Tonight on The Brian Crombie Hour, Brian interviews Charles St-Arnaud, Chief Economist of Alberta Central, about the risks of and economic impacts of Alberta Separation.
Charles has over 17 years of experience as an economist in the public and private sectors, both in Canada and internationally (New York, London, Hong Kong). Charles was at the Department of Finance in Ottawa during the global financial crisis, where he advised senior officials on economic policy. He has also worked for the Bank of Canada and Morgan Stanley.
Charles St-Arnaud discussed the topic of Alberta separation, comparing it to Quebec’s desire for separation and Brexit. Charles notes that Alberta's reasons for separation are more economically driven than culturally motivated, similar to Brexit. He suggests that Alberta is not fully realizing how the global energy market has changed since the early 2010s, making it unlikely to experience another economic boom like the one in 2010. Brian ends this episode with some of his own thoughts on separation desires in Quebec, Brexit, Alberta, and even Peel.
Charles has over 17 years of experience as an economist in the public and private sectors, both in Canada and internationally (New York, London, Hong Kong). Charles was at the Department of Finance in Ottawa during the global financial crisis, where he advised senior officials on economic policy. He has also worked for the Bank of Canada and Morgan Stanley.
Charles St-Arnaud discussed the topic of Alberta separation, comparing it to Quebec’s desire for separation and Brexit. Charles notes that Alberta's reasons for separation are more economically driven than culturally motivated, similar to Brexit. He suggests that Alberta is not fully realizing how the global energy market has changed since the early 2010s, making it unlikely to experience another economic boom like the one in 2010. Brian ends this episode with some of his own thoughts on separation desires in Quebec, Brexit, Alberta, and even Peel.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
Saga nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Good even to everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie
Radio Hour. I get the opportunity every night at six
o'clock at nine to sixty am to come to you.
I'm endlessly fascinated by and curious about the world around us,
about politics, about the arts, about business, about culture, about developments,
social issues, and the people who are shaping our future
here in Toronto and across Canada. Every night I dive
(00:39):
into conversations, interesting conversations with thought leaders and change makers, entrepreneurs, politicians,
economists and everyday heroes to unpack their ideas and hear
what they got to say. The stories that I think matter.
What's the future of our economy, How do we build
stronger communities? What can we learn from music, sports, theater?
How does policy shape real lives? What does leadership look
(00:59):
like to If it's interesting and relevant and we're talking
about you'll hear it here on the Brian Crimey Radio Hour.
These are real conversations, in depth conversations, conversations that are
worth sharing. So thank you for joining us tonight. And
tonight I've got a really interesting guest. I've got Charles
with me. Charles is a chief economist with a credit
(01:21):
union in Alberta.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
He's been with me before.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
He's the chief economist at Alberta Central, Charles sant Arnand
we've chatted Charles before about the economy. We've talked about
own gas, we talked about debt and deficits, we've talked
about foreign exchange. But last week you made a really
interesting you didn't post it, but you commented on it
on a post in regards to Alberta separation. And it
(01:45):
was a post about an article about Alberta separation and
comparing it to Brexit and Quebec separation, and I thought
it'd be interesting to check in with you. You're a Quebecer
who now lives and works in Alberta, so you've got
had an interesting view on this. And you're a chief economist,
and you've worked in the federal government, you've worked in
(02:05):
economics for a credit union, and you're it's it Calgary
Edmonton that you're answered in Caugary actually, so you've got
a good view of what's going on in Western Canada.
So what do you think about what's going to happen
if Alberta separates?
Speaker 4 (02:21):
As to your intro, I was also lucky enough to
be living and working in London during the Brexit vote,
so it actually as a Canadian in London, I was
able to vote in the referendum. So that's fascinating. And
I voted in ninety five to referendum. So I sometimes
I jokingly say it seems like all those referendum are
following me where I'm going.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
So there's an vert of referendum. You're probably one of
the only people that's voted in all three referendums.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
Yeah, it's interesting question.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
What's the plural of referendum? Is a referendum mine?
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Oh that's a good question. Oh maybe we should call
some linguist and ask them.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
So you voted in a Quebec referendum, a brax and them,
and now we're talking about a potential Alberta referendum.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Yeah, And it's interesting because I can see some similarities
and some big differences. Like one of the thing I
always find interesting is how sometimes the media in Canada
loves to compare what's going on in Alberta with what
was happening in Quebec and well in the mid nineties
but also in the early eighties. Personally my own experience,
(03:26):
the Alberta kind of sovereignty referendum and all that kind
of independence kind of movement looks more to me like
Brexit than anything else.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Why is it more like Brexit than Quebec?
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Well connected was more of a cultural factor, a historical factor.
Alberta very similar to Brexit. A lot of it was
is economics, how can we not get someone else to
decide for us or how can we not have to
live by other decisions? So whether like in the UK
(04:02):
it was well we find Brussels is getting too much
into our affairs, how can we get out? And Alberta
is really that is that we don't want a lot
of wat to decide what we should be doing. So
it's really similar on that front. And the danger I
find sometimes is that part of the reason is also
the politics. In a way that the British government in
(04:27):
the early twenty tens and for and even longer than that,
always used Brussel as their scapegoats for every problems that
they have without looking at their own problems, and Alberta
is often doing that too. It's kind of a way
to deflect attention to who's always.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
The problem for He's always blaming at what is it not?
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Yeah, it's well, it's always the same thing. It's it's that.
But in Quebec you also have that dimension of you
have a historical different origin in terms of it has
been kind of the creation of why Quebec as part
of Canada. It's there's always been that historical resentment towards
the conquest in seventeen fifty nine.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
So I thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
that anti immigrant fervor in the UK was also a
real contributing factor where they've blamed a lot of the
rules that the EU had in regards to accepting, you know,
free labor movement, such that there were a whole bunch
of Eastern Europeans that came into the UK and we're
(05:35):
taking a lot of those low end jobs, and they
thought that would go away. Now people have told me that. Frankly,
what's happened since is they've gotten a whole bunch of
people from the Middle East that have moved into the
UK and so that they've still got as much immigration.
It's just now Middle Eastern rather than Eastern European. But
is that true in regards to Brexit and is that
(05:56):
part of what the Alberta issue is.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Yeah, well, okay, go with Brexit. In terms of what
I've been kind of the seed when I was there
working in London, I was an economist for a big
financial institution in the city, and I remember in the
weeks going to leading to Brexit, we were actually asked
to go in other regions of the UK because London
(06:19):
is kind of microcosmos that is not England, so we
were sent to different areas. I went to Yorkshire and
basically went to pubs and asked people what they thought
and what you really really was The biggest issue was
a lot of it was yes, immigration, but not directly immigration.
(06:39):
It was more the fact that housing was expensive, the
quality of healthcare service had come down, it was hard
to find a place for your kids to go to school.
It was all actually local issues in terms of and
you have to remember in the UK they went through
a big phase of what they would call fiscal austerity
in there in the early twenty ten when a lot
(07:02):
of government spendings were cut and a lot of what
the issue we're seeing was actually that is that at
the same time as you had spending cuts constraining the
delivery of service to the population, you also had a
big boom in immigration from Europe because you're present in
an economic crisis. And well, let's be honest, if you
(07:23):
are Romanian Polish check most likely the second language you
will learn in school or on your own is English.
So you're more likely to move to the UK to
find work and to get more prosperity that you're going
to go to France or Germany because you don't speak
the language. Well, in some ways, there's some merit in
the way the British were putting it is that they
(07:44):
might have this, they might have attracted a disproportionate number
of immigrants, but at the same time the local government
by cutting service to the population and generating and all that.
And I think also we talk about our affordability issues
in Canada, they also have their own housing affordability and
(08:06):
that can all mixed together. People were voting for Brexit
more out of frustration for how they couldn't afford their
daily living and to afford what they were expecting to
be able to have. So frustration the leave.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
People were certainly thinking that and were suggesting that the
British economy would be far better and that they would,
you know, economically, be better off. What's your sense as
an economist? Was Brexit a smart economic move or a
dumb economic move?
Speaker 4 (08:40):
The debate is still on. I would say now, almost
ten years later, it's clear that it's not as positive
as was the campaigners for the Leave camp were hoping for.
There's been an increase in barrier with the rest of Europe.
There's been more friction in terms of trade. We saw
it especially in terms of food prices and all that
(09:02):
in recent years. So I don't think the UK economy
is doing that well since Brexit. There's other issues going on,
But clearly it hasn't been the economic boom that those
who were supporting or that was a big proponent of
leaving actually were support or so.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
I'm a regular reader of the Economist magazine. The Economists
magazine suggests it's been a disaster and would not be
as as politically correct as you're suggesting that it was
as much of a boom. They'd be very negative. Their
only comment would be there's no appetite for another referendum.
But if there was another referendum, they think that frankly,
the Remain, the Stain and the EU would would be
(09:45):
would be successful today. But they said that would break
apart the Labor Party and the Conservative Party.
Speaker 5 (09:52):
The only party would be the Reform Party.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
It would be so.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Strongly coalescing around the leave orientation, but they would be
and have on numerous occasions said it's been an economic disaster.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
You don't agree with them?
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Yeah, well no, I agree. I don't know the number
enough to really say a disaster, but clearly that has
not been a positive a positive experience. Did you then,
because they were really kind of pushing that suddenly they
could free themselves from all the rules and do whatever
they wanted, but they still had to deal or to
(10:27):
to actually have a treat deal with their most important partner,
and that comes with rules. So it's it has been
more complicated than people want or the Laeve campaign wanted
to put it. But again I think for most Brits
now they're realizing is that a lot of why the
(10:49):
general population voted. And that's the sentiment I got from
speaking to people in different parts of the UK. It
was more a vote for or against the recent and
policies of the Conservative government of the early twenty tens
then actually a real like, oh, we're a clear conscience
(11:10):
that it will be better. It just was more of
a expressing their discontent.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
So you voted in the Quebec referendum economically, not culturally
or politically economically, what do you think the impact of
Quebec separation would have been from Canada? Would have been
positive economically or negative?
Speaker 4 (11:30):
I think you would have been negative. And in some
ways we out already see and saw the impact of
all that sovereignty independence movement in Quebec with like Montreal
was more important than Toronto in the sixties and for
most of the seventies, and then as those uncerted political
uncertainty came in, a lot of head office left from
(11:51):
Montreal Montreal to go to Toronto, and Toronto really boom
in some ways thanks to the sovereignty movement in Quebec.
And so we already seeing how negative that uncertainty, that
political uncertainty can be for an economy. So now imagine
if on top of that you're actually fully independent. It's
(12:14):
a lot to come more complicated when you're much smaller.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
So if Quebec separation would have been negative if Brexit
was negative. Why is Alberta thinking about separation?
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Because there's always the same as in Brexit in Quebec,
there's always a camp that believe that suddenly you can
follow do whatever you want, you'll be better off without
thinking that we live in a reality where you cannot
do a hundred percent what you want. And for Alberta,
it's also quite complicated just by geography. Is we're landlocked.
(12:51):
How do you send your product to your markets when
your landlocked? So that will kind of also get quite
a bit of attention and conflict if there was actually
an independent Alberta.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
We're going to take a break for some messages and
come back with Charles sent on On in just two
minutes talking more about why Alberta is thinking about separation,
what the economic implications would be, what are the political
sort of rationales behind this, What are some of the
practical constraints in regards to pensions and and and tax
(13:29):
revenue and debt and deficit, and you know, let's let's
think about this as much as we can about whether
this Quebec separation risk that we had back in in
several decades Ago is similar to h to Alberta, if
Brexit is similar to Alberta. Some people are talking about,
you know, our trade relationships with the United States being
(13:51):
a comparable kind of situation. Whether we should remain in
a free trade agreement or go it alone, or whether
geography and gravitation or such that we have to have
a relationship with the US. This is gonna be a
interesty conversation tonight with an expert on this topic who
interesting enough.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I didn't know this.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Has voted in two referendum, one in Quebec and one
in the UK, and probably within the next year is
going to be voted in an Alberta referendum on separation.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Stay with us, everyone back in two.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Minutes stream us Live at SAGA nine to six am
dot CA.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
We'll come back everyone to the Brian crimeby radio wife.
Charles sat An with me tonight. He's the chief economist
at a credit union in Alberta called Alberta Central. I've
had the pleasure of interviewing him before.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
On economic issues. He's been the chief.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Economist in Alberta Central for what is it six years now,
and before that you were with senior investment strategist at
Lombard Ohjay Investment Managers in London, UK.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
And before that you were a.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Senior economist and FX strategist done no mura. And before
that you were with the Canadian Government Financed Aide Canada
with the senior economist, and then you were with Morgan
Stanley and UH and UH Bank of Canada and on
and on.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
What what an incredible.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Resume you've got, and what a fascinating experience.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
And you've got.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
An academic experience that is just as impressive. And so
thank you very much for joining us. So tell me
if you could, you know we h you were commenting
last week on this article by a well thought of,
well known economist in Alberta who was was commenting about
Quebec separation.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
I mean, sorry, Alberta separation.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Forty and slip there, apologize Alberta separation and and what'd
you think of it?
Speaker 4 (15:54):
I think you hit most of the spot pretty well.
Is that it's clear there will be a cause of
independence for Alberta. So whether it is more trade friction
where the rest of the country is estimates that I
think it will be about like five hundred billion dollars
or so of law of a smaller economy because of
the independence. But there's also other things that we need
(16:17):
to take into account. Is that we don't know what
the political uncertainty will generate. Like we saw it in
Quebec when the political uncertainty with the pick started in
the late seventies, you've seen a lot of businesses leaving
the province. Are we going to see something similar? Are
we going to see also some some of the Albertans
(16:38):
who are from other province deciding to leave for to
go back to the province. So there's a lot of
ramification in terms of what such a move would do
to the province, of the economy of the province.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
You know, you commented earlier about this move from Montreal
to Toronto that may really have Toronto the economic capital
of Canada. Montreal as in the fifties and the sixties
and as you said, some of the seventies. What's your sense,
You know, Calgary is the head of the own gas business.
It's got a huge amount of growth, it's got in
(17:11):
migration from Ontario right now is that all at risk?
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Well? The other thing, the head office from oil and Gas.
I don't think they're going to leave because Alberta becomes independent,
obviously they will still need to be relatively close to
the resource, so they will stay. But I think all
the migration from people from Ontario ANDBC looking at Alberta
for the for the better affordability it gives them might
(17:38):
think twice. They might be like, well, maybe it's not
worth it, and there's a lot of better question is
that if you move from another province you come to Alberta,
what's gonna happen to my pension fund? And again it's
so there's a lot of that migration could be in
jeopardy from with the independence movement.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
You posted something about why is Alberta so grumpy?
Speaker 3 (18:02):
What's that?
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Well, it kind of comes like when it was kind
of a bit of a reaction to some of the
comments I was hearing from the rest of the country.
Is that I clearly understand the point of view in
what I would call Middle Canada, which is basically Ontario
and Quebec. That there was a lot of of kind
of I was the kind of puzzlement of like, why
(18:26):
are they suddenly because we get afford liberal government, suddenly
they just want to leave. So they didn't have who
they wanted, so they like toddlers who just throw their
toys and and and throw a tentrum. Well, I get
that point of view, and I it makes sense a
bit to say that, But sometimes we also need to
kind of dig deeper into what has happened in Alberta
(18:51):
over the past decade or so. And when we think
about it in terms of for the average out burden,
the average olt burden now is much poorer than he
was ten years ago.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yes, some of your stats, if I could interrupt, I apologize. Yeah,
for interesting CDP per capital has declined ten percent since
twenty fourteen and is currently barely above two thousand and four.
Alberta's purchasing powers declined thirty percent over the past decade,
is at the same level as the mid two thousands.
As a comparison, it increased three percent for the country
as a whole, nine percent BC, seven and a half
(19:25):
percent Quebeck and five percent in Ontario. And employment prospects,
especially for young people have worse worsened over the past decade.
So is that a result of a bad economic time
or the fact that it was unbelievably positive you know
a decade ago with oil and gas.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
You know, I've got developments in Alberta.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And you know, two thousand and five to twenty ten,
Alberta was on fire, was like huge economic growth. And
then when about twenty fifteen or twenty fourteen, when oil
prices declined, it didn't do as well. And also concerns
about climate change. And so therefore maybe disinvestment in or
lack of investment, not disinvestment in uh in oil and gas.
(20:10):
But but but but Alberta, Calgary, Nemanton done well post
the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
If done Okay, I think that's what it is. Is
that a lot of what we've seen Again, I think
let's put let's answer that in two parts. So I
think part of the issue is more the direction of
the change the fact, as you mentioned that the average
Alberta has seen a significant decline in its purchasing power.
(20:41):
It's mainly that it's the confidence effic that it leads.
We are conditioned as humans to expect that, yeah, next
year I'll be better off than the year before, and
the next and the next that will things will get better.
But the problem is that after ten years where you
actually see your person power consistently coming down for ten years,
(21:05):
you become very frustrated. So that's really, in some ways
kind of what started a bit, the starts a bit
the whatever I would consider the grumpiness. And obviously there's
a lot of the a lot of politicians that have
been using that grumpiness and pushing that, oh, you're less better,
(21:28):
you're not as good as well off as you should
be because of all the federal government's policies. But as
you mentioned, it seems like often people forget that there's
been a massive crash in oil prices and investment in
twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, and we never recovered from that,
and it's not just because of federal regulation. Actually, when
(21:50):
you look I've done the caglation. When you look at
the worldwide investment in oil and gas, actually Canadian companies
are not investing less than others. They're actually investing as
much as other oil companies. So it's not it's more
the two thousand and five to twenty fifteen period that
(22:12):
was really a boom that was probably unprecedented, and I
think we also have to look at it that may
actually never come back. That was not the norm. The
norm is maybe as it goes that it is right now,
but we Albertas have been told that no, the boom
(22:32):
of the early twenty ten that should be the norm.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
But that's what Alberta believes, and that's what they want,
that's what they think they can get fromselves from separation.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Correct. Yeah, the thing is, I think it's more on
the political side some part of the economy, but a
lot of people in Alberta really understand that that early
twenty ten boom was unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
So according to this article that Trevor Toom wrote, between
en one third and between one fifth and one third
of Alburton's support the idea of separation.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
That's a that's a significant amount.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
And eighty eight percent, eighty eight percent want to separate
from the equalization system that we have in Canada because
they think that they're more into equalization than they get
out of it. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
Well, again, the whole equalization discussion and topic has been
hijacked by politics rather than actually the fact. The thing
is is that it's it has been sold to Alberta
and they've been repeatedly told something that is not true,
(23:43):
that Alberta there's a way where equalization in the way
that equalization or in the qualitization formula where Alberta can
get more than what they pay in, but then it's
who pays more than their receive. The thing is that
it's meant in the simplest way is to try to
regulibrate income. It's it's a very complicated formula and all that,
(24:06):
but basically it's just like it's like income tax. People
who make more money will pay more taxes that and
will get less service, and those who make more less money.
So someone needs to pay for those who receive more.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
I can argue part a lot of it is is
that albert is younger and so there's a lot more
wage journals and a lot less older people. Is that
part of it.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
The CPP is not included in that. So that's the
thing is that the fact you add.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
More if you added in CP is what you're telling.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
Me, Yeah, if you add the depension it would be more.
But that's that's differult because it's not we're all paying
in the pot because we will have that in the future.
I think that's that's the the other part, and we
also have to take into account that in some ways.
There's a one I think that's interesting in economy clear
about Canada is that each province are not extremely not
(25:02):
very well diversified economically, but when you put the ten together,
it makes a whole that's more diversified. In some ways,
there's some automatic stabilizer economically within Canada because of that.
But I think the problem with equalization is that it
has been made that in a sense that it's being
(25:27):
told to most people that oh ed Linton or the government,
the federal the provincial government in Alberta writes a check
to go to Ottawa. But that's not the way it works.
Albertins paid the same level of GSD, they paid the
same tax rate as someone in Toronto. Is just that
because we make more and spend more, poor person, we
(25:49):
contribute more than the average Canadian.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
So an organization called the Alberta Prosperity Project has come
up with a report that says that Number one, there
would be with a separate Alberta and oil production boom
reaching nearly ten billion barrels per day within two decades,
and this new Alberta dollar backed by gold oil and
come would lead to government surpluses, government budget surpluses of
(26:17):
between twenty three and forty five billion dollars a year,
and that with such windfalls. They think an independent Alberta
could eliminate personal taxes, corporate taxes.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
As well as the GST. What do you think.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
I've read the report. There's some accounting error that are important.
The first one, and Trevor tom also noted that in
this article is that they include the investment income from
a possible Alberta pension plan. But that's not revenue for
the government. It's like saying that the income investment from
(26:52):
CPP is actually included in the government revenues. No, it's
an entity that's our melan, that is independent. You cannot
include that in your revenues. So already they're missing. I
think it's I try to remember the numbers, but it's
a big chunk of ten billion. Yeah, so ten billion
already that shouldn't be accounted for. Then the increase in
(27:16):
oil production, I am skeptical that we could see such
a big increase even if we were to remove every
environmental regulation that we have. Right now, we're in a
context and I've been talking about that for years, and
we talked about it on previous episode, is there's a
(27:40):
reality in the world where global oil demand is set
to flatten somewhere in the twenty thirties, some say it's
early twenty thirty, some says it's late. But then to
start to gradually decline, does it really make sense for
a private company to pour one hundred of bill million
(28:00):
dollars to boom production and a declining market. So I
think we need to be careful there. Then there's a
whole context of creating the Alberta dollar and all that,
and the immediate step is to go from the kind
like on the day one go to the US dollar
(28:20):
and then creating it's highly complicated, highly unsecure. I I
had a lot of skepticism for their for their plan.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
He also quotes that they get defense spending wrong, that
they suggest that Alberta defense would cost between three and
five billion, But if you met NATO's two percent, if
you assumed that Alberta would want to join NATO, that
would be ten billion, and under the new three and
a half percent, it would be twenty to twenty five
billion that you'd need to increase it. So it's another
(28:56):
what ten to twenty billion dollar mistake?
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Yeah, And so that's the thing. So there's there's that
that's not included some of the costs in terms of
creating the new institutions that will be needed. All the
what's right now under federal jurisdiction will need to be
recreated in Alberta, will probably be more expensive, will probably
cost more. It doesn't take into account whether or not
(29:20):
they seem to think that the demographic trend that we've
been having in recent year, where population in Alberta has
been growing at a much faster pace than the rest
of the country, will continue, and it's very unlikely that
that would be after independent. So that's where depending on
(29:40):
what assumption you put, you can either have a great
rosy picture or you can be a bit more conservative.
And I would agree like Trevor Toomb's estimates. So actually
it's very sensible and are probably more that it's that
we need to be. We don't need to be overly optimistic.
(30:02):
We need to be realistic so that the general public
understand the risk and the potential cost.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
So, you know, we talked about the impact on Quebec
and Trevor Tuma and his article talks about how Quebec
was a net contributor to equalization in the nineteen sixties
and early nineteen seventies and then after a lot of
the issues about separation. It became a receiver, a recipient
of equalization payments and the economy has done poorly, and
(30:30):
you mentioned already how a lot of businesses moved from
Montreal to Toronto.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
He says that in the UK the.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Economy shrank between two and five percent, and the non
terror barriers but were between three and eight percent. And
his own estimate is that it would be a five
percent increase of importing into Alberta and so therefore would
be twenty billion and foregone, foregone economic activity for Alberton's
roughly three point nine thousand, three nine hundred per person
(31:00):
or more than two months rent on total, and it
would be a six percent non tariff barrier. So you
know he's talking about you're talking about the economic impact
on Quebec, the economic.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Impact on Brexit.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
And yet again you've got people, you know, what are
supposedly reputable organizations coming out of the report it's comparable
to what happened with Brexit, comparable what happened with Quebec
separation that are saying it's going to be really positive,
and you got a hold to people in Alberta believe
it's going to be really positive.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
How can those two things.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
Exist, Well, it's always the way you put it. That
thing is that it's I think in Alberta where people
are really frustrated is seeing that they want to grow
as much as they can oil production because it's it's
the cash cow of the government here and it pays
for everything. Like, oh, twenty five percent of current provincial
(32:02):
government spending is paid through the royalties on oil and
gas twenty five percent. Like if it was not for
those royalties, Alberta would have what would need to have
a provincial path and income tax rate that are very
similar to Interior or even Quebec to afford the level
of services. So I think it needs to be thought
(32:26):
of that is that a lot of those independence movement
are basically banking on we can still sell a lot
of oil, will sell more and will pay for all
the problems or all our stuff with that. The problem
is that how do you live once the music stopped,
like in twenty fifty or twenty sixty. We don't know
(32:47):
when when there's a bit more of a transition, or
those royalties are no longer or cannot support or are
not growing fast enough to support twenty five percent of
your budget. What do you do? That's that's our that's
just right now without any independence. We often I call
(33:07):
it it's the adult discussion that Alberta doesn't want to have.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
So what about the politics of this situation.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Let's take a break for some messages and come back
and talk to Charles about you know, this discussion, this
adult conversation that needs to happen, and why it's not happened.
Why didn't happen in Quebec, Why didn't happen in the UK? Stay?
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Was it?
Speaker 2 (33:29):
One?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
Back in two minutes, no radio, No problem. Stream is
live on Sagay nine sixty am dot c A.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Crumby Radio or I've
got Cherrow sentan on the chief economist of a credit
union in Alberta. Charles. I love reading your reports and
regular basis. You post on LinkedIn fairly regularly. If people
want to follow your economic projections, what's the best way
to do it through LinkedIn on you or through your
company's website or what.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
Through LinkedIn or things? Also, they can subscribe to my
mailing liss through our website at albertacentral dot com.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
You post almost every day on different economic activities, and
so I commend your writing to everyone if they're interested
in reading. So let's talk about the politics here. You know,
some people have suggested that David Cameron made a real
mistake by sort of trying to Playcate, the right wing,
the Brexit side of his party, by agreeing to a referendum,
(34:43):
and that ended up sort of and you know, some
people think, I don't know if this is the truth,
but some people think that he thought that the referendum
would fail, and he was hoping that it would fail,
but he thought that that would Playcate a whole bunch
of people and they'd go away.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
But but he was wrong.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
And the reference to one.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
It's almost as if your premier is is lighting a
similar fire, that that she's risking a similar situation. I
don't know whether she wants it to really happen or
whether she's trying to play Kate the uh the separatists
within her own party uh uh. And and you know,
within within her within her province. So tell me about
the politics of the situation. Appears that the n d
(35:23):
P are strongly against uh separation. And and it was
interesting because in Quebec you had the right and the
left both being supportive of separation and and and the
Saatrists being supportive of of staying in UH Canada. But
in Brexfit it was only the right that was supportive
(35:45):
of separation, and it would appear similarly in Alberta it's
only the Reform Party the right that is UH is
interested in in separation.
Speaker 4 (35:53):
What do you what do you think.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
About Daniel Smith's the premium Alberta is politics of number
one seemingly supporting the idea of a reference, and then
number two making it almost easier to actually hold one
bye bye by reducing the number of people you need
to have signed up to get it. It's almost a
fit of complete I think that a referend is going
to happen now.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
Yeah, Well, I think she's trying to play on two
different levels on that. I think there's a bit of
the David k Cameraon approach is that the UCP here
in Alberta has a lot of supports because in some
ways in Alberta you kind of have well, the unit
United Conservative Party, but it's kind of an it's a
(36:36):
weird party in some ways because you have the Progressive
Conservative more kind of metal ground normal Conservative as we
call them, and you also have the remnants of what
was the wild rulest Party, which was more more right wing,
more populist, more libertarian. So she's trying to appeal to
(37:00):
relatively broad coalition and we saw it with Jason Kenny
being voted out as a leader, that the more populous
wing of the party is very powerful and can change
its mind very quickly and create your downfall. Is that
and that's the interesting part is that the Conservative Party
(37:20):
in Alberta has been in power for what I mean,
apart from the from the NDP stin between twenty fifteen
and twenty nineteen, has been in power for most of
the past forty years, but always with different leaders because
they've been kicked out by their own party. So it's
a it's an interesting dynamic there. So she's trying to
(37:41):
invite with the referendum, trying to appease kind of the
more populous and more activist side of her party, but
at the same time she's also playing and that has
That's one thing I've been noticing is that she's also
playing a lot of the seeing in some ways playing
(38:02):
Quebec's game, as she would probably call it, is that
while by threatening a referenced and by threatening to leave,
the rest of the country will be more willing to
give us what we want. So basically a bit like
because she's always referring to referencing to what Quebec God
has more kind of more decided different factors compared to
(38:25):
the rest of the country. She always brings that forward,
like a great example was is one of the projects
that she has is that she wants to create basically
a Revenue Alberta that would collect the incompacts for the
province rather than as every other profits except Quebec, that
the federal government or the Revenue Canada does it for
(38:47):
everyone and then ship back the money to the product
to the province. So in some ways with that always
like compare that, well, Quebec does it, so why should
we do it? I feel sometimes there's a bit of
a I would call it kind of a view with
a bit of a rose colored painted. It was called
glass looking at Quebec is that I love my home province.
(39:09):
It's a great place, but it's also dysfunctional. There's things
that don't work well. And it's not because Quebec is
doing it that it's actually mean. It's a better way
of doing it, and I find I find there's a
bit of that discourse that is kind of missing, but
a lot of it is really a lot of by
(39:30):
threatening to leave, maybe we'll get better terms in terms
of in the in the federation.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
The situation seems kind of similar to to Brexit. If
you were if you were David Cameron, you were advising
David Cameron again, what would you tell them to do?
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Don't do it? Don't do it.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Daniel Smith called you up and said, Charles, I've got
this populist way comparable to the Reform Party in the
UK or at the time, the you know, the that
that that leave portion of the Conservative Party in the
UK that I've got to somehow quiet down. What would
you do?
Speaker 4 (40:12):
That's a hard one. I'm not a political scientist. I'm
more of an economist, but I always say as an economist, right,
I say it also as an English is my second language,
so I love to say that is that I loved
the English language for two words policy and politics in
French the same word, but they don't mean the same thing.
But here, as a as an economist, I deal with policy.
(40:36):
When you look at policy, it's really bad policy to
go down that route of independence and all that. For
her it might be good politics because she knows she
she might be threatened to keep her to keep her place.
So but again that's a politics game, not a policy game.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Okay, I got to ask you before I let you go.
Is this issue playing in.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
The by election of per Polov?
Speaker 4 (41:02):
I don't think it's playing at all. I think if
from what I can hear again, I'm not I don't
live close to is kind of a circus is writing
where he's presenting himself. But what I've been hearing from
people where it's playing, it's more the fact, I think
where people are a bit more concern is that is
(41:24):
they would rather have someone who has better routes to
their own writing than someone who's been kind of it's
a ways dump on them. So it's interesting that I've
had some friends in rural Alberta and they would all
say that they would rather see the independent candidate win
just because of that someone who actually understand the reality
of what they need. But we'll see it's going to
(41:49):
be a complicated one because especially with that long ballot
initiative where there's like I think there's two hundred and
five candidates something like that. Right now, I find that
a bit ludicrous and useless. I don't know what they're
trying to achieve with that, but it would be interesting
to see if he for me. It's more of a
question in terms of looking at the federal federal level,
(42:12):
is will he be able to have as much support
as the MP gave gave his spot.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Well, he might as leader to the opposition, but he's
certainly not as a as a local MP that's going
to represent the issues and deal with the immigration concerns
and the and the CPP concerns, and the unemploymentasure concerns
and all the assms that local constituents have that they
want their local MP to deal with.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
So it's going to be a challenge.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
So bottom line is Quebec scept Sorry again for instant
I apologize. Is Alberta separation a good idea or a
bad idea?
Speaker 4 (42:50):
Bad idea economically? I don't think it's something that it
will be negative for the economy, just because of the
uncertainty it creates.
Speaker 3 (42:59):
Tonan, thank you so much for joining us. I really
appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (43:02):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
That's our show for tonight, everybody, Thank you for joining.
Speaker 5 (43:05):
I really appreciate.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
I remind you I'm on every Monday through Friday at
six o'clock on nine to sixty am. You can stream
me online even from Alberta at TRIPLEW Saga nine sixty
am dot CEL. My podcast and videos go off on
my website Briancromby dot com, on YouTube, on LinkedIn, on
social media as and podcast servers lots of different podcast
service as soon as the radio show goes here, Thanks
good night, everybody.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
Stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot C.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
A welcome back everyone to the Brian Crombie Radio Hour.
Speaker 2 (43:46):
I wanted to spend just a few minutes chatting about
Alberta and Western alienation and this desire seemingly for twenty
to thirty or thirty.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
Three percent of Alburt's to separate.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
Thought that you know, Chero Sentanon puts it in a
great perspective that economically it doesn't make a lot of sense,
just like he thought that Brexit didn't make a lot
of sense, just like he thought that Quebec separation was
bad for the economy, even the threat of it for Quebec.
And you know, I could go on with lots of
other separations. Never thought that the Mississauga idea of separation
(44:21):
from Peel made a lot.
Speaker 3 (44:22):
Of economic sense.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
But it's one of these populist ideas that you're better
off alone and you can make your own way, and
that you don't have to listen to and or compromise
with other parts of whatever the jurisdiction is that you're
currently a part of. And I think it is it
is ethnocentric and often myopic and wrong. But you know, obviously,
(44:49):
if twenty to thirty three percent of people think that way,
and almost fifty percent in Quebec think that way, and
over fifty percent of the people in England thought that way,
it obviously is a an opinion that you've got to
listen to and you've got to pay attention to.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
You got to wonder why.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
And I think there's a couple of reasons. I think,
and I've talked about this, you know, numerous times before.
I think one of the problems is our governance system.
I really believe that proportional representation or something like that,
you know, mixed member of proporsonal representation or whatever it is,
would go a long way to addressing some of the
(45:26):
issues The West doesn't feel in and when they don't
elect any MPs from a governing party and therefore left
out of caucus or left out of the cabinet. I
think that you feel that way, and I think there's
you know, a lot of liberal voters in Alberta and
conservative voters in urban Toronto that feel completely alienated, even
(45:47):
though there's a significant minority that voted that way. And
if they had a voice, if they had representation, I
think it would be different. I said this during the
COVID lockdowns. I disagreed with what the Trucker convoy was
all about and what they were trying to achieve, But
fifteen percent of Canadians population, supposedly according to polls, supported.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
What the Trucker Convoy was all about.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
And I do think that, frankly, some of the lockdowns
went too far. I disagreed publicly about the lockdowns of
parks and recreational facilities in Mississauga and Peel because I
think they were wrong. And you know, they said, oh,
we just locked down the parking lots, but it made
it impossible for people go out and walk. I think that,
you know, locking down the high schools and the universities
(46:33):
were wrong when young people were far less prevalent of
getting the virus, and what we really need to do
is a far better job protecting our seniors, and we
robbed our young people of the opportunities for social interaction. Anyway,
fifteen percent of the Canadian population agreed with the Trucker
convoy and disagreed.
Speaker 3 (46:54):
With the.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
Mask mandates or the vaccine mandates or the lockdowns or
some thereof, and they needed to be listened to. And
if they had a voice in Parliament, people would have
potentially felt differently. They would have felt at least we've
been heard, but out voted in the end. I think
if there were Liberals elected in Alberta and they were
in Parliament and they were in caucus and they were
in cabinet, I think that Alberton's would feel a little
(47:19):
less unrepresentative. I think if frankly, there were Conservatives elected
in urban Vancouver and urban Montreal because a significant minority
voted that way and didn't end up having any MPs
elected or very few MP's elected, they'd feel differently. I
think that in the last provincial election, where you know,
(47:40):
the NDP got far fewer votes but got far more seats.
Speaker 3 (47:44):
That shows some of the mistakes of the first past
the post.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
The fact that you know, the Conservatives got forty percent
of the vote but got you know, sixty or seventy
percent of the seats. There's something wrong with our system.
Lots of people say, well, that's a way of you know,
ensuring that we have more continuity in government. We have majorities,
it's easier to form majority. Well, you know what, compromises challenging.
(48:08):
Governing should be challenging. Creating you know, coalitions and and
and compromises and getting to the right answer in the
end should be hard work. And we shouldn't make it easier.
And so I think proportional representation is the way to go.
I think that the West was arguing for a long
period of time for a Tripoli Senate, and I think
(48:31):
that maybe the Senate might be one of the first
places you could get proportional representation.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
I do think that.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
This appointee appointment of independent senators has made the Senator
the Senate less relevant. I'm not sure if it's actually helped.
I wonder if electing a Senate via proportional representation and
making it equal maybe it's twenty five percent to Quebec
twenty five percent, Ontario twenty five percent, of Maritize twenty
five percent the West, or or approximately of Maybe the
(48:57):
West got to have a little bit more.
Speaker 3 (48:59):
I think that making the Senate elected.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
Equal and effective, and maybe elected by way a proportional representation,
might be a great way of ensuring that the West
feels in In addition, I do think that they feelienated
because of the.
Speaker 3 (49:16):
Lack of attention to pipelines.
Speaker 2 (49:18):
I'm frustrated a BYuT that because the federal government bought
and paid for a significant pipeline, so I wonder why
they feel so alienated.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
But I do think that the.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Past Prime Minister's answered that there was no way to
get a liquefied natural gas to the coast and supply
Europe when obviously Australia is doing it and the US
is doing it. It was clearly a mistake and we
should have found a way to do it. And we've
got to get those market prices for our western energy.
I do think we need to get another pipeline to
(49:48):
the west coast of British Columbia. I'm not so sure
about a pipeline across Canada because I think that is uneconomic.
I have the privilege in my job of traveling to Saskatchewan, Alberta,
to British Columbia quite a lot, and on a fairy
regular basis. I've got business interests there. I had an
opportunity in a prior job to travel. I also have
(50:08):
an opportunity to go to Ottawa, Montreal, quote back, et cetera.
I had an opportunity in a prior job to make
it to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Sasketchewan, Alberta, British Columbia.
Speaker 3 (50:21):
And really all the way through BC.
Speaker 2 (50:23):
Because I've worked and lived in British Columbia and we
went everywhere across BC.
Speaker 5 (50:27):
I think my experience is unique.
Speaker 2 (50:29):
I don't think there's a lot of people that get
the opportunity to travel as much and as frequently across
Canada and meet people and do business with people across Canada.
And I think that's a shame. And I think that
Canada would feel differently if we got an opportunity to
travel more extensively across Canada. And I encourage Canadians to
do that.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
And I really.
Speaker 2 (50:46):
Wonder about this idea that we had at one point
in time about Katimovic. I think the Peace Corps in
the United States really did a great job of bringing
Americans together.
Speaker 3 (50:55):
I think the idea of Katimavic.
Speaker 2 (50:56):
That Pierre Elliot Trudeau floated of having French and English,
Easterners and Westerners, Indigenous and non Indigenous working together on
projects of national public social interest and traveling across the
country and experiencing different parts of the country makes a
lot of sense. So I guess what I got to
(51:19):
say is the West wants in isn't something we should
think away from, go away from. We should we should
recognize that there is a significant minority of Alberta that
does feel alienated, and we've got to find a way
of more effectively making them feel included in our society,
(51:42):
in our country, that they're listening to their heart and uh,
and not just say that Economically it makes no sense
because I think that's what we said in Quebec.
Speaker 3 (51:50):
I think that's what they said in in the UK.
And look what happened in the UK and how close
it came to Quebec.
Speaker 2 (51:56):
And so let's not denigrate those separatists in Alberta. Let's
listen to them, let's address their concerns.
Speaker 3 (52:07):
Let's make them feel included.
Speaker 2 (52:09):
Let's try to change some of our governance and some
of our infrastructure and some of our attitudes, particularly in
the young people's, that we get to know each other
far better.
Speaker 3 (52:18):
Anyway, that's Brian Crombie for the Brian Crombie Radio. That's
my show for the night. Thanks for joining me.
Speaker 2 (52:22):
I appreciate I really appreciate the opportunity to present to
you long form interviews with really interesting people and.
Speaker 5 (52:27):
Then also provide my points of view.
Speaker 3 (52:29):
Thanks good night.
Speaker 1 (52:35):
Stream us live at SAGA nine six am dot CA.
The views expressed in the following program are those of
the participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of
Saga nine sixty am or its management.
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Good even to everyone, and welcome to the Brian Crombie
Radio Hour. I get the opportunity every night at six
o'clock at nine to sixty am to come to you.
I'm endlessly fascinated by and curious about the world around us,
about politics, about the arts, about business, about culture, about developments,
social issues, and the people who are shaping our future
here in Toronto and across Canada. Every night I dive
(00:39):
into conversations, interesting conversations with thought leaders and change makers, entrepreneurs, politicians,
economists and everyday heroes to unpack their ideas and hear
what they got to say. The stories that I think matter.
What's the future of our economy, How do we build
stronger communities? What can we learn from music, sports, theater?
How does policy shape real lives? What does leadership look
(00:59):
like to If it's interesting and relevant and we're talking
about you'll hear it here on the Brian Crimey Radio Hour.
These are real conversations, in depth conversations, conversations that are
worth sharing. So thank you for joining us tonight. And
tonight I've got a really interesting guest. I've got Charles
with me. Charles is a chief economist with a credit
(01:21):
union in Alberta.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
He's been with me before.
Speaker 2 (01:24):
He's the chief economist at Alberta Central, Charles sant Arnand
we've chatted Charles before about the economy. We've talked about
own gas, we talked about debt and deficits, we've talked
about foreign exchange. But last week you made a really
interesting you didn't post it, but you commented on it
on a post in regards to Alberta separation. And it
(01:45):
was a post about an article about Alberta separation and
comparing it to Brexit and Quebec separation, and I thought
it'd be interesting to check in with you. You're a Quebecer
who now lives and works in Alberta, so you've got
had an interesting view on this. And you're a chief economist,
and you've worked in the federal government, you've worked in
(02:05):
economics for a credit union, and you're it's it Calgary
Edmonton that you're answered in Caugary actually, so you've got
a good view of what's going on in Western Canada.
So what do you think about what's going to happen
if Alberta separates?
Speaker 4 (02:21):
As to your intro, I was also lucky enough to
be living and working in London during the Brexit vote,
so it actually as a Canadian in London, I was
able to vote in the referendum. So that's fascinating. And
I voted in ninety five to referendum. So I sometimes
I jokingly say it seems like all those referendum are
following me where I'm going.
Speaker 2 (02:40):
So there's an vert of referendum. You're probably one of
the only people that's voted in all three referendums.
Speaker 4 (02:46):
Yeah, it's interesting question.
Speaker 2 (02:48):
What's the plural of referendum? Is a referendum mine?
Speaker 4 (02:51):
Oh that's a good question. Oh maybe we should call
some linguist and ask them.
Speaker 2 (02:57):
So you voted in a Quebec referendum, a brax and them,
and now we're talking about a potential Alberta referendum.
Speaker 4 (03:05):
Yeah, And it's interesting because I can see some similarities
and some big differences. Like one of the thing I
always find interesting is how sometimes the media in Canada
loves to compare what's going on in Alberta with what
was happening in Quebec and well in the mid nineties
but also in the early eighties. Personally my own experience,
(03:26):
the Alberta kind of sovereignty referendum and all that kind
of independence kind of movement looks more to me like
Brexit than anything else.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Why is it more like Brexit than Quebec?
Speaker 4 (03:39):
Well connected was more of a cultural factor, a historical factor.
Alberta very similar to Brexit. A lot of it was
is economics, how can we not get someone else to
decide for us or how can we not have to
live by other decisions? So whether like in the UK
(04:02):
it was well we find Brussels is getting too much
into our affairs, how can we get out? And Alberta
is really that is that we don't want a lot
of wat to decide what we should be doing. So
it's really similar on that front. And the danger I
find sometimes is that part of the reason is also
the politics. In a way that the British government in
(04:27):
the early twenty tens and for and even longer than that,
always used Brussel as their scapegoats for every problems that
they have without looking at their own problems, and Alberta
is often doing that too. It's kind of a way
to deflect attention to who's always.
Speaker 2 (04:46):
The problem for He's always blaming at what is it not?
Speaker 4 (04:48):
Yeah, it's well, it's always the same thing. It's it's that.
But in Quebec you also have that dimension of you
have a historical different origin in terms of it has
been kind of the creation of why Quebec as part
of Canada. It's there's always been that historical resentment towards
the conquest in seventeen fifty nine.
Speaker 2 (05:13):
So I thought, and please correct me if I'm wrong,
that anti immigrant fervor in the UK was also a
real contributing factor where they've blamed a lot of the
rules that the EU had in regards to accepting, you know,
free labor movement, such that there were a whole bunch
of Eastern Europeans that came into the UK and we're
(05:35):
taking a lot of those low end jobs, and they
thought that would go away. Now people have told me that. Frankly,
what's happened since is they've gotten a whole bunch of
people from the Middle East that have moved into the
UK and so that they've still got as much immigration.
It's just now Middle Eastern rather than Eastern European. But
is that true in regards to Brexit and is that
(05:56):
part of what the Alberta issue is.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Yeah, well, okay, go with Brexit. In terms of what
I've been kind of the seed when I was there
working in London, I was an economist for a big
financial institution in the city, and I remember in the
weeks going to leading to Brexit, we were actually asked
to go in other regions of the UK because London
(06:19):
is kind of microcosmos that is not England, so we
were sent to different areas. I went to Yorkshire and
basically went to pubs and asked people what they thought
and what you really really was The biggest issue was
a lot of it was yes, immigration, but not directly immigration.
(06:39):
It was more the fact that housing was expensive, the
quality of healthcare service had come down, it was hard
to find a place for your kids to go to school.
It was all actually local issues in terms of and
you have to remember in the UK they went through
a big phase of what they would call fiscal austerity
in there in the early twenty ten when a lot
(07:02):
of government spendings were cut and a lot of what
the issue we're seeing was actually that is that at
the same time as you had spending cuts constraining the
delivery of service to the population, you also had a
big boom in immigration from Europe because you're present in
an economic crisis. And well, let's be honest, if you
(07:23):
are Romanian Polish check most likely the second language you
will learn in school or on your own is English.
So you're more likely to move to the UK to
find work and to get more prosperity that you're going
to go to France or Germany because you don't speak
the language. Well, in some ways, there's some merit in
the way the British were putting it is that they
(07:44):
might have this, they might have attracted a disproportionate number
of immigrants, but at the same time the local government
by cutting service to the population and generating and all that.
And I think also we talk about our affordability issues
in Canada, they also have their own housing affordability and
(08:06):
that can all mixed together. People were voting for Brexit
more out of frustration for how they couldn't afford their
daily living and to afford what they were expecting to
be able to have. So frustration the leave.
Speaker 2 (08:24):
People were certainly thinking that and were suggesting that the
British economy would be far better and that they would,
you know, economically, be better off. What's your sense as
an economist? Was Brexit a smart economic move or a
dumb economic move?
Speaker 4 (08:40):
The debate is still on. I would say now, almost
ten years later, it's clear that it's not as positive
as was the campaigners for the Leave camp were hoping for.
There's been an increase in barrier with the rest of Europe.
There's been more friction in terms of trade. We saw
it especially in terms of food prices and all that
(09:02):
in recent years. So I don't think the UK economy
is doing that well since Brexit. There's other issues going on,
But clearly it hasn't been the economic boom that those
who were supporting or that was a big proponent of
leaving actually were support or so.
Speaker 2 (09:23):
I'm a regular reader of the Economist magazine. The Economists
magazine suggests it's been a disaster and would not be
as as politically correct as you're suggesting that it was
as much of a boom. They'd be very negative. Their
only comment would be there's no appetite for another referendum.
But if there was another referendum, they think that frankly,
the Remain, the Stain and the EU would would be
(09:45):
would be successful today. But they said that would break
apart the Labor Party and the Conservative Party.
Speaker 5 (09:52):
The only party would be the Reform Party.
Speaker 3 (09:54):
It would be so.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
Strongly coalescing around the leave orientation, but they would be
and have on numerous occasions said it's been an economic disaster.
Speaker 3 (10:03):
You don't agree with them?
Speaker 4 (10:05):
Yeah, well no, I agree. I don't know the number
enough to really say a disaster, but clearly that has
not been a positive a positive experience. Did you then,
because they were really kind of pushing that suddenly they
could free themselves from all the rules and do whatever
they wanted, but they still had to deal or to
(10:27):
to actually have a treat deal with their most important partner,
and that comes with rules. So it's it has been
more complicated than people want or the Laeve campaign wanted
to put it. But again I think for most Brits
now they're realizing is that a lot of why the
(10:49):
general population voted. And that's the sentiment I got from
speaking to people in different parts of the UK. It
was more a vote for or against the recent and
policies of the Conservative government of the early twenty tens
then actually a real like, oh, we're a clear conscience
(11:10):
that it will be better. It just was more of
a expressing their discontent.
Speaker 2 (11:17):
So you voted in the Quebec referendum economically, not culturally
or politically economically, what do you think the impact of
Quebec separation would have been from Canada? Would have been
positive economically or negative?
Speaker 4 (11:30):
I think you would have been negative. And in some
ways we out already see and saw the impact of
all that sovereignty independence movement in Quebec with like Montreal
was more important than Toronto in the sixties and for
most of the seventies, and then as those uncerted political
uncertainty came in, a lot of head office left from
(11:51):
Montreal Montreal to go to Toronto, and Toronto really boom
in some ways thanks to the sovereignty movement in Quebec.
And so we already seeing how negative that uncertainty, that
political uncertainty can be for an economy. So now imagine
if on top of that you're actually fully independent. It's
(12:14):
a lot to come more complicated when you're much smaller.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
So if Quebec separation would have been negative if Brexit
was negative. Why is Alberta thinking about separation?
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Because there's always the same as in Brexit in Quebec,
there's always a camp that believe that suddenly you can
follow do whatever you want, you'll be better off without
thinking that we live in a reality where you cannot
do a hundred percent what you want. And for Alberta,
it's also quite complicated just by geography. Is we're landlocked.
(12:51):
How do you send your product to your markets when
your landlocked? So that will kind of also get quite
a bit of attention and conflict if there was actually
an independent Alberta.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
We're going to take a break for some messages and
come back with Charles sent on On in just two
minutes talking more about why Alberta is thinking about separation,
what the economic implications would be, what are the political
sort of rationales behind this, What are some of the
practical constraints in regards to pensions and and and tax
(13:29):
revenue and debt and deficit, and you know, let's let's
think about this as much as we can about whether
this Quebec separation risk that we had back in in
several decades Ago is similar to h to Alberta, if
Brexit is similar to Alberta. Some people are talking about,
you know, our trade relationships with the United States being
(13:51):
a comparable kind of situation. Whether we should remain in
a free trade agreement or go it alone, or whether
geography and gravitation or such that we have to have
a relationship with the US. This is gonna be a
interesty conversation tonight with an expert on this topic who
interesting enough.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
I didn't know this.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
Has voted in two referendum, one in Quebec and one
in the UK, and probably within the next year is
going to be voted in an Alberta referendum on separation.
Speaker 3 (14:17):
Stay with us, everyone back in two.
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Minutes stream us Live at SAGA nine to six am
dot CA.
Speaker 2 (14:37):
We'll come back everyone to the Brian crimeby radio wife.
Charles sat An with me tonight. He's the chief economist
at a credit union in Alberta called Alberta Central. I've
had the pleasure of interviewing him before.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
On economic issues. He's been the chief.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Economist in Alberta Central for what is it six years now,
and before that you were with senior investment strategist at
Lombard Ohjay Investment Managers in London, UK.
Speaker 3 (15:04):
And before that you were a.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
Senior economist and FX strategist done no mura. And before
that you were with the Canadian Government Financed Aide Canada
with the senior economist, and then you were with Morgan
Stanley and UH and UH Bank of Canada and on
and on.
Speaker 3 (15:19):
What what an incredible.
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Resume you've got, and what a fascinating experience.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
And you've got.
Speaker 2 (15:26):
An academic experience that is just as impressive. And so
thank you very much for joining us. So tell me
if you could, you know we h you were commenting
last week on this article by a well thought of,
well known economist in Alberta who was was commenting about
Quebec separation.
Speaker 3 (15:46):
I mean, sorry, Alberta separation.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
Forty and slip there, apologize Alberta separation and and what'd
you think of it?
Speaker 4 (15:54):
I think you hit most of the spot pretty well.
Is that it's clear there will be a cause of
independence for Alberta. So whether it is more trade friction
where the rest of the country is estimates that I
think it will be about like five hundred billion dollars
or so of law of a smaller economy because of
the independence. But there's also other things that we need
(16:17):
to take into account. Is that we don't know what
the political uncertainty will generate. Like we saw it in
Quebec when the political uncertainty with the pick started in
the late seventies, you've seen a lot of businesses leaving
the province. Are we going to see something similar? Are
we going to see also some some of the Albertans
(16:38):
who are from other province deciding to leave for to
go back to the province. So there's a lot of
ramification in terms of what such a move would do
to the province, of the economy of the province.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
You know, you commented earlier about this move from Montreal
to Toronto that may really have Toronto the economic capital
of Canada. Montreal as in the fifties and the sixties
and as you said, some of the seventies. What's your sense,
You know, Calgary is the head of the own gas business.
It's got a huge amount of growth, it's got in
(17:11):
migration from Ontario right now is that all at risk?
Speaker 4 (17:15):
Well? The other thing, the head office from oil and Gas.
I don't think they're going to leave because Alberta becomes independent,
obviously they will still need to be relatively close to
the resource, so they will stay. But I think all
the migration from people from Ontario ANDBC looking at Alberta
for the for the better affordability it gives them might
(17:38):
think twice. They might be like, well, maybe it's not
worth it, and there's a lot of better question is
that if you move from another province you come to Alberta,
what's gonna happen to my pension fund? And again it's
so there's a lot of that migration could be in
jeopardy from with the independence movement.
Speaker 2 (17:58):
You posted something about why is Alberta so grumpy?
Speaker 3 (18:02):
What's that?
Speaker 4 (18:04):
Well, it kind of comes like when it was kind
of a bit of a reaction to some of the
comments I was hearing from the rest of the country.
Is that I clearly understand the point of view in
what I would call Middle Canada, which is basically Ontario
and Quebec. That there was a lot of of kind
of I was the kind of puzzlement of like, why
(18:26):
are they suddenly because we get afford liberal government, suddenly
they just want to leave. So they didn't have who
they wanted, so they like toddlers who just throw their
toys and and and throw a tentrum. Well, I get
that point of view, and I it makes sense a
bit to say that, But sometimes we also need to
kind of dig deeper into what has happened in Alberta
(18:51):
over the past decade or so. And when we think
about it in terms of for the average out burden,
the average olt burden now is much poorer than he
was ten years ago.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
Yes, some of your stats, if I could interrupt, I apologize. Yeah,
for interesting CDP per capital has declined ten percent since
twenty fourteen and is currently barely above two thousand and four.
Alberta's purchasing powers declined thirty percent over the past decade,
is at the same level as the mid two thousands.
As a comparison, it increased three percent for the country
as a whole, nine percent BC, seven and a half
(19:25):
percent Quebeck and five percent in Ontario. And employment prospects,
especially for young people have worse worsened over the past decade.
So is that a result of a bad economic time
or the fact that it was unbelievably positive you know
a decade ago with oil and gas.
Speaker 3 (19:45):
You know, I've got developments in Alberta.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
And you know, two thousand and five to twenty ten,
Alberta was on fire, was like huge economic growth. And
then when about twenty fifteen or twenty fourteen, when oil
prices declined, it didn't do as well. And also concerns
about climate change. And so therefore maybe disinvestment in or
lack of investment, not disinvestment in uh in oil and gas.
(20:10):
But but but but Alberta, Calgary, Nemanton done well post
the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Speaker 4 (20:19):
If done Okay, I think that's what it is. Is
that a lot of what we've seen Again, I think
let's put let's answer that in two parts. So I
think part of the issue is more the direction of
the change the fact, as you mentioned that the average
Alberta has seen a significant decline in its purchasing power.
(20:41):
It's mainly that it's the confidence effic that it leads.
We are conditioned as humans to expect that, yeah, next
year I'll be better off than the year before, and
the next and the next that will things will get better.
But the problem is that after ten years where you
actually see your person power consistently coming down for ten years,
(21:05):
you become very frustrated. So that's really, in some ways
kind of what started a bit, the starts a bit
the whatever I would consider the grumpiness. And obviously there's
a lot of the a lot of politicians that have
been using that grumpiness and pushing that, oh, you're less better,
(21:28):
you're not as good as well off as you should
be because of all the federal government's policies. But as
you mentioned, it seems like often people forget that there's
been a massive crash in oil prices and investment in
twenty fifteen twenty sixteen, and we never recovered from that,
and it's not just because of federal regulation. Actually, when
(21:50):
you look I've done the caglation. When you look at
the worldwide investment in oil and gas, actually Canadian companies
are not investing less than others. They're actually investing as
much as other oil companies. So it's not it's more
the two thousand and five to twenty fifteen period that
(22:12):
was really a boom that was probably unprecedented, and I
think we also have to look at it that may
actually never come back. That was not the norm. The
norm is maybe as it goes that it is right now,
but we Albertas have been told that no, the boom
(22:32):
of the early twenty ten that should be the norm.
Speaker 2 (22:36):
But that's what Alberta believes, and that's what they want,
that's what they think they can get fromselves from separation.
Speaker 4 (22:40):
Correct. Yeah, the thing is, I think it's more on
the political side some part of the economy, but a
lot of people in Alberta really understand that that early
twenty ten boom was unsustainable.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
So according to this article that Trevor Toom wrote, between
en one third and between one fifth and one third
of Alburton's support the idea of separation.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
That's a that's a significant amount.
Speaker 2 (23:09):
And eighty eight percent, eighty eight percent want to separate
from the equalization system that we have in Canada because
they think that they're more into equalization than they get
out of it. Yeah.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
Well, again, the whole equalization discussion and topic has been
hijacked by politics rather than actually the fact. The thing
is is that it's it has been sold to Alberta
and they've been repeatedly told something that is not true,
(23:43):
that Alberta there's a way where equalization in the way
that equalization or in the qualitization formula where Alberta can
get more than what they pay in, but then it's
who pays more than their receive. The thing is that
it's meant in the simplest way is to try to
regulibrate income. It's it's a very complicated formula and all that,
(24:06):
but basically it's just like it's like income tax. People
who make more money will pay more taxes that and
will get less service, and those who make more less money.
So someone needs to pay for those who receive more.
Speaker 2 (24:22):
I can argue part a lot of it is is
that albert is younger and so there's a lot more
wage journals and a lot less older people. Is that
part of it.
Speaker 4 (24:32):
The CPP is not included in that. So that's the
thing is that the fact you add.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
More if you added in CP is what you're telling.
Speaker 4 (24:39):
Me, Yeah, if you add the depension it would be more.
But that's that's differult because it's not we're all paying
in the pot because we will have that in the future.
I think that's that's the the other part, and we
also have to take into account that in some ways.
There's a one I think that's interesting in economy clear
about Canada is that each province are not extremely not
(25:02):
very well diversified economically, but when you put the ten together,
it makes a whole that's more diversified. In some ways,
there's some automatic stabilizer economically within Canada because of that.
But I think the problem with equalization is that it
has been made that in a sense that it's being
(25:27):
told to most people that oh ed Linton or the government,
the federal the provincial government in Alberta writes a check
to go to Ottawa. But that's not the way it works.
Albertins paid the same level of GSD, they paid the
same tax rate as someone in Toronto. Is just that
because we make more and spend more, poor person, we
(25:49):
contribute more than the average Canadian.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
So an organization called the Alberta Prosperity Project has come
up with a report that says that Number one, there
would be with a separate Alberta and oil production boom
reaching nearly ten billion barrels per day within two decades,
and this new Alberta dollar backed by gold oil and
come would lead to government surpluses, government budget surpluses of
(26:17):
between twenty three and forty five billion dollars a year,
and that with such windfalls. They think an independent Alberta
could eliminate personal taxes, corporate taxes.
Speaker 3 (26:26):
As well as the GST. What do you think.
Speaker 4 (26:29):
I've read the report. There's some accounting error that are important.
The first one, and Trevor tom also noted that in
this article is that they include the investment income from
a possible Alberta pension plan. But that's not revenue for
the government. It's like saying that the income investment from
(26:52):
CPP is actually included in the government revenues. No, it's
an entity that's our melan, that is independent. You cannot
include that in your revenues. So already they're missing. I
think it's I try to remember the numbers, but it's
a big chunk of ten billion. Yeah, so ten billion
already that shouldn't be accounted for. Then the increase in
(27:16):
oil production, I am skeptical that we could see such
a big increase even if we were to remove every
environmental regulation that we have. Right now, we're in a
context and I've been talking about that for years, and
we talked about it on previous episode, is there's a
(27:40):
reality in the world where global oil demand is set
to flatten somewhere in the twenty thirties, some say it's
early twenty thirty, some says it's late. But then to
start to gradually decline, does it really make sense for
a private company to pour one hundred of bill million
(28:00):
dollars to boom production and a declining market. So I
think we need to be careful there. Then there's a
whole context of creating the Alberta dollar and all that,
and the immediate step is to go from the kind
like on the day one go to the US dollar
(28:20):
and then creating it's highly complicated, highly unsecure. I I
had a lot of skepticism for their for their plan.
Speaker 2 (28:32):
He also quotes that they get defense spending wrong, that
they suggest that Alberta defense would cost between three and
five billion, But if you met NATO's two percent, if
you assumed that Alberta would want to join NATO, that
would be ten billion, and under the new three and
a half percent, it would be twenty to twenty five
billion that you'd need to increase it. So it's another
(28:56):
what ten to twenty billion dollar mistake?
Speaker 4 (28:59):
Yeah, And so that's the thing. So there's there's that
that's not included some of the costs in terms of
creating the new institutions that will be needed. All the
what's right now under federal jurisdiction will need to be
recreated in Alberta, will probably be more expensive, will probably
cost more. It doesn't take into account whether or not
(29:20):
they seem to think that the demographic trend that we've
been having in recent year, where population in Alberta has
been growing at a much faster pace than the rest
of the country, will continue, and it's very unlikely that
that would be after independent. So that's where depending on
(29:40):
what assumption you put, you can either have a great
rosy picture or you can be a bit more conservative.
And I would agree like Trevor Toomb's estimates. So actually
it's very sensible and are probably more that it's that
we need to be. We don't need to be overly optimistic.
(30:02):
We need to be realistic so that the general public
understand the risk and the potential cost.
Speaker 2 (30:10):
So, you know, we talked about the impact on Quebec
and Trevor Tuma and his article talks about how Quebec
was a net contributor to equalization in the nineteen sixties
and early nineteen seventies and then after a lot of
the issues about separation. It became a receiver, a recipient
of equalization payments and the economy has done poorly, and
(30:30):
you mentioned already how a lot of businesses moved from
Montreal to Toronto.
Speaker 3 (30:34):
He says that in the UK the.
Speaker 2 (30:36):
Economy shrank between two and five percent, and the non
terror barriers but were between three and eight percent. And
his own estimate is that it would be a five
percent increase of importing into Alberta and so therefore would
be twenty billion and foregone, foregone economic activity for Alberton's
roughly three point nine thousand, three nine hundred per person
(31:00):
or more than two months rent on total, and it
would be a six percent non tariff barrier. So you
know he's talking about you're talking about the economic impact
on Quebec, the economic.
Speaker 3 (31:14):
Impact on Brexit.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
And yet again you've got people, you know, what are
supposedly reputable organizations coming out of the report it's comparable
to what happened with Brexit, comparable what happened with Quebec
separation that are saying it's going to be really positive,
and you got a hold to people in Alberta believe
it's going to be really positive.
Speaker 3 (31:36):
How can those two things.
Speaker 4 (31:37):
Exist, Well, it's always the way you put it. That
thing is that it's I think in Alberta where people
are really frustrated is seeing that they want to grow
as much as they can oil production because it's it's
the cash cow of the government here and it pays
for everything. Like, oh, twenty five percent of current provincial
(32:02):
government spending is paid through the royalties on oil and
gas twenty five percent. Like if it was not for
those royalties, Alberta would have what would need to have
a provincial path and income tax rate that are very
similar to Interior or even Quebec to afford the level
of services. So I think it needs to be thought
(32:26):
of that is that a lot of those independence movement
are basically banking on we can still sell a lot
of oil, will sell more and will pay for all
the problems or all our stuff with that. The problem
is that how do you live once the music stopped,
like in twenty fifty or twenty sixty. We don't know
(32:47):
when when there's a bit more of a transition, or
those royalties are no longer or cannot support or are
not growing fast enough to support twenty five percent of
your budget. What do you do? That's that's our that's
just right now without any independence. We often I call
(33:07):
it it's the adult discussion that Alberta doesn't want to have.
Speaker 3 (33:12):
So what about the politics of this situation.
Speaker 2 (33:16):
Let's take a break for some messages and come back
and talk to Charles about you know, this discussion, this
adult conversation that needs to happen, and why it's not happened.
Why didn't happen in Quebec, Why didn't happen in the UK? Stay?
Speaker 4 (33:28):
Was it?
Speaker 2 (33:29):
One?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
Back in two minutes, no radio, No problem. Stream is
live on Sagay nine sixty am dot c A.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Welcome back everyone to the Brian Crumby Radio or I've
got Cherrow sentan on the chief economist of a credit
union in Alberta. Charles. I love reading your reports and
regular basis. You post on LinkedIn fairly regularly. If people
want to follow your economic projections, what's the best way
to do it through LinkedIn on you or through your
company's website or what.
Speaker 4 (34:10):
Through LinkedIn or things? Also, they can subscribe to my
mailing liss through our website at albertacentral dot com.
Speaker 2 (34:18):
You post almost every day on different economic activities, and
so I commend your writing to everyone if they're interested
in reading. So let's talk about the politics here. You know,
some people have suggested that David Cameron made a real
mistake by sort of trying to Playcate, the right wing,
the Brexit side of his party, by agreeing to a referendum,
(34:43):
and that ended up sort of and you know, some
people think, I don't know if this is the truth,
but some people think that he thought that the referendum
would fail, and he was hoping that it would fail,
but he thought that that would Playcate a whole bunch
of people and they'd go away.
Speaker 3 (34:59):
But but he was wrong.
Speaker 5 (35:01):
And the reference to one.
Speaker 2 (35:02):
It's almost as if your premier is is lighting a
similar fire, that that she's risking a similar situation. I
don't know whether she wants it to really happen or
whether she's trying to play Kate the uh the separatists
within her own party uh uh. And and you know,
within within her within her province. So tell me about
the politics of the situation. Appears that the n d
(35:23):
P are strongly against uh separation. And and it was
interesting because in Quebec you had the right and the
left both being supportive of separation and and and the
Saatrists being supportive of of staying in UH Canada. But
in Brexfit it was only the right that was supportive
(35:45):
of separation, and it would appear similarly in Alberta it's
only the Reform Party the right that is UH is
interested in in separation.
Speaker 4 (35:53):
What do you what do you think.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
About Daniel Smith's the premium Alberta is politics of number
one seemingly supporting the idea of a reference, and then
number two making it almost easier to actually hold one
bye bye by reducing the number of people you need
to have signed up to get it. It's almost a
fit of complete I think that a referend is going
to happen now.
Speaker 4 (36:15):
Yeah, Well, I think she's trying to play on two
different levels on that. I think there's a bit of
the David k Cameraon approach is that the UCP here
in Alberta has a lot of supports because in some
ways in Alberta you kind of have well, the unit
United Conservative Party, but it's kind of an it's a
(36:36):
weird party in some ways because you have the Progressive
Conservative more kind of metal ground normal Conservative as we
call them, and you also have the remnants of what
was the wild rulest Party, which was more more right wing,
more populist, more libertarian. So she's trying to appeal to
(37:00):
relatively broad coalition and we saw it with Jason Kenny
being voted out as a leader, that the more populous
wing of the party is very powerful and can change
its mind very quickly and create your downfall. Is that
and that's the interesting part is that the Conservative Party
(37:20):
in Alberta has been in power for what I mean,
apart from the from the NDP stin between twenty fifteen
and twenty nineteen, has been in power for most of
the past forty years, but always with different leaders because
they've been kicked out by their own party. So it's
a it's an interesting dynamic there. So she's trying to
(37:41):
invite with the referendum, trying to appease kind of the
more populous and more activist side of her party, but
at the same time she's also playing and that has
That's one thing I've been noticing is that she's also
playing a lot of the seeing in some ways playing
(38:02):
Quebec's game, as she would probably call it, is that
while by threatening a referenced and by threatening to leave,
the rest of the country will be more willing to
give us what we want. So basically a bit like
because she's always referring to referencing to what Quebec God
has more kind of more decided different factors compared to
(38:25):
the rest of the country. She always brings that forward,
like a great example was is one of the projects
that she has is that she wants to create basically
a Revenue Alberta that would collect the incompacts for the
province rather than as every other profits except Quebec, that
the federal government or the Revenue Canada does it for
(38:47):
everyone and then ship back the money to the product
to the province. So in some ways with that always
like compare that, well, Quebec does it, so why should
we do it? I feel sometimes there's a bit of
a I would call it kind of a view with
a bit of a rose colored painted. It was called
glass looking at Quebec is that I love my home province.
(39:09):
It's a great place, but it's also dysfunctional. There's things
that don't work well. And it's not because Quebec is
doing it that it's actually mean. It's a better way
of doing it, and I find I find there's a
bit of that discourse that is kind of missing, but
a lot of it is really a lot of by
(39:30):
threatening to leave, maybe we'll get better terms in terms
of in the in the federation.
Speaker 2 (39:38):
The situation seems kind of similar to to Brexit. If
you were if you were David Cameron, you were advising
David Cameron again, what would you tell them to do?
Speaker 4 (39:48):
Don't do it? Don't do it.
Speaker 2 (39:51):
Daniel Smith called you up and said, Charles, I've got
this populist way comparable to the Reform Party in the
UK or at the time, the you know, the that
that that leave portion of the Conservative Party in the
UK that I've got to somehow quiet down. What would
you do?
Speaker 4 (40:12):
That's a hard one. I'm not a political scientist. I'm
more of an economist, but I always say as an economist, right,
I say it also as an English is my second language,
so I love to say that is that I loved
the English language for two words policy and politics in
French the same word, but they don't mean the same thing.
But here, as a as an economist, I deal with policy.
(40:36):
When you look at policy, it's really bad policy to
go down that route of independence and all that. For
her it might be good politics because she knows she
she might be threatened to keep her to keep her place.
So but again that's a politics game, not a policy game.
Speaker 2 (40:54):
Okay, I got to ask you before I let you go.
Is this issue playing in.
Speaker 3 (40:58):
The by election of per Polov?
Speaker 4 (41:02):
I don't think it's playing at all. I think if
from what I can hear again, I'm not I don't
live close to is kind of a circus is writing
where he's presenting himself. But what I've been hearing from
people where it's playing, it's more the fact, I think
where people are a bit more concern is that is
(41:24):
they would rather have someone who has better routes to
their own writing than someone who's been kind of it's
a ways dump on them. So it's interesting that I've
had some friends in rural Alberta and they would all
say that they would rather see the independent candidate win
just because of that someone who actually understand the reality
of what they need. But we'll see it's going to
(41:49):
be a complicated one because especially with that long ballot
initiative where there's like I think there's two hundred and
five candidates something like that. Right now, I find that
a bit ludicrous and useless. I don't know what they're
trying to achieve with that, but it would be interesting
to see if he for me. It's more of a
question in terms of looking at the federal federal level,
(42:12):
is will he be able to have as much support
as the MP gave gave his spot.
Speaker 2 (42:20):
Well, he might as leader to the opposition, but he's
certainly not as a as a local MP that's going
to represent the issues and deal with the immigration concerns
and the and the CPP concerns, and the unemploymentasure concerns
and all the assms that local constituents have that they
want their local MP to deal with.
Speaker 3 (42:39):
So it's going to be a challenge.
Speaker 2 (42:40):
So bottom line is Quebec scept Sorry again for instant
I apologize. Is Alberta separation a good idea or a
bad idea?
Speaker 4 (42:50):
Bad idea economically? I don't think it's something that it
will be negative for the economy, just because of the
uncertainty it creates.
Speaker 3 (42:59):
Tonan, thank you so much for joining us. I really
appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (43:02):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (43:03):
That's our show for tonight, everybody, Thank you for joining.
Speaker 5 (43:05):
I really appreciate.
Speaker 2 (43:06):
I remind you I'm on every Monday through Friday at
six o'clock on nine to sixty am. You can stream
me online even from Alberta at TRIPLEW Saga nine sixty
am dot CEL. My podcast and videos go off on
my website Briancromby dot com, on YouTube, on LinkedIn, on
social media as and podcast servers lots of different podcast
service as soon as the radio show goes here, Thanks
good night, everybody.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (43:29):
Stream us live at SAGA nine sixty am dot C.
Speaker 5 (43:33):
A welcome back everyone to the Brian Crombie Radio Hour.
Speaker 2 (43:46):
I wanted to spend just a few minutes chatting about
Alberta and Western alienation and this desire seemingly for twenty
to thirty or thirty.
Speaker 3 (43:57):
Three percent of Alburt's to separate.
Speaker 2 (44:00):
Thought that you know, Chero Sentanon puts it in a
great perspective that economically it doesn't make a lot of sense,
just like he thought that Brexit didn't make a lot
of sense, just like he thought that Quebec separation was
bad for the economy, even the threat of it for Quebec.
And you know, I could go on with lots of
other separations. Never thought that the Mississauga idea of separation
(44:21):
from Peel made a lot.
Speaker 3 (44:22):
Of economic sense.
Speaker 2 (44:23):
But it's one of these populist ideas that you're better
off alone and you can make your own way, and
that you don't have to listen to and or compromise
with other parts of whatever the jurisdiction is that you're
currently a part of. And I think it is it
is ethnocentric and often myopic and wrong. But you know, obviously,
(44:49):
if twenty to thirty three percent of people think that way,
and almost fifty percent in Quebec think that way, and
over fifty percent of the people in England thought that way,
it obviously is a an opinion that you've got to
listen to and you've got to pay attention to.
Speaker 3 (45:04):
You got to wonder why.
Speaker 2 (45:05):
And I think there's a couple of reasons. I think,
and I've talked about this, you know, numerous times before.
I think one of the problems is our governance system.
I really believe that proportional representation or something like that,
you know, mixed member of proporsonal representation or whatever it is,
would go a long way to addressing some of the
(45:26):
issues The West doesn't feel in and when they don't
elect any MPs from a governing party and therefore left
out of caucus or left out of the cabinet. I
think that you feel that way, and I think there's
you know, a lot of liberal voters in Alberta and
conservative voters in urban Toronto that feel completely alienated, even
(45:47):
though there's a significant minority that voted that way. And
if they had a voice, if they had representation, I
think it would be different. I said this during the
COVID lockdowns. I disagreed with what the Trucker convoy was
all about and what they were trying to achieve, But
fifteen percent of Canadians population, supposedly according to polls, supported.
Speaker 3 (46:09):
What the Trucker Convoy was all about.
Speaker 2 (46:11):
And I do think that, frankly, some of the lockdowns
went too far. I disagreed publicly about the lockdowns of
parks and recreational facilities in Mississauga and Peel because I
think they were wrong. And you know, they said, oh,
we just locked down the parking lots, but it made
it impossible for people go out and walk. I think that,
you know, locking down the high schools and the universities
(46:33):
were wrong when young people were far less prevalent of
getting the virus, and what we really need to do
is a far better job protecting our seniors, and we
robbed our young people of the opportunities for social interaction. Anyway,
fifteen percent of the Canadian population agreed with the Trucker
convoy and disagreed.
Speaker 3 (46:54):
With the.
Speaker 2 (46:56):
Mask mandates or the vaccine mandates or the lockdowns or
some thereof, and they needed to be listened to. And
if they had a voice in Parliament, people would have
potentially felt differently. They would have felt at least we've
been heard, but out voted in the end. I think
if there were Liberals elected in Alberta and they were
in Parliament and they were in caucus and they were
in cabinet, I think that Alberton's would feel a little
(47:19):
less unrepresentative. I think if frankly, there were Conservatives elected
in urban Vancouver and urban Montreal because a significant minority
voted that way and didn't end up having any MPs
elected or very few MP's elected, they'd feel differently. I
think that in the last provincial election, where you know,
(47:40):
the NDP got far fewer votes but got far more seats.
Speaker 3 (47:44):
That shows some of the mistakes of the first past
the post.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
The fact that you know, the Conservatives got forty percent
of the vote but got you know, sixty or seventy
percent of the seats. There's something wrong with our system.
Lots of people say, well, that's a way of you know,
ensuring that we have more continuity in government. We have majorities,
it's easier to form majority. Well, you know what, compromises challenging.
(48:08):
Governing should be challenging. Creating you know, coalitions and and
and compromises and getting to the right answer in the
end should be hard work. And we shouldn't make it easier.
And so I think proportional representation is the way to go.
I think that the West was arguing for a long
period of time for a Tripoli Senate, and I think
(48:31):
that maybe the Senate might be one of the first
places you could get proportional representation.
Speaker 3 (48:35):
I do think that.
Speaker 2 (48:36):
This appointee appointment of independent senators has made the Senator
the Senate less relevant. I'm not sure if it's actually helped.
I wonder if electing a Senate via proportional representation and
making it equal maybe it's twenty five percent to Quebec
twenty five percent, Ontario twenty five percent, of Maritize twenty
five percent the West, or or approximately of Maybe the
(48:57):
West got to have a little bit more.
Speaker 3 (48:59):
I think that making the Senate elected.
Speaker 2 (49:05):
Equal and effective, and maybe elected by way a proportional representation,
might be a great way of ensuring that the West
feels in In addition, I do think that they feelienated
because of the.
Speaker 3 (49:16):
Lack of attention to pipelines.
Speaker 2 (49:18):
I'm frustrated a BYuT that because the federal government bought
and paid for a significant pipeline, so I wonder why
they feel so alienated.
Speaker 3 (49:24):
But I do think that the.
Speaker 2 (49:27):
Past Prime Minister's answered that there was no way to
get a liquefied natural gas to the coast and supply
Europe when obviously Australia is doing it and the US
is doing it. It was clearly a mistake and we
should have found a way to do it. And we've
got to get those market prices for our western energy.
I do think we need to get another pipeline to
(49:48):
the west coast of British Columbia. I'm not so sure
about a pipeline across Canada because I think that is uneconomic.
I have the privilege in my job of traveling to Saskatchewan, Alberta,
to British Columbia quite a lot, and on a fairy
regular basis. I've got business interests there. I had an
opportunity in a prior job to travel. I also have
(50:08):
an opportunity to go to Ottawa, Montreal, quote back, et cetera.
I had an opportunity in a prior job to make
it to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Sasketchewan, Alberta, British Columbia.
Speaker 3 (50:21):
And really all the way through BC.
Speaker 2 (50:23):
Because I've worked and lived in British Columbia and we
went everywhere across BC.
Speaker 5 (50:27):
I think my experience is unique.
Speaker 2 (50:29):
I don't think there's a lot of people that get
the opportunity to travel as much and as frequently across
Canada and meet people and do business with people across Canada.
And I think that's a shame. And I think that
Canada would feel differently if we got an opportunity to
travel more extensively across Canada. And I encourage Canadians to
do that.
Speaker 3 (50:46):
And I really.
Speaker 2 (50:46):
Wonder about this idea that we had at one point
in time about Katimovic. I think the Peace Corps in
the United States really did a great job of bringing
Americans together.
Speaker 3 (50:55):
I think the idea of Katimavic.
Speaker 2 (50:56):
That Pierre Elliot Trudeau floated of having French and English,
Easterners and Westerners, Indigenous and non Indigenous working together on
projects of national public social interest and traveling across the
country and experiencing different parts of the country makes a
lot of sense. So I guess what I got to
(51:19):
say is the West wants in isn't something we should
think away from, go away from. We should we should
recognize that there is a significant minority of Alberta that
does feel alienated, and we've got to find a way
of more effectively making them feel included in our society,
(51:42):
in our country, that they're listening to their heart and uh,
and not just say that Economically it makes no sense
because I think that's what we said in Quebec.
Speaker 3 (51:50):
I think that's what they said in in the UK.
And look what happened in the UK and how close
it came to Quebec.
Speaker 2 (51:56):
And so let's not denigrate those separatists in Alberta. Let's
listen to them, let's address their concerns.
Speaker 3 (52:07):
Let's make them feel included.
Speaker 2 (52:09):
Let's try to change some of our governance and some
of our infrastructure and some of our attitudes, particularly in
the young people's, that we get to know each other
far better.
Speaker 3 (52:18):
Anyway, that's Brian Crombie for the Brian Crombie Radio. That's
my show for the night. Thanks for joining me.
Speaker 2 (52:22):
I appreciate I really appreciate the opportunity to present to
you long form interviews with really interesting people and.
Speaker 5 (52:27):
Then also provide my points of view.
Speaker 3 (52:29):
Thanks good night.
Speaker 1 (52:35):
Stream us live at SAGA nine six am dot CA.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!