OP-ED: The mental gymnastics of federalist Alberta Conservatives
Caitlyn Madlener writes, "It is a rather curious phenomenon that so many Alberta conservatives remain opposed, or even openly hostile, to the idea of independence."
By: Caitlyn Madlener
Caitlyn Madlener is a former political consultant and activist who has worked both inside and outside formal political organizations. She is now a full-time stay-at-home mother raising her three toddlers.
Someone once, I am sure, said: it is a truth universally acknowledged that a conservative living in Alberta must be angry with Ottawa.
It is, then, a rather curious phenomenon that so many Alberta conservatives remain opposed, or even openly hostile, to the idea of independence.
Since the referendum announcement, political consultants, former politicians, and self-serious “academics” have all rushed into the fray of banal discourse, each offering some variation of the same familiar argument: Alberta can still get a better deal within Canada. Notably absent from these arguments is anyone seriously claiming Ottawa has treated Alberta fairly. Even the most committed conservative federalists rarely argue that Alberta has no legitimate grievances. Their argument instead amounts to this: yes, Alberta has been mistreated for generations, but surely salvation is only one election cycle or policy proposal away.
Albertans have heard this sermon before.
Since Alberta’s inception as a province, it has struggled to secure fair treatment within Confederation. Indeed, its very creation was designed to ensure it entered Canada as what many at the time openly considered an “inferior” province relative to the political power concentrated in Ontario and Quebec. As an example of this, when Alberta and the other western provinces joined Confederation, they were not granted the same control over natural resources enjoyed by provinces in the East. It took decades just to secure rights that should have existed from the beginning.
And even then, the broader struggle never truly disappeared.
As a result, every Alberta election cycle inevitably circles back to Ottawa. No matter the party, no matter the leader, there is always some variation of the same speech: promises to secure a “deal,” vows to stand up for Alberta, declarations that this time the province will finally be respected. Even the left-wing NDP eventually discovered that criticizing Ottawa was less a political strategy than a provincial rite of passage. Rachel Notley herself learned fairly quickly that one does not remain politically viable in Alberta while appearing indifferent to federal overreach.
Over the years, I have heard many conservative federalists insist Alberta’s frustrations are temporary; that if only X, Y, and Z were to happen, the province would finally receive the fairness it has long been denied. Usually, these proposed solutions involve a new Prime Minister, a stronger Premier, or structural reforms such as a Triple-E Senate or a renegotiated equalization formula.
The problem, however, is that many of these variables are extremely taxing on political capital or have already come to pass.
Alberta has elected conservative governments federally. Alberta has had sympathetic prime ministers. Endless committees, panels, task forces, and “fair deal” discussions have come and gone. Yet despite decades of promises and political theatre, Alberta remains trapped in the exact same argument it was having a hundred years ago: how do we gain the respect we deserve from Ottawa?
The future of real change, federalists say, comes with the knowledge that Westerners can make it to the highest office, but the cost of achieving that goal is the coalition-enabled dilution of ideals.
Even when Alberta had one of its own living at 24 Sussex, the pursuit of national political power ultimately outweighed any meaningful effort to fundamentally alter the system. Stephen Harper himself co-authored the Firewall Letter, a document once treated almost like scripture among Western conservatives, yet virtually none of its major principles were implemented once power was achieved. Of course, the Harper government accomplished many things for the West, including the abolition of the Wheat Board and the addition of six seats for Alberta in the House of Commons, yet none of these changes resulted in lasting federal policy. Most constituted positive blips in an otherwise negative timeline.
Some members of the Harper government would argue these changes were pushed aside because there was a lack of public pressure towards these policies. Yet, it is evident that the independence cause is the perfect vehicle to maintain the momentum needed on these issues. To give in to the notion of Ottawa banality would be to concede the only hardball negotiation tactic Albertans can use to get their way. Every good businessman knows that to have the upper hand in a deal, one must always be willing to walk away. (To a politician, a good deal is gaining two points in the polls in exchange for surrendering their spine.
For decades, federalist conservatives have built entire political careers railing against the federal government, warning about Ottawa overreach, and promising that now (finally) would be the moment Alberta secured fairness within Confederation. Yet once these leaders arrive in office, their rhetoric almost inevitably softens. Suddenly, confrontation becomes “unproductive.” Demands for reform become discussions about “national unity.” The language of resistance quietly transforms into the language of accommodation.
Former Premier Jason Kenney provides perhaps the clearest modern example. His political rise in Alberta centred heavily around standing up to the Trudeau government and confronting Ottawa’s treatment of the province. (A sentiment I fully supported - and, perhaps naively, believed - during my time on the campaign.) Equalization referendums, constitutional fights, and Alberta autonomy became rallying cries for frustrated conservatives. Does anyone remember the Fair Deal Panel? At the time, one could scarcely walk ten feet in conservative circles without hearing promises that Alberta was finally prepared to play hardball with Ottawa.
It is therefore difficult not to appreciate the irony of watching Kenney now enthusiastically defend the virtues of the same Ottawa-centred political system he once used as a campaign punching bag.
I understand, of course, that one of conservatism’s defining instincts is the preservation of institutions rather than revolutionary change. Stability matters. Tradition matters. But conservatism is also supposed to value pragmatism and realism. A genuinely conservative mindset recognizes that when a structure becomes fundamentally dysfunctional, when it consistently fails the people expected to operate within it, there eventually comes a point where preserving it ceases to be wisdom and instead becomes stubbornness disguised as principle.
As the saying goes, madness is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result.
That increasingly appears to be the position of many federalist Alberta conservatives who now, rather confusingly, find themselves defending the very system they once condemned. After decades spent explaining why Alberta was mistreated within Confederation, many now insist the answer is simply one more election, one more reform proposal, one more promise from Ottawa that things will somehow be different this time.
What meaningful structural victories has Alberta achieved within the last decade that fundamentally altered its relationship with the federal government? What major concessions have actually been secured? What longstanding grievances have been resolved rather than merely recycled into the next campaign slogan before quietly disappearing after election day?
I challenge pro-Ottawa conservatives to answer those questions honestly.
Because the truth that should be universally acknowledged by conservative federalists is simple:
Nothing will change until the system itself changes.
