William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell famously said, “The election is not a time to discuss serious issues.” She was widely mocked for this statement, but in fact, by the time an election writ is dropped, substantive discussion of the important issues has all but ceased. That is because at that point all of the election messaging is targeted at the soft supporters on both sides of the issues. They and the “undecided” are the targets precisely because they haven’t bothered to seriously consider the serious issues. At this point in Alberta’s independence campaign, all of the messaging is directed at the emotions. The stock market is driven by two emotions: fear and greed.But the final stage of any election campaign is driven by fear and loathing.Frank Herbert, writing in Dune, said, “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.” Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” No wonder fear is the ‘go-to’ game when trying to herd modern voters.But loathing works pretty well too. In this strategy, the “other” is vilified and marginalized in an attempt to drown out their voice. In the current debate, it is enough just to call your opponent a “separatist” rather than a “secessionist” to attract condemnation. If you are still bothering to read or listen to the deluge of coverage, you can quickly classify each piece as to whether it appeals to fear or loathing.That doesn’t mean that folks in the current debate didn’t try to appear rational and provide “evidence-based” talking points. Up until this week’s current bombshells, the mostly one-sided debate reviewed positions from the Alberta public employees labour union through the supposedly non-partisan Canada West Foundation, to business organizations like the Business Council of Alberta. .The detailed studies released by various experts conclude that Alberta’s grievances are genuine, stemming from federal structural democratic deficiencies. However, they assert that independence is not the appropriate solution to these structural flaws. The vote scheduled for October 19 isn’t a definitive stay-or-leave vote. Consequently, the recommendation is to vote for Option 1 to help Albertans avoid uncertainty, as outlined in Fear 1.0, which warns of dire consequences resulting from Option 2, as described in Fear 2.0. Additionally, there is a strong sentiment of loathing towards independence supporters, who are labelled as fascist, homophobic, racist, and xenophobic, intensifying the argument against Option 2.These conclusions overlook the consideration of alternative solutions to address the grievances and fail to acknowledge the substantive permanent costs associated with maintaining the status quo. You can decide for yourself the merits of the conclusions made versus those ignored.But on to the big news from last week.The University of Calgary School of Public Policy report on the overall long-term economic impacts of independence has finally been released. It is not clear what caused the delay, but it is likely that the advisory panel refused to sign off on the report without some serious caveats. This they did in the covering letter to Jason Nixon: “No amount of analysis can easily predict what the impact of Alberta separation might be. Partly, this is because many of the factors that are material to the short- and long-term outcomes of separation … are not easily predictable.” In other words, “we have no idea,” and we will not sign this letter without this acknowledgment up front.Regardless, they boldly go ahead and make some predictions about two transition scenarios: a ‘smooth’ one and a ‘difficult’ one. Presumably, Canada can either cooperate with their new international partner or attempt to punish them for wanting self-determination. Sort of like grounding a rebellious teenager for two years until they become a legal adult. Works in families, so it should work for nations as well?What is fascinating about even offering up the difficult scenario is the complete lack of self-awareness regarding Canada’s current trade ‘war’ with the US. In that regard, we cast the US as an evil bully in its treatment of Canada, and Elbows Up 2.0 is the appropriate response. But we are hearing that in the Alberta dispute, the US approach would be perfectly acceptable. Presumably, an Alberta version of Elbows Up (e.g. turning off the taps) would also be entirely justified. Thank you for providing some moral clarity on this matter.The media reports tended to emphasize the short-term costs rather than looking at the long-term benefits as well. “In the long run (after 20 years), the Overview Report estimates that the smooth scenario would result in an increase in GDP by 3.4 percent, employment rises by 0.7 percent, and tax per person decreases by $1,100.” In other words, this would be a good investment by Albertans, and every investment requires a cost at the front end. This should not surprise anyone..There is one other area that is causing me concern, but given my current deadline, I have not been able to track it down in detail. This is the assumption concerning Canada’s national debt. Even if Alberta accepts the moral position of paying off “our share” of the debt, what is not clear is how being free of this burden going forward is factored into the modelling. Canada’s future borrowing will continue to escalate, saddling future generations with even higher taxes. And there seems to be an assumption that if Alberta doesn’t leave Canada, that we will somehow not have to pay off this debt. (If you know the answer, leave it in the comments.) This is also a cost of not choosing independence.The other huge story affecting the independence vote was the NDP win in the Calgary Shaw by-election. Although this was being pitched by some commentators as a great breakthrough for Nenshi and a problem for Smith, it is nothing of the sort. Sure, a substantive number of UCP voters didn’t bother to vote in a largely meaningless election. But this will harden their resolve once the general election comes. It will be more like the last one, where support rallied around the two real options, the NDP versus UCP. The Liberals will go to the NDP and the Progressive Tories will find their way back to the UCP.But the most important effect of this news was on the Option 2 referendum voters. The resolve of those already committed has increased, and the soft supporters and undecideds, who are almost all UCP supporters, were appalled by Nenshi’s antics. For the Option 1 voters, they will be more complacent and content to let some other NDPer carry the vote. Both of these developments work in favour of Option 2.There was also a new Abacus poll released last week which confirms there is more work to do, but at least we got some honest questions reporting on what is actually being asked and how people are dealing with it. Sadly, this poll never got any reporting in Alberta, so it will fail to help change minds. What is encouraging is that the “undecided” cohort rose to 12%, the first substantive increase since June.Finally, it seems as if the “leverage” argument of voting Option 2 is now causing some serious fear among the Option 1 folks. A counterargument to this position in a Herald op-ed. Unfortunately, he shoots himself in the foot with his final conclusion: “Institutional packages [proposed by Quebec] ultimately failed, but much of what Bourassa sought was subsequently achieved in practice without reopening the Constitution.” So explain again how the strategy failed?This reminded me of an old 2022 Barry Cooper op-ed which explained the whole premise of Smith’s Sovereignty Act. “Changing the Constitution, in fact, if not in terms of black-letter law, is called politics. Law exists downstream from politics.” The Quebec strategy in fact worked even if the words in the Constitution did not change. Political power essentially circumvented the law. What is good for Quebec will be good for Alberta as well.This is yet another reason to flex Alberta’s political power in Canada. It also means we shouldn’t be too worried if Option 2 doesn’t get a substantial win on October 19.A year from now, Danielle Smith will manage to fight off any right-side attempt to dislodge the UCP by an independence-minded group with her Sovereignty Act; she will have a mandate to create substantial grief for the rest of Canada, forcing them back to the table eventually. Will we eventually end up with a United Canada? Probably not, but at least they will be more polite, having had a couple of “trips to the woodshed.”Option 2 won last week? Sadly, no. The positive news of the NDP win in Calgary-Shaw could not overshadow the huge impact of the worse conclusions from the University of Calgary report.William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.
