By George Koch

While envisioning Carney as an intentional saboteur is probably the stuff of parody, one can seriously state that were he trying to bring about Canada’s destruction, he could hardly fashion a more devilishly effective policy platform, nor a more toxic mode of practising federalism. If he doesn’t alter course dramatically as Prime Minister, he’ll be practically goading Alberta to launch a bid for independence.

You probably need no reminding of how cringeworthy Mark Carney’s professions of devotion to Alberta – “I grew up here” – or his “regular guy” stunts gliding shakily around the ice in an Oilers jersey have been. After rolling our eyes, most of us Westerners instead focused on the Liberal leader’s policies, which would devastate Canada from coast to coast but most particularly the energy-producing West – and which some tried to warn would once again
enflame Alberta separatism. The state-subsidized Laurentian media, however, scoffed at these potentially nation-cleaving risks.

But what if Carney is being true to his word in both cases? What if the Oxford PhD and former governor of both the Bank of Canada and Bank of England is a loyal Albertan to his very bones, his carefully curated persona as bespoke globalist climate-cult prophet an elaborate illusion; but that, at the same time, his policies are intended to wreck Canada, thereby rekindling a Prairie fire of separatism? Imagine that this is precisely Carney’s plan.

Imagine, in other words, that Mark Carney is some kind of Manchurian Candidate or 21 st century Scarlet Pimpernel, a deep-cover sleeper agent, sent East into the very heart of darkness – Ottawa – by a cabal of crafty Albertans intent on gaining independence. His secret mission: to worm his way deep inside Laurentian Canada, gaining the trust of Canada’s immensely arrogant yet not terribly bright Eastern elites, becoming both the manager of an enormous multi-billion-dollar investment fund and the secret right-hand-man of the Prime Minister himself, instructed there to wait until the right opportunity arrived.

And in January 2025, with Justin Trudeau’s resignation, that moment was at hand. Carney was given his ultimate mission: to gain the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada and then to win electoral office with the mission of so misgoverning Canada as to bring about its dissolution and trigger the separation of Alberta.

This might all seem a bit far-fetched, possibly even satirical. But seen this way, certain strange things do begin to make some semblance of sense. Not just Carney’s weird lines about Alberta, but the sheer, wanton destructiveness of his policies.

Think of the $225 billion in federal deficits Carney intends to run over the next four years. Or his hapless responses to U.S. President Donald Trump. His unwavering advancement of the net-zero madness, capable of wrecking Canada’s economy from coast to coast. The equanimity towards Communist China.

Closer to (our) home, the contemptuous dismissals of Premier Danielle Smith who, as premier of Canada’s last remaining truly productive province, is someone whom logic and self-interest would suggest Carney should keep on his side. Instead, he ignores Smith and on the key issues of approving new energy pipelines and ditching the oil and natural gas emissions cap, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

While envisioning Carney as an intentional saboteur is probably the stuff of parody, one can seriously state that were he trying to bring about Canada’s destruction, he could hardly fashion a more devilishly effective policy platform, nor a more toxic mode of practising federalism. If he doesn’t alter course dramatically as Prime Minister, he’ll be practically goading Alberta to launch a bid for independence.

Creating a Manchurian Candidate/Scarlet Pimpernel named Mark Carney would be nefarious, devious, conspiratorial and downright evil. The way the CBC, Globe and Mail and various Liberal/NDP/Bloc politicians tell it, of course, there’s no shortage of such people in Alberta. So is it truly impossible? Or perhaps simply moot, Carney’s stated policies being so destructive as to render them indistinguishable from those of a spy.

Post-election, what would signal a looming crisis of national disunity? It’ll begin with the predictable political noise: soaring poll results for Alberta separatism, calls from surprising quarters – such as formerly-complacent corporate leaders – that the province get out from under Ottawa, perhaps a burgeoning independence party challenging Smith’s governing UCP.

There’ll be even more intense courtroom efforts by Alberta to resist federal overreach and unconstitutional laws and policies. Increasingly pointed warnings from Smith that the political situation could spiral out of control. Frequent invocation of Alberta’s Sovereignty Act to deflect abusive federal actions; perhaps even open defiance of the most illegitimate of these.

Alongside that, increasingly concerted measures to prepare the province of Alberta to become the self-governing nation of Alberta. The until now incremental steps to decouple Alberta law enforcement from the RCMP will be sharply accelerated. The so-far somnolent plod to unshackle Albertans from the bloated, under-performing and increasingly woke-driven Canada Pension Plan will be rattled into a sprint.

Alberta’s Department of Finance will be tasked with setting up a branch to start collecting – and keeping – federal taxes. Reports might trickle out of Alberta mapping the outlines of an intelligence service and armed defence force. Emissaries will be quietly sent to pitch First Nations that they’d be better off as Albertans.

Among the world’s currently 195 recognized states, an independent Alberta would have:

 The 52 nd largest global economy as measured by its 2024 GDP of $351.4 billion (US$256.2 billion);

 A population (4.96 million as of January 2025) larger than those of 70 other sovereign nations;

 A land area greater than those of 155 other nations;

 Per-capita GDP (US$53,834 in 2024) among the world’s 20 most prosperous nations; and

 A GDP sufficient to finance a military approximately as large and effective as Norway’s, a full NATO ally that already flies the F-35 stealth fighter.

In short, Alberta would be as politically and economically viable as Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand and other small but advanced countries.

Note too that these already-favourable statistics assume “all other things remain equal.” But all of those numbers would improve once the great financial anvil of Ottawa was lifted from around Alberta’s neck. This in turn would enable large cuts to income taxes, pension and EI premiums, and other fiscal burdens, sending Alberta soaring far beyond any Canadian province and making it competitive with the best-run U.S. states.

Meanwhile the under-performing remnants of Canada would be cast adrift to sink further towards Third World status. “Canada” would drop several rungs on the ladder of global economies and world population. The more appropriately renamed “Laurentia” might be sent scuttling out of the G7. An impoverished Quebec might depart in a huff as well.

It would take a man of almost preternatural internal fortitude, unquenchable zeal and unwavering focus to bring about such an evident calamity, throwing the fortunes of tens of millions of mostly innocent Canadians onto the flaming pyre for the good of a few million Albertans. But setting aside all satire: with his widely predicted electoral majority in hand, Prime Minister Mark Carney will have free rein to impose his devastating array of policies, systematically undermining the economy, Canadians’ remaining sense of nationhood, individual hope and social stability.

I doubt any free-thinking citizen of Alberta would believe the outlandish tale of how Carney wrecked Canada in order to bring about the glory of independence. And so in a final and bitter irony, ostracized and alone, the man who sacrificed everything for his beloved province –career, reputation, perhaps even his very soul – will not only be shunned from running in the first Presidential Election of the Republic of Alberta, he will likely be denied even the ceremonial role of Ambassador to the impoverished, embittered remnants of Canada, Laurentia.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

George Koch is Editor-in-Chief of C2C Journal.

From the C2C Journal

By Gwyn Morgan

After decades on the outs with environmentalists and regulators, nuclear power is being heralded as a key component for a “net zero” future of clean, reliable energy. Its promise is likely to fall short, however, due to some hard realities. As North America grapples with the challenge of providing secure, affordable and sustainable energy amidst soaring electricity demand, it is time to accept this fact: natural gas remains the most practical solution for powering our grid and economy.

Nuclear power’s limitations are rooted in its costs, risks and delays. Even under ideal circumstances, building or restarting a nuclear facility is arduous. Consider Microsoft’s much-publicized plan to restart the long-dormant Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. This project is lauded as proof of an incipient “nuclear revival”, but despite leveraging existing infrastructure it will cost US$1.6 billion and take four years to bring online.

This is not a unique case. Across North America, nuclear energy projects face monumental lead times. The new generation of small modular reactors (SMRs), often touted as a game-changer, is still largely theoretical. In Canada – Alberta in particular – discussions around SMRs have been ongoing for years, with no concrete progress. The most optimistic projections estimate the first SMR in Western Canada might be operational by 2034.

The reality is that nuclear energy cannot scale quickly enough to meet urgent electricity needs. Canada’s power grid is already strained, and electricity demand is set to grow significantly, driven by electric vehicles and enormous data centres for AI applications. Nuclear power, even if expanded aggressively, cannot fill the gap within the necessary timeframes.

Natural gas, by contrast, is abundant, flexible, low-risk – and highly affordable. It accounts for 40 percent of U.S. electricity generation and plays a critical role in Canada’s energy mix. Unlike nuclear, natural gas infrastructure can be built rapidly, ensuring that new capacity comes online when it’s needed – not decades later. Gas-fired plants are cost-effective and capable of providing consistent, large-scale power while being capable of rapid starts and shut-downs, making them suitable for meeting both base-load and “peaking” power demands.

Climate-related concerns surrounding natural gas need to be put in perspective. Natural gas is the lowest-emission fossil fuel and produces less than half the carbon dioxide of coal per unit of energy output. It is also highly adaptable, supporting renewable energy integration by compensating for the intermittency of wind and solar power.

Nuclear energy advocates frequently highlight its zero-emission credentials, yet they overlook its immense challenges, not just the front-end problems of high cost and long lead times, but ongoing waste disposal and future decommissioning.

Natural gas, by comparison, presents fewer risks. Its production and distribution systems are well-established, and North America is uniquely positioned to benefit from the vast reserves underlying all three countries on the continent. Despite low prices and ever-increasing regulatory obstacles, Canada’s natural gas production has been setting new records.

Streamlining regulatory processes and expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity would help revive Canada’s battered economy, with plenty of natural gas left over to help meet growing domestic electricity needs.

Critics argue that investing in natural gas is at odds with the “energy transition” to a glorious net zero future, but this oversimplifies the related challenges and ignores hard realities. By reducing reliance on dirtier fuels like coal, natural gas can help lower a country’s greenhouse gas emissions while providing the reliability needed to support economic growth and renewable energy integration.

Europe’s energy crisis following the recent reduction of Russian gas imports underscores natural gas’s vital role in maintaining reliable electricity supplies. As nations like Germany still phase out nuclear power due to the sheer blind ideology of their left-wing parties, they’re growing more dependent on natural gas to keep the lights (mostly) on and the factories (partially) humming.

Europe is already a destination for LNG exported from the U.S. Gulf Coast, and American LNG exports will soon resume growth under the incoming Trump Administration. Canada has the resources and know-how to similarly scale up its LNG exports; all we need is a supportive federal government.

For all its theoretical benefits, nuclear power remains impractical for meeting immediate and medium-term energy demands. Its high costs, lengthy timelines and significant remaining public opposition make it unlikely to serve as North America’s energy backbone.

Natural gas, on the other hand, is affordable, scalable and reliable. It is the fuel that powers industries, keeps homes warm and provides the stability our electricity grid needs – whether or not we ever transition to “net zero”. By prioritizing investment in natural gas infrastructure and expanding its use, we can meet today’s energy challenges head-on while laying the groundwork for tomorrow’s innovations.

The original, full-length version of this article was recently published in C2C Journal.

Gwyn Morgan is a retired business leader who was a director of five global corporations.