PR to address Canada's unity issue caused by a minority of Albertans calling for separation

I believe separatist sentiment is held by just a fraction of Alberta voters. 

And that it is not a new issue - a separatist MLA was elected in 1980s. - I mean it has been long-time boiling but has never been very hot -

but I must admit it is at a peak now. 

 I believe it will soon pass - leaders of the two parties in the legislature have said they are against separation, and no party with clear separation policies has been elected to very many seats at all in all Alberta history. The UCP leadership has been or still seems wishy-washy on the issue, 

Premier Smith never campaigned on separation in the last election. and won't in the next election either, I expect.

Alberta Separation has an ideological basis - those in favour of the fossil fuel sector  are against government support for alternative forms of energy and against discussion of climate change, which are to a degree pursued by the Carney Liberal government (less than under Trudeau).

Separation is right-wing project -- Few envision a socialist republic coming out of separation. Fear is that separation might lead to take-over by U.S. - and the end of public healthcare and the opening of our Canada-style province to exploitation by U.S. mining and drilling corporations, with pollution or expropriation of our fresh water and loss of sovereignty of Alberta (U.S. laws are weaker on state control of resources than the Canadian framework)

And without giving the separatists any credibility,  I believe PR would lessen the perceived justification for separation.

PR would not give the 37 Alberta MPs power to choose the national government.

PR would not give Alberta more members.

But the make-up of the Alberta caucus would be proportionally balanced, with some elected in Alberta of the same brand as the federal government, no mater what it is.

Under FPTP, Conservatives win most of Alberta’s seats, and when Liberals take most of the seats outside Alberta, which is most of the time, Alberta's MPs end up outside governing power when Liberals. 

Meanwhile, FPTP means that Albertans from other political communities disappear. Liberal, Green and NDP Albertans all seek presence in parliament, but they rarely get it, and never have got it to the extent that their proton of the votes wold give them proportionally.

I agree with the statement that Alberta has been both overrepresented as a stereotype of opposition and underrepresented as a potential governing ally. 

one might say "Western resentment, Wexit, and Alberta separatism all point to a common democratic failure: Canada does not share power well."

PR would not lead to Conservatives elected in Alberta sharing power in Liberal government -

PR would lead to Liberal Albertans having a seat in a Liberal cabinet, and hence Albertans having input into that high body.

or to there being more Alberta NDP MPs, and hence more Alberta MPs being in a coalition-type relationship with the Liberal government, if there is a relationship between the NDP and Liberals.

Because Alberta has been both overrepresented as a stereotype of opposition and underrepresented as a potential governing ally, Canada has a worse unity problem than we would have otherwise.

There are many who want to sow distrust between Alberta voters and the federal government for their narrow economic interest and in pursuit of ideological goals - to open Alberta to corporate greed/U.S. domination. And they can use the historical appearance of an ignored province as ammunition for this distrust.

However, that appearance overlooks fact that many in Albert do support the actions taken by the federal government. Looking at true voter figures, a third of Albertans voted either for a Liberal candidate or a NDP candidate.

The Liberal voter likely is happy with the actions taken by the federal government; the NDP voter likely happier with it than if Conservatives had been elected government.

These Liberal and NDP voters in Alberta are about as numerous, or are even more numerous, than the proportion that supports separation. But obviously they get much less coverage and recognition.

PR would give an MP for each group of approx. 61,000 votes cast. (2.2M votes divided by 37)

While in last election, MPs were elected by groups, ranging in size from Conservative member elected with 56,000 percent of votes in Ponoka-Didsbury  to Conservative MP with 21,000 votes in Calgary McKnight.

unity without uniformity does not quite cover it      IMO  -

and I don't understand someone saying "Diversity outside Parliament and conformity inside it is all FPTP promises for Alberta."

Conservative MPs pride themselves on being not in conformity with the Liberal government 

(FPTP inflates that tendency)

there is no conformity that I see, except perhaps in the Alberta caucus -- Conservative dominance there to be sure.

and to extend the parsing,

we don't have uniformity now in Alberta 

not all Alberta MPs are Conservative

and even if they were, that would be just appearance of uniformity, false unanimity.

as well, separatists might see "unity without uniformity" as saying that all Albertans should speak with one united voice (a separatist voice)

or already because they see themselves as being the dis-empowered minority, can say they also want "an united voice, without forced uniformity into Central Canadian mould".

This other slogan works better for me:

"Canadian unity,

with minority representation within Canada and within each province"

knowing that PR also guarantees majority rule across Canada.

something that FPTP has not been giving us.

====================================================