Today’s newsletter is brought to you by the people at Unfreeze Ontario.
Property taxes should be fair for everyone.
We’re calling on the province to restore regular property reassessments, which have been frozen since the pandemic.
Frozen assessments don’t freeze tax bills. They affect how the bill is divided, leaving some homeowners and businesses paying more while others pay less. A regular reassessment cycle from the province is a straightforward way to restore fairness.
Find out more at Unfreeze Ontario.
Before we turn to B.C., a little more about Alberta…
I know everyone is running high on the B.C. Conservative win over the weekend and I’ll have more to say on that soon but, this discussion has to be had.
What comes next?
Last week in the wake of the Alberta referendum vote, I knew we had to talk about more than Question 10, the one about separation. So I reached out to two men, active in the conservative movement for many years, two men who signed the famous in my view, Firewall Letter.
Ted Morton and Ken Boessenkool.
Ted and Ken know each other well, they respect each other, but as you will hear in this episode, they can spar. Ken in particular takes aim at Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.
He is no fan of what she has been doing and thinks it is hurting conservatism in Alberta.
Your mileage may vary.
Here’s a clip of us talking about whether Danielle Smith is a separatist.
What about the other questions…
For the most part though, we talk about the other nine questions.
What passed. What failed. Wether the process was worth it. And what Alberta does next to get the respect it deserves.
You can listen on YouTube below or check out the podcast on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
The official show notes and a transcript of the podcast are below.
From the official show notes…
Twenty-five years ago they rewired the province’s political thinking with their landmark “Alberta Agenda,” aka the “firewall” letter: a manifesto for the premier to assert sovereignty within a systemically inequitable federation. Days after Alberta’s referendum on some of the same issues they raised — but also going drastically further in considering separation — Brian speaks with letter-writers Ted Morton, who went on to become a provincial cabinet minister, and Ken Boessenkool, now a strategist and lobbyist. With voting results showing a hard no to separation and more narrow losses on questions of greater provincial powers in justice, social services, and regulation, they discuss whether Premier Danielle Smith’s tactic helped the cause of a more assertive Alberta, or set it back. (Recorded October 23, 2026)
Below is an auto-generated transcript, it may not be 100% accurate…
Brian Lilley:
Alberta’s referendum has come and gone. As the counting continues, five questions have failed, including the major question on whether to hold a binding referendum on separation, while five others have passed.
While the separation question was roundly rejected, the results on the other questions suggest a province that wants to remain in Canada but is not satisfied with the status quo.
Hello and welcome to the Full Comment Podcast. I’m Brian Lilley, and today we’re going to delve into Alberta’s place within Confederation, what this referendum means, and the long-standing push for changes to Canada’s federation.
Joining me are two guests who have been involved in these debates for a long time. Both were signatories to the Firewall Letter, published in the National Post on January 24, 2001, shortly after the 2000 federal election that returned Jean Chrétien’s Liberals to power.
Ted Morton is a former Alberta finance minister and energy minister and is currently an executive fellow at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.
Ken Boessenkool is a longtime government relations expert and political strategist at both the provincial and federal levels. He’s a partner at Meredith Boessenkool Phillips and currently lectures at the Max Bell School of Public Policy in Montreal.
Gentlemen, thanks for joining me.
Ken Boessenkool:
Good to be here.
Ted Morton:
Good to be here, Brian.
Initial Reactions
Brian Lilley:
I’ll start with a simple question. What are your thoughts on the referendum results? Ted, did anything surprise you?
Ted Morton:
I had hoped support for Option 2, the path toward a separation referendum, would be higher than 20%.
A very low vote sends the wrong message to Ottawa, the Liberals, and the rest of Canada. It suggests Alberta’s separatists are a noisy but politically irrelevant minority.
I wasn’t surprised by the result, though. And I’d be curious to hear Ken’s view because I think support for separatism is about double what it was a decade ago. If the next decade resembles the last one, it could double again.
I expect separatism will quiet down over the next 12 to 24 months, but the underlying issues remain. They may go into hibernation, but the bear could come out again.
Brian Lilley:
Ken?
Ken Boessenkool:
I think Canada had a great day in Alberta last week.
I’m still a proud signatory of the Firewall Letter, but I never believed that supporting more powers for Alberta meant being disloyal to Canada. Albertans believe in a strong provincial government, but they also love Canada.
They may not like Liberals, but they love Canada.
I think Premier Danielle Smith had a bad day because she’s trying to do two jobs. As leader of the UCP, she’s had to accommodate a party membership that includes many separatists. As premier, she’s had to speak as a federalist.
My understanding of the polling is that many people who voted for Option 2 weren’t true separatists. They simply wanted to send a message. If that’s the case, then actual separatist sentiment is probably somewhere between 10 and 15 percent.
Smith spent millions trying to get support for the broader reform agenda and even some traditional “Firewall-style” proposals failed. I think that’s weakened her negotiating position.
Did Trudeau Drive Alberta’s Anger?
Brian Lilley:
Ted, how much of Alberta’s frustration was driven by Justin Trudeau? Was this primarily a reaction to his decade in office?
Ted Morton:
The discontent long predates Justin Trudeau, but there’s no question his tenure intensified it.
The anti-oil-and-gas agenda, the emphasis on climate policy, the cancellation of projects such as Energy East and Northern Gateway, all had a significant impact on Alberta’s economy and government revenues.
Many Albertans expected Trudeau would eventually be replaced by a Conservative government led by Pierre Poilievre and that Western Canada would once again be represented inside the governing coalition.
When that didn’t happen, frustration grew.
I’d also add that COVID played a role. There was significant opposition to vaccine mandates in parts of Alberta, particularly rural Alberta. That added to anti-Liberal sentiment and helped fuel separatist feelings.
Ken Boessenkool:
I think it’s important to separate anger with Ottawa from support for separation.
My father, for example, gets angry whenever Trudeau’s name comes up, whether we’re talking about Pierre Trudeau and the National Energy Program or Justin Trudeau and his energy policies.
But if you ask him whether he loves Canada, he’ll say yes.
Anger with governments does not automatically translate into support for leaving the country.
From what I’ve seen, separatist sentiment itself hasn’t moved nearly as much as overall dissatisfaction. The real lesson of Alberta’s history is that many of these issues can be addressed within Canada.
I worked closely with Stephen Harper for a decade. We made Canada better for Alberta while staying within Confederation. If we did it before, we can do it again.
Is Danielle Smith a Separatist?
Brian Lilley:
I’ve known Danielle Smith for more than 15 years and asked her directly before the referendum whether she is a separatist. She said no. How do each of you see it?
Ken Boessenkool:
Danielle Smith has been on all sides of many issues over the past 20 years.
My concern isn’t that she’s personally a separatist. My concern is that she embraced the Free Alberta Strategy, which included a roadmap to separation.
Rob Anderson and others invited separatist activists into the UCP. Those people became important to Smith’s coalition, and that’s why we’ve spent years discussing separatism at all.
Ted Morton:
No, I don’t think Danielle Smith is a separatist.
She’s never advocated separation. She campaigned against it in this referendum.
Like every successful conservative leader in Alberta, she manages a coalition that includes different factions. I think Ken exaggerates when he suggests she handed the party over to separatists.
Direct Democracy and Referendums
Brian Lilley:
What did you think of the referendum process itself?
Ken Boessenkool:
I’m a fan of representative democracy, not direct democracy.
We elect representatives, they make decisions, and then voters judge them at the next election.
The problem with many of these referendum questions is that they were too complicated. Take the immigration questions. They overlap with one another, involve legal questions, and require a sophisticated understanding of policy.
That’s not how referendums are supposed to work.
I actually think the process hurt the case for direct democracy.
Ted Morton:
I agree with probably 90 percent of what Ken said.
I prefer deliberative democracy and elected representatives. But I do think there is room for referendums on certain questions.
And it’s worth remembering that referendums aren’t uniquely Albertan anymore. Canada held one on Charlottetown, and the Clarity Act is premised on the idea of referendums as well.
Immigration
Brian Lilley:
Five of the ten questions related to immigration. Were you surprised that Ottawa’s response after the referendum appeared largely unchanged?
Ken Boessenkool:
The Trudeau government’s handling of immigration was one of its biggest policy failures.
For years Canada admitted roughly 400,000 to 500,000 newcomers annually. Then we suddenly surged far beyond that.
The impacts on housing and infrastructure were obvious.
The good news is that numbers have come back down significantly and we’re starting to see rent and housing markets stabilize.
That said, I support provinces having more authority over immigration.
What I find ironic is that Danielle Smith was advocating for increased immigration when numbers were peaking. Alberta was actively recruiting newcomers.
So it isn’t obvious that giving Alberta full control would necessarily have produced lower immigration levels.
Ted Morton:
What frustrates many Albertans is the federal tendency to have one set of rules for Quebec and another for everyone else.
That’s the deeper issue.
Canada operates under a 19th-century constitutional framework while trying to manage a 21st-century economy. Provinces need more flexibility to respond to their own circumstances.
Provincial Appointment of Judges
Brian Lilley:
One failed question proposed giving provinces authority to appoint superior court judges rather than Ottawa. What do you think?
Ted Morton:
The question was technical and difficult for voters to understand, but the issue is important.
Canada is effectively the only federal state where provincial superior court judges are appointed by the national government.
That’s a colonial-era relic.
When provinces challenge federal policies in court, Ottawa is effectively selecting the referees. That makes little sense in a modern federation.
I expect we’ll eventually move toward greater provincial involvement, whether by constitutional change or convention.
Ken Boessenkool:
This is actually a good idea.
A convention whereby Ottawa appoints judges only from provincial nominee lists would make sense to me.
The irony is that although I think it’s good policy, the referendum result now puts Premier Smith in a difficult position because the proposal lost.
Senate Reform
Brian Lilley:
Let’s finish with Senate reform.
Ken Boessenkool:
The Senate has become an incredibly frustrating institution.
Stephen Harper tried to reform it. Justin Trudeau shifted toward appointing so-called independent experts.
Personally, I’d like to see senators appointed from lists provided by provincial governments.
The Senate should be a place that preserves institutional memory and regional perspectives.
Instead, we’ve ended up with a system that doesn’t really satisfy anybody.
Ted Morton:
Thirty years ago I strongly supported Senate reform.
Today I’m 100 percent in favour of abolishing it.
The reason I originally supported reform was because upper houses in countries such as the United States and Australia genuinely protect regional interests.
But after decades of trying to reform the Senate, we’ve failed.
I’ve concluded that the better path is less Ottawa and more provincial authority. Health care, education, and social services should be governed closer to the people affected by those decisions.
So I have moved from being a Senate reformer to a Senate abolitionist.
Brian Lilley:
And I suspect that position may actually be the most popular one among Canadians.
Closing
Ken Boessenkool:
The best description of the Senate still comes from Preston Manning. He called it “the home of taskless thanks.”
Ted Morton:
There’s certainly some truth to that.
Brian Lilley:
Gentlemen, thanks for your time. We haven’t solved all the world’s problems, but it’s been a great conversation.
Ken Boessenkool:
Thanks, Brian.
Ted Morton:
Thank you.
Great survey of the referendum. Need more analysis of this quality. Brought down by the inclusion of Boessenkool IMO. Perhaps someone actually living in Alberta. Signing the firewall letter all well and good, but Ted covered that angle. Perhaps someone reasonable from current day efforts - Keith Wilson perhaps. Boessenkool clearly no dummy but his Smith Derangement Syndrome very offputting
Apparently, wanting provinces to exercise the sovereignty and constitutional powers they already possess, as Premier Smith has advocated, now makes you a separatist.
There is a fundamental difference between advocating for provincial autonomy within Confederation and advocating for separation from Canada. We should be able to discuss and defend the constitutional division of powers without being labelled separatists.
It would be very interesting to interview David Knight Legg, who was also an advisor to Jason Kenney's and get his take on the results. Ken Boessenkool is so off putting.