Jason Kenney rolled into Alberta provincial politics in a big blue pickup truck with a straightforward proposition: unite the right, defeat Rachel Notley, and restore competent conservative government. He delivered the merger and election victory. His political rise ended less triumphantly: after receiving just 51.4% support in his 2022 leadership review, he announced his resignation before completing one term. The epic salesman proved better at filling the truck than getting his passengers to their destination.Now he is appearing alongside Notley to defend Confederation. Albertans will appreciate the spectacle: the man who united conservatives to remove Notley now joins her while questioning where some conservatives belong in the United Conservative Party (UCP). Apparently, their judgment was considerably better when they were just voting for Jason Kenney.His message goes beyond opposing independence. In his reported interview with The Fifth Estate, Kenney recalled telling independence supporters, “this is not your party,” and directing them towards pro-independence parties. Today, he is calling for the UCP to eject members who support independence. It is a pointed declaration that their political aspirations belong elsewhere.Kenney is drawing an ideological boundary, not proposing a documented membership purge. But conservatives who bought memberships, knocked on doors, and helped elect his government might reasonably ask when the UCP became a permanent franchise of its former leader’s preferences.For the sake of brevity, allow me to use an AI analysis of Kenney's thoughts on Alberta independence supporters, which he has reinforced in several recent interviews: “angry with modernity, with globalization, automation, diversity, immigration, modern medical science, vaccines, the ostrich farm cull, chemtrails, the World Economic Forum.” He has described them as “drawing inspiration from MAGA, pre-positioning claims that any pro-Canada result will be ‘rigged,’ and signalling they will continue regardless of the outcome.” In other remarks, he has called hardcore independence “a small, perennially angry minority” and said it would be “bananas to let them drag the province through a deeply divisive process.”Attaching that catalogue to the debate makes constitutional dissatisfaction sound like a condition requiring treatment..Any Albertan concerned about federal spending, resource policy, or political accountability should not have to answer for somebody else’s theory about aircraft vapour. Identify the bad argument and dismantle it. Dragging ostriches and MAGA into the room may entertain an audience, but it does remarkably little to explain why Alberta’s present arrangements deserve continued confidence.Kenney explicitly states that independence supporters within the UCP should form their own party. He has a defensible starting point: a party’s stated principles should mean something. Members cannot honestly campaign under one platform while quietly delivering its opposite. But defending existing policy is different from declaring that members who want it changed should take their convictions elsewhere. Political parties have conventions, leadership contests, and policy debates precisely because their founders do not possess eternal vetoes. I realize that basic concept must be strange to a federal politician with decades of experience.His caucus criticism makes the boundary clearer. In February, he said UCP MLAs had “no business” signing an independence petition, citing the party’s commitment to Alberta within Canada. Danielle Smith, to her credit, took a different position, saying she would not police which petitions caucus members signed. That is a substantive disagreement about political participation. Albertans expect their MLAs to follow the direction of those who elected them, and every MLA should explain how their actions fit their electoral commitments. Equally, supporting an opportunity for voters to decide a question does not automatically establish how someone would vote on it. Kenney should address that distinction rather than treating participation as proof of political disloyalty.His warning about low voter turnout deserves a similarly measured response. A motivated minority can outperform a complacent majority, and urging federalists to vote is perfectly legitimate. But determined participation is not a democratic defect. If complicated ballots threaten long queues, the answer is adequate staffing and accessible voting everywhere, not suspicion of whichever side has more committed volunteers.More awkward are his concerns about frustrated federalists voting to send Ottawa a message. Kenney himself promoted an equalization referendum as negotiating leverage. Apparently, protest voting was responsible statecraft when he had relevance. Now that dissatisfied Albertans contemplate pressure beyond his preferred limits, their judgment clearly requires supervision..The official results recorded 61.7% support for removing equalization’s constitutional commitment. That vote could not itself amend the Constitution, but Kenney owes voters an account of what his promised leverage accomplished. Which was absolutely nothing. Not even the courtesy of a response from the federal government. Another appeal to fight for reform from within needs achievable demands, a timetable, and consequences for failure. Otherwise, it is simply the status quo.His economic questions have somewhat more credibility. Independence advocates must explain transit, debt, currency, pensions, indigenous rights, and prospective negotiating terms, and the ATC has taken on much of that. Alberta is already landlocked. Independence would change the arrangements governing market access, not abolish the commercial interests connecting producers and customers. He fails to acknowledge that renewing Alberta’s agreements is in each party’s economic interest; those negotiations will not be difficult. Requiring credible agreements is reasonable; stating agreements are impossible is not a credible analysis.Quebec’s experience likewise warrants examination, not automatic transplantation. Kenney conveniently leaves out some inconvenient history. Corporate departures reflected language requirements, constitutional uncertainty, and broader economic shifts — not simply the prospect of a referendum.Of course, constitutional uncertainty can discourage investment, but the comparison must also examine the risks of remaining and the improvements Kenney believes federalism can deliver. An independent Alberta will be able to deliver significant improvements to our capital investment and regulatory environment. But neither side gets to present its preferred future as risk-free while demanding that opponents guarantee every outcome.Kenney can defend Canada, campaign with Notley, and argue for a federalist UCP. He cannot reasonably demand that conservatives mistake his preferred boundaries for the limits of legitimate debate. The big blue truck promised Albertans a better deal. Before telling disappointed passengers they belong somewhere else, its former driver should explain why they're still waiting to get to their destination.
