Economist Moshe Lander joins Alberta Primetime host Michael Higgins to discuss the economic viability of Alberta independence, and the impact the separation conversation may already be having on investment. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. Michael Higgins: From an economic standpoint, what kind of impact or consequences would you expect to see coming with an independence referendum? Moshe Lander: I’ll make it very simple for you. Anybody in economics that can put forward an argument for why there should be this question, let alone the results of this question, I’ll show you an unemployed economist. There is no compelling argument for why separation would be good for Alberta. If you can find me micro-scenarios where this might work out, I will give you a macro-load of ways in which it will go terribly badly for the province. MH: Driving his anti-separation petition, Thomas Lukaszuk would often point to business and investment fleeing Quebec. How would you quantify the impact of referendum debate in that province? ML: If you look at the last 25 years in Quebec, GDP per capita growth has averaged a little more than one per cent. Quebec went from being one of the ‘have’ provinces, the phrase we use for the richer half of Canada, to being one of the ‘have not’ provinces. In fact, it’s one of the sources of frustration for a lot of Albertans who are pro-separation. They feel somehow we are propping up Quebec. When that separation referendum went ahead, businesses ran, and it created uncertainty, instability, and nobody wanted to be part of an independent Quebec. Not only was it bad for business, it was also bad for people. All of a sudden you risk losing your Canadian passport, your currency, your job prospects, and introduce instability into your life. We just came out of 2025 which was nothing but insecurity and instability triggered by the White House. We’re now going to do it to ourselves and expect people are going to want to hang around. So beyond businesses leaving, individuals will leave too. That’s going to erode the tax base from all sides and increase the cost for anybody left behind trying to run the province. MH: How long post-referendum in Quebec were those effects felt? ML: It accumulates over time. When you’re growing at one per cent, a little bit per year, and the rest of the country is growing at two per cent, you don’t notice it instantaneously, right? If you get a two-per-cent raise, and I get a one-per-cent raise, you and I are not going to notice that. Fundamentally, our incomes have pulled apart. But if you sustain that over 25 to 30 years, it’s going to be noticeable because of compounding. That sort of thing accumulates. Quebec went from being in the top half of the table into the bottom half of the table. The only reason why it appears to be catching up to Ontario right now is that Ontario has been even more ungovernable for its own issues. The reality is Alberta’s prosperity is partly because it is part of Canada, not because it would be better off outside of Canada. MH: Would you expect there to be the same kind of dialogue around a Forever Canadian referendum, a question that still essentially weighs the element of independence? ML: Yes, because there’s always the risk that question goes the wrong way. I’m always of the belief never ask a question unless you’re prepared for the answer. Or, in fact, never ask a question unless you know what the answer is going to be in the first place. When you start introducing those questions, regardless of whether the default position is we stay in Canada or we leave Canada, you run the risk that the question doesn’t go the way you want. Back in the 90s, when the Quebec referendum was allowed to go ahead, there was this expectation at the time that there was no way they’re going to vote to separate. Then it was that knife’s edge where everybody was staying awake late into the night to see what actually happened. That’s the type of thing that creates the destabilizing outcome for businesses, for individuals. Even allowing the question in whatever form to go ahead is problematic. Beyond that, neither question is asking what the costs and benefits of the decision are. It would make the question completely impossible to put in a succinct way. If I ask you, ‘Would you like chicken for dinner?’ Yes or no is very easy. It might come with health risks, or I might be a bad cook. Then that’s a more complicated question. All of a sudden, your ‘yes’ answer might turn into a ‘no’ answer. That’s something as simple as asking what you want for dinner. Asking ‘Do you want to stay in Canada,” without laying out what would be involved in that is hugely dangerous for both sides. MH: In our interview with petition proponent Mitch Sylvestre, he suggested Alberta independence would potentially create a boom. Are there elements of the economy that would stand to benefit? ML: No. I don’t know what he’s talking about, and I don’t know what he’s basing that on. You could imagine if Alberta were to leave Canada, you would have to introduce a currency, border control, passports. When you have people racing out the door, how are you going to pay for Alberta pensions? Where’s that money going to come from? What’s going to happen to the housing market? I don’t see that there are a lot of benefits. The thought that somehow, you’re going to be able to be able to negotiate free passage to the ocean for pipelines with now a resentful Canada and a U.S. that’s going to have extreme leverage over an independent Alberta, is going to be even more complicated. For all Alberta’s frustration with B.C. in trying to negotiate that pipeline, you’re going to have to contend with Washington, Oregon and California, who are considerably more left-of-centre than B.C. is traditionally. It’s going to make it even harder to get those pipelines constructed. I don’t see where exactly any sector is going to benefit. Don’t forget our provincial government would now become our federal government, so to speak. They don’t know how to balance a budget when they are working within Canada. How are they going to balance a budget when the economy is cratering and everybody’s racing for the door or the border? MH: You bring up the U.S. How much of an alignment with the Americans would be necessary for an independent Alberta to be viable? ML: I don’t want to give away state secrets. The Americans don’t want Alberta. If they want Alberta, they want us for our oil. And guess what? They don’t even want us for our oil, given that they just went into a little bit of adventurism in Venezuela. Let’s remember part of Alberta’s oil industry growth goes hand in hand with the decline of Venezuela. Up until the turn of the century, before Chavez became president of Venezuela, most of that infrastructure in the American Gulf was built on Venezuelan oil, which is the direct competition for Alberta’s oil. Alberta was merely opportunistic in taking advantage of the decline of Venezuela. Now the U.S. seems to have control over the spigots in Venezuela, do they need Alberta? If Alberta is separated from the rest of Canada, if we feel that we’re not getting a fair share right now with our elbows up trying to retaliate against U.S. tariffs and trade talk, would you think an independent Alberta is going to have any more leverage or any more ability when effectively, we become a one resource economy? MH: There’s been some renewed talk of a possible independence referendum in Quebec. How do you see that playing with this dialogue in Alberta, especially when you weigh the political economic uncertainty of the Trump administration’s trade war with Canada? ML: I feel like I’m well-positioned here, living in Alberta and working in Quebec, to deal with this one. There is no benefit for Quebec going ahead with their referendum, even though it looks like a separatist party is going to outright win the election. The only difference between the two provinces is that Quebec continues to harbour a 350-plus-year-old grievance against English-speaking Canada. It’s on the back of their licenceplates. Their justification for sacrificing their standard of living and their quality of life is purely in the preservation of cultural and linguistic differences that doesn’t apply in Alberta. To whatever degree it might make sense to have that referendum in Quebec, which I don’t think it does, at least it’s built on something more than just being upset with Ottawa and taking their ball and going home.
