The debate over Alberta’s future begins
By Alex Howey, July 31 2026—
On July 9, Western Standard hosted a debate on Alberta’s independence at the Glenmore Inn & Convention Centre.
This comes at a contentious time, as Albertans prepare to vote on a nine question referendum slated for Oct. 19.
Among the nine questions, one will ask if the government of Alberta should hold a referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada.
The debate was between Western Standard’s Publisher, President and CEO Derek Fildebrandt, who argued for Alberta’s independence, and Mount Royal University (MRU) and University of Calgary Political Science Professor Duane Bratt, who argued for maintaining Alberta’s future in Canada.
The event had 320 people RSVP, with over 4,000 viewers viewing the event across online platforms, according to the Western Standard.
The audience was mostly composed of Western Standard readers according to Fildebrandt.
Opening statements
“Our Canada is gone. It has been replaced by a postnational economic redistribution zone,” said Fildebrandt in his opening statement. “Canada opened the floodgates to third world mass migration that is destroying the inheritance passed on to us by our ancestors.”
Fildebrandt also suggested that “Canada lowered its flag in self-flagellating shame for months to atone for a genocide that it well knew was a hoax.”
The House of Commons adopted a motion brought forward by NDP MP Leah Gazan, and adopted with unanimous consent to recognize Canada’s Residential School system as an act of genocide in 2022.
“Conservatives may promise a pipeline, but they will never promise to reform the Constitution to give the west fair representation or to end equalization. They cannot because they need to win votes in the East to form government,” Fildebrandt concluded.
On the opposing side to the argument, Dr. Bratt explained his goals for the debate in his opening statement.
“What I hope to do is make the case for why Alberta needs to remain in Canada, and identify the myths and risks of Alberta separatism,” said Dr. Bratt. “There’s always been a separatist sentiment in Alberta since it became a province in 1905. In fact, I would argue it has spiked much larger in past years.”
“The reason we’re having this referendum is about internal party unity and a potential threat to [Danielle] Smith’s leadership and her willingness to risk national unity in the process,” suggested Dr. Bratt.
Purpose and costs of the referendum
Fildebrandt explained the purpose of the upcoming referendum.
“This is a referendum to hold a referendum. This is a referendum to decide not to declare independence, but to declare if Alberta wishes to go down the road of independence.” explained Fildebrandt.
Dr. Bratt explained how the projected costs of separation are wide-ranging, and inconsistent.
“The Premier has said it would cost $400 billion in adjustment costs, but there are no numbers backing that up. Now, the school of public policy has been asked to do a more full-scale analysis, but […] ultimately we don’t know,” Dr. Bratt explained.
The Government of Alberta recently chose U of C’s School of Public Policy to conduct an analysis that details potential economic impacts of the province leaving Canada.
“The report will provide estimated transition costs from separation from Canada including the potential impact on the Government of Alberta’s expenditures along with the potential risks and benefits for Albertans if the province pursued this constitutional change. The report will not include policy recommendations,” the School of Public Policy’s website states.
The school will deliver its report in August, and the report will be released to the public by the Alberta government in the late summer ahead of the referendum.
“What we do know is comparisons. We know the impact that Brexit has had on Britain economically and the drop in GDP that occurred there,” Dr. Bratt concluded.
Separation and indigenous rights
Fildebrandt was then asked how the process of separation would impact indigenous populations in Canada.
“If polling is to be believed, they are disproportionately on the federalist side. I find that odd.” said Fildebrandt. “The Indian Act has treated our Indigenous people terribly. Why wouldn’t this be an excellent opportunity to rectify that to bring them into the community of Alberta?”
“It would be up to our indigenous people to decide if they want to renegotiate [treaties] or not,” Fildebrandt concluded.
While the Indian Act has been considered by advocacy groups to be a discriminatory piece of legislation due to it being designed to dismantle Indigenous governance, legal scholars argue that getting rid of it could not be done unilaterally.
“When we talk about repealing or replacing it, it has to be done with First Nations input,” Indigenous Legal Rights Scholar Janice Makokis explained in an interview with CBC.
“If we’re talking about replacing anything, there needs to be a restoration and rebuilding of the original laws, governance structures and the treaties and the treaty relationship that existed, and was the intent of what the nation-to-nation relationship was supposed to be,” said Makokis.
Dr. Bratt also rebutted the idea of getting rid of the Indian Act.
“Jean Chrétien, when he was Indian affairs minister in the late 1960s tried to do that and he was strongly imposed by the Indigenous people because that was viewed as assimilation, and that would violate the treaty rights that had been ignored up to that point,” said Dr. Bratt.
Fildebrant’s fight for recognition of sovereignty
Fildebrandt discussed the constitutional considerations that would need to be taken into account if Alberta was to secede.
“These are tough questions and they’re fair for the other side to ask. Are we a republic? Are we a constitutional monarchy? If Alberta pursues independence, we would have to have a constitutional convention of some kind,” Fildebrandt explained.
“There is a very small number who want to become a US state. I’m not one of them, and I don’t imagine most independent supporters are. I don’t want to trade one distant imperial capital for another,” said Fildebrandt.
“At the end of the day, we would have to seek international recognition from foreign governments, and I believe that the first customer’s door we show up with would be the United States,” Fildebrandt concluded.
The senate reform debate
The two participants discussed senate reform, which is another topic being covered in the upcoming referendum.
The sixth question that will be offered on a ballot asks, “Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to abolish the unelected federal Senate?”
Dr. Bratt explained his opposition to abolishing the senate.
“In this province, we actually are going to have a referendum on abolishing the Senate. That is not the status quo,” explained Dr. Bratt. “Having an unequal, weak Senate is not good, but it’s not worth breaking up the country.”
Conversely, Fildebrandt argued for a reformed senate.
“It could be on the American, the Australian, or the German models. Any one of those are a wild improvement over the medieval system that we have here,” argued Fildebrandt.
Dr. Bratt then discussed why the equalization program is important.
“Alberta would have gone bankrupt in the Great Depression were it not for federal assistance,” Dr. Bratt explained. “If you don’t like the idea of equalization and you don’t like relatively equal schools and health care systems across the country, which is what equalization is, then you might not like equalization in the province of Alberta that does the same thing.”
Closing arguments
Both participants offered closing statements.
“Ottawa plunders Alberta’s wealth to buy votes in other parts of Canada,” Fildebrandt argued.
“I have always believed and continue to believe that a reformed and resurgent Canada is the best path forward for Alberta and the West. Real change to things like market access, equalization, representation in the House of Commons and the Senate, protecting our liberties, these all require reopening the Constitution,” said Fildebrandt.
“That is why we have but two options left. We accept going down with the ship or we take our destiny into our own hands and we declare independence,” Fildebrandt concluded.
“I will acknowledge it’s a lot more fun to be a separatist,” suggested Dr. Bratt.
“You can promise a utopia and very different types of utopia, but there are consequences to these false promises as we have seen in Brexit,” said Dr. Bratt.
“Canada is great because of Alberta, and Alberta is great because of Canada,” Dr. Bratt concluded.
Following the event, the Gauntlet interviewed Fildebrandt, to see how he felt the debate went, and why it was an important conversation to have right now.
“We haven’t had enough debates on this. Both sides have had speeches and rallies, speaking largely to the converted,” he explained. “We need to test their ideas, put them up against scrutiny. […] Canada is in terminal decline right now. It has no instinct to save itself, and we can save a part of it by building a new constitutional order in the West,”
This event is sure to be the first of many debates on the topic, as Albertans prepare to weigh in on the issue on Oct. 19.
For more information regarding the upcoming referendum, visit https://albertareferendum2026.ca/