For years, EKOS Research president Frank Graves has positioned himself as an objective observer of Canadian public opinion. But his comments on Alberta sovereignty reveal a contradiction that is hard to ignore.

Speaking to The Hill Times this week, Graves argued that support for Alberta independence is being fuelled by misinformation spread through social media and AI-generated content, much of it originating from the United States.

Graves claimed Albertans are being exposed to misleading narratives that Canada is “looting” Alberta, that independence would eliminate taxes, or that Alberta would automatically prosper outside Confederation. He suggested Ottawa needs a stronger strategy to counter such information.

“If you could have a successful program which confronted that—and we know there is elasticity in the moderately disinformed, not the extremely disinformed—you could probably move enough pieces that you would really reduce the spectre of this problem," Graves told The Hill Times.

He further argued that Alberta has nearly twice as many people influenced by misinformation as the rest of Canada and warned that foreign actors should not be allowed to spread information that could encourage Albertans to leave Confederation.

But Graves' concerns about American influence look very different when viewed alongside his own political commentary from 2010.

According to reporting by The Globe and Mail, Graves advised the Liberal Party to wage what he described as a “culture war” against Conservatives. He framed Canadian politics as a struggle between:

Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy.

He then added:

If the cranky old men in Alberta don't like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.

The comments generated significant controversy at the time, prompting Graves to issue an apology.\

Go Ad Free

What's striking is that the American influence Graves now condemns was central to the political strategy he once promoted. His proposed culture war explicitly imported U.S. political divisions into Canadian politics.

The “Obama versus Palin” framing wasn't Canadian at all — it was an attempt to cast Liberal voters as enlightened and progressive while portraying Conservatives and their supporters, particularly in Alberta, as backward and reactionary.

In 2010, American political imagery was a useful tool when it served Graves' preferred political outcome. In 2026, American political influence is suddenly a threat when it contributes to a political outcome he opposes.

There's another problem with Graves' argument.

It assumes Albertans support sovereignty because they have been misled, rather than because they have legitimate grievances.

Missing from his analysis are years of federal policies that have alienated many Albertans: pipeline cancellations, tanker bans, emissions caps, regulatory barriers to resource development, and repeated clashes between Ottawa and Alberta over energy policy.

Instead, the explanation offered is that Albertans have fallen victim to misinformation.

That attitude may explain why so many Western Canadians distrust the political establishment in the first place.

After all, if Albertans support a position favoured by Laurentian elites, they're exercising democratic choice. If they support a position that those elites oppose, they're victims of disinformation.

Frank Graves once urged Liberals to fight a culture war against Alberta using American political stereotypes. Today, he warns that American influence is shaping Alberta politics.

Albertans can decide for themselves whether that's a principled position — or simply a double standard.