U of C ‘will really dive into estimated transition costs’ in Alberta separation report

Former MP Martha Hall Findlay joins Alberta Primetime's Michael Higgins to discuss the University of Calgary's task to create a report on separation costs.

A team at the University of Calgary was tasked with digging into the economic impacts around Alberta separation and providing the province with an independent analysis. Former MP and director of the school of public policy Martha Hall Findlay joined Alberta Primetime’s Michael Higgins to discuss the estimated costs, impacts, risks and savings if Alberta separates from Canada.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Michael Higgins: How monumental of an undertaking are you and your team facing here?

Martha Hall Findlay: It’s huge but also so important to be able to put some real data and some real evidence around what has become clearly a pretty emotional issue. We’ve been tasked to really dive into the estimated transition costs, the economic impacts, risks, and possible savings in the event that Alberta is able to separate. To be clear, we’re not being asked to look at some of the constitutional issues or Indigenous relations. We’re being asked to look at if it is possible for Alberta to separate, what would those impacts be? It’s a pretty short timeframe within which to pull all of that together, but we’re really pleased to have been asked.

MH: Are you working with a blank slate or is the government providing you with work it’s already done?

MHF: Our job is to get the best evidence and the best data possible, then do the most objective analysis that we can. For example, Trevor Tombe is part of our team and he’s already done a fair bit of work on some of these scenarios. So we’re already off to a bit of a good start in the sense of some of the work’s already done.

We do have a number of economists of course and we do have a number of other people with various expertise. But it’s clear that if we need to bring on other expertise, for example there might be people with expertise with what studies were done with respect to Quebec in the past, we are absolutely capable of doing that and will if we need to.

MH: Are there formal terms of reference guiding the assessment? And how transparent will you be on methodology?

MHF: There’s an outline, a scope in terms of the arrangement with the government. People have asked, “What’s the relationship between the school of public policy and the advisory panel and the government?” So we will provide a draft report and then have the opportunity to engage. We’ll put out a completed report sometime in August. Like I said, it’s a very short timeframe but the advisory panel has been appointed by the government to provide advice to the government.

We will be meeting with the advisory panel on a regular basis. Normally you wouldn’t necessarily do that, you wait and do the draft report then engage. But because it’s such a short time frame, it’s really important that the advisory panel is actually kept abreast of what we’re doing, kept abreast of our project, kept abreast of some of the methodologies that we’re using.

And yes, the advisory panel members will be able to provide some input and some advice. Absolutely key to this is that we don’t have to take that advice now. If it’s good advice, we’ll take it. But the really important piece here is that the school has total independence from both the advisory panel and from the government itself.

MH: There’s also the element of determining potential savings. Are you building two ledgers by splitting up the process with a costs column and an equal effort on a column listing financial economic benefits?

MHF: Let me give you one example of a potential benefit. It’s no secret that the federal government civil service is pretty bloated right now. Is it possible that Alberta would be able to recreate services provided by the federal government more efficiently? I would think that’s probably what we’ll see. That said, it will still cost an awful lot to recreate those services.

What would the cost likely be? You compare with what the costs are for the equivalent federal department and then you look at “what does Alberta really need? How could it actually do things more effectively?” We’re absolutely tasked with looking at certainly potential costs, but also potential savings if we can see them. That really speaks to the credibility of the work that we’re doing. If we came in with only one view, no one would want to bother reading the report because that credibility is so critical.

MH: Do you see the Heritage Savings Trust Fund falling into that column of separation benefits?

MHF: I’m going to let the economists weigh in on questions like that. We’re at an early stage right now, but we will be looking at as much as we can and the different aspects of that. I will also add that this isn’t just a question of numbers. We will be in a position to raise other issues, so looking at the things that are quantifiable. What are the numbers? What would that transition be? What would the recreation of these services be?

There are also things that are much harder to quantify that we will bring in other expertise like energy and natural resources. We’ll probably have a chapter, then the report dealing with that simply because those are so important to the province of Alberta. What happens when you deal with infrastructure that you no longer have the protections such as they are of the federal constitution, in terms of helping build infrastructure. What are some of the unknowns about all of the international trade agreements that Canada has that Alberta would then have to figure out? Some of these questions that are not necessarily quantifiable will for sure be raised and I think that’s part of our job. We don’t know the answer to this, but these are some issues that are important to consider.

MH: What if that panel, either whole or in part, disagrees with your findings?

MHF: Our hope is that that doesn’t happen simply because then there’s questions about if the advisory panel thinks that some of our methodologies were off. This is where it’s probably better to have those discussions earlier, maintaining of course that full independence. But at the end of the day, if somebody on the advisory panel does not agree with something we’ve put in our report, that’s exactly the kind of independence that we require.

The advisory panel will also need that independence from the government. There will be questions about methodologies. There will be questions about what we’ve been able to uncover. There’s all sorts of things. One thing that we will not be doing, and we are not asked to do and we won’t do, we will not be making any recommendations. Our job is the data, the evidence, and the most objective analysis possible. We will not be coming out with recommendations of any kind. That’s for the people of Alberta.