Charting Alberta’s Future

A Constructive Look at Premier Smith’s “Alberta Accord”

Premier Danielle Smith’s live address to Albertans this afternoon was framed as a visionary moment: a step forward in redefining Alberta’s place within Confederation.

The premier’s proposal of an “Alberta Accord” and a cross-province engagement tour marks another chapter in the province’s ongoing efforts to seek fairness, respect, and recognition within Confederation.

But for all its rhetorical ambition, this latest initiative may ultimately fall short.

Not for lack of passion, but due to a set of demands that are unlikely to generate meaningful change. Therein lies both a missed opportunity and a chance for recalibration.

Bold, But Unrealistic Demands

The Alberta Accord is centered around four key demands directed at the federal government. These bear a striking resemblance to past overtures, most notably Robert Bourassa’s “five conditions” ahead of the Meech Lake Accord. But while Bourassa's asks were framed with national consensus in mind, and while the Quebec premier worked to build agreement with his counterparts across the country, Premier Smith's approach lacks the same level of engagement and strategic foresight. Her proposals, as currently articulated, face significant constitutional and political hurdles that, if not overcome, could end up inflaming frustrations among her base rather than resolving them.

1. Federally Guaranteed Oil & Gas Corridors

While the notion of an energy corridor has long appealed to advocates of national infrastructure, Smith’s proposal that Carney “guarantee" coastal access for Alberta oil faces legal and practical limits. It would require Ottawa to skirt or override potential court rulings and Indigenous land rights, neither of which are within the control of Parliament or cabinet. Further, the idea presumes the federal government could unilaterally compel provincial and territorial governments to allow access to coastlines, a move that would ignore their jurisdiction and autonomy (something that Smith, herself, has championed through measures like the Sovereignty Act).

This proposal might gain traction if Alberta were to begin by seeking negotiated agreements with affected communities and provinces. Ottawa might offer to convene tables in this regard. Without those early, earnest steps, it’s hard to imagine meaningful progress, even with federal goodwill.

2. Ending Federal Oversight in Energy Policy

Smith is calling for the repeal of nearly every environmental regulation passed by the current federal government. That would amount to a wholesale reversal of a national mandate received just days ago. While it’s fair to debate the merits of these policies, asking Ottawa to abandon its commitments to climate action and adopt the opposition’s platform (or cede control over federal policy to a provincial government) is not a realistic starting point for intergovernmental dialogue. The Carney government has signaled a willingness to reform some of its approaches, if not its policies. It’s unclear whether this will be enough to satisfy Smith’s call for “action,” however.

3. A Ban on Export Taxes and Regulation

This proposal, while framed as a benefit to all provinces, would significantly limit the federal government’s ability to negotiate trade deals. It comes at a particularly volatile time in Canada-US relations, and runs contrary to the opposite demands from other (even conservative) premiers to keep all options on the table. Removing that flexibility would weaken Canada’s position in defending domestic interests, which is why no responsible Prime Minister (Polieivre included) would agree to it.

A better approach might involve Alberta advocating for clearer provincial roles in shaping trade strategies (a longstanding Quebec demand), especially in energy and agriculture, without tying Ottawa’s hands completely. I do not see a way out of this demand at least until after the renegotiation of CUSMA, when some sort of Environmental Union Framework Agreement (like SUFA) might be negotiated.

4. Equalization on a Per Capita Basis

Alberta has long raised concerns about fairness in federal transfers. However, the province’s proposal to receive equalization payments on a per capita basis misinterprets the purpose of the program, which is designed to support provinces with below-average fiscal capacity. Even British Columbia, who Smith cited as a comparator, hasn’t received equalization in over 15 years.

Where Alberta could make real progress is by pushing for reform of the Fiscal Stabilization Fund: a program that offers temporary assistance during revenue shocks. A stronger, more equitable version of that fund could help Alberta weather economic downturns without distorting the principles of equalization. This is an idea with broad potential support across the country (Kenney got all premiers to agree to this call), and seems a reasonable concession from the federal government. Perhaps this is something Carney could float as an olive branch.

Another “Listening” Tour

Premier Smith’s plan to launch and chair an “Alberta Next” panel, composed of legal experts and academics, to host town halls echoes Jason Kenney’s Fair Deal Panel and the Ralph Klein-era MLA Committee. While public engagement is always welcome (and sorely lacking on most other matters of UCP policy), the outcomes of previous efforts have been clear: Albertans prefer cooperation within Confederation to isolationist alternatives. Nothing new is likely to come of this round.

The promise of referenda in 2026, including the possibility of citizen-led questions on separation, risks reigniting debates that many Albertans would rather move past. The acknowledgment that such votes must respect treaty rights is encouraging, but the province will need to show care and clarity in how that commitment is upheld.

Striking the Right Tone

To her credit, Premier Smith concluded her address with hopeful words about unity, mutual respect, and a vision for a strong Alberta within a strong Canada. These are messages worth amplifying.

However, moments earlier, she also invoked polarizing language by targeting ideological opponents (“extremists,” “socialists,” etc.). This was a disappointing disjunction in her address.

Constructive federalism requires the sort of tone that Smith encouraged. It starts not by defining enemies, but by identifying shared goals like prosperity, environmental sustainability, and reconciliation, and working together to achieve them.

A Time for Real Solutions

At a time when Albertans are dealing with pressing day-to-day concerns like affordability, housing, and healthcare — not to mention wildfires and a measles outbreak — this initiative risks becoming a costly distraction.

It also arrives at a moment when the provincial government is under scrutiny from multiple investigations into an alleged pay-to-play scandal.

That combined context will shape public perceptions of this plan’s timing and motivations, which appear out of step with the concerns of the majority of Albertans.

Unfortunately, by presenting maximalist demands unlikely to be met, the Alberta government risks fostering further frustration instead of forging the consensus necessary to secure the gains the province is seeking.

There is value in asking big questions about Alberta’s future and doing so in a way that brings people together. However, the “Alberta Accord” and “Alberta Next Panel” are likely to do the opposite. If we are to take the four demands literally and the ultimatum seriously, they put us on a path to disappointment and division.

This address could have been a turning point: a chance to articulate practical reforms that would improve Alberta’s position in the federation and benefit the country as a whole. Some of those opportunities still exist. Fiscal stabilization reform, intergovernmental cooperation on infrastructure, and enhanced roles for provinces in trade policy are all on the table. Let’s hope our governments find a way to meet there, generating the sort of goodwill that Smith, herself, alluded to in her speech.