Whenever the subject of evangelicals comes up I post this quote that shocked me (especially knowing who it came from) when I stumbled across it several years ago. They have changed the Republican party and it looks like they have an oversized influence in Alberta politics now.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
I appreciate the insider analysis, and can't fault the prognosis.
But, "events, dear boy, events"!
Firstly, during the run-up to the US mid-terms, it's expected that there will be no sleight-of-hand unavailable for Trumpists to hold on to and expand their means for autocracy. This will lead to civil unrest and possibly the unleashing of what appears to be Trump's private army against the civilian populace. It will not be a good time to advance a narrative about weakening Canada, and moving closer to Trump's America.
Secondly, we are witnessing the beginning of the hot war that we have blessedly managed to avoid for 40 years - that between Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious fundamentalists, all of whom have in common nihilistic beliefs that obviate the conventional rules of war. There is at least a 50% chance that this leads to regional conflagration, and global terrorism. Again, the laments of Alberta separatists are unlikely to gain traction under these circumstances.
...the laments of Alberta separatists are unlikely to gain traction [in the context of nihilistic conflicts among religious fundamentalists abroad and Trumpian extremism in the United States]
Thanks for this. An excellent analysis. I think Ken Boessenkool is one of the top political analysts in the country and always love his analysis, which is very smart as well as enhanced by his insider experience and his historical perspective.
Thanks Ken for this article and thanks to Paul for making it happen, looking forward to future perspectives on both Alberta and Quebec.
I listened to the West of Centre podcast and Prof Tombe shared some interesting facts. A large factor in the increasing costs are driven by an increasing number of Alberta residents over 65. And the government forecasts on this were very accurate, in that they predicted this would happen. As well, in the past calendar year, net immigration flows to and from the province have been very small. Meaning the change from the 2025 budget to the 2026 budget are not being driven by net immigration. This really paints a picture. We had a government who has seen a problem coming, decided not to deal with it proactively, and rather than admitting a mistake, have decided to blame others.
I suspect the world is in the early phase of a commodity upcycle that could deliver $30B plus in annual resource revenues. The leverage is much higher now with so many oilsands plants subject to the higher post-payout royalty. Also, natural gas resources could come back from the dead. Prior to 2008, gas was the big royalty generator. Gas prices might be on a significant upswing with declining associated gas production from US shale oil, increased LNG exports and soaring demand for gas fired electricity.
This doesn't excuse the AB government from excessive from spending. Education opex is up 7% and health is up 6%. Imagine how much worse it would be if the teacher's had got their way.
Unfortunately, Canada will miss out on some of this upcycle as it didn't build new capacity during the downcycle and likley can't repeal the Trudeau era blocking legislation fast enough.
How can Albertans maintain a provincial government that reflects their moderate and liberal aspirations without all of these strange sideshows? My answer is proportional representation but perhaps there are others.
Carney can kneecap the Alberta separatist movement with positive action to get Alberta’s resources to tide water. Liberal obstructionism landlocked these resources and fueled the separatist movement. It is up to Carney to show, with no foot-dragging, that he is serious about following up on his MOU with Premier Smith.
Very appreciated, very informative. If only all our Conservatives were in this category, not happy at the influence of various conspiracy theorists.
It ends with his wish for how to get out of the separation topic. I think the optimal left-wing outcome would be to force a vote next week. Their "30%" drops to 20% when you mention passports, and that their money would suddenly be in foreign currency in a foreign bank; they have less support than Liberals in Ontario.
Thanks for the opinion on Nenshi; what a crushing disappointment - that he's having an issue handed to him, where he'd get to play the outraged patriot condemning treason, and all he can do is stutter and sit silent.
If the referendum happens this Fall and fails, does that cast much uncertainty? Quebec's economy suffered because a referendum was on the horizon for years on end.
I think the Feds are playing with fire. If the Liberals don't deliver on the MOU, all of the referendum questions might morph into "Do you hate Ottawa?". Carney is sending mixed signals when he should be spending whatever political capital it takes to deliver a west coast pipeline approval, and remove all barriers to significantly expanded energy production:
Chicken and Egg. Given how many times they have been burned by the Liberals, no pipeline or E&P is going to take on any regulatory risk. The AB will likley guarantee ship volumes and guide the project through approvalm
The Prince Rupert project was approved in 2024, and remains under construction, should be completed late next year. It follows the ribbon-cutting of TMX and Coastal Gaslink, of course. The BC and Federal governments, and local native groups, have all stated support for three upcoming pipelines: Pacific Trails, Woodfibre, and Cedar, so investors are eager. All of them private, of course.
Neither the federal government, nor the Alberta government, have a Socialist Department of Pipeline Construction. They do not know how, they have no staff. Only private concerns are able to build pipelines; TMX was built by TMX, the bailout just signed the TMX cheques, they didn't manage it.
An oil pipeline will find investors when they perceive that oil prices will likely exceed $70/bbl for the whole 2030s. Currently, they do not expect that.
It is 100% within Carney's power to proactively "approve" a pipeline to the coast, with as many conditions as he wishes to apply.
Canada's current system requires a company to spend ridiculous sums of money up front to prove their project will comply with all conditions - and THEN the politicians say yea or nae.
It's a gamble no sane company would take, given the history this past decade.
But it would be a complete game-changer if our PM said that the project has his tacit approval, subject to the following conditions... and it would be MUCH more powerful than a MOU could ever be.
Doing so would cost him nothing, and gain him much - but he won't do it - which reveals much about his true intentions.
I just don’t know of any past engineering project that was approved before it was proposed: even houses need a building permit, and you have to show plans.
Gas pipelines are a done deal; one is currently under construction, three more are approved by both BC and the local natives. The only question is another oil pipeline. Why no proposal from private industry? Why no stated "conditions" and we'll go?
I typed a longer argument a few minutes ago, I'm deleting it for this simple one:
...why would anybody suppose that we don't charge more than 1% royalty below $60/bbl in world oil price?
It is, of course, that they aren't making enough money below $60/bbl, and you can't get blood from a stone.
And prices are still around $65bbl, or will return there when the war ends, and they just aren't making the money they did when Kearl Lake was completed in 2013. The price was crashed by Saudi a year later, and oil sands expansions were no longer worth the candle.
Hey, we're supposed to be "building at speeds not seen in generations" here.
...and the first rule of "building at speeds not seen in generations" is *not* saying "but that's not the way we've ever done it before..."
You're *correct* in saying that that we've never before had a pipeline project "pre-approved" at the political level, followed by garnering all the regulatory checkmarks afterwards. This has not been tried before in Canada.
Don't you think *right now* would be a great time to *try* that and see how it works?
(((Note: I'm now using asterisks for emphasis of key words rather than all caps. I hope you find this more pleasing to your palate)))
I regret your misapprehension that I had a specific problem with any capital letters. I have struggled with an unfortunate habit of internet arguments for 35 years, since USENET in 1991 - that was when the rule was laid that capital letters are like "shouting".
The problem was actually the word "you", merely exacerbated by the shouting. Even unemphasized at all, it signals a shift from a group of commentators discussing a topic, to one guy arguing with another: which will always cause me to cap off a topic, as I continue my struggle.
By all means, emphasize as you choose. Of course, a lot of emphasis using any technique signals somebody getting upset, and a great time for me to go outside. I re-read the great XKCD #386 again, and get up.
Under the MOU that Carney and Smith signed it is Smith, not Carney who is required to deliver a pipeline proposal complete with investors with funding plus getting Indigenous Nations on side. If she can do that Carney has agreed to make approvals happen. Many people believe there is no way she can deliver her part of the MOU especially while she is stirring up separatist sentiment which investors will see as a deal breaker.
It is the duty of the Federal government to conduct indigenous consultation as it manages the relationship with First Nations. I suspect the AB government's position will be that equity is even better than consultation so if the Feds or Courts try to use insufficient consultation as an excuse, fireworks will ensue. If a Band has chosen to invest in a project, it must have done the due diligence regardless of the convoluted requirements that the Courts may invent.
No private sector investor will step forward due to regulatory uncertainty. Straight from Greg Ebel:
The AB government and Feds will have to fund the project through to at least the start of construction. This is unfortunate but the no company is going to step up given all the games that were played over the last decade. Canada has destroyed its investment climate and capital will not return for a long time without derisking from the government.
As I said earlier, I'd that happens, the referenda questions turn into "Do you hate Ottawa?". Carney won't risk that. It is a game of chicken and the Feds have no choice but to blink.
Very interesting article Mr Boessenkool. IMHO, you can only get away with this type of nonsense when there is no viable opposition to hold the government to account. It is very disappointing that considering the challenges both Alberta and Canada face, this type of gamesmanship gets played. I would much rather the people of Alberta hold Ms Smith to account on her fiscal record.
another thoughtful insight Paul.. PQ have announced no referendum as long as tRump is in office.. Smith having referendum in Alberta ASAP will work in her and Canada's favour..
From holding a referendum? If you mean winning a referendum that might be different but Alberta has no seaport. The headquarters of Bank of Montreal is in Toronto. Weird, huh? They pulled out of Montreal during the referendum like a lot of other companies did. Alberta will lose a whole lot of businesses if they vote to separate.
On Feb 28, when this was written, the attacks by Trump on Iran had already begun. The potential effect of this on people’s willingness to leave Canada was not considered. I have always supported Canada.and now even more so. We must strongly protect ourselves from the USA government that is showing how violently they choose to rule their own and otjers’ nations. You do not want to be a part of it! We must stand for a peaceful, diplomatic way to solve problems and interact with one another.Premier Smith can draw the most support by recognizing that this is not the time to question national sovereignty. Hold off on that referendum and focus on leaning on the oil companies to take smaller portions of the oil dollar pie. Other nations successfully do that.
Whenever the subject of evangelicals comes up I post this quote that shocked me (especially knowing who it came from) when I stumbled across it several years ago. They have changed the Republican party and it looks like they have an oversized influence in Alberta politics now.
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Sen. Barry Goldwater 1990
It would be Margaret Atwood’s fictional Gilead come to life.
Exactly! Most people consider that a dystopia but those people considered Gilead a Utopia.
I appreciate the insider analysis, and can't fault the prognosis.
But, "events, dear boy, events"!
Firstly, during the run-up to the US mid-terms, it's expected that there will be no sleight-of-hand unavailable for Trumpists to hold on to and expand their means for autocracy. This will lead to civil unrest and possibly the unleashing of what appears to be Trump's private army against the civilian populace. It will not be a good time to advance a narrative about weakening Canada, and moving closer to Trump's America.
Secondly, we are witnessing the beginning of the hot war that we have blessedly managed to avoid for 40 years - that between Christian, Jewish and Muslim religious fundamentalists, all of whom have in common nihilistic beliefs that obviate the conventional rules of war. There is at least a 50% chance that this leads to regional conflagration, and global terrorism. Again, the laments of Alberta separatists are unlikely to gain traction under these circumstances.
QUOTE
...the laments of Alberta separatists are unlikely to gain traction [in the context of nihilistic conflicts among religious fundamentalists abroad and Trumpian extremism in the United States]
END QUOTE
I hope you are correct in this assessment.
Thanks for this. An excellent analysis. I think Ken Boessenkool is one of the top political analysts in the country and always love his analysis, which is very smart as well as enhanced by his insider experience and his historical perspective.
This is a great analysis from Ken. I appreciate his insight and it has led me to reconsider my view about Smith's strategy.
Thanks Matthew. High praise from someone I deeply respect.
Thanks Ken for this article and thanks to Paul for making it happen, looking forward to future perspectives on both Alberta and Quebec.
I listened to the West of Centre podcast and Prof Tombe shared some interesting facts. A large factor in the increasing costs are driven by an increasing number of Alberta residents over 65. And the government forecasts on this were very accurate, in that they predicted this would happen. As well, in the past calendar year, net immigration flows to and from the province have been very small. Meaning the change from the 2025 budget to the 2026 budget are not being driven by net immigration. This really paints a picture. We had a government who has seen a problem coming, decided not to deal with it proactively, and rather than admitting a mistake, have decided to blame others.
It’s a tale as old as time (in this case since Leduc in 1947).
So true. Four days post AB budget and the deficit already looks much smaller :
U.S. crude oil set to top $70 a barrel when trading begins on fears of Iran supply disruption
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/01/crude-oil-futures-iran.html?__source=androidappshare
I suspect the world is in the early phase of a commodity upcycle that could deliver $30B plus in annual resource revenues. The leverage is much higher now with so many oilsands plants subject to the higher post-payout royalty. Also, natural gas resources could come back from the dead. Prior to 2008, gas was the big royalty generator. Gas prices might be on a significant upswing with declining associated gas production from US shale oil, increased LNG exports and soaring demand for gas fired electricity.
This doesn't excuse the AB government from excessive from spending. Education opex is up 7% and health is up 6%. Imagine how much worse it would be if the teacher's had got their way.
Unfortunately, Canada will miss out on some of this upcycle as it didn't build new capacity during the downcycle and likley can't repeal the Trudeau era blocking legislation fast enough.
Yes, imagine how much worse it would be if the teacher's had gotten what they deserved for the hard work they do.
Probably 1 to 2 B worse. Teachers aren't hurting if education operational expenses are growing at more than double the rate of enrollment.
How can Albertans maintain a provincial government that reflects their moderate and liberal aspirations without all of these strange sideshows? My answer is proportional representation but perhaps there are others.
Carney can kneecap the Alberta separatist movement with positive action to get Alberta’s resources to tide water. Liberal obstructionism landlocked these resources and fueled the separatist movement. It is up to Carney to show, with no foot-dragging, that he is serious about following up on his MOU with Premier Smith.
So basically Alberta is being controlled by a cabal of right wing extremists. Ain't democracy grand? Alberta needs to take back thei... Oh. Nevermind.
Very appreciated, very informative. If only all our Conservatives were in this category, not happy at the influence of various conspiracy theorists.
It ends with his wish for how to get out of the separation topic. I think the optimal left-wing outcome would be to force a vote next week. Their "30%" drops to 20% when you mention passports, and that their money would suddenly be in foreign currency in a foreign bank; they have less support than Liberals in Ontario.
Thanks for the opinion on Nenshi; what a crushing disappointment - that he's having an issue handed to him, where he'd get to play the outraged patriot condemning treason, and all he can do is stutter and sit silent.
If the referendum happens this Fall and fails, does that cast much uncertainty? Quebec's economy suffered because a referendum was on the horizon for years on end.
I think the Feds are playing with fire. If the Liberals don't deliver on the MOU, all of the referendum questions might morph into "Do you hate Ottawa?". Carney is sending mixed signals when he should be spending whatever political capital it takes to deliver a west coast pipeline approval, and remove all barriers to significantly expanded energy production:
https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/carneys-energy-superpower-talk-isnt-cutting-it-we-need-action-heather-exner-pirot-in-the-hub/
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/ivison-mark-carney-danielle-smith-mou
Sorry, has some company proposed a pipeline? And an oilsands expansion to fill it?
Carney can't approve one that isn't there. He has sent every signal he would...
Chicken and Egg. Given how many times they have been burned by the Liberals, no pipeline or E&P is going to take on any regulatory risk. The AB will likley guarantee ship volumes and guide the project through approvalm
The Prince Rupert project was approved in 2024, and remains under construction, should be completed late next year. It follows the ribbon-cutting of TMX and Coastal Gaslink, of course. The BC and Federal governments, and local native groups, have all stated support for three upcoming pipelines: Pacific Trails, Woodfibre, and Cedar, so investors are eager. All of them private, of course.
Neither the federal government, nor the Alberta government, have a Socialist Department of Pipeline Construction. They do not know how, they have no staff. Only private concerns are able to build pipelines; TMX was built by TMX, the bailout just signed the TMX cheques, they didn't manage it.
An oil pipeline will find investors when they perceive that oil prices will likely exceed $70/bbl for the whole 2030s. Currently, they do not expect that.
He says one thing and does another. The two links I posted suggest that the new Liberals are as obstructionist as the old Liberals.
It is 100% within Carney's power to proactively "approve" a pipeline to the coast, with as many conditions as he wishes to apply.
Canada's current system requires a company to spend ridiculous sums of money up front to prove their project will comply with all conditions - and THEN the politicians say yea or nae.
It's a gamble no sane company would take, given the history this past decade.
But it would be a complete game-changer if our PM said that the project has his tacit approval, subject to the following conditions... and it would be MUCH more powerful than a MOU could ever be.
Doing so would cost him nothing, and gain him much - but he won't do it - which reveals much about his true intentions.
I just don’t know of any past engineering project that was approved before it was proposed: even houses need a building permit, and you have to show plans.
Gas pipelines are a done deal; one is currently under construction, three more are approved by both BC and the local natives. The only question is another oil pipeline. Why no proposal from private industry? Why no stated "conditions" and we'll go?
I typed a longer argument a few minutes ago, I'm deleting it for this simple one:
https://www.alberta.ca/royalty-oil-sands
...why would anybody suppose that we don't charge more than 1% royalty below $60/bbl in world oil price?
It is, of course, that they aren't making enough money below $60/bbl, and you can't get blood from a stone.
And prices are still around $65bbl, or will return there when the war ends, and they just aren't making the money they did when Kearl Lake was completed in 2013. The price was crashed by Saudi a year later, and oil sands expansions were no longer worth the candle.
Hey, we're supposed to be "building at speeds not seen in generations" here.
...and the first rule of "building at speeds not seen in generations" is *not* saying "but that's not the way we've ever done it before..."
You're *correct* in saying that that we've never before had a pipeline project "pre-approved" at the political level, followed by garnering all the regulatory checkmarks afterwards. This has not been tried before in Canada.
Don't you think *right now* would be a great time to *try* that and see how it works?
(((Note: I'm now using asterisks for emphasis of key words rather than all caps. I hope you find this more pleasing to your palate)))
I regret your misapprehension that I had a specific problem with any capital letters. I have struggled with an unfortunate habit of internet arguments for 35 years, since USENET in 1991 - that was when the rule was laid that capital letters are like "shouting".
The problem was actually the word "you", merely exacerbated by the shouting. Even unemphasized at all, it signals a shift from a group of commentators discussing a topic, to one guy arguing with another: which will always cause me to cap off a topic, as I continue my struggle.
By all means, emphasize as you choose. Of course, a lot of emphasis using any technique signals somebody getting upset, and a great time for me to go outside. I re-read the great XKCD #386 again, and get up.
https://xkcd.com/386/
Thank you for clarifying.
Let us speak of it no more.
Under the MOU that Carney and Smith signed it is Smith, not Carney who is required to deliver a pipeline proposal complete with investors with funding plus getting Indigenous Nations on side. If she can do that Carney has agreed to make approvals happen. Many people believe there is no way she can deliver her part of the MOU especially while she is stirring up separatist sentiment which investors will see as a deal breaker.
Carney is more responsible..he has to erase all Trudeau s stupid laws that make it impossible for Alberta to develop their energy.
Not for a moment do I believe that Carney is intent on approving or facilitating a pipeline...
Need a sovereign debt crisis to further tighten the vice grips on the Feds to actually focus on economic growth.
Please explain why Danielle Smith signed the agreement and is bragging about the prospect of a pipeline.
Not signing the MOU would have been received by the nation's press as Alberta not cooperating when the Liberals were trying to get them a pipeline.
...are you serious? She had no choice.
Looking at Trump ‘s war in Iran The world will need our petrol more than ever. Ormous closed ?
It is the duty of the Federal government to conduct indigenous consultation as it manages the relationship with First Nations. I suspect the AB government's position will be that equity is even better than consultation so if the Feds or Courts try to use insufficient consultation as an excuse, fireworks will ensue. If a Band has chosen to invest in a project, it must have done the due diligence regardless of the convoluted requirements that the Courts may invent.
No private sector investor will step forward due to regulatory uncertainty. Straight from Greg Ebel:
https://www.bicmagazine.com/industry/pipelines/enbridge-says-proposed-western-canada-pipeline-project-too-risky/
The AB government and Feds will have to fund the project through to at least the start of construction. This is unfortunate but the no company is going to step up given all the games that were played over the last decade. Canada has destroyed its investment climate and capital will not return for a long time without derisking from the government.
...which was the whole point of the MOU - to shed responsibility form the PM and download it into Smith.
Carney's bet was that Smith wouldn't be able to pull it off, at which point he would shrug and say "I tried".
But when she DOES bring a proponent to the table, Plan B is to make BC and/or the FN nations the scapegoats for killing the project.
...at which point, Carney will shrug, and say "I tried"
Do you sense a theme?
(and it isn't "building at speeds not seen in generations")
As I said earlier, I'd that happens, the referenda questions turn into "Do you hate Ottawa?". Carney won't risk that. It is a game of chicken and the Feds have no choice but to blink.
Very interesting article Mr Boessenkool. IMHO, you can only get away with this type of nonsense when there is no viable opposition to hold the government to account. It is very disappointing that considering the challenges both Alberta and Canada face, this type of gamesmanship gets played. I would much rather the people of Alberta hold Ms Smith to account on her fiscal record.
Danielle Smith is still one of the most articulate and intelligent politicians in Canada. I wouldn’t underestimate her.
another thoughtful insight Paul.. PQ have announced no referendum as long as tRump is in office.. Smith having referendum in Alberta ASAP will work in her and Canada's favour..
How do you figure it will help Canada?
GDP growth from unblocking resource projects.
From holding a referendum? If you mean winning a referendum that might be different but Alberta has no seaport. The headquarters of Bank of Montreal is in Toronto. Weird, huh? They pulled out of Montreal during the referendum like a lot of other companies did. Alberta will lose a whole lot of businesses if they vote to separate.
Another example that the Carny government has work to do:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/canadian-natural-defers-oilsands-mine-expansion-citing-regulatory-uncertainty/
On Feb 28, when this was written, the attacks by Trump on Iran had already begun. The potential effect of this on people’s willingness to leave Canada was not considered. I have always supported Canada.and now even more so. We must strongly protect ourselves from the USA government that is showing how violently they choose to rule their own and otjers’ nations. You do not want to be a part of it! We must stand for a peaceful, diplomatic way to solve problems and interact with one another.Premier Smith can draw the most support by recognizing that this is not the time to question national sovereignty. Hold off on that referendum and focus on leaning on the oil companies to take smaller portions of the oil dollar pie. Other nations successfully do that.
Ken was always better than his party deserved.