William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.Like it or not, we are now in the most important political campaign in Alberta history. Amidst all the hysterics of politicians and commentators, the following attempts to put our feet back on the ground.First, it is hard to understand the discontent with the official question. Surely the “stay” followers of Thomas Lukaszuk must be happy, as the first part of the “or” question loses the ambiguity of his referendum wording. And the second part of the question actually gives further life to what would otherwise be a dead-in-the-water “leave” side, since polling consistently shows 70/30 for “stay.”Bringing us to the second critical point. Nobody believes the polling numbers. The “stay” side would not be going apoplectic if they believed their 40-point lead would hold. And the independence movement knows they will gain ground slowly by providing good arguments and information.Polling companies could help by being a bit more discerning as to who gets to participate. Fully 40% of eligible registered voters (likely less than 80% of the adult population) don’t even bother to vote. Yet somehow their opinion is a valid prediction of a vote outcome? Better to screen respondents with “Did you vote in the last provincial election?” or better yet, “Did you vote in the last provincial referendum?” No wonder polls have never been wrong, except for Brexit, Hillary Clinton beating Trump, and most importantly, Pierre Poilievre winning a majority. To review, Smith’s question (emphasis added) reads, “Should Alberta remain a province of Canada (“stay”) or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada (“pursue leaving”)?” The most important aspect to notice is that this is not a yes/no stay/go succession question. And yet headline after headline calls it a “separation” referendum. Why would folks want to misrepresent this?.Angus Reid did some polling around Smith’s question, and the results are revealing. On the actual question, the split moved to 60/35 for “stay.” This is a huge shift from 70/30. The “stay” side has dropped 10 points, while the “pursue leaving” option rose 5 points.The most significant result was to the question “This referendum vote is a legitimate way for Alberta to deal with its grievances,” in other words, “Is Smith showing good strategy in allowing this vote?” To this, fully 43% of Albertans agreed. This indicates a significant shift of Albertans flirting with the “leave” side. The second most important part of the question is that it acknowledges that Canada permits provinces to leave Confederation. It seems that Danielle Smith would like Albertans to be aware of this. And perhaps the Supreme Court of Canada’s views on the matter in the Quebec Succession Reference. And maybe even the federal government’s Clarity Act as well. Maybe two constitutional lawyers, e.g. Bruce Pardy of Queen’s University, vs. a federalist, could do opposing opinion columns in the Western Standard. Perhaps this could become a series of point/counterpoint articles on all the relevant issues facing independence?Lastly, the question is not binding. That means voters can blow off steam and not be worried by hard-wired implications for government.But speaking of falling leaves, are they really a legitimate populist movement or just a bunch of malcontents whining about imagined grievances? Oddly, the independence issue didn’t even arise in the last provincial general election..All the federalists acknowledge Alberta’s “legitimate issues” and then list several “buts” hoping one of them will suffice. Most Alberta diehard federalists don’t even need a “but.” They just accept the second-class status of Alberta as the membership fee to be in Canada. Why would Canada negotiate, given this level of blind acceptance? The federalists should provide a robust way forward to address the grievances. Instead, they just preach fear. The question is: Will it work?But aren’t the leaves similarly delusional? The recent piling on against Danielle Smith by friends and foes goes well beyond the typical misogynist bias. And the most nasty cheap shots (Manitoba) come from those who agree with Smith on staying in Confederation! Those folks throwing rocks should not ignore her huge accumulated political capital. Does she really deserve the most recent “blank/blank” name-calling? But Albertans who agree may also point out that “at least she is our blank/blank.”If she wanted to throw a little gas on the fire, she could dust off Rachael Notley’s “Turn off the Taps” legislation, which, despite court challenges, clearly gave Alberta full control over resource exports. Or announce new safety inspection regulations concerning the shipping of refined products out of Alberta. Yes, Vancouver gets most of their car gasoline from TMX.We have five months for substantive, respectful, and honest debate as both sides can present their arguments. Of course, there are those who know the debate will go against them and will choose to “red herring” the process instead. The real risk is average voters tuning out and boycotting the vote. If you don’t like political outcomes now, just wait until less than half of eligible voters show up at the polls.William D. Marriott is a retired economist who specialized in public policy analysis of the oil and gas industry.
