The “independent advisory panel” named by Alberta’s United Conservative Party (UCP) to look into the “potential economic impacts of secession” illustrates an observation the day before by a prominent Canadian political commentator that too many self-identified federalists are likely to defend Canada on separatist terms.
Writing in The Globe and Mail, columnist Andrew Coyne complained that while there is no shortage of volunteers for the role of Captain Canada, including Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, “the version of federalism they are selling is inimical to the interests of Canada, not to mention unrecognizable to anyone with any knowledge of either Canada or federalism.”
After an examination of misinformation about the Canadian and U.S. constitutions spread by the likes of Premier Smith that should be familiar to readers of this blog, Coyne concluded the objective of these federalists of convenience “seems less to save Canada from the separatists than to remake Canada on lines they prefer.” The referendum they’re supposedly countering, he added, “is merely an advantageous pretext.”
Less than 24 hours later, the Alberta Government announced in a news release that “the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy has been selected to conduct an independent analysis of the potential economic impacts of secession so that Albertans can make an informed decision.”
“Albertans deserve clear and credible information on the potential impacts of separation,” newly appointed Finance Minister Jason Nixon added piously in a canned talking point. Those impacts, according to the news release, include both costs and savings.
Well, Nixon’s official comment is probably true enough on its face, but how the hell Albertans are supposed to get that from this particular panel is not so clear. Indeed, it’s hard to believe that the School of Public Policy, for all its obvious flaws, actually selected this panel, since every member is a favourite ideological fellow traveller of the UCP.
Leastways, if this panel was not handpicked by the premier and her staff, they have nothing to complain about with the selection process.
Jack Mintz, chosen to chair of the panel, has been the UCP’s favourite economist since the days the party was led by Jason Kenney. The CBC described him accurately yesterday as “a go-to expert for Alberta conservative governments.” He is a former chair of the School of Public Policy. He is also a charming man, but as the Parkland Institute put it shortly before an NDP government was elected in 2015, Dr. Mintz “is hardly a non-partisan, neutral observer of Alberta’s politics. Rather, in addition to being an advisor to the Alberta PC government, Mintz has a self-interest to advocate for the interests of the oil industry, most notably Imperial Oil, a corporation which Mintz serves as a member of its board of directors.” In 2018, during the NDP government, he infamously wrote in the Financial Post an op-ed headlined “Alberta has better reasons to Albexit than Britain did for Brexit.” Therein, he argued, “Whatever negatives Alberta would face are easily swamped by the positives that would come with separation.”
The other panel members named are:
Ted Morton, the California-born, Wyoming raised Montana resident who was once Alberta’s finance minister and a Conservative leadership candidate who described himself as “every liberal’s nightmare — a right-winger with a PhD.” While Dr. Morton got a relatively meaningless start in politics in 1998 running as the Reform Party’s “Senator-in-Waiting” candidate in the Klein Government’s fatuous Senate nominee election, his most famous bad idea was the notorious quasi-separatist Firewall Letter, which he signed in 2001 along with a young Stephen Harper and four lesser stars in the right-wing firmament. He has been described in this space as the worst premier Alberta never had. He too has long been associated with the School of Public Policy.
Adam Legge, president of the Business Council of Alberta. Legge was a member of the Smith Government’s so-called Alberta Next Panel, set up to get Albertans enthused about handing over their retirement savings to the UCP, Making Alberta an Energy Superpower Again and replacing the RCMP with the Party’s own organs of state security. In other words, to soften up the electorate for Firewall-manifesto-style sovereignty association.
Alex Pourbaix, board chair of oilsands giant Cenovus Energy Inc., who, obviously, isn’t going to suggest anything that will particularly upset the oil industry, which as far as separation at least goes is unlikely to be a bad thing.
Janice MacKinnon, the former Saskatchewan NDP finance minister notorious in that province for closing 52 rural hospitals in the late 1990s and best known in Alberta for her role as chair of premier Kenney’s “Blue Ribbon Panel” that called for a full-blown austerity program that would have cut more than $600 million a year from the province’s operating budget, privatized health-care services, ended limits on tuition fees, and declared war with the province’s public sector unions. This plan for destruction was upended by the arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic a year later. She is a teacher at the University of Saskatchewan and presumably a resident of that province.
Is there anything like an alternative economic voice on this panel? Not a chance. Not even U of C economist Trevor Tombe, whose service on the Alberta Next Panel may have been too nuanced for Smith’s taste. About the only missing face from the Usual Suspects that one might have expected to find on a panel like this is Preston Manning’s.
The government, by the way, told the CBC this exercise will cost about $1.5 million – a bargain, one supposes, if it comes in that low.
Will the panel give a meaningful report on the true costs of Alberta separation? Maybe. That probably depends on which way the political winds are blowing for Smith when the panel issues its report.
Given Ms. Smith’s performance on separation so far, though, we can be confident that no matter how bad the panel’s findings are there will be no forceful denunciation of secession or secessionism.
