William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.There are four elections in the next four weeks that are of critical importance to Canadians.The first in Quebec on October 5 will deliver a Parti Québécois “separatist” government even though there is supposedly little interest among Quebecers in secession. Which begs the question: why would good Quebecers elect a party whose raison d'être is to separate from Canada? To use as leverage, of course. The new PQ government will use the threat of leaving to wring even more concessions from Ottawa. What is notable about this election is the failure of the “Elbows Up” strategy to work for Christine Fréchette and her Coalition Avenir Québec party. It appears the ultimate Trump card isn’t working its magic like it did before. Quebecers going to the implicit separation threat should be a good example for Albertans of how things work in Canada.The second is the BC election on October 24, which will deliver a Conservative government and dethrone David Eby’s NDP. There are many reasons for this defeat, but again the failure of the ‘be very afraid’ strategy concerning the United States is a big nail in a small coffin. Most important for Canada will be the attempt to reframe BC’s relationship with First Nations. Eby’s adoption of DRIPA, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, has proved to be a disaster for meaningful economic development and has essentially shut down investment in BC. Hopefully, this will have implications for First Nations relations all across Canada.As I write this, we are wallowing in the guilt of the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. However, with all due respect to my First Nations brothers and sisters, your actual actions seem to be more akin to Endless Days of Continuous Guilt and Restitution. Canada’s courts have given immense power to First Nations, and we are seeing all sorts of examples of it being abused. It doesn’t help that certain prominent First Nations leaders accuse duly elected leaders of treason and challenge a fundamental democratic right to petition government. That doesn’t mean that First Nations shouldn’t be consulted or perhaps even given free ownership in projects on their reserve lands. But requiring labour training and active participation in the construction and management of these projects would be more important than just the money. Perhaps true reconciliation means actually being able to make meaningful joint contributions. Oh yeah, and eventually we will run out of other people’s money..The third election is the US midterm election on November 3, where Trump will lose his supermajority and the US House will regress into impeachment proceedings and stalled legislation. However, progress on the big files facing Trump will continue unabated, including trying to get Golden Dome approvals along with a trade deal with Canada. Let’s not forget that the US trend towards protectionism is shared by the Democrats as well. So far, Trump has been able to suppress some of his instincts for cheap shots against Canada despite ample provocation from “a US invasion is imminent” Mark Carney. I don’t believe Trump has any interest in influencing sub-national Canadian issues in Quebec, Alberta, or BC. The scaremongering idea that somehow he wants to steal Alberta oil dissolves when you realize that the US already has virtually all of Alberta’s oil and would take more if only we could produce it. However, if Trump were to recognize Alberta as an independent country post-referendum, it would put Smith and Carney in an interesting pickle.The fourth is Alberta’s referendum on October 19. This looks like a slam-dunk “yes” for the immigration issues, a toss-up for the constitutional issues, and a loss for the “separation” issue. If I were to guess, I would say 40% is probably the top end of ballot support for Option 2. The short-sightedness and absolute dishonesty of the legacy media around this latter issue will likely haunt Albertans for a long time. When “dirty tricks” dominate political campaigns, they have a way of poisoning any future civilized discourse. We will indeed reap what we sow, and we get the government we deserve.The biggest news last week was the release of two major referendum polls, one by Janet Brown and the other by Ipsos. In one sense, the results are almost unbelievable, as the broad 70/30 split has not moved at all despite the endless propaganda in the legacy media. They gave us their best ‘full-court press’ and ‘blitzed the linebackers’ while ‘pulling the goalie.’ But still nothing moved.There are two odd things in the Ipsos poll. The first is that they also asked people what they thought the referendum was about, as opposed to the actual wording of the questions. Nearly 25% said they didn’t know or thought it was a single yes/no on ‘Alberta’s future.’ So it appears that the media campaign to deceive Albertans on the actual ballot question is succeeding. The second is that they also asked about people’s voting plans. Almost 20% said they do not plan to vote or are not sure what they will do. This sounds to me like a fair number will not be visiting the ballot box. So how is it that the overall numbers are predictive of the actual vote? Much less than you would think, even by the pollster’s own admission..Janet Brown’s details on the margin of error in different geographic areas and age groups also put the predictive power in question. Although the overall survey margin of error is 2.4%, it rises to ~7.0% for midsize cities and small centres. It is also true that the smaller centres (e.g., rural areas) are also the most in favour of Option 2. As well, the margin of error is 8.6% for the 18–24 demographic, which means nothing since they don’t vote anyway, but it is 6.6% for the 65+ demographic, whose members generally will be more in favour of Option 1.Overall, don’t be deceived about the predictive accuracy of the polls; it is fairly flimsy. And remember that the polls tend to harden the resolve of those on the losing end and make the projected winners more complacent. Get out and vote and bring your family members with you.The other big news this week is the approval of Smith’s Pacific Link Pipeline as a project of “national interest.” This is being pitched as a big win for Smith and Carney and a blow for the independence movement. However, if you look into the details, it is less of a big victory than it appears. National Post columnist Jamie Sarkonak did a preliminary review and concluded: “The ponderous bureaucratic oversight has not been removed, which shows who is running the show in Ottawa.” It is one thing to tell a federal branch office in Calgary to make an undefined regulatory designation, and another for the PMO to bring the massive bureaucracy, which has slowed major projects for years, to heel with a few phone calls. Carney will find that it is a lot easier to become an “associate member” of the EU than it is to get a major infrastructure project moving in Canada. If construction is to start in a year, as Smith hopes, it means the planning must start now. So far, we have seen no evidence of this. But even the Toronto Star gave hope to its anti-Alberta readers by saying the pipeline still faces plenty of hurdles. We are a long, long way from “shovels in the ground.”There is one other thing I have noticed recently in all my reading of the legacy media. The comment sections are less dominated by people who hate Danielle Smith and the UCP. Increasingly, they are calling out the legacy media for its shameful, dishonest reporting. This is hardly scientific, but it is an indication that public sentiment is shifting..There were also a couple of feeble attempts at counterarguments against the ‘leverage’ justification for Option 2. The Calgary Herald’s Rob Breakenridge and CBC’s Jason Markusoff, heavyweights both, brought their best, but neither seems to understand the bottom line: the basis of any negotiation is the ability to just walk away. Without that ability, there is no negotiation because, to quote the Donald, “you don’t have any cards.” Would you rather sell your car on Autotrader or at auction? It is a no-brainer. But the fact that there are any counterarguments at all shows the strength of the original position. If you want a substantive seat at the negotiating table, you have to be able to leave your opponents worse off.Don Braid seems to be getting really desperate to find anything new to write about. He is reduced to just spouting gibberish or citing Stephen Carter as some sort of trusted authority. Of course, he also reminds folks that Mr. Carter was the organizing force behind such stellar politicians as Alison Redford, Naheed Nenshi, and Jyoti Gondek. A ringing endorsement for some, but not the majority of voters.Finally, we are seeing some breakdown in caucus discipline in the UCP. At a recent meeting in Red Deer, MLA Jason Stephan revealed he had voted for Option 2 on a mail-in ballot for Question 10. He said, “I would love nothing more than for Canada to fix itself.” He shouldn’t expect to be moved off the back benches anytime soon.William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.
