There is a tide in the affairs of menWhich, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;Omitted, all the voyage of their lifeIs bound in shallows and in miseries.On such a full sea we are now afloat; And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures.”—William Shakespeare, Julius CaesarIn something of a mic-drop speech at the Canada Strong and Free Alberta and the West Assembly conference over the weekend, Queen’s law professor and executive director of Rights Probe, Bruce Pardy, quoted from Julius Caesar to drive home to delegates — of which I was one — that this is Alberta’s moment.“It’s time to disrupt the country, start a cascade and create an existential crisis,” Pardy said, adding that leaving the country is the best way to save it. “It’s time to go.”Only then, he said, can Canada’s top-down, paternalistic structure change. He pointed out that Canada is poorer per capita than America’s poorest states, Alabama and Mississippi (“it has done this to itself”), and accused the country of being held together by “bribes … Everyone is on the take.”Traditionally deferential and obedient, Canadians are wary of change, “which keeps them where they are.” Pardy also highlighted the paradoxes of ‘elbows up.’ We’re told every day, and accept, that we are “colonists … not a country.” But when the US asserts itself, we suddenly rediscover our national identity — as well as our existential dependence on the US, “our best friend and worst enemy.” Instead of trying to make the relationship work, he said, “we run into the arms of China.”It was radical, refreshing fare in the midst of ever-diminishing public debate in Canada. Hosted by Preston Manning and co-chair, former BC Liberal Premier Gordon Campbell, the idea was to analyze both sides of the upcoming Alberta referendum and the nuts and bolts of what a vote — either way — would mean..To that end, lawyer and presenter Keith Wilson referenced a draft post-independence transition plan that his group, Let Alberta Decide, is publicly circulating. He rejected the notion that Alberta’s natural resources — let’s face it, our only real tariff trump card — would ever be landlocked or held to ransom by Ottawa or other countries. He also submitted that significant administrative branches of police forces, the courts, and the banking system, among others, are funded by provinces, which would ease an independence transition.Meanwhile, anti-referendum “lead, don’t leave” proponents, including former Alberta Conservative MLA Thomas Lukaszuk and former Harper minister Monte Solberg, were invited to attend the conference, but said that they wouldn’t lend credibility to a “separation” event. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe also did not respond to the invitation. Danielle Smith, who spoke first and in favour of Alberta’s remaining in Canada, presented for some 15 minutes and fielded multiple questions.Smith choked up about the effect of federal policies on people’s lives — for example, “a farmer who feels lectured by those who’ve never lived off the land.” She remained steadfast, however, that Alberta is starting to “get somewhere” with the federal government. She pointed out that the Clean Electricity Regulations, for example — which would phase out fossil fuel-generated power by 2035 — are in abeyance in Alberta (though nowhere else).Eye-poppingThe federal concession on the Clean Electricity Regulations formed part of the November 2025 Ottawa-Alberta MOU which, in return for a promised pipeline, nevertheless reaffirmed and reimposed 1) the eye-poppingly expensive, profitless Carbon Capture and Storage (CCUS) plan for the oil sands, 2) the federal industrial carbon levy, which continues to hit Canadian supply chains, and 3) stringent federal methane regulations, which Alberta oil leaders have called a production cut by default.So is that really “getting somewhere?” Shouldn’t Smith and other premiers, I asked her, be pushing for official repeals — not just one-off workarounds — of the Clean Electricity Regulations, C-69, Clean Fuel Standard, and other harmful federal regulations? Every province should aim to do its own deals with Ottawa, she said. (She also called the Pathways CCUS plan “good for the environment.”).Which brings us back to the problem with Canada.The Frontier Center’s Marco Navarro-Genie was tasked with outlining primary ‘remain-in-Alberta’ positions. He nevertheless referenced the “deep cultural chasms” that have evolved between the provinces and the federal government since the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. There is also an ever-greater “fiscal imbalance” on energy resources and equalization, he said. “Progress” is possible, but we’re also always “only a leadership vote away from a Steven Guilbeault or Catherine McKenna coming back.”Former BC Premier Campbell expressed frustration at the ongoing lack of progress on major federal-provincial files, including interprovincial trade — which has been “talked about for decades but held up again and again by politics.” It’s time, he said, that provinces stop asking permission of the feds and simply tell them what they want and how they’re going to get there. “Change has to come from the ground up.”My two cents, as I clicked off the online conference: You can love Canada and still acknowledge that it is broken. We don’t have a real country until we tangibly rectify the fundamental injustice created by federal energy policy and equalization, stop propping up the economy with billions in tax dollars, and — in the West — demand that eastern condescension stop about the mere mention of our aspirations and potential. For us, there’s dignity in diplomacy, not in deference.Is this Alberta’s moment? There are parallels, as law prof Pardy also pointed out, between it and the American Revolution — between Alberta ‘rebels’ and the Laurentian establishment. On how that establishment perceives the spectre of potential separation, I’m reminded of the lines from Hamilton: “How does a ragtag volunteer army in need of a shower defeat a global superpower?”Except that Canada isn’t a superpower — certainly not an economic one — without Alberta and the West. At the very least, the vote on October 19 can serve as a ringing reminder of that.
