Robyn Urback sarcastically argued that a non-binding Alberta referendum question would scare away investment because it gives “soft(er) separatists” a “safe” way to express support for leaving Canada, causing uncertainty to “endure indefinitely.”

There's an awkward timing problem with that argument.

Pembina just announced a $570M investment in Alberta https://t.co/qYz7va2l4S https://t.co/5aisuTRaE2

— Blaise (@boehmerB) May 25, 2026

On the very same day this criticism was circulating, Pembina announced a $570 million investment in Alberta, approving construction of its new Heartland Extraction Plant. The project includes a long-term supply agreement with Dow and is expected to come online in 2029.

It's a major capital commitment from a company that has every incentive to avoid political and regulatory risk if it truly believed Alberta was becoming an uninvestable basket case. 

Urback's theory appears to be:

• Alberta discusses constitutional questions
• Investors panic
• Capital flees

Pembina's actions look more like:

• Alberta debates constitutional questions
• Companies run actual risk models
• Half a billion dollars gets invested anyway

Pembina tied the project to long-term industrial demand, including supplying 57,500 barrels per day of ethane to Dow under amended agreements. Companies do not usually make multi-year infrastructure commitments because they expect to grab their briefcases and sprint for the exits next week.

Markets dislike uncertainty in general which is why $500 billion of investment has already fled Alberta under the Liberal government. But claiming a referendum discussion automatically chases investment away runs into a problem when investors immediately show up carrying cheques.

Apparently nobody told Pembina they were supposed to be terrified.