as needed for government to do its proper work. What government does not provide, however, does not cease to be our concern. As government asks less of us, we must accept more responsibility to help others, with people free as much as possible to choose where their help goes.

Money represents work. If I earn a dollar, I’ve traded some of my time and effort for it. Government should therefore be very careful about taking it from me or reducing what it is worth. There are things we need government to do — enforce laws, settle disputes and set common standards. But there are many things we can do ourselves. And the less we expect government to do for our neighbour, the more we have to accept that helping our neighbour is our job.

Taken together, these eight First Principles are not intended to answer every question of public policy. That would defeat their purpose. They are meant instead to provide the ground upon which those questions can be answered: principles broad enough to endure while clear enough to guide the laws and institutions built upon them.

Freedom comes with duties. So does property. And power without limits has never ended well. The point of these First Principles isn’t to argue that government should always be bigger or always be smaller. It’s to work out what each of us owes to the other — as people, families, communities and governments — and what each has a right to expect in return.

A Special Thank You To My Patrons

As of today, I am pleased to say that I now have 25 paid subscribers. I appreciate everyone who takes the time to follow, subscribe to and regularly read what I write. (There are now 855 of you following this Substack, including 288 subscribers — 263 free and 25 paid.) With every article, I am trying to add something of value to the conversation rather than simply repeat what others have already said.

But I have a special and very deep gratitude for those who are able to support this work financially. Twenty-five paid subscribers is a very good start, and it encourages me to keep going. My hope is that, as more people discover this work and find it worthwhile, some will prayerfully consider becoming paid subscribers and help make the research and writing I am doing here a sustainable full-time occupation.

To those who are already helping make that possible, thank you.

This column continues Columns One and Two on the proposed First Principles of Alberta. Today we're going to tackle the first four of the eight. And there is a reason I've grouped these four together. They follow what I see as a natural order: first God, then the person, then the family, and finally every level of government that comes after them.

None of this was developed in a vacuum. We have spent a lot of time looking at constitutions, declarations, laws and religious teaching from around the world, asking a pretty simple question: What did they get right? Much of what follows will therefore sound familiar. Principle Four is different. I think we may be breaking some new ground there, and for that reason it deserves careful thought, meditation and prayer. I believe we have stumbled onto something important. But I want to know what you think, especially about Principle Four.

1. SOVEREIGN SUPREMACY: Who is really sovereign?

By acknowledging God as sovereign, these First Principles eternally stand above all constitutions, laws and judgments, and no principle shall be interpreted so as to extinguish another.

We have to start somewhere. Who gets the final say? I don’t believe it can be a prime minister, president, judge or legislature. They’re human beings. They still put their pants on one leg at a time, and history gives us more than enough examples of governments and courts getting things terribly wrong. So there has to be something above them, something against which even our highest laws and institutions can be measured. For these First Principles, that something begins with God.

We have been working our way toward this idea for a very long time. At Runnymede in 1215, Magna Carta established that even the Crown was subject to law. Think about that for a moment. If the Crown isn’t supreme, and neither are our legislatures, courts or constitutions, then what is? For these First Principles, the answer is God. That’s also why I believe these eight principles must be unalterable. If a future government can simply rewrite them, then government ultimately remains supreme after all.

2. FREEDOMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: What do we owe ourselves and each other?

All human beings are conceived equally endowed with the right to life and liberty by God, who in turn binds us with a duty to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Most of us are pretty good at defending our own rights. I know I am. Where it gets harder is when somebody else is saying something we hate, doing something we don’t like, or simply getting in our way. Their rights don’t disappear because they’re annoying us. Neither does their value as a human being. That’s the responsibility side of this principle. If I expect you to respect my life and liberty, then I had better be prepared to respect yours.

The American founders famously declared that our rights come from our Creator, not government. John F. Kennedy reminded Americans of the other side of the bargain almost two centuries later. In his 1961 inaugural address, he said human rights come from God, then gave us those unforgettable words: “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” Exactly. We are very good at remembering our rights. Kennedy was reminding us not to forget our responsibilities.

3. FAMILY AND FAITH: Where does the family’s authority come from?

The family is ordained by our Creator and entrusted with the nurture, protection, education and upbringing of children, while every soul, through the free will granted by God, may worship as they see fit.

Think about a newborn baby. It can’t feed itself. It can’t protect or educate itself. Somebody has to do all of that, and God gave that job to the family, not government. With that responsibility has to come authority. Otherwise, how can parents possibly do the job God gave them? Faith is a little different. Parents can teach their children what they believe, take them to church and raise them in their faith. But they can’t force belief. At some point each of us has to decide for ourselves what we believe.

We’re hardly alone in putting the family first. English jurist William Blackstone wrote of three main duties of parents: maintenance, protection and education. The United Nations went even further in 1948, calling the family the “natural and fundamental group unit of society.” Germany’s Basic Law likewise recognizes raising children as the natural right and primary duty of parents. Three very different sources, from different times and places, yet look where they end up. Government can protect children and support families. But the family came first, and government doesn’t get to simply take its place.

4. PROXIMITY AND CONSENT: Where should authority begin?

Authority belongs closest to the people and rises only by their consent and as necessity requires.

I went looking to see whether somebody had already said this before. I found pieces of it, but not the whole thing. Consent of the governed certainly isn’t new. Neither is subsidiarity, the idea that a larger government shouldn’t take over something a person, family or smaller community can properly do. Quadragesimo Anno made that case in 1931, although it still called the state the “supreme authority.” That’s where Principle Four takes a different path. What if we stop assuming that the biggest government sits at the top? What if its proper job is simply to handle those things that really do require its greater reach? That is a very different way of looking at government.

So where do we go from here?

So there you have it: the first four proposed First Principles of Alberta. Next time we’ll tackle the other four. Again, you will recognize a lot of what you see because much of it comes from constitutions and other founding documents from around the world. But not all of it.

Principle Eight will take us onto some less familiar ground. Remember what we did with the individual in Principle Two: we gave the individual rights, but we didn’t stop there. We also gave the individual responsibilities. Why shouldn’t the same be true of government? Governments have enormous power to tax and spend our money. Fine. But if we’re going to entrust them with that power, shouldn’t we also expect them to exercise it prudently and with restraint? That’s the question we’ll tackle next.

READER’S NOTE: Yesterday’s article introduced eight proposed First Principles of Alberta and said the next article would explain the thinking behind each one. But readers have asked a question that deserves an answer first: Has this been tried before? So today we take a short trip through history before returning to Alberta.

As October 19 gets closer, Eastern Canadians increasingly accuse Albertans of having no distinct culture, shared vision or clear sense of what Alberta stands for. The reality is that Alberta has been building a deeply rooted culture for more than a century. But perhaps we have not taken sufficient time to ask what our common values are, and whether they are truly embedded in our laws. The process of discovering the values that underpin Alberta’s culture may prove just as important as the principles that result.

So this is the question for today: Is the idea of basing a society’s laws from the outset upon a clear set of first principles a new thing? Would we be the first? History reveals it has been done before, with great care, by societies that became some of the most influential the world has known. I found this history fascinating. I hope you agree as we begin our trip together.

BLACKSTONE’S DILEMMA: Searching through a maze of laws to discover its core values

In 1765, Sir William Blackstone began publishing his four-volume Commentaries on the Laws of England. English law had grown over centuries into a vast mass of statutes, rulings, customs and legal practice. Blackstone was determined to bring order to it, dividing the law into four fields: personal rights, property rights, private wrongs and public wrongs. Yet first, he said, it was vital to seek its “primary rules and fundamental principles.” His task was to work backwards through the centuries to discern the concepts and values upon which the law rested.

Blackstone’s research led him back nearly nine centuries to Alfred the Great, King of Wessex from 871 to 899, before England had emerged as a single kingdom. Alfred was a lover of learning, and under his reign came the law code known as the Domboc. There, Anglo-Saxon legal traditions were brought together within a framework that began with the Ten Commandments, other laws of Moses and Christian teaching.

EMPEROR JUSTINIAN: His law reforms coincide with the Eastern Roman Empire lasting 900 more years

Going back a few centuries brings us to Emperor Justinian, who faced a problem much like Blackstone’s. The Western Roman Empire had fallen, leaving Justinian ruling its eastern half while centuries of Roman laws and legal writings had piled up. He set out to collect, revise and bring order to them, producing the body of law now known as the Corpus Juris Civilis.

Following Justinian’s legal reforms, the Eastern Roman Empire lasted another 900 years until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. That does not prove cause and effect, but it shows a striking correlation between a strong legal foundation and a society lasting for centuries. Because Justinian’s challenge was so similar to Blackstone’s nearly eleven centuries later, it is worth discovering how Roman law was formed in the first place.

So we travel to the small city-state of Rome around 450 BC, where conflict between patricians and plebeians caused them to hammer out principles called the Twelve Tables. They were written in clear, understandable form and made known to all. Blackstone later praised Rome because its boys were said to learn them by heart. From those twelve value statements grew a legal tradition that developed for centuries before Justinian had to reform it. We see the pattern again: establish a strong foundation of core principles, make it known by all, and the society built upon it may not only survive but thrive.

AMERICA AND THE GREAT EXPERIMENT: New country, new opportunity

We now return to Blackstone, because the date matters. He was trying to rein in a dizzying array of English laws, much as Justinian had done with Roman law nearly 1,100 years earlier. There is another curious parallel. Justinian inherited an empire that had recently lost its western half. When Blackstone’s Commentaries appeared in 1765, Britain’s empire was about to lose its thirteen North American colonies.

For people increasingly calling themselves Americans, separation from Britain offered an opportunity to begin anew. Instead of waiting centuries for laws to multiply and then searching backwards for their principles, they could state those principles at the beginning. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence did exactly that:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These are the same first principles referred to in yesterday’s column. The Declaration added that governments are formed to secure these rights, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed and should lay their foundation “on such principles.”

First principles tend to express what a people believe most deeply about themselves and the society they hope to build. The Americans placed three sweeping ideas at the foundation of their new nation: all men are created equal, fundamental rights come from their Creator rather than government, and among them are life and liberty. Declaring true equality for all was an extraordinary and, in many ways, unprecedented claim in 1776.

GERMANY: Declaring core principles from the outset and making them binding

Germany provides a striking modern example. Its Basic Law, adopted in 1949, begins by acknowledging the German people’s “responsibility before God and man.” Article 1 declares human dignity inviolable and recognizes inalienable human rights. The basic rights that follow expressly bind the legislature, executive and judiciary as directly applicable law.

Article 79 goes further, protecting the principles in Articles 1 and 20 from amendment. But Germany also shows how carefully first principles must be written. Article 6 calls the care and upbringing of children the “natural right of parents,” while Article 7 places the school system under state supervision. German courts have held that the state therefore has an educational mandate alongside parental rights.

The result is tension within the Basic Law itself. Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children, while the state has independent authority over schooling. Germany shows that core principles can bind what follows, but they must be crafted carefully so they do not pull the law in conflicting directions.

THREE LESSONS: What parts of history do we want to build upon?

So have first principles been tried before? The answer is a resounding yes. Three lessons stand out.

LESSON ONE: Principles should draw from and respect an authority higher than the state itself. Otherwise the state that grants a right may also claim the power to take it away.

LESSON TWO: Principles should be well thought out, few, clear, easy to understand and remember, and taught to all, young and old, throughout the land. Rome taught its laws to its young, and the resulting society ultimately lasted for nearly 2,000 years.

LESSON THREE: All subsequent law, legislation and judicial decisions must be bound to these principles. Germany makes that point expressly: if lawmakers can ignore first principles when they become awkward, they are not really first principles at all.

That brings us back to Alberta. The opportunity is not merely to write worthy values on a piece of paper. It is to frame those values in words that will stand the test of time and be simple enough that a child can understand them. History teaches us this is the formula for building a truly great society.

The two article that continue this topic are:

• Alberta First Principles One through Four

• Alberta First Principles Five through Eight

READER’S NOTE: This is the first of four articles proposing a “First Principles of Alberta.” It introduces the eight principles themselves. The three articles that follow explore why such principles may be needed, where the idea comes from, and what each of the eight principles means in practice.

• Article Two: Building a Firm Foundation

• Article Three: Who Should Hold The Power?

• Article Four: Fruits of a Free and Just Society

Ask an American what they remember from school about their founding documents and you’ll probably get a few familiar lines: “We the People,” “all men are created equal,” and the Creator-given rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These familiar words come from their Constitution and Declaration of Independence. More than two centuries later, Americans typically know these words above all others. That’s because I believe they resonate deep within their being.

Reform Party founder Preston Manning recently recalled a study comparing key values shared by Canadians. One concept stood out strongly among Albertans: freedom. My friend Grant Abraham has a phrase I like for this—the “pith and marrow” of a society. What are the beliefs down at our core? If those famous American words express some of theirs, perhaps freedom is where we start looking for ours.

So what are ours? What is the pith and marrow of Alberta? What do we believe should govern us, whether our future is in a reformed Canada or eventually outside it? If we think the present system is failing us, we should be prepared to say what we would put in its place.

THE NEED FOR FIRST PRINCIPLES: Values before machinery

Albertans like to build things. We are a practical people. When something isn’t working, we fix it. Likewise, if there is something wrong with the way we are governed, complaining about it doesn’t cut it. Rather than complaining, we prefer to work on solutions.

And we have done this before. Throughout Alberta’s history, we continually try to find better ways to govern ourselves. I’ll get into that remarkable history in my next column. But first there is something more basic we need to settle: what kind of society do we actually want to live in?

Before we start writing a new constitution or amending an old one — be it to reform our current country or to found another, there is a fundamental question we must answer: What do we believe? A church has its creed. Companies have mission statements. Software developers have business requirements. They all have something in common. They help us to envision a shared purpose and a firm foundation upon which to form an even more perfect union.

That is what I mean by the First Principles of Alberta, or FPA. These axioms would stand above the constitution and set the ground rules for everything that follows. Our constitution, our laws and even the way judges read those laws would have to honor both the words and the intent of the primary principles.

Note the key difference of this document. Constitutions sometimes have to change, but our core values should remain constant. If we set the foundation right, we shouldn’t need to rebuild it every time the government changes or because something comes along that nobody thought of fifty years earlier.

The principles below are far from new. They are the result for me of prayer, study and a good deal of careful reflection on what we have learned over the centuries. Magna Carta is an obvious starting point. It put into writing something enormously important: no human being — not even the king — is above the law. It also brought forth important values concerning consent to taxation and judgment by one’s peers.

Then the American Declaration of Independence, its Constitution and Bill of Rights carried much of this further: equality, God-given rights, life and liberty, government by consent, freedom of religion and expression, limits on government and protection for the accused. Canada added its own experience, from the British North America Act of 1867 through to the Constitution Act of 1982. I’m trying to draw from all of it. Keep what has stood the test of time, learn from what hasn’t, and improve where we can.

THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF ALBERTA

1. SOVEREIGN SUPREMACY: By acknowledging God as sovereign, these First Principles eternally stand above all constitutions, laws and judgments, and no principle shall be interpreted so as to extinguish another.

2. FREEDOMS AND RESPONSIBILITIES: All human beings are conceived equally endowed with the right to life and liberty by God, who in turn binds us with a duty to love our neighbor as ourselves.

3. FAMILY AND FAITH: The family is ordained by our Creator and entrusted with the nurture, protection, education and upbringing of children, while every soul, through the free will granted by God, may worship as they see fit.

4. PROXIMITY AND CONSENT: Authority belongs closest to the people and rises only by their consent and as necessity requires.

5. PROPERTY AND STEWARDSHIP: Property is entrusted by God to the person, whose stewardship shall be respected by all.

6. JUSTICE AND DEFENCE: Every person is innocent until proven guilty, with the right to provide a full defence and to judgment by their peers.

7. GOOD GOVERNANCE: Each level of government shall be representative, accountable and subject to law, with its powers divided and checked according to its reach.

8. FISCAL AND MONETARY DISCIPLINE: Money shall remain sound, taxation truly representative and restrained, while matched in equal measure as entrusted by the people for the aid of others.

APPLICATION: Now try to break them

I can sense what many of you are thinking. What about the environment? Firearms? Abortion? Transgender issues? Indigenous rights? Free speech?

Good. Those are exactly the kinds of important issues that we need to test these principles against. But I ask for your patience. Please don’t assume something has been left out just because you can’t find its name in the list.

Instead, read all eight principles above together An issue that seems to be missing may already be covered by several working together. Freedom, for example, doesn’t wipe out responsibility. Property doesn’t cancel stewardship. Nor can government use one principle to override values contained in one or more of the seven others. That’s why the first tenet states that “no principle shall be interpreted so as to extinguish another.”

There is a lot more behind these eight short statements than I can fit here. In my next column, I’ll give you the rationale for each: why it’s there, what it protects, how it works with the others and how I’ve tested it. Then comes the fun part. Tell me what I’ve missed.

Find the hole. Show me a basic freedom these principles fail to protect, a responsibility they leave out, an injustice they permit or a necessary power they deny government. That might mean we’ve missed something. But simply finding an issue that isn’t named isn’t enough to justify a ninth principle. If this document is going to last for generations, it can’t become a list of everything we happen to be arguing about in 2026.

That’s why the FPA has to stay at a high level. To go back to my software analogy, these are the requirements, not the code. First decide what the system must do; then figure out how to build it. The constitution comes next. That’s where you work out the machinery of legislatures, courts, elections, offices, jurisdictions and checks on power. Ordinary laws fill in the rest.

Constitutions change. So do laws and governments. But once we have put these First Principles through the wringer and are satisfied we have them right, they shouldn’t. From then on, every constitution, every law and every act of government has to face the same test: does it honor both their words and their intent?

Whether Alberta reforms Canada or one day forms a new nation is a choice Albertans will make. Either way, we have to answer the same question first: what kind of society do we want to build? That’s what I’m trying to get at with these First Principles.

So this is the design. The build comes later. For now, fellow Albertans, bear with me. I will have the rationale to you tomorrow. That said, your initial reactions are most welcome.

God bless,
Vince

This Saturday noon, I began serving as a scrutineer at Elections Alberta in Edmonton to see what happens when your special referendum ballot arrives. I was impressed by much of what I saw and by the staff who took the time to explain each step. I also found a few parts of the process that I think can be made stronger.

The scale is huge. As of September 17, Elections Alberta had received almost 520,000 special ballot requests, compared with 59,589 during the 2023 election. More than 330,000 ballot packs had been mailed and more than 24,000 returned ballots had been approved.

One point needs to be stressed for anyone voting this way: do not take your completed ballot to Elections Alberta. Staff told me they cannot accept it from you in person. You must return it through Canada Post in the prepaid envelope, at no cost to you, and Elections Alberta must receive it by 5 p.m. October 16. Canada Post recommends therefore that you mail it no later than October 9th.

I was naturally concerned to know (as I’m sure are many other Albertans) exactly how Elections Alberta plans to handle this massive increase in ballots. So there I was Saturday afternoon, learning firsthand how they plan to carry out what will almost certainly be the largest mail-in ballot count in our province’s history — perhaps ten times larger than anything Elections Alberta has ever handled before. Here’s what I discovered.

MAILBOX TO BALLOT BOX: Here’s what happens when your envelope is received

When your package arrives, a worker scans the bar code on the outer envelope, which brings your voter record onto a screen. The worker opens the package and checks the copies of ID you supplied against that record. Once your right to vote has been confirmed, your ID and outer envelope are separated from the sealed envelope holding your ten ballots, which moves to the next stage.

This is where your name and your votes part company. Staff at the next stage receive only your ten ballots, still sealed in their inner envelope. The number of your electoral district is recorded on the outside of that envelope, but your identity does not travel with it.

In a separate part of the warehouse, the envelope is opened and its ten ballots are placed in the right ballot boxes. Elections Alberta has cordoned off what I will call the ballot dispersal compound with chain-link fencing and, by my count, three locked gates. Inside are precisely 870 ballot boxes — ten for each of Alberta’s 87 electoral districts — and Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure told me the fenced-off area is monitored by cameras 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Elections Alberta is also scaling up to cope with the flood of special ballots. When I was there, less than half of roughly 35 work stations appeared to be in use, but I was told that about 70 more workers were being trained, with another group of about 70 to follow. That is good news, but it also raises a question about whether the checks on the process can grow at the same pace.

AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT: Verification and ballot handling

My first concern arose during the ID check. I asked whether Elections Alberta records the type of ID used by each voter and was told it does not. That makes it hard to know how often some of the less common forms of ID are in fact being used.

Case in point: Elections Alberta recently discovered that some special ballot packages had been mailed without a complete set of ten ballots. Because its service provider could trace the production problem, Elections Alberta was able to identify precisely 313 affected packages — just 0.09 per cent of those issued — send replacements to those voters, and report that the production problem had been resolved. Rather than leaving Albertans wondering how widespread the problem might be, Elections Alberta had the numbers to answer the concern.

The same principle should apply to voter ID. Alberta accepts more than 50 forms of identification, and some of the less common forms can raise public concern. If Elections Alberta recorded what type of ID was used, it could tell us whether an unusual form of ID was being used by thousands of voters or merely a handful. That matters: a few dozen people using an unusual but lawful form of ID among millions of Albertans is a very different issue from widespread use of it.

I therefore make two recommendations that Elections Alberta could adopt as soon as possible. First, record the type of ID being used so that concerns about less common forms of identification can be answered with hard facts rather than guesswork. Second, look at whether government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s licence, could be securely scanned and cross-checked so that repeat use of the same identification could be flagged at once.

My second concern arose when the ten ballots were taken from their inner envelope for what I will call ballot dispersal. Voters are told to fold each ballot so their vote cannot be seen, and most did. But I also saw ballots folded like an accordion, folded in other ways, or still joined together at the top completely unfolded, leaving the elector’s votes in plain sight for the Elections Alberta ballot handler to see.

I want to stress that I saw no one tamper with a ballot. Not once. But if a simple change can make it harder for anyone to do something they shouldn’t, why not make the change? We shouldn’t have to rely on trust when we don’t need to.

For future votes with many questions, I would put each ballot into its own small sealed envelope, with all ten then placed inside the main ballot envelope. That cannot be done for this referendum, but Elections Alberta could add a check now. One worker could open the envelope containing the ten ballots and confirm that each has been folded correctly; if any have not, that worker could fold them so the vote is hidden before handing the ballots to someone else for dispersal.

Under the current constraints, however, each provincial party can realistically have only one scrutineer monitoring the entire ballot-dispersal compound and its 870 ballot boxes. If Elections Alberta scales up to 35 workers distributing ballots on a shift, one scrutineer cannot effectively watch them all. We are scaling up the number of workers to meet the extraordinary volume of ballots, but we are not scaling up the number of scrutineers with them. That is a problem.

There is one more thing I would do. McClure told me the compound is under camera watch 24 hours a day. Why not let the parties and the larger registered third-party advertisers watch that camera feed too? Give them secure access and somebody, somewhere, can keep an eye on those 870 ballot boxes around the clock.

Great Britain offers a useful model for solving this problem. At election counts there, the number of counting agents permitted for each candidate is tied to the number of counting staff: except in special cases, each candidate must be allowed at least the number of agents produced by dividing the number of counting assistants by the number of candidates. The stated aim is to allow enough agents for full and proper scrutiny of the count.

That strikes me as a much more sensible approach for Alberta. As Elections Alberta increases the number of workers handling and counting special ballots, the number of scrutineers permitted to watch them should rise as well. I believe a similar sliding scale should be put in place here as soon as possible.

THE RECORD-BREAKING COUNT: How Elections Alberta plans to handle a 10X ballot counting process

The largest test will come on referendum day, when all those ballot boxes must be opened and the votes counted. I still need to confirm with Chief Electoral Officer Gordon McClure how many workers will take part in that count and how many scrutineers each party and third-party advertiser will be allowed. If a large number of tables are counting at once, two scrutineers cannot watch them all.

With a record-breaking increase in special mail-in ballots, the need for people willing to scrutinize the process has grown just as sharply. As far as I can determine, we presently have far too few people to watch a process involving hundreds of thousands of special ballots, and I am seeking clarification from Elections Alberta on whether that will change. But whatever Elections Alberta decides, there is something the rest of us can do.

We need scrutineers at six stages: right now in Edmonton as returned special ballots are checked and dispersed into ballot boxes; when those special ballots are counted; during advance voting; during mobile voting at places such as continuing-care facilities; at voting stations across Alberta on referendum day; and at the local counts after the polls close. These are not ceremonial posts. Scrutineers are there to observe the voting process and the count, and Elections Alberta specifically provides for them at several stages of the process.

So if you have some time to give, I’m asking you to help. Call a provincial party or one of the registered third-party advertisers listed below and ask about becoming a scrutineer. We have hundreds of thousands of these ballots to process and count. We need people willing to show up and watch.

Below I have provided contact information for the provincial political parties and registered third-party advertisers involved in the referendum campaign, along with the position each advertiser has registered to support.

PROVINCIAL POLITICAL PARTIES

• United Conservative Party of Alberta (UCP) — info@unitedconservative.ca, 1-888-465-2660.

• Alberta New Democratic Party (NDP) — info@albertaNDP.ca, 780-474-2415.

• Advantage Party of Alberta — No website, email or number listed on EA

• Alberta Liberal Party — Elections Alberta lists the party website but no general email or telephone number.

• Communist Party – Alberta — communistparty-alberta@shaw.ca, 780-934-7893.

• Green Party of Alberta — president@albertagreens.ca, 587-419-6688.

• Pro-Life Alberta Political Association — connect@prolifealberta.com, 1-855-398-8486.

• Progressive Tory Party of Alberta — info@albertatory.ca.

• Republican Party of Alberta — contact@albertarepublicans.com, 1-877-747-7729.

• Solidarity Movement of Alberta — nick.lauritsen@solidaritymovementofalberta.ca, 403-651-8803.

• The Independence Party of Alberta — finance@ab-independence.com.

• Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta — contact@wildrosenation.com, 1-888-528-1643.

• Wildrose Loyalty Coalition — votewlc@gmail.com, 1-888-262-1888.

OPTION 1 THIRD-PARTY ADVERTISERS (Alberta should remain a province of Canada)

• Canadian Patriots — ConservativeForCanada.ca — info@conservativeforcanada.ca

• Our Alberta Advantage — OurAlbertaAdvantage.ca — info@ouralbertaadvantage.ca

• Alberta Lawyers for Judicial Independence — ALJI.ca — info@alji.ca

• Alberta’s Voice — albertasvoice.ca — media@albertasvoice.ca — 587-885-2603

• Association of Academic Staff University of Alberta (AASUA) — aasua.ca — reception@aasua.ca — 780-492-5321

• Forever-Canadian Citizens Initiative Society — forever-canadian.ca — info@forever-canadian.ca

• NoThanks.Vote — 403-619-0704 — Lindsay Amantea

• Together – “No!” (Public Interest Alberta) — pialberta.org — info@pialberta.org — 780-420-0471

• United for Canada — unitedfor.ca — Vincent@UnitedFor.ca

• Vote to Stay — VoteToStay.ca — info@votetostay.ca

OPTION 2 THIRD-PARTY ADVERTISERS (Commence the legal process required to hold a binding referendum on separation)

• Alberta’s Choice — albertas-choice.com — info@albertas-choice.com — 403-607-4803 — Scrutineer signup: Alberta’s Choice scrutineer page

• Alberta Forward — albertaforward.ca — info@albertaforward.ca — 403-957-0311

• Albertans4Freedom Inc. — Albertans4Freedom.com — info@Albertans4Freedom.com — 587-330-1488

• Alberta Land Consortium Inc. — FreeAlbertaLand.com — freelandalberta@gmail.com — 587-377-1424

• Alberta Liberty — info@albertaliberty.ca

• Alberta Nation Corporation — AlbertaNation.events — mailto:richard@albertanation.events — 403-809-8255

• Alberta Radio Show — AlbertaRadio.ca — jason@albertaradio.ca — 825-419-1919

• Alberta Women for Independence — AlbertaWomensIndependenceNetwork.com — albertawomenforindependence@gmail.com

• Free Alberta From Overeach — FreeAlbertaFromOverreach.com — freealbertafromoverreach@gmail.com — 403-597-9797

• Freedom 2027 — Freedom2027.ca

• Let Alberta Decide — LetAlbertaDecide.com — info@letalbertadecide.com — 780-991-5050

• North Alberta Strong — NorthAlbertaStrong.ca — northalbertastrong@hotmail.com

• Pathway to Independence — CoryMorgan.com — albertarep@hotmail.com — 403-819-3844

• Stay Free Alberta — StayFreeAlberta.com — 780-812-4540

• The Lavigne Show — TheLavigneShow.com — Bookings@TheLavigneShow.com — 587-673-9955

• United Alberta Flags — UnitedAlbertaFlags.com — unitedalbertaflags@gmail.com — 780-361-8461

Five former Edmonton mayors gathered downtown this week to discuss the city they once led. Bill Smith, mayor from 1995 to 2004, took aim at spending, while Stephen Mandel, mayor from 2004 to 2013, was harsher about downtown:

“Tears come to my eyes when I see what’s going on.”

— Stephen Mandel

Councillor Thu Parmar pushed back:

“I think it’s always easier to throw punches when you’re on the other side. To be quite honest, I think it’s too early to understand if this is a good council or a bad council because typically councils are setting direction for long-term policy.”

— Thu Parmar

On this point, I have to side with Mr. Mandel; there’s no need to wait ten years to judge the path this council has clearly set. Take the new infill rules, which can allow up to eight homes on what was once one lot, with no set minimum for parking. This short-term gain for builders risks serious long-term harm for the neighborhood. The sharpest critics have a blunt name for where this leads: “slums in the making.”

Then there are bike lanes with little use; road, bridge and LRT work that seems to drag on for years; and the renewal plan in my own area where our concerns fell on deaf ears. In short, I have no lack of stones to throw.

But as I write those words, I hear my mother. Whenever Dad would rant about something, she cut to the quick: “Ted, if you don’t have a solution in mind, then it’s best to shut your trap.” So before I throw any more stones, I looked around North America, collected some numbers and followed where they led.

DOWNTOWN PULSE: Out of 65 cities who is doing it right?

I gathered office data for 65 North American metro areas of about one million people or more, comparing 2015 with 2025, and ranked them by the change in occupancy. The results were definitely not what I expected.

At the top were Birmingham Alabama, Cleveland Ohio, Tampa Bay Florida, and San Bernardino and Fresno in California, gaining about 3.5 to 7.8 percentage points in occupancy rates from 2015 to 2025. This is no small feat since this covers the entire Covid debacle which devasted downtowns throughout the world. At the bottom were San Francisco, Austin, Denver, Seattle and Portland, whose occupancy rates fell by as much as 28% percent.

So what did these top five outperformers reveal? Cleveland gave me the first clue: turn the nine-to-five business core into somewhere people live, eat, work and play. Birmingham, Tampa, Riverside and Fresno differ greatly, but the same themes recur: mixed use, more homes, reuse of old space and easier growth. The lesson seems simple: stop trying to recreate the office downtown of 1965.

I once lived in Atlanta and watched jobs spread into new centers while the old core found a new role. Edmonton should do the same, letting office centers gather north, south, east and west while turning more of downtown into homes. Plans are already being proposed for Edmonton City Centre and the old CN Tower; I would speed those up and add ATB Place, the former Telus Plaza with its superb river-valley views.

Imagine thousands living 24/7 next to the library, Churchill Square, the Art Gallery, museums, theatres, shops and Rogers Place. Fewer than 13,000 people live downtown, while about 89,000 work there and more than 30,000 students attend three schools there.

That brings me to the three areas where Edmonton Council should examine post-haste: taxes, transit and politics.

TAXES: How much of a burden can businesses really carry?

GRETA, a popular restaurant chain that has grown fast across Canada, suddenly closed its Edmonton site this summer. President Chris DeCock said its downtown Calgary site brought in three-and-a-half times Edmonton’s sales and called Edmonton’s problem “death by a thousand cuts.” Taxes, parking, road work, safety and fewer office workers add up until one more small cost becomes the final cut.

My rough Total Tax Burden (TTB) test used the same model firm in each city: $10 million in sales, $1 million in profit, 25 staff, $2 million in payroll and $5 million in real estate. Using the same model firm as above I applied the TTB test to the nine Canadian cities in the survey. From lowest to highest:

1. Calgary: ~43%

2. Edmonton: ~47%

3. Winnipeg: ~51%

4. Vancouver: ~52%

5. Ottawa–Gatineau: ~53%

6. Hamilton: ~54%

7. Toronto: ~55%

8. Quebec City: ~57%

9. Montreal: ~58%

Alberta’s low tax on firms clearly helps both Calgary and Edmonton, but there persists still a significant difference in spite of the same federal and provincial taxes. What is curious is that GRETA still operates its restaurants in Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto, suggesting taxes are only part of the problem. Having a ghost-like downtown at night is deadly for restaurants that depend on foot traffic—which brings me to transit.

TRANSIT: Why fight the way Edmontonians choose to travel?

Edmontonians love their cars and trucks, so City Hall should declare a truce in its war with the internal combustion engine and make downtown easier to reach by road, while providing a safer LRT and sensible summer bike paths. Once there, ample, affordable parking must be available.

Park-and-ride could help link those choices: drive to an outer stop, park cheap—or free with paid transit—and ride downtown. I wouldn’t fight the first half of someone’s trip when I could make the second half work so well that they choose it. With self-driving cabs now in use and electric cars on the rise, Edmonton should leave room for what comes next.

POLITICS: How can voters help you with their vote, Thu?

The politics of bottom five cities (all solidly Democrat) was no surprise for me, but I did not expect the top five to also be largely Democrat cities. The key may be less left versus right than how leaders treat business: social views on the left can go hand in hand with a strong push for jobs, growth, homes and new funds.

Cleveland pairs new homes and growth with faster permits, help for firms and tax breaks, while Tampa also seeks growth and new funds. City rules on zoning, taxes, roads, parking, police and road work can add up fast. Before adding a new cost or rule, I think City Hall should ask the people who must pay it what it will do to their firms.

Edmonton also has chosen to elect no one to participate inside Alberta’s ruling caucus. This to me is extremely foolish. Electing MLAs to sit out four-year stretches in opposition makes no sense whatsoever and yet we’ve now done that two elections in a row. Next fall we’re scheduled to have another provincial election, and I believe it’s high time that Edmonton voters changed their ways and got back into government.

So, Councillor Parmar, here is my answer. I would let office jobs spread naturally into new centers around Edmonton while turning our downtown with its rich history back into being the heart of our city in every way: a great place to live life to its fullest. Keep downtown business taxes low and make downtown easy to reach in every way.

A friend of mine, Benita Pedersen, is now before an Alberta human rights tribunal. I don’t think her case should have gone this far, but I also knew I came to it with doubts about the whole system. Before writing about her case, I thought I had better test those doubts against the facts.

EZRA LEVANT: What really happened?

Part of my doubt came from another friend, Ezra Levant. In 2006, his Western Standard ran the Danish cartoons of Muhammad, which led to two human rights complaints. Two years later, Ezra, who is a lawyer, taped his interview with Commission staff and put it online for the public to see.

I remember watching parts of that interview and thinking Ezra was running circles around the process. Yet what happened next is just as important: Calgary imam Syed Soharwardy withdrew his complaint, while the complaint from the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities stayed in the system. About five months later, the Commission dismissed that second complaint as well, which meant that after more than two years in the system, neither complaint ever reached a tribunal.

My memory of the affair had been shaped more by those famous videos than by how the case ended. Ezra fought back hard, but in the end the system itself dismissed the last complaint. Oddly enough, a case I had long recalled as proof that the system didn't work was also proof that sometimes it does.

THE PROCESS: How does a complaint get this far and is our bureaucratic system bloated?

A complaint first has to be accepted, then moves through steps meant to test or settle it. Cases may be dropped, dismissed or settled, and even those sent to the Tribunal get one more chance to settle before a hearing. In short, the process is a funnel, and only a small share of complaints reach a full hearing.

Then came my next doubt: staffing. Roughly 50 people work in Alberta’s human rights system, which struck me as a lot until I looked at its full load of complaints and then compared Alberta with the other provinces. That led to the table below.

I had hoped Alberta would turn out to have the leanest, meanest human rights operation in the country. It didn’t, but I was pleased to find that it wasn’t bloated compared with the other provinces either. Alberta sits roughly in the middle, with some provinces running leaner systems and several doing worse.

(I don’t know what they’re drinking in Saskatchewan that results in so many fewer human rights complaints than elsewhere in the country, but to quote the lady from When Harry Met Sally, “I’ll have what they’re having.”)

THE APPEAL: What if the tribunal gets it wrong?

I still had one concern: what happens when a tribunal gets a case wrong? Over the five years I looked at, about 113 complaints were closed through tribunal hearings, while I found five recent tribunal outcomes that were taken to court. Two of those court bids won.

That does not mean tribunals get it wrong 40 per cent of the time. Most people who lose and then talk to a lawyer will appeal only if the lawyer thinks they have a case. What struck me was the far simpler fact that only five of the 113 rulings I looked at wound up in court.

THE JUDGES: Who gets the final say?

There was still one part that bothered me. A court can check the Tribunal, but Alberta Court of King’s Bench and Court of Appeal judges are picked through the federal process. We saw much the same issue in the recent court case tied to Alberta’s Chief Electoral Officer: a provincial issue can end up before a judge picked out of Ottawa.

I then looked south and found that U.S. states use many ways to pick state judges: some elect them, some have the governor choose them, and some use panels or mixed systems. I am not arguing that Alberta should copy any one of those plans. I simply think the choice of judges who rule on Alberta laws and Alberta bodies should be decided at the provincial level, not out of Ottawa.

So, are Alberta's human rights tribunals kangaroo courts? I spent much of the day looking for proof that they were, and didn't find it. Most complaints never reach a hearing, and when they do, the courts are still there as a final check.

As part of this exercise, I also went through 23 tribunal cases published on CanLII. I can’t speak to every detail behind those cases, but based on what I read, I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of the rulings. So at the end of the day, my faith in the system is mostly at ease (with the exception of those judges).

I think it’s an important part of a person’s character to admit when they’re wrong. And I was wrong. My preconceived notions were far from the reality I found, and I’m quite grateful to be wrong.

In the meantime, Benita Pedersen’s case is going on as I write this. I will have more to say about her case in another column, but for now I ask that you pray for Benita, for the Tribunal and for all those taking part. Pray that the decision ultimately made is both wise and just.

So the NDP won Calgary-Shaw. Kyle Campbell took 46.6 per cent of the vote Monday night, defeating the UCP’s Mike Derry at 43.0 per cent. Progressive Tory Kyle Joseph took another 6.1 per cent, Liberal John Roggeveen 3.8 per cent and Independent Rolly Ashdown 0.5 per cent. It was close, but it wasn’t that close. Campbell won by 582 votes.

And almost immediately came the inevitable question among Alberta conservatives: Will next year’s election result in an Orange Wave sweeping over Alberta’s bastion of capitalism? This is why history matters. If there is one thing 40 years of electoral history has taught us, it is that the good people of Calgary-Shaw are capable of some extraordinary electoral gymnastics.

For convenience, I’m going to call them the Calgary Shaw-winigans, with apologies to Jean Chrétien. The riding was created in 1986, and its political history is quite something. In 1989, Progressive Conservative Jim Dinning won with 52.9 per cent, while the Liberals took 34.7 per cent and the NDP 12.3 per cent. Put the Liberal and NDP vote together and the supposedly rock-solid conservative riding was already surprisingly close to 50-50.

Then watch what happened. By 2001, PC Cindy Ady took an astonishing 80.7 per cent of the vote. Eleven years later, Wildrose candidate Jeff Wilson took 45.2 per cent and the PC candidate 42.1 per cent. Together, that’s 87.3 per cent. Nearly nine out of ten.

Three years later, they elected a New Democrat. In 2015, the NDP took 31.3 per cent, the PCs 30.7 and Wildrose 30.4. The conservative vote divided almost perfectly down the middle, allowing Graham Sucha to come straight up through the middle.

Then came 2019. Rebecca Schulz ran for the newly united UCP and Calgary-Shaw snapped back with 65.3 per cent. Four years later, Schulz was down to 56.3 per cent and the NDP up to 42.7. And now Calgary-Shaw has elected another New Democrat with 46.6 per cent.

I deliberately use the word “snapped.” People talk about electoral swings, but a swing moves one way and eventually swings back the other. Calgary-Shaw seems to behave more like an elastic band. Stretch it far enough and suddenly it snaps.

A quick canvass of Calgary’s other ridings suggests few, if any, demonstrate quite the extraordinary electoral elasticity of the Calgary Shaw-winigans. In some rural constituencies, moving the vote appreciably from one party to another can resemble trying to turn the Titanic with a teeny-tiny tugboat. In Calgary-Shaw, they seem to relish getting down and dirty with the politics. And I can’t help but like them for it. They appear more issues-based than party-based, perfectly willing to abandon a party they once supported overwhelmingly if circumstances warrant it.

So can Alberta conservatives count on Calgary-Shaw in a crunch? Definitely maybe. The “definitely” comes from the numbers: 81 per cent PC in 2001, 87 per cent PC or Wildrose in 2012 and 65 per cent UCP in 2019.

The “maybe” is staring us in the face this morning. Calgary-Shaw can turn its vote on a dime, and that cuts both ways. Take the Shaw-winigans for granted and they are quite capable of reminding you why you shouldn’t.

FEAR THE NDP?

There is one trend conservatives would be foolish to dismiss. The NDP won Calgary-Shaw with 31.3 per cent in 2015, climbed to 42.7 per cent in 2023, and has now won with 46.6 per cent. In 2015, conservatives could blame their defeat on a split on the right. This time they can’t.

Add the UCP’s 43.0 per cent to the Progressive Tories’ 6.1 and you get 49.1. Add the NDP and Liberals and you get 50.4. For a conservative like me, that is the genuinely worrisome part: the godless left is no longer merely slipping through a crack between two conservative parties in Calgary-Shaw. It has built a constituency there.

But 40 years of history warns us not to mistake a stretch for a permanent realignment. This riding has changed its mind before, dramatically. History suggests that, sooner or later, the Shaw-winigans will almost certainly return to being good old sensible conservatives.

FEAR THE REFERENDUM?

But before deciding what Monday means for 2027, perhaps we should ask what was actually on the minds of Calgary-Shaw voters. What political issue has been consuming an extraordinary amount of Alberta’s political oxygen lately? What question will every Alberta voter be asked to confront barely a month from now? Hmm. Could it possibly be the October 19 referendum and the question of Alberta’s future in Canada?

Craig Chandler, one of Calgary’s most faithful Conservative foot soldiers and Mike Derry’s campaign manager, said after the vote that the referendum was something the UCP’s tireless volunteers were encountering nonstop at the doors. I put a lot of stock in Chandler’s political acumen.

And that leads to a much bigger question: Could the referendum cost the UCP Calgary in 2027 and, with it, government? Premier Danielle Smith has been walking this tightrope almost from the day she took office. I think she has done an unbelievably good job of it, but now we are approaching the point where the tightrope gets very narrow indeed.

I understand why many Calgary-Shaw voters would rather not have this referendum. Nobody wants to be the party pooper at the Canadian party. Life is pretty good in Calgary-Shaw, and people comfortably ensconced in their quiet little corner of Calgary might understandably prefer not to contemplate the unpleasant possibilities that brought this question before us.

Danielle Smith, however, cannot make the issue go away. A large enough percentage of Alberta’s population is demanding that the question be answered, and denying them the opportunity would, in my view, run against fundamental democratic principles. Politically, it could also splinter the conservative coalition. That is why the referendum may be a bitter pill for some Albertans, but it is a pill that has to be swallowed. Alberta needs to know where Albertans stand.

And we should be precise about what the pill actually contains. On October 19, Albertans are not voting to separate from Canada. They are choosing between remaining a province of Canada and beginning the legal process that would lead to a later, binding referendum on whether Alberta should become independent.

If Albertans reject moving toward that binding referendum, the independence movement will have had its democratic day in court and the issue may well be settled for years. If they vote to proceed, Danielle Smith suddenly possesses extraordinarily powerful political leverage in dealing with Ottawa and the other provinces. What she might do with that leverage is another column.

I hope the average politically astute Calgary Shaw-winigan gets that. This is precisely the sort of political opportunity the Shaw-winigans seem to love being part of. They may not like the question, but I wouldn’t underestimate their ability to recognize the opportunity it presents.

LESSONS LEARNED

There are lessons for the UCP here, and the first is painfully simple: keep your incumbents. Rebecca Schulz was an all-star, a leadership candidate and one of the most capable ministers in Danielle Smith’s cabinet. Her departure is a serious loss.

Had Schulz stayed, there would have been no by-election. Had she been the candidate Monday, I strongly suspect we would be discussing a different result. So do whatever you reasonably can to keep your incumbents on the field in 2027, particularly in Calgary.

Second, get your vote out. The UCP has the organization and resources to identify an enormous proportion of the people who voted for Schulz in 2023. If winning Calgary-Shaw had been an existential necessity, I suspect they could have found another 583 votes, even if they had to roll out a red carpet and send a limousine.

But that costs money, volunteers and political capital, and parties make those calculations. From what I know of UCP Executive Director Dustin Van Vugt, the cheap Dutchman in him must have recoiled in horror at the thought of spending unnecessary cash on a by-election. Sometimes winning a particular by-election simply isn’t worth what it would take to ensure victory. Which brings me to the third lesson: chill.

By-elections allow voters to give a government a good swift kick without necessarily throwing it out of office. The Shaw-winigans had something to say Monday night and said it in no uncertain terms. The UCP would be foolish not to listen, but the rest of us would be equally foolish to assume Calgary-Shaw has just told us how the entire city will vote in 2027.

The people there are not sheep. They don’t appear particularly interested in being owned by anybody’s political party. When they have something to say, they say it. And that is why, despite Monday night, I have considerable faith in the Calgary Shaw-winigans.

There is a moment in The Lord of the Rings when Frodo, confronted by events far larger and darker than anything he ever wanted to face, wishes they had not happened in his time. Gandalf’s answer contains a truth worth remembering: we don’t get to choose the questions history puts before us. We get to choose what we do when they arrive.

Calgary-Shaw has demonstrated repeatedly that when it matters, its people can turn their vote on a dime. And who knows? Just as in The Return of the King, the seemingly unlikely little people upon whom everything ultimately depended became the people before whom everyone else bent the knee, the Calgary Shaw-winigans may yet surprise us all.

I have faith that when the time comes, they will do what they know, deep down in their gut, is the right thing to do. I have that same faith in Calgarians and Albertans generally. God bless them.