The Alberta government's sudden shift on the cost of separation is a fascinating development, to say the least. Premier Danielle Smith's about-face from her previous stance on a sovereign Alberta within Canada is a strategic move, but it raises questions about her true intentions and the potential consequences of her actions. While she claims to support a sovereign Alberta, her actions and policies have been promoting and normalizing the ideology underpinning the province's separatist movement.
One thing that immediately stands out is the lack of transparency and accountability in the government's handling of this issue. Lennie Kaplan, a former mid-level manager with the Alberta Treasury Board and Finance Ministry, has been filing freedom of information requests to the United Conservative Party government, seeking to understand the cost-benefit analysis of separation. Despite his expertise and experience, he has received no response, with the government claiming to have no records.
This raises a deeper question about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. Why is the government so reluctant to provide information on the potential costs of separation? Is it because they know the numbers are daunting and would undermine their narrative? Or is it because they are trying to manipulate public opinion and create a sense of urgency around the referendum?
In my opinion, the government's sudden shift on the cost of separation is a strategic move to appease a significant faction of separatists within the UCP. By releasing a document outlining the costs and obligations of separation, Smith is trying to control the narrative and present herself as a strong leader who is taking a stand on the issue. However, the fact that she has been promoting and normalizing the ideology underpinning the province's separatist movement for more than a year suggests that her true intentions may be more complex and nuanced.
The potential consequences of separation are significant and far-reaching. Trevor Tombe, an economist at the University of Calgary, estimates that Alberta's economy would shrink by about four per cent, which represents about $20 billion of lost revenue or about $3,900 for every citizen. Kaplan's preliminary analysis estimates a more significant contraction of $39 billion or 7.2 per cent in the first year of Alberta independence, leading to a $6,304 contraction in Albertans' disposable income per household.
The potential impact on business investment and retail sales is also concerning. Business investment would fall by $6.8 billion, or eight per cent lower than if Alberta had not separated, or business as usual. Retail sales would fall by $10 billion, or 8.2 per cent lower than business as usual. The potential loss of jobs is also significant, with about 45,000 jobs lost, which is about 1.7 per cent lower than business as usual.
The comparison to Brexit is also interesting. Kaplan points to a post-Brexit analysis that found that by 2025, Brexit had reduced the United Kingdom's per capita economy by six to eight per cent, investment by 12 to 18 per cent, and employment and productivity each by three to four per cent. The potential consequences of separation are similar, and the government's sudden shift on the cost of separation suggests that they are aware of the potential impact.
However, the government's response to the potential consequences of separation is concerning. The UCP is not alone in ignoring the potential consequences, with the federal Parliamentary Budget Office and the Bank of Canada also failing to provide analysis or information on the issue. The lack of transparency and accountability from the government and other institutions is a significant concern and raises questions about the credibility of the referendum.
The separatists' promise to eliminate all provincial and federal income taxes, corporate taxes, and the GST is also a significant concern. Tombe estimates that this would cut $80 billion from government revenue and create unsustainable deficits, not the surpluses promised by the separatists. The government's sudden shift on the cost of separation and their reluctance to provide information on the issue suggest that they are aware of the potential consequences and are trying to manipulate public opinion.
In conclusion, the Alberta government's sudden shift on the cost of separation is a fascinating development that raises questions about their true intentions and the potential consequences of their actions. The lack of transparency and accountability from the government and other institutions is a significant concern, and the potential impact of separation on the economy and society is significant. The government's response to the potential consequences of separation is concerning, and the separatists' promise to eliminate taxes is a significant concern. It is essential to understand the implications of separation and make an informed decision, and the government's actions suggest that they are not committed to providing the necessary information and transparency.
