Alberta and Ottawa Enter New Era of Cooperation as Carney and Smith Unite Against Separation

CALGARY, Alberta, October 17, 2026: After years of political confrontation, economic disputes and growing resentment toward the federal government, Alberta’s relationship with Ottawa appears to be undergoing a significant transformation. Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Mark Carney are presenting a more cooperative approach to federal and provincial relations, even as the province faces a referendum that could shape its constitutional future.

The unexpected political alignment has become particularly visible during the final stages of Alberta’s referendum campaign, with both leaders publicly supporting the province’s continued membership in Canada.

However, the apparent improvement in relations has also raised questions about whether the changes represent a lasting shift in federal policy or a temporary political understanding driven by the threat of Alberta separatism.

For generations, Alberta’s relationship with Ottawa has been marked by disagreements over natural resources, federal taxation, environmental regulations, energy infrastructure and the distribution of political power within Confederation.

Those tensions intensified during the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau, when federal climate policies and restrictions affecting the energy industry became major sources of frustration for provincial leaders.

Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney accused Ottawa of undermining the province’s economic strength, while Smith repeatedly argued that federal regulations were preventing Alberta from developing its natural resources and attracting investment.

As recently as 2025, Smith was sharply criticizing Ottawa for what she described as policies designed to restrict Alberta’s oil and gas industry.

Her government launched public consultations to hear concerns about federal policies, provincial autonomy and the future of Alberta within Canada.

The political environment has changed considerably since Carney became prime minister.

Speaking during the current referendum campaign, Smith offered a strikingly different assessment, suggesting that Canada is now functioning more effectively than at any previous point in her political experience.

She credited Carney with demonstrating a greater willingness to respect provincial jurisdiction, accelerate major economic projects and reconsider federal regulations that Alberta has long opposed.

Smith also confirmed that she intends to vote in favour of Alberta remaining within Canada.

Her position reflects a growing belief within the provincial government that cooperation with Ottawa may offer a more practical route to economic growth and provincial autonomy than pursuing independence.

The change has been particularly noticeable in the energy sector, where several federal policy adjustments have been welcomed by Alberta’s government.

Smith previously identified nine federal laws and regulatory measures that she considered harmful to the province’s economy and constitutional authority.

These included the proposed oil and gas emissions cap, federal oversight of industrial carbon pricing, clean electricity regulations, electric vehicle sales requirements and the federal Impact Assessment Act.

Other concerns involved restrictions affecting oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s northern coast, access to energy transportation corridors, regulations governing single use plastics and federal policies affecting how energy companies communicate about environmental performance.

The Alberta government now maintains that seven of those nine measures have either been eliminated or substantially revised.

Ryan Fournier, a spokesperson for the premier’s office, said the changes have helped restore investor confidence and encourage major projects to move forward.

The provincial government views these developments as evidence that federal and provincial cooperation can produce economic benefits without requiring Alberta to leave Confederation.

One of the most significant examples is the proposed Pacific Link pipeline.

Earlier this month, Ottawa and Alberta announced that the project had become the first to receive a national interest designation under the federal government’s accelerated approval framework.

The proposed pipeline would transport approximately one million barrels of oil per day from Alberta to the British Columbia coast, potentially expanding access to international energy markets.

Its estimated cost exceeds $35 billion, making it one of the most ambitious energy infrastructure proposals currently under consideration in Canada.

The designation is intended to accelerate federal regulatory reviews and approvals, although questions remain about environmental assessments, Indigenous consultation and the extent of potential taxpayer involvement.

For Smith, the project represents a major opportunity to strengthen Alberta’s economy and demonstrate that Ottawa is willing to support the development of Canadian energy resources.

For critics of the federal government’s previous energy policies, the announcement also signals a shift toward recognizing the economic importance of oil and gas production.

Heather Exner-Pirot, director of energy, natural resources and environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, believes the policy changes have substantially improved Canada’s investment climate.

She argues that regulatory uncertainty during the Trudeau years damaged the country’s reputation among energy investors and discouraged major infrastructure development.

According to Exner-Pirot, the adjustments introduced under Carney have made Canada more competitive and created opportunities that would have seemed unlikely only two years earlier.

She also defended the possibility of government involvement in major West Coast pipeline development, arguing that the financial and regulatory risks associated with such projects can make public support necessary.

The history of the Trans Mountain pipeline illustrates those challenges.

The federal government purchased the project for $4.5 billion in 2018 after its private owner encountered serious difficulties proceeding with construction.

The project’s eventual cost increased to approximately $34 billion, raising concerns about public spending and the financial risks associated with major infrastructure.

Exner-Pirot nevertheless emphasized that not every Canadian energy development depends on government financial assistance.

She pointed to other projects, including the expansion of LNG Canada in British Columbia, as evidence that private investment continues to play an important role in the sector.

Despite the more positive assessment from Alberta’s government and some energy analysts, separatist leaders remain deeply skeptical.

Keith Wilson, a constitutional lawyer and prominent advocate of Alberta independence, argues that improved personal relations between Smith and Carney do not resolve the underlying constitutional and economic grievances driving separatist sentiment.

Wilson believes Alberta’s future should not depend on whether a particular premier and prime minister are willing to cooperate.

He maintains that lasting reform would require structural changes to federal and provincial relations, including reconsideration of Canada’s equalization system and the federal government’s authority over resource development.

Wilson has also criticized Ottawa’s handling of the Impact Assessment Act following a recent Alberta Court of Appeal ruling that found the legislation remained unconstitutional.

He argues that federal promises and policy adjustments fall short of the permanent reforms necessary to protect Alberta’s economic interests.

Other independence advocates have expressed similar concerns about the Pacific Link pipeline.

Cory Morgan, who leads the pro-independence advertising organization Pathway to Independence, questioned whether a major pipeline requiring substantial federal involvement should be considered evidence of a healthier economic system.

He suggested that Canada’s inability to advance certain large energy projects without government intervention demonstrates continuing structural problems.

These arguments reflect the central disagreement between supporters of remaining in Canada and advocates of separation.

Federalists believe Alberta can achieve meaningful economic and constitutional progress through negotiation, while separatists argue that temporary policy concessions cannot guarantee long term provincial autonomy.

The debate has become more complicated because the referendum extends beyond the question of independence.

Albertans are also being asked to consider nine additional questions dealing with immigration policy and constitutional reform.

Five questions concern immigration, while four address potential constitutional changes, including the future of the Senate.

Although Smith and Carney agree that Alberta should remain part of Canada, their positions on these additional questions are not aligned.

The disagreement became public when Carney appeared to support the campaign urging voters to reject all nine additional referendum proposals.

Smith quickly responded by criticizing what she described as the damaging consequences of previous federal immigration policies.

She indicated that the prime minister had not fully recognized the concerns that Alberta and other provinces have raised about immigration and its effects on public services and local economies.

The exchange demonstrated that cooperation on national unity and energy policy does not necessarily mean the two governments agree on other major issues.

Ian Brodie, a University of Calgary political scientist and former chief of staff to prime minister Stephen Harper, described Carney’s intervention as a political mistake.

He argued that an effective campaign for Canadian unity should acknowledge Alberta’s longstanding grievances and demonstrate a willingness to address them.

Carney has maintained that federal and provincial governments can cooperate on immigration reform without requiring a referendum.

He has acknowledged that provinces are often better positioned to understand labour shortages and regional economic needs.

Despite their disagreement, Carney and Smith appeared together Friday at a brewery in Red Deer, where they urged Albertans to support remaining in Canada.

The prime minister described their working relationship as one involving difficult but constructive negotiations.

He praised Smith for bringing challenging issues directly into their discussions and seeking solutions rather than avoiding disagreements.

The joint appearance carried considerable political significance.

It presented two leaders from different political backgrounds working together on a question of national unity at a time when Alberta’s future within Confederation has become a major public debate.

For some longtime observers of western Canadian politics, the improved relationship offers an opportunity to address grievances that have persisted for decades.

Former Alberta member of Parliament Monte Solberg, who represented the province from 1993 to 2008, is supporting the campaign to keep Alberta within Canada.

Solberg believes separation would be particularly risky while Canada is engaged in important economic negotiations with the United States.

However, he also argues that voting to remain in Canada should not end discussions about constitutional fairness and the balance of federal and provincial powers.

He sees greater potential for productive negotiations under Carney than existed during the previous federal administration.

Other political figures have suggest

Courtesy: CBC