REPORT: Calgary Chamber underscores importance of immigration to Alberta’s economy

Calgary Chamber underscores importance of immigration to Alberta’s economy. 

Why we are voting NO to the 9

Immigration Questions

Question 1

This question has several elements. It proposes that Alberta take increased

control over immigration. Alberta would then decrease immigration to “more sustainable levels,” prioritize economic migration, and give Albertans priority over new employment opportunities.

Let’s unpack that.

Increased control over immigration. Under the Constitution, responsibility for immigration is shared by the provinces and the federal government. This question doesn’t propose any change to the constitution, so it is just talking about doing what Alberta is already authorized to do! If the Alberta government thinks it should be doing more, it should just get on with it.

Decreasing immigration. In the recent past, we have faced unsustainable levels of immigration. However, the government has reversed course over the past two years, and immigration has decreased significantly. Growth of the population in Canada over the past year has been the lowest in decades. Economists and business leaders say further decreasing the level of immigration would pose risks for the Canadian economy.

Prioritizing economic migration. Canada’s immigration policy already prioritizes economic immigration. What else does the government have in mind? The question references “migration”, not “immigration”, suggesting that it also applies to Canadians from other provinces. That would impinge on Charter-protected mobility rights, just at the time we are looking to break down economic barriers between the provinces.

Giving priority to Albertans over new employment opportunities. Again, Canadian immigration law is already structured to give Canadians priority over employment opportunities. This question proposes giving priority to Albertans. It isn’t at all clear how that would work, but it suggests the government would tell employers who they can hire for any job opening (what about all those Maritimers working in Fort McMurray?). And again, this would impinge on Canadian mobility rights. If every province followed this approach, Albertans would have a hard time finding jobs in the rest of Canada.

We are voting NO to Question 1.

Questions 2 , 3 and 4

These questions share a common theme – making it more difficult for refugees, temporary foreign workers, and foreign students to access publicly funded services, such as health and education. If implemented, a child of a temporary foreign worker could be denied an education. A refugee suffering a stroke could be turned away from the emergency room at the hospital. Those are not Alberta values.

The government’s explanation for these proposals is that the cost to provide services to this group of people is greater than the taxes they pay. We have never limited publicly funded services to those who pay enough tax to qualify! Those who most need publicly funded services often are those least able to pay, including the elderly and people with disabilities.

In recent years, the Alberta government has encouraged people to move to Alberta, including through the Alberta is Calling advertising campaign, without building the infrastructure to support the resulting growth in population. The solution to overcrowding in our schools and hospitals is to build that infrastructure, not to deny access by a relatively small group of people.

We are voting NO to Questions 2, 3, and 4.

Question 5

This question proposes that Albertans should be required to show proof of Canadian citizenship, like a passport or a birth certificate, before we are allowed to vote. For Albertans who already have a passport or a birth certificate readily at hand and in their current name, this proposal isn’t particularly burdensome. But many Albertans don’t have a passport, and many may not have a copy of their birth certificate readily available (and if they are married, the birth certificate might not have their current name). For those without that documentation, some of the most vulnerable persons in our province, this could prevent them from exercising their right to vote.

Why is this being proposed? It’s a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of voter fraud in this province.

The proposal is straight out of the MAGA playbook. Donald Trump’s key legislative aim is to enact the so-called SAVE America Act, requiring proof of citizenship to vote. This legislation has been blocked in the US Senate because of the impact it would have on the right of vulnerable US citizens to vote. Courts in the US have found time and time again that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, including voting by non-citizens. Equally, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Canada.

Ironically, the “anti-red tape” government wants to create a new, unnecessary bureaucratic process that could deny people the right to vote.

We are voting NO on Question 5.

Constitutional Questions

Question 6

This question proposes that the Alberta government should spend time and energy to try to convince other provinces and the federal government to change the Constitution to transfer the power to appoint judges of two levels of court from the federal government to the provinces.

The provinces already appoint judges to the Alberta Court of Justice, which hears most of the legal cases in this province. Why is the Alberta government now seeking the power to appoint ALL judges? Because occasionally it doesn’t like the decisions those judges make? This proposal for additional power suggests the Alberta government hopes that judges it appoints will more often reach decisions that it does like.

Let’s be clear. The role of judges is to act independently and with integrity to interpret and apply the law. In reaching their decisions, it is irrelevant which government appointed them or what result the government might wish them to reach. (Judges are not elected for the very reason that their decisions must be driven by the law, not by considerations of what they need to do to get re-elected.)

There is no evidence that judges appointed by the province have been better than those appointed by the federal government.

There is no valid reason to change the existing system for judicial appointments and it’s doubtful that other provinces and the federal government would support Alberta on this. The focus of the government should be on issues that matter to Albertans, not on issues doomed to fail.

We are voting NO on Question 6.

Question 7

This question proposes that the Alberta government should spend its time and energy trying to convince other provinces and the federal government to abolish the Senate. The structure of the Senate may not be perfect, but the Senate continues to play an important role in our democracy. Senators from Alberta help to represent the interests of our province in Parliament.

Would we be better off if the Senate didn’t exist? The answer is simple: no.

What are the chances that the Alberta government would succeed in abolishing the Senate? Again, the answer is simple: none. This would require the consent of all provinces, the House of Commons, and the Senate itself.

As with Question 6, the focus of the Alberta government should be on issues that matter, not on issues that are doomed to fail.

We are voting NO on Question 7.

Question 8

This question proposes that the Alberta government spend the time and energy required to convince other provinces and the federal government to change the Constitution to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs for health care, education, and social services and still receive federal funding for those services.

This proposal would risk the loss of standards applicable across the country for the provision of services, like health care and subsidized day care, aimed at ensuring that every Canadian, regardless of circumstances, has the essentials to live a life with dignity. If Alberta were to have the right to receive federal funding without an assurance that certain standards are met, so would every other province, to the detriment of the country as a whole.

In fact, systems are already in place for a province and the federal government to agree on the use of federal funding for particular services untethered from federal standards. If the Alberta government wishes to do that with programs in the future, it should make its case and negotiate an agreement to that effect, instead of seeking a constitutional amendment that has no chance of success. Why would the federal government agree to place no standards on the programs it funds?

We are voting NO on Question 8.

Question 9

This question relates to an obscure principle of constitutional law.

The federal government has jurisdiction over certain areas of law. Each province has jurisdiction over certain other areas of law. In some areas of law, both federal and provincial governments have jurisdiction. In that case, if the federal law and the provincial law conflict, the provincial law is inoperative to the extent of the conflict, under a principle called paramountcy.

Question 9 proposes that this rule should be flipped, so that provincial law would have paramountcy over federal law. Conflicts giving rise to application of this principle are very rare. Courts have developed precedents over decades to address any such conflicts, and where possible, the laws will co-exist.

It is extraordinary that the Alberta government is spending the money required for a referendum and is proposing to spend further time and energy seeking a constitutional amendment on such an obscure point – a proposal that the federal government is certain to oppose.

And be careful what you ask for. If Alberta law were to have paramountcy over conflicting federal law in areas of shared jurisdiction, so would British Columbia. Do we really want to grant British Columbia the right to override federal law designed to facilitate a pipeline to the west coast?

We are voting NO on Question 9.

WE ARE VOTING NO to the NINE    

Question 10: The Separatism Question

Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the separatism question over the last many months, not to mention hundreds of hours of podcasts, speeches, debates, news reports and interviews.

Providing a brief analysis of the essential points might seem a daunting task. But in fact, it’s quite simple.

The entire premise of the separatist argument is that Alberta would be wealthier as an independent state. Everything else they promise – a rosier, freer, old-fashioned utopia - is based on that central assumption: we would all be richer if we didn’t have to pay taxes to Ottawa.

But study after study by economists, business analysts, experts in trade, law, and governance, have debunked that idea. In fact, an independent Alberta would be smaller, poorer, isolated, and face an uncertain future.

• The Alberta government’s report, prepared by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, said separation would cost $50 to $170 billion. Running an independent government would cost up to $67 billion a year with annual deficits of at least $25 billion. In the worst-case scenario, the report forecasts Alberta’s GDP dropping 16.2% with substantial government deficits, higher taxes, lower employment and lower wages. The Canadian economy would suffer as well, with a weaker dollar and reduced investment.

• The Calgary Chamber of Commerce’s study this month, prepared by economist Trevor Tombe, predicts separation would shrink Alberta’s economy by as much as $62 billion annually. Higher trade costs could translate into as many as 69,000 job losses in Calgary alone.

• While Ottawa currently collects about $19 billion more in taxes from Albertans than it spends here, the Chamber study said an independent Alberta government would have to spend $18 billion of that “surplus” taking over the functions the federal government now performs, including defense, while revenues would fall by more than $10 billion because of the smaller economy.

• The Chamber study also emphasized that businesses and investors require certainty. Montreal was the financial capital of Canada until the uncertainly created by the prospect of the Quebec separatist referendum in1980 drove businesses and head offices out of the province.

• A Canada West Foundation report estimated setting up an independent Alberta would cost more than $200 billion and would shrink the economy by $39 billion.

• Lennie Kaplan, who spent many years as a top fiscal and economic policy official in the Alberta government, described the separatists’ financial analysis as having “magic as the prevailing theme.” His own research suggests employment would fall by 45,703 jobs in year one of separation, personal income would fall by 6.2 percent, housing starts would fall by 10.5 per cent and business investment would decline by 8 percent.

The research is clear: separatism would be costly and risky.

Most Albertans inherently understand this. An Angus Reid poll found 77% of Albertans say they would leave if Alberta separated.

Separatist leaders argue these studies are too pessimistic. They say the U.S. would sign trade deals and support an independent Alberta. Alberta Prosperity Leader Jeffrey Rath said earlier this year the group would seek a $500 billion line of credit from the U.S. administration to fund the transition.

That disheartening scenario was made even more disturbing in recent days with the Globe and Mail investigation that found when Alberta separatist leaders went to Washington to meet with the U.S. State Department, they offered up valuable assets, including access to fresh water and royalties on crude oil, in exchange for help transitioning to independence.

Some separatist leaders, it appears, would cut ties with Canada, only to bind us closer and make us indebted to the U.S.

Polls taken over the last few months consistently show a large majority in the province oppose separatism. (The latest Ipsos survey on October 1, found 74 percent of Albertans said they will vote to stay in Canada. Just 14 percent said they will vote to leave and 12 percent were unsure.)  

But that should not make anyone complacent about the outcome on October 19. Separatists have a point to make and they will be out to vote in force. The majority who oppose them may be less motivated. They may think it’s a slam-dunk for the “remain” side and they don’t need to worry about voting.

Equally worrisome are those who think they should vote for the separatist option “to send Ottawa a message.”

To be clear: there are only two choices on the ballot. You vote to remain in Canada, or you vote to start the process to separate from Canada. If you vote for the latter, you won’t be sending a message, you will be telling the government you want another referendum and you want Alberta it to start down a long and economically perilous path to leave Canada.

Most of us think being Canadian is like winning the lottery. You look around the world and think how truly lucky we are to live in country that’s peaceful and beautiful, and wealthy; where the rule of law prevails, human rights are entrenched and governments over decades have stitched a social safety net that strives to respect human dignity. Canada is far from perfect. There is a long list of things that need to be done to make the country a fairer and more promising place for our children and their children. But our democracy makes that list do-able.

This Thanksgiving, as you sit around the table with family or friends or enjoy a walk in Alberta’s magnificent outdoors, think about all we have to be thankful for as Canadians. And how important it is to protect that gift by voting in a referendum that is crucial not just for Alberta but for the entire country.

ON QUESTION 10, WE ARE VOTING FOR OPTION 1 TO REMAIN IN CANADA.

How to Talk to the Temporary Strategic Separatist in Your Life

Five practical messages to explain this isn’t a game worth the risk of playing.

With Alberta’s weird-as-hell 10-question referendum only weeks away, most people seem to have made up their minds about separation.

But one group sits in a paradoxical spot: people who don’t want Alberta to leave Canada, but are considering a strategic Option 2 vote to “send Ottawa a message,” believing it strengthens our hand down the road. Most of us know at least one—in the family, at work, or in the group chat. These are the only moveable voters in this debate, and if you’re voting against separation (which, spoiler alert: I already did, and I voted “No” on the other nine questions), they’re worth having a conversation with.

With Thanksgiving landing the week before the vote, many of us will be sitting across the table from exactly these people. That conversation can be fraught, and with so much information and misinformation flying around, it’s hard to sort out the best messages to help them decide. Here are a few ground rules for your approach, then five messages for those conversations:

GROUND RULES:

• Be cool. People in the Political Chattering Class often forget that most people are not driven by ideology, but by making a choice they believe offers the best future for themselves and their community. Not everyone is trying to “own the Libs” and most people don’t duke it out in social media comment sections. Keep that frame of reference handy.

• Be open. By immediately signaling you are open to listening to their thought process without judgement, you may find that their consideration of Option 2 makes sense given their personal history and experiences. You can acknowledge those perspectives and grievances without agreeing that they are enough to vote for separation.

• Be gracious. The objective here is not to force people to do what you want; it is to ask them to consider your perspective before they vote. If it moves them, great. If they remain unconvinced, you don’t have to endorse their choice or even like it, but you should respect it.

Message 1: The separation referendum itself is already the strongest possible message we can send to Ottawa.

In 2026, Alberta has made it clear that it is willing to flirt with, poke at, and maybe even slam the Self-Destruct button on Confederation, and perhaps even Alberta itself. Imagine the reaction of a typical Laurentian Elite®, sitting high in their Parliament Hill office wallpapered with Alberta Petrodollars, watching Alberta steadily march toward bringing separation to a vote in record time:

1. We tabled legislation to allow for citizen-initiated referendums;

2. Then we lowered the number of required signatures by more than half and doubled the signature collection period;

3. Then our government actively encouraged the collection of signatures to trigger a separation referendum;

4. Then a separation referendum petition gathered enough signatures to be reviewed (but wouldn’t have under the previous rules);

5. Then, when it got held up in the courts for a constitutional violation of Treaty rights, our government decided to put it on the ballot anyway with five months’ notice (and somehow used 400,000 anti-separation ballot initiative signatures as added justification).

Years of legislation, a $134,000,000 referendum, the economic opportunity cost, and the damage to our provincial reputation we’ve been willing to take have sent a clear and unambiguous message.

THOUGHT TO LEAVE THEM WITH: Ottawa knows we are serious. We’re using real tools that were unthinkable in Alberta ten years ago and we can see it’s paying dividends. If you have issues with Ottawa, here’s the good news: Premier Danielle Smith herself has said that the existing leverage is already working. Adding your Option 2 vote doesn’t actually strengthen that position.

Message 2: Pro-separation campaigners need you to “send a message to Ottawa by voting Option 2” because it is the only way to keep their movement alive.

Political movements are built on escalating momentum, with Election Day results always being the strongest proof point. Separatists know they can’t win this vote, but they can show growth to keep their particular party-bus going, and maybe with enough tries, they can get lucky. Pro-separation organizers are very clear that they will soldier on pushing separation regardless of the Oct 19th outcome, and are certain to spin any result as evidence of momentum.

But they need your Option 2 vote to do that.

In the post-referendum positioning, your strategic Option 2 vote—one that you don’t actually mean, remember—is indistinguishable from a 100% serious Option 2 vote and will be used by separatists to fuel a socially and economically damaging “neverendum” debate long after separation is democratically defeated. The closer to 50% the separatist political rattletrap can get the result to, the more they can say they deserve another kick at the can. If they can convince enough soft voters to accidentally tip the result into 50% this time, that’s a big win for them, and our politics get even uglier.

THOUGHT TO LEAVE THEM WITH: Voting strategically to send Ottawa a message ultimately strengthens the pro-separatist campaigns that you are planning to oppose in a potential future binding separation referendum. If that time comes, you will wish you had acted to stop it today.

Message 3: Giving your vote to the separatists is apparently what Moscow and MAGA want you to do.

When foreign AI slop factories in Russia and the US start pumping out propaganda trying to influence our politics, it’s time to stop and think about why. We are seeing attempts to use Alberta’s homegrown separatist movement as a Trojan horse for foreign influence attacks on Canadian unity, sovereignty, and stability. That is—in a word—bad. But the defence is simple: when we head to the ballot box, Albertans can show we recognize and reject this meddling trickery.

THOUGHT TO LEAVE THEM WITH: Don’t let malignant foreign adversaries use our democratic freedoms against us.

Message 4: To paraphrase Logan Roy from Succession, these are not serious people.

If you decide to give your vote to the separatists, who are you actually giving it to? The group of separatists who held secret meetings with the US State Department and, by one organizer’s account, proposed offering Alberta’s water, oil royalties, and land in exchange for financial support? Even that report set off public infighting within separatist ranks. How about the group who drafted a new Alberta constitution, only for one of its co-authors to use a racial slur while presenting it? Or perhaps the group who presented a costing and ongoing budget for separation that relies on magical thinking to keep separation from looking like a pending economic disaster?

In a recent Postmedia op-ed, former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to the same conclusion, warning against voting for separatism just to send a message and remarking that “nothing resembling the credible leadership necessary” to establish a new country existed within the separatist movement.

THOUGHT TO LEAVE THEM WITH: If you lend your vote to the cause of separation, it will also be used by a dysfunctional rogues’ gallery that has demonstrated bad judgement at best, ill intent at worst. The last thing we need as a province is a steady stream of incidents like this.

Message 5: You cannot take back your vote if you don’t like the resulting downstream consequences.

There is a reason that Russian roulette is a profoundly unpopular party game, despite a player only having a 16.7% chance of losing. The small odds of the downside are vastly outweighed by the tragic, permanent consequences. Using a protest vote to show you mean business to extract concessions only works if you don’t fall ass-backwards into the result you want to avoid.

That’s what happened with Brexit. Those results are well documented: a self-proclaimed unburdened nation slowly dragged down over a decade as one “Leave” campaign promise after another fails to materialize the economic and social benefits it promised. Alberta’s social, economic, and national separation would be an order of magnitude more complex than leaving the EU, and it stands to reason that the consequences would be, too.

THOUGHT TO LEAVE THEM WITH: Recent history is laden with protest votes that led to negative consequences that we were clearly warned about at the time. This isn’t a game worth the risk of playing.

Becoming Neighbours Again

This debate has not been a good period in Alberta’s history—emotions have run hot throughout. But no matter the result, we all must live with each other as Albertans and Canadians. When we pick up the pieces, we will be better off if we can do it together, committed to building a better Alberta and a better Canada where we all can feel secure and where we all benefit from our collective prosperity.

That’s going to be impossible to do if we can’t bear to look each other in the eye.

Good luck with your conversations this Thanksgiving.

---

Chris Henderson is the Chief Strategist and Partner at Y Station Communications & Research in Edmonton, AB. He is a lifelong proud Albertan and Canadian, from a line of proud Albertans and Canadians, and has long been a friend of the people of Daveberta.

Let Albertans decide. Vote YES for Option 1.

On October 19, Albertans will be asked to vote on a crucial question – whether to remain in Canada or start the process for another vote to separate. Driving around St. Albert, I’ve spotted several big signs saying, “Let Albertans decide. Vote option 2.” 

Sounds so easy doesn’t it? Let Albertans decide. Of course. That’s what referendums are for. But voting for option 2? That’s not deciding. That’s just kicking the can down the road so we go through months if not years with the spectre of separatism hanging over our heads. And it keeps our government focused on separatism rather than things that really matter to Albertans – making life more affordable, having a health system that delivers the timely care Albertans need, giving our kids the best possible education.

Then there are those who say, I don’t really want to separate. I just want to send a message to Ottawa. That’s a dangerous game to play. Because it’s not Ottawa that will decide whether Alberta has a binding referendum on separation. It’s our own provincial government, along with many of its own party members who actively or quietly support separatism. 

The October 19 referendum is not a bluff. I’ve played poker in the past and I’m lousy at bluffing because it means convincing the other players that you really do have a winning hand. Separation is not a winning hand. As Dr. Jared Wesley puts it, “You don’t push all your chips into the middle of the table while whispering, ‘don’t worry, I’ve got nothing’.” 

That’s exactly the game separatists are playing. Trying to convince you there’s nothing to lose by voting for option 2, that it will give us leverage in negotiating a better deal with Ottawa. But that is masking their real agenda. The separatists aren’t looking for a better deal with Canada. They want out. And they’re misleading us by suggesting voting for option 2 isn’t really a vote for separation.

As part of a group called Before You Vote (beforevoting.ca), I’ve read, analyzed and listened to countless studies, articles and stories about what the impact of separation would be. Nothing has convinced me there is any advantage or any reason for Alberta to separate. In fact, the costs would be enormous, not only the costs of setting up a new country and the damaging impact separation would have on our economy but in countless other ways. Polls show thousands of people would choose to leave Alberta. We’d lose investment, start-up businesses would find more secure places to get established, many existing businesses say they would move to other provinces, and established national and international trade agreements would get thrown out the window. And the worst possible outcome? We become a sitting duck waiting for a US President who might be joking about the 51st state but would love Alberta’s oil and gas. 

A friend of mine reminded me of Joni Mitchell’s famous line, “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.” Don’t let that happen on October 19. Vote option 1 and let’s get on with making this province and this country an even better place for your children and for granddaughers like mine.

New report from Calgary Chamber unveils high stakes of Alberta separation

A new report by University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe, commissioned by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, examines the potential economic implications of Alberta separating from Canada.

Read the Calgary Chamber’s news release here

Timothy Caulfield: Alberta’s Separatists Are Chasing a Total Cowboy Fantasy

The province they describe—rural, homogeneous, under siege—bears little resemblance to reality.

Joel Dryden: With time running out, new poll suggests Alberta separatism support is slipping

A new poll suggests support for separation is dropping. But don’t take that for granted. Every vote counts. People still need to get out to vote to ensure Alberta remains in Canada. 

Jared Wesley: Pandering to Pandora

Why the UCP’s four constitutional questions are threats to provincial autonomy

Watch Here: Real Talk with Ryan Jespersen

‍Four of our team spoke on Ryan Jespersen’s show Wednesday morning to discuss all ten referendum questions, but especially our thoughts on the immigration and constitutional questions.

Jared Wesley: How to lose a referendum in 30 days

“This fall’s referendums in Alberta will be decided by turnout. There are vanishingly few undecided voters when it comes to the lead question on separation. This leaves both sides with nothing to do but pull the vote.”

Confused by the questions? You’re not alone.

A recent Angus Reid poll shows that many of the referendum questions are not only confusing, but people agree with parts of some questions but not others.

Check out the full poll here. 

And check out the articles on our site for information and answers to your questions about each of the ten referendum questions. 

You don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone.

Over the past few months, we have heard some concerns expressed about the treatment of Alberta in Canada. However, in the midst of this conversation, we haven’t heard enough about the benefits of living in Canada.  

We are tied with Switzerland as the most admired country in the world. We are ranked in the upper echelon of the happiest countries in the world, ahead of the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. We are among the wealthiest countries of our size. 

We are a true democracy, with an independent judiciary, and governed by the rule of law.  We are a world leader in the protection and advancement of human rights. We have universal health care.  We are among the best educated countries in the world. 

We have a remarkably diverse population with a mixture of Indigenous peoples and people who have immigrated from around the world, and we have found a way to work and live together in reasonable harmony.

We fought bravely in two World Wars and in conflicts around the world, but we have been spared from armed conflict on our soil for over two hundred years.

We are the home of Joni Mitchell, Margaret Atwood, the Group of Seven, Ryan Reynolds, Connor McDavid, and the Canadian Football League. We have Tim Horton’s, pizza with pineapple, maple syrup, ice wine, and poutine.

We have the world’s longest coastline and over 2,000,000 lakes.

Insulin was discovered in Canada. The telephone was invented here, as were the egg carton and basketball.

As Barack Obama said on his visit in 2016, “the world needs more Canada”.

We have built this country together and we have much to be proud of. In financial terms, Albertans may have contributed above their weight in recent years. But Alberta’s prosperity has come in large part because we are part of Canada. Alberta has prospered and grown with the support of workers from Newfoundland and Labrador, engineers from Saskatchewan, labourers and professionals from across Canada, and doctors from countries around the world. Our place within Canada has been critical to our success.

When we think about the concerns that we may have about our relationship with the rest of the country, we should also think about all the benefits we enjoy, and that we continue to enjoy, because we are part of Canada.

On October 19, we are voting for Option 1 to remain in Canada.  As Joni Mitchell famously sang, “You don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”

David Coletto: Alberta Isn’t Leaving Canada. That Doesn’t Mean the Federation Is Fine.

Five reports and 1,000 interviews reveal a province that is deeply frustrated, still strongly Canadian, and heading toward a referendum result that almost nobody expects will end the argument.

Jared Wesley: Ten Questions, One Real Decision

“It is easy to dismiss the whole exercise as political theatre. The votes are “non-binding,” after all. And the pretext for the referendums is clear: the government is struggling to handle the policy files most important to Albertans and is looking for scapegoats and distractions.”

Parkland Institute: Scapegoating and Separatists

The report shows how Premier Danielle Smith is using the five immigration questions in the referendum to redirect public anger over affordability and strained public services toward immigrants. It also traces parallels between the language used in the ballot questions and anti-immigrant rhetoric advanced by Alberta’s far-right and separatist movement.

The Costly Implications of a Separate Alberta

The University of Calgary's School of Public Policy has published "The Economic and Fiscal Implications of Alberta Separation," a report commissioned by the Alberta government to give voters a fact-based look at what leaving Canada would mean for the province's economy and finances. Prepared by a group of economists, trade experts, and public policy professionals, the report models two scenarios — a "smooth" separation in which negotiations with Ottawa and other trading partners go quickly and favourably for Alberta, and a "difficult" one marked by prolonged, possibly hostile talks with Canada and other countries.

In both cases, the report estimates that establishing a new country would cost $50 billion to $170 billion over the first five years, including the cost of new infrastructure, an expanded public service, and Alberta's share of the federal debt.

The $1.5-million report, commissioned by the Smith government in June, is not a single document but an overview report backed by separate technical papers examining different facets of separation — from how the transition would actually work logistically to the detailed fiscal modelling behind the cost estimates — giving outside experts and Albertans a basis to check the underlying assumptions and methodology.

The two scenarios diverge sharply over the longer term. Under the "difficult" path, restricted trade and market access could leave lasting damage: after 20 years, employment could be nearly 5% lower and Alberta's economy more than 16% smaller than if it had stayed in Canada, with the government facing a persistent annual deficit exceeding $30 billion despite higher taxes.

Under the "smooth" scenario, Alberta could retain access to major trade markets, expand resource development and potentially deliver some government services more efficiently — but the report cautions that any recovery would take years and would hinge on conditions, like sustained high oil prices, that Alberta has no control over.

An independent advisory panel chaired by economist Jack Mintz reviewed the report's methodology and findings, agreeing that separation would bring short-term economic costs and highly uncertain long-run benefits.

How credible is this report and which scenario is more likely?

If you’re going to read anything before you vote on the separation question, this is it:

• The overview report has been written in non-technical language and is a manageable 24 pages long.

• The report has been prepared by recognized experts who have been transparent in how they arrived at their numbers and conclusions.

• An advisory panel that includes conservative economist Jack Mintz and former Alberta cabinet minister Ted Morton — both strong advocates for Alberta autonomy and a more decentralized federation — have agreed with the main conclusions of the report.

Which scenario is more likely — the “smooth” transition or “difficult” one?

• The smooth scenario assumes that trade with Canada and the rest of the world is uninterrupted, that interest rates go up but come down again, that there is no more federal environmental regulation, that there is a favourable US government, and the energy sector expands with oil prices in line with current expectations. How likely are all of these things to occur?

• It’s more likely that the rest of Canada and other trading partners do what’s best for them and negotiate tough deals with Alberta for access to markets and access to tidewater, taking advantage of Alberta’s relatively small size and dependence on foreign markets for oil. It’s also more likely that Alberta’s economy will continue to be dependent on oil prices that go up and down, and that our boom-and-bust economy will not have the cushion of the rest of Canada to fall back on. And this is before the impacts of AI and climate change have been fully felt.

• Adam Legge, president of the Business Council of Alberta and member of the independent advisory committee, has told the Globe and Mail that the benefits outlined in the “smooth” scenario are highly unlikely and underline the limited upside of separation. Legge is quoted in a recent Globe and Mail article as saying that “the highest probability is that we would be landing somewhere in negative economic territory.”

• Under the unlikely “smooth” scenario, average wages fall $1,241 in the first five years and rise a modest $1,851 after 20 years. Are Albertans prepared to bet on that risky scenario, when the more likely scenario says average wages fall $5,496 in the first five years and decline $11,957 after 20 years?

We’re voting to remain in Canada and hope that the vote is decisive to remain so that we end this costly and divisive conversation that is undermining confidence in Alberta’s economy and diverting attention away from more critical issues such as competitiveness, affordability, health care, education, and government accountability.

Voting to remain in Canada is clearly the best economic option for Alberta. We need to end this costly and divisive conversation that is undermining confidence in Alberta’s economy and diverting attention away from more critical issues such as competitiveness, affordability, health care, education, and government accountability.

See media coverage of the report below:

https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/bell-here-it-is-bombshell-report-on-the-costs-of-alberta-separating-from-canada

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/university-of-calgary-school-of-public-policy-report-9.7346307

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/alberta-separation-cost-report-debt

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-alberta-separation-secession-cost-170-billion-report/

Jared Wesley: When ‘leverage’ isn’t leverage

Imagine sending a ransom note that says: “Give us what we want. But just so you know, most of us have no intention of actually harming the hostage.”

Not Just an Independent Country but a Political Ideology

In August of this year, one of the leading organizations behind Alberta’s separatist movement issued a draft constitution for an independent Alberta entitled “The Foundation of Freedom.” In it, the Alberta Prosperity Project proposes an independent Alberta designed to entrench a particular political ideology.

Ordinarily, one would expect the constitution of a democratic country to establish the structure of the government, for example: the creation of an elected parliament or congress of elected representatives, the creation of an executive branch to carry out law, and the creation of an independent judiciary to interpret and apply the law. Within that structure, the people would be free to elect their representatives, who would be free to govern in accordance with the will of the people, subject to the protection of certain fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals within the society.

The “Foundation of Freedom” document goes well beyond this, entrenching a political philosophy and rigid rules which would forever limit the ability of government to respond to future needs and changing circumstances.

This draft constitution sets out certain limited categories in which the government is allowed to legislate. It then sets out a series of “absolute prohibitions” including “regulation or funding of the media”, “any area not clearly tied to defence, trade, or peace and order”, and “creation of new rights, obligations, or social programs” outside the categories specifically enumerated in the document.

This reflects a political ideology that the role of government should be strictly limited. That is an ideology that members of the Alberta Prosperity Project are entitled to hold, but this draft proposes entrenching that ideology into the constitution, to be binding on everyone, regardless of the will of the people at any point in time and regardless of the circumstances that may arise at any point in time.

Foundation of Freedom goes further, prescribing that annual income taxes shall not exceed 10% of net income, that consumption taxes shall not exceed 10% of the net purchase price of goods or services, and that government may not operate a deficit for more than two consecutive years within a given term. It prohibits a government from incurring debt for operational or recurring expenditures and permits debt for capital infrastructure projects (like roads or schools or hospitals) only if approved by referendum. It further prescribes a spending cap tied to the gross domestic product of the country, which may be exceeded only in the event of a formally declared emergency or armed conflict.

These strict financial limitations would severely constrain the role of government. It is difficult to conceive, for example, how the government could create a publicly funded health care system or establish any form of social safety net with these limitations in place. By constitutional dictate, regardless of the will of the people at any point in time, the wealthy would pay less tax; the poor, the elderly and the disabled would receive fewer supports.

Foundation of Freedom then prescribes that these parts of the constitution, among others, can never be amended, again regardless of the will of the people at any point in time, and regardless of the circumstances that may arise at any point in time.

This draft constitution includes protections of certain fundamental rights and freedoms, but it does so in a way that is quite different from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For example, it recognizes certain rights of every citizen (excluding permanent residents, temporary foreign workers, and refugees) to bear arms and to liberty, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and peaceful assembly, among others. Unlike the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, these rights are not subject to such reasonable limitations as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. That would bar anti-hate speech laws. That might even bar laws prohibiting child pornography because they conflict with freedom of expression and no exceptions are allowed.

The document also includes a constitutional right to protection against discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religious belief, and a category called “Lawful Sexual Orientation”. However, unlike the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it does not provide protection against discrimination on the basis of age or disability, and it prohibits the courts from implying any such grounds. Again, the elderly and persons with disabilities get the short end of the stick.

The document goes on to prescribe how courts must interpret and apply the constitution. In particular, it requires that the constitution must be interpreted solely by its text, read in its immediate structural context. Presumably, that means the broader societal context may not be taken into account. It also requires that the courts must interpret the constitution and all other laws according to its original meaning. This is called the “originalist” doctrine, which has been advocated by the most conservative judges on the United States Supreme Court, and which has upended rights, like abortion rights, in recent years.

This is in direct opposition to the “living tree” doctrine that has been the law of Canada for almost 100 years, allowing courts to interpret the constitution to adapt with the changing times. This doctrine was articulated in a 1929 case in which the court interpreted the reference to “persons” in the constitution to apply to both men and women, even though that might not have been contemplated in 1867 when the constitution came into force.

With the publication of Foundation of Freedom, the organization leading the separatist movement has shown it is looking not only for an independent Alberta, but an Alberta mandated by the constitution to forever reflect their own political ideology.

Introducing Forward Weekly

Forward Thinking, Forward Weekly

Alberta is at a turning point, and staying informed shouldn't feel like a full-time job. Forward Weekly is your antidote to the political chaos. Every Sunday, Forward Weekly delivers the essential roundup you actually need: original progressive commentary, what just happened, what's coming next and exactly how you can fight back.