How the West’s ‘Sore Losers’ Hurt Canada, and Their Cause

As the federal election campaign unfolds, a concerning pattern is emerging in Western Canada: some high-profile conservatives retreating from national coalition-building in favour of grievance politics.

Rather than contributing to Poilievre’s “Canada First” vision, leaders like Alberta’s Danielle Smith and former Reform leader Preston Manning are pursuing regional defiance that threatens not only federal Conservative prospects but also the unity of the country itself.

Some conservative leaders in the West are refusing to do the hard work of building bridges across provinces. Instead, they are undermining national institutions, elevating regional grievances and offering what we might call performative disengagement. The tactic may win headlines and satisfy the base, but it weakens the broader conservative project at a critical moment in our country’s history.

This is especially striking when contrasted with their approach to the United States. While western conservatives like Smith advocate for quiet diplomacy and pragmatic co-operation with Washington — even with Donald Trump — they reserve only bombast and brinkmanship for Ottawa and the rest of Canada. Their failure to apply the same diplomatic principles domestically reveals a selective and self-defeating approach to intergovernmental relations. It also endangers the Conservative party nationally.

Dragging down the ticket

Rather than unifying Conservatives across Canada, western premiers are proposing policies that isolate their provinces and undermine national cohesion. For example, Smith’s push for Alberta to leave the Canada Pension Plan is framed as a populist rejection of Ottawa, but it risks severing one of the most important ties in our social union.

Similarly, her open invitation to separatists to spark a referendum on sovereignty tears at the national fabric. These proposals make it easier for the Liberals and NDP to portray the federal Conservative party as aligned with extremism. In these and other ways, radical regionalism in the West is damaging the Conservative brand nationally — and making it harder for Poilievre’s team to win in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

(Sore) losers’ consent

More troubling than the strategies themselves is the premise behind them. In a recent Bluesky thread, I reflected on how Smith’s refusal to accept certain electoral and policy outcomes undermines what political scientists call losers’ consent — the willingness of citizens and leaders to accept defeat and continue participating in the democratic process.

Lisa Young has written eloquently about this in her Substack, noting that when politicians refuse to accept democratic results — e.g. by threatening separation if the federal government doesn’t meet their demands — they aren’t just being poor sports. They are weakening the democratic norms that hold the country together.

The leaders might not follow through on their rhetoric by explicitly denying the legitimacy of an election winner or campaigning openly for secession. However, they can put up roadblocks to the federal government’s mandate through court challenges and bogus legislative measures like the Sovereignty Act. And their words lend legitimacy to separatist movements.

More concerning, these leaders have less control over the actions of their followers. By chipping away at the legitimacy of the federal government as an institution, it makes it more likely that extremists in their base will openly defy Ottawa (or worse). This same instinct was evident in the Convoy movement, which reflected a refusal to play by the rules unless “we” win.

Poilievre’s pivotal role

Federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is not a victim in this scenario. He has both the opportunity and responsibility to push back against the radicalism and defeatism coming from his provincial allies. This is important not just for national unity but for the electoral prospects of his party in this campaign and beyond.

You can’t be “Captain Canada” and put “Canada First” if your western flank is challenging the very integrity of the country.

To his credit, Poilievre has done this before. He flatly rejected Smith’s CPP proposal, emphasizing the value of national institutions and the need to protect pension security for all Canadians. But these interventions have been rare. As the campaign continues, voters across the country will be watching to see whether he is willing to stand up to provincial populists in order to assert a national vision.

The real work of federalism

Canadian federalism works not through ultimatums but through dialogue, consensus and shared values. It’s what made the Reform-Conservative merger possible two decades ago, and it’s what will be required again if the Conservative party hopes to form a national government.

Some western conservatives will respond that Quebec got what it wanted through brinksmanship and threats. They forget that Bourassa’s five demands and the 1995 Quebec referendum followed decades’ worth of high-level, high-stakes negotiations with the rest of Canada. Ultimatums were a last resort. And they were highly destabilizing for our economy and political system.

The politics of threat may serve short-term strategic goals like feeding the base, but they do long-term damage to the federation and to the Conservative party. They replace trust with suspicion and democratic co-operation with zero-sum posturing. None of those are helpful for nation- or party-building.

If Canada’s conservative leaders are serious about winning (and governing), they must do more than win the West. They must stay engaged in the federation, even when it’s frustrating.

Especially when it’s frustrating.