5 min read

Editor's Note: This article argues against the upcoming Alberta referendum. To read an argument for the Alberta referendum, click here.

Many Albertans today find themselves looking at the separatist movement with a mixture of sympathy and hope. The frustrations driving the impulse to separate from Canada are grounded in very real grievances. For decades, federal policies have arguably been detrimental to Alberta’s resource development and industrial progress. Socially, the same pressure shows up in high immigration, the expansion of MAID, and speech rules that treat dissent on sex and gender as harm. These policies raise questions about our capacity to integrate newcomers and cut against biblical convictions that once shaped public life, including the created difference between male and female and the limits on who may take a life. Alberta is being asked to fund and absorb agendas it did not choose.

However, before we walk away from Canada, we should consider the inheritance we would be leaving behind and what the new landscape would look like. While the separatist movement is an earnest one led by some thoughtful voices, the proposal of independence remains a “Hail Mary” strategy. Most of the movement’s proposed solutions cannot fix the bigger issues of cultural and social decay caused by years of rejecting our Christian roots. We should consider whether a better solution starts with learning to govern our counties and cities well.

Defining the Movement and Its Grievances

The Alberta independence movement includes many Christian, conservative, and libertarian Albertans who are frustrated with how this province has been treated. While the movement seems to be gaining momentum, I believe separation is not addressing the core issues. Should the cause for independence advance this October, the road ahead would still carry the risks of constitutional rupture, economic dislocation, unresolved questions of debt, borders, currency, and trade, and the immense practical burden of forging a new nation in a world that may not embrace it. Conversely, should the movement fail, we risk handing those who disregard Alberta’s interests a victory that could set back the fight for provincial autonomy for a generation.

Culturally, we have failed to pass on many of the Christian convictions that shaped Canada. We cannot assume those convictions are shared by the next generation or by people arriving from other cultures. These people are our neighbours now, and the work of building a shared understanding of how we ought to live together remains in front of us. Separation will not do that work.

The same is true of our institutions. DEI policies and ideas drawn from Marxism do not depend on Alberta being part of Canada. Neither does the secularism within our own communities. The next generation of voters will reshape this province whether or not Ottawa has a say. We will still have to contend with these issues.

The independence movement itself appears fragmented, largely secular, and without an agreed governing vision. That is another pitfall. Two supporters can share the same grievance—Ottawa takes too much of Alberta’s wealth—and work together for a time. One is moved by self-interest: keep more money at home and cut waste. The other sees the transfer as legalized theft, used to fund agendas that offend a Christian conscience. Separation does not decide which vision will prevail.

A grassroots campaign can float along on ideals of freedom so long as it never has to govern. Real power means electing politicians, drafting a constitution, making laws, and facing moral and economic fights. That is when the differences within a coalition become consequential.

The risk is a thinner constitutional order than the one Alberta already inherits. Canada’s founding language and public architecture still carry a Christian inheritance: “Dominion” drawn from Psalm 72, biblical inscriptions on buildings in Ottawa, and institutions shaped by Christian beliefs. Trading that inheritance for a largely secular movement that has not agreed on what it would build is not a trade worth making.

The Long-Term Solution — County Before Country

There is another way forward, and it is a path that looks closer to home for solutions. With all the exhaustion over what to do about Canada, many of us feel there is little we can do. But we underestimate what we can achieve in our own counties, towns, and cities. If we can govern our local communities effectively, we may be able to govern a sovereign nation one day.

The path I propose is practising the art of governance at the local level first. Instead of rushing toward nationhood, we should channel our energy into mastering our municipalities. This is where we can start to create meaningful change.

Consider this thought experiment: what if we recruited and supported two or three principled Christian men or women to run for local council or school boards? Through this, we would learn the mechanics of winning elections: canvassing, door-knocking, and building mailing lists. We would learn how to build lasting organizational infrastructure. And most importantly, we would identify and raise up faithful leaders with moral conviction.

Those convictions should show up in how they govern. A councillor who believes he will answer to God ought to tell the truth, keep his word, refuse favouritism, and treat his neighbour’s money with care. We should expect him to understand a budget and take responsibility for the ordinary work of keeping a city running. If we believe Christian convictions produce better government, we ought to demonstrate it where we live.

In our city, where nearly 3,000 Christians participated in a city-wide worship service, we ought to be able to elect a few Christian councillors. Once elected, these leaders could pursue substantive actions: prohibiting drag shows in public libraries, removing pride symbols from municipal sidewalks, and refusing municipal participation in pride celebrations in public squares. They could also propose real restitution where the theft referred to in land acknowledgements can be established.

One other thing to note: if the thought of anything I just said makes us uneasy, we ought to examine why. If our hesitation comes from fear of opposition, then we have identified where we must grow in courage. If we lack the will to win at the local level on basic issues, we are unlikely to be able to govern and sustain a new country.

Building for Real

As we look to practise local governance, we ought to acknowledge that the ultimate solution is spiritual and cultural renewal. Politics and splitting up Canada cannot accomplish that on their own. Our churches must faithfully proclaim the Word of God, calling all people to repentance, whatever their nation, sex, or orientation. They must encounter Jesus Christ.

In our pursuit of rebuilding our political order, we should see the fruits of our labour in our cities using their laws to point sinners away from rebellion. Our churches should point rebellious souls to Jesus.

It must also be said that a city should honour and govern by what is true without attempting to enforce faith by law. Freedom of conscience is a distinctly Christian ideal that can only be preserved by a Christian ruler. Such a ruler must recognize the limits of his own authority: he can restrain wrongdoing, but he cannot compel faith.

The path forward is not a high-stakes gamble on separation that risks fracturing the right. Such a fracture would be a setback for believers at a time when we ought to be building our homes, our churches, our institutions, and our businesses. All of these will be harder to build under a more secular government. 

Separation now is a tempting illusion that lacks the foundational elements for success. If this movement drives local action and strategic work in our communities, it has value. But the next phase requires the hard, patient work of local governance and gospel-centred renewal—building heart by heart and municipality by municipality.