I say that sarcastically and easy question, which is how far back does this go when we're thinking about Western alienation and the different expressions of it we're seeing now and what we've seen in the past? How far back does it go? And I might start with you, Anthony, since you've been writing about it.

Well, it begins before there's even an Alberta question.

Canada is a very unusual federation.

It's the only federation where every unit resisted the idea of joining the federation.

So every single colony did not want to join Canada.

That includes Quebec and Ontario, certainly all the maritime provinces, and later on British Columbia, and then later on again, when Alberta was constructed, it was constructed locally.

The prairie provinces were constructed as vessel states of Ottawa.

And they need to start embracing a competitive two-party system at home.

Like I just wonder if this is just a moment in time rather than something that is enduring.

Well, the Liberal Party only endures because it doesn't endure, because it picks the right leader for the right moment.

This has been the great source, the magic source of the Liberal Party, as we've seen in the last couple of years.

So Laurier was a leader for the moment who convinced Quebecers.

And so, yes, perhaps the next leader won't be very unlikely to have a history in Alberta, but it still doesn't mean that there isn't an opportunity for Mr. Carney.

Or maybe if the Liberal Brains Trust figures this out, that there is a need to come to terms somehow with Alberta because it's become so important, that they'll figure out another strategy or a strategy for including Albertans.

So I think the point is that federalism, and particularly Canadian federalism, is open.

But is there a more interesting province politically than this place?