Senator Paula Simons would like us to know that she understands Alberta better than the Albertans who are currently making her uncomfortable.This is, of course, the natural role of a Trudeau-appointed senator. Simons was appointed to the Senate in 2018 after former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced her selection as an “independent” senator for Alberta, which in Ottawa means independent of voters, not necessarily independent of the assumptions of the government that put you there.She comes from the proper institutional résumé: CBC, the Edmonton Journal, Alberta Views, the Hill Times, Senate committees, and the respectable drawing rooms where Western frustration is treated as a mood disorder rather than a political reality..Trudeau-appointed senator claims Albertans need to get 'elbows up' and fight against independence.She may be from Edmonton, but "Laurentian elite" is not a postal code. It is a mindset. It is the mindset, the instinct, to hear Albertans question Confederation and respond with a civics lecture, a therapy session, and a Liberal campaign slogan. These comments from her unequivocally prove she is a member of that club.That slogan, naturally, is “elbows up.” The phrase was embraced by Mark Carney’s Liberals during the 2025 federal campaign and appeared in Liberal campaign material. It began as a patriotic flourish against Donald Trump, then became the all-purpose establishment answer to every inconvenient Canadian question. Tariffs? Elbows up. Regional alienation? Elbows up. Alberta wondering whether being treated like a colony is still a good bargain? Definitely elbows up.Now Senator Simons wants Albertans to get their elbows up against Alberta independence. How inspiring! Ottawa has discovered aggressive self-defence, and the first target is Alberta..Simons reportedly says she is an Albertan and does not recognize herself or the province in the independence movement. Fair enough. Many of us here no longer recognize ourselves in the Canada that Ottawa keeps asking us to subsidize, obey, fund, and applaud. That is not a small distinction.She dismisses the independence movement as naïve and a tiny minority, while also acknowledging it represents at least a quarter of Albertans. Apparently, in Senate arithmetic, one in four of your neighbours is a fringe. Angus Reid found in May that 35% of Albertans would vote “Yes” on the official October question to begin the legal process toward a binding referendum, with rural Alberta split 48–48. Ipsos found lower support, with 18% saying they would vote to separate in a future binding referendum, but even that is hundreds of thousands of Albertans.A serious person might ask why so many Albertans are this fed up. Simons prefers to wonder what is wrong with them.She says Alberta grievances have been imported, that “Trumpist culture” has leeched across the border, and that some concerns are “not even authentic to this place.” This will come as a surprise to Albertans who were angry at Ottawa before Trump was hosting reality television. The National Energy Program was not a Florida import. Equalization frustration was not downloaded from Mar-a-Lago. Pipeline obstruction did not arrive in a red MAGA hat.Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, received royal assent in 2019. Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, also received royal assent in 2019 and prohibits certain crude oil tankers from stopping or unloading along BC’s north coast. Northern Gateway died after the Trudeau government cancelled its permits in 2016. But yes, please tell us more about how Alberta’s concerns are imaginary. Then there is the money. Coming from a modest family, with even more modest success in my own wealth-building schemes, I look at this relationship mostly through a fiscal lens..The Fraser Institute estimates Alberta’s net contribution to federal finances from 2007 to 2022 was $244.6 billion, more than five times the net contribution of either British Columbia or Ontario over that period. One may debate methodology, framing, and terminology. Fair enough. But the basic Alberta complaint is not mystical. Albertans send far more to Ottawa than they receive back, while Ottawa uses its power to constrain the industries that generate the wealth in the first place. That is not xenophobia. Simons’ Alberta Views essay makes the usual appeal: “Let’s not quit Canada. Let’s make it better for everyone — including Albertans.” She may not have read my essay on Alberta's Century of Resistance, where we have tried to do just that. But her sentiment is lovely. Also very convenient. Albertans are continually invited to make Canada better for everyone. They are rarely invited to ask why Canada’s improvement so often requires Alberta’s money, Alberta’s patience, and Alberta’s silence.She reminds us that Alberta cannot “just quit Canada unilaterally” and points to constitutional and treaty realities. That is true, and fodder for the uninformed. It is also not a valid argument against asking the question. The Supreme Court’s Quebec Secession Reference held that a clear expression of democratic will on a clear question would create an obligation to negotiate.No serious independence supporter should pretend independence will be simple. Borders, treaties, debt, assets, currency, trade, First Nations rights, pensions, and market access would all have to be negotiated. But no serious “forever Canada” should pretend complexity is the same thing as illegitimacy. Simons also tells Albertans that we are not quitters. But asking whether a political arrangement still serves Alberta is not quitting. It is responsible citizenship. It is self-government. It is what mature jurisdictions do when the bargain keeps getting worse, control keeps increasing, and the lectures keep getting louder..A rancher who questions a bad lease is not “quitting” ranching. A business owner who reviews a failing partnership is not “quitting” enterprise. Any Albertan who asks whether Confederation still respects this province is not quitting Canada. He is simply, finally, noticing the imbalance in the terms.Then comes the moral sermon. In a line directed entirely at her CBC-infused base, Simons sneeringly describes the imagined founding principles of an independent Alberta as “miserliness, xenophobia, and transphobia,” and warns of a “landlocked, petulant petrostate” devoted to hoarding wealth, denouncing immigrants, denying climate change, spurning vaccines, protecting patriarchy, and endangering queer kids.It is also the clearest window into the federal establishment’s problem in Alberta. They do not merely disagree with independence supporters. They think the movement is morally diseased. They do not look at Alberta’s grievances and see constitutional failure, fiscal imbalance, regulatory hostility, or even democratic alienation. They see backward people with bad manners who need more and better supervision. And then they wonder why independence support continues to grow.Simons reportedly praises the idea of Doug Ford coming to Alberta to tell us he loves us, while suggesting it does not matter much whether pipelines actually get built. Perfect. A hug from Ontario and no pipe to tidewater. That is our current Confederation in one act.Simons says Alberta’s best premiers fought to be at the table. She invokes Preston Manning’s old line that “the West wants in.” But that is exactly the point. The West asked in. The West organized in. The West voted in. The West sent reformers, conservatives, premiers, MPs, policy papers, legal challenges, and even a referendum on the equalization program. That was ignored, and even former prime minister Stephen Harper could not amend the Senate. That, more than anything, adequately describes the quality and effect of Alberta’s "position at the table.”.Now, when many Albertans have concluded that “in” may no longer be enough, the Senate answers that we have misunderstood ourselves. Alberta is permitted to be proud, so long as it is obedient. We are permitted to contribute, so long as we do not count. We are even allowed to complain, as long as the complaint never becomes a demand. That is the essence of our colonial bargain, which continues to be dressed up as national unity.The real tell in Simons’ argument is not that she opposes independence. The real tell is the contempt. It seeps through the polished sentences and syrupy platitudes. It treats Albertans who disagree with her as frightened, narrow, misled, mean-spirited, or not quite modern enough to understand the century they live in. That is not persuasion. It is clear Laurentian condescension. So, by all means, Senator, keep your elbows up. Just do not expect Albertans to miss the obvious: they are not raised in defence of Alberta, but against it.Because the more Ottawa’s appointed defenders explain Alberta to Albertans, the clearer the issue becomes. This debate is not really about whether Albertans understand Canada. It is about whether Canada’s Laurentian class understands Alberta at all.And judging by this latest lecture, the answer is still no.
