October 17, 2026
Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.
HERE'S MY TAKE
The campaign surrounding Alberta’s October 19 referendum reveals more than whatever the results will show. Most expect the “referendum on whether to have a referendum” will fall well short of majority support. Premier Danielle Smith’s stance on a second referendum is unequivocal: “Not as long as I am Premier.” Still, the campaign and the impressions it leaves may prove as consequential to Alberta’s political future as the question of separation itself.
I spent a few days in Alberta last week, listening to Albertans on opposite sides of the referendum question. More business-oriented than partisan, they differed on the campaign’s implications. Pro-separation voices generally viewed separation as unlikely but considered the threat useful leverage in Alberta’s dealings with the rest of Canada. Yet even most of them expressed concerns about the instability the prolonged process had introduced.
Shortly after returning to Ontario, I came across an essay analyzing polling on which public figures Albertans trust regarding separation. It highlighted the unlikely partnership of former premiers Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney, fierce rivals in the 2019 election, now sharing platforms to defend Confederation. Interestingly, the polling suggested that Prime Minister Mark Carney and Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre could collectively reach the broadest audience. Both were campaigning in Alberta this week, although not together.
There is more at stake here than effective political communications. The willingness of adversaries to cooperate for a shared public purpose speaks to the vocation of statesmanship, which is particularly tested in times like these.
This is not merely a question for Albertans. Last week’s Quebec election gave the Parti Québécois a minority government with 59 seats and just 28 percent of the popular vote. A sovereigntist party has won the right to govern, but hardly a mandate to assume Quebecers agree on the province’s constitutional future. Premier Paul St-Pierre Plamondon acknowledged the challenge, promising to incorporate ideas from opposition platforms into his budget. But statesmanship requires more than symbolic gestures; it demands prudent governing amid profound disagreement.
Our Westminster parliamentary tradition institutionalizes political disagreement. Government and opposition face one another across the aisle, but remain partners in democratic self-government, sharing obligations to the institutions and communities within which they disagree.
Recent polling suggests strong partisanship can complicate these obligations. Elections Canada’s 2025 National Electors Study found that only 16 percent of Canadians identified very closely with a federal political party, while 41 percent reported no particular attachment. Yet 37 percent of those with the strongest partisan identification were classified as strongly polarized, compared with just 11 percent among those without party attachment. Party loyalty has not necessarily displaced loyalty to country, but intense partisanship is associated with greater difficulty relating across political differences. Do the skills cultivated in the practice of partisanship dull the skills required to engage difference civilly?
This makes an often-overlooked distinction especially important. Political parties organize to win elections and implement programs. Parliamentary caucuses consist of elected representatives whose constitutional responsibilities extend beyond electoral success. Parties are indispensable, but Parliament is not simply a permanent election campaign. Nor is a Premier merely a spokesperson for party members.
Consider Danielle Smith’s predicament. She supports Alberta remaining in Canada, even as separatist sentiment has gained influence within the UCP. Constituency associations have called for an early leadership review, potentially challenging her position within her own party.
Party members have every right to hold leaders accountable. But what happens when the preferences of committed activists conflict with a Premier’s responsibility to govern for an entire province? A party leadership review is not a legislative confidence vote, much less a referendum on Alberta’s constitutional future.
Our increasingly American-style system of party leadership selection and accountability sits uneasily alongside Westminster parliamentary government. The former places authority in party members’ hands; the latter depends on maintaining the confidence of elected legislators. Canadian politics has always featured strong party discipline, but we may have democratized party machinery without adequately protecting parliamentarians’ distinct responsibilities. Accountability to party members is important, but it is not the entirety of democratic accountability.
Canada’s trade dispute with the United States offers another test. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre deserves recognition for his recent advocacy in the United States. In Detroit, he argued for tariff-free automotive trade; on CNN, he emphasized shared North American economic interests. He did so without abandoning criticism of Prime Minister Carney’s negotiating strategy.
That is entirely appropriate. His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition is loyal not to the government but to the constitutional order. Challenging government policy and defending national interests are complementary responsibilities.
Canadian history offers precedents. In 1864, George Brown joined longtime rivals John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier in the Great Coalition that made Confederation possible. In 1995, Jean Chrétien, Jean Charest, and Preston Manning united to oppose Quebec separation despite substantial differences about federalism. Their cooperation did not require abandoning their convictions.
Nor should statesmanship be confused with politicians simply being nicer to one another. Vigorous disagreement is essential to Westminster democracy, and compromise is not always virtuous.
Canada has always encompassed overlapping loyalties, regional interests, and competing visions of the common good. Our institutions were designed not to eliminate those differences but to make shared government possible despite them.
Constitutional divisions at home and economic pressures from abroad demand more than partisan champions. They expose both the character of our leaders and the institutional tensions that can constrain them. Statesmanship requires the prudence to recognize shared responsibilities while respecting legitimate differences.
That is not a retreat from conviction. It is the vocation of statesmanship.
WHAT I’M READING
Not all Interdependence is Equal
David Crane’s Hill Times column highlights a new paper by Paul Samson for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace arguing that decades of economic integration with the United States have brought Canada extraordinary prosperity but also created dependencies that Washington can and is exploiting. The current trade war is exposing vulnerabilities that extend well beyond tariffs to defence, technology, financial systems, and digital infrastructure, raising fundamental questions about Canadian sovereignty. The challenge is not simply to reduce our dependence on the United States, but to distinguish between the interdependence that makes us prosperous and that which compromises our sovereignty, and to prepare to use different standards for judging each category.
Faith-Based Healthcare
Regular readers know that I am in favour of faith-based institutions delivering health care, in part because I believe health involves the whole person and to separate out the spiritual component from our health and wellness is inherently problematic. Cardus will soon release a paper I co-authored with Dr. Rebecca Vachon on the theme and Faith Today published a column by yours truly in which the essential case is made in column-length format.
US Perspectives on the Canada Trade Dispute
The irritants between Canadian governments and the United States administration surrounding trade have significant political implications. The Dispatch is an American conservative online media source generally critical of the President, and it provided an interesting take this week, emphasizing how the dispute is giving Prime Minister Carney political space to pursue an aggressive agenda. It also gives space in the latter half to critics who suggest that this campaign, based as it is on much on public emotion than economic logic, will certainly run into difficulties. I find it insightful to review how issues very familiar to us are explained to audiences less familiar with them.
With What Do We Measure?
Our peers at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute have launched a new website, Benchmark Canada, which will seek to benchmark various Canadian indicators (there are presently 44) against those of other countries using reputable data sources. I look forward to testing the tool more extensively, but initial reviews suggest it will be helpful in sorting through different data sources to “compare apples to apples” and cut through the inevitable spin with which most data is presented. It also promises to provide significant global context and a reference point for a wide range of numbers that are sometimes hard to make sense of.
MEANINGFUL METRICS
The question of which occupations should require mandatory credentials has always invited debate, with the public arguments almost always focused on consumer protection and safety, while the less-public motivations for such policy are impacted by occupational protectionism and government revenues related to licensing, etc.
The Fraser Institute released a study last week focused on the less public arguments, suggesting that provincial occupational licensing requirements often restrict employment opportunities, raise consumer prices, and protect established practitioners without demonstrably improving safety or service quality. About 11 percent of Canadian workers require occupational licences, with requirements varying significantly by province.
Barbers are a common example, with a mandatory credential in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec. In Alberta, a barber apprenticeship requires 1450 hours of practice, a 10-week in-class component (at a cost of approximately $2,000) and exams in both theory and practice (which come with a $300 fee). Yet, in six provinces there is no requirement and it would seem from the lack of media reports that hair gets safely cut without major consequence in those provinces as well. The Fraser study compares Canadian provinces, as well as Canada and the United States, and finds that Alberta has the most trades (73) with mandatory credentialing.
TAKE IT TO-GO
A Latte Leaf
I think of this final paragraph as an autumn leaf: one that has outlived its useful contribution but hangs on to leave a last impression after the others have replaced their colourful display with oblivion. The paragraphs that comprise the essence of the value of Insights preceded it, and I include one last paragraph just as a final farewell, like a pumpkin spice latte that provides a little extra, not because it’s needed, but well, just because. Next week, Insights will turn over a new leaf with a new theme. It remains uncertain how deciduous that will be, but in the meantime, we linger so the farewell is a gentle good-bye, not a blunt falling out.
It’s a big week with Alberta’s referendum on Monday and B.C.’s election on Saturday. For those eligible to cast a ballot, I have an evergreen suggestion. Please steward the opportunity to have your say. I am mindful that democracy as we experience it, complete with all of its flaws, remains a tremendous blessing (especially when considered against the alternatives that so many experience). The next edition of Insights aims to be in your inbox next Saturday morning. Till then.
Reply to Ray