The problem with Jack Mintz leading the committee that’s supposedly tasked with determining the pros and cons of Alberta separation is that he already appears to have made up his mind in favour of secession. 

“Albertans need to know and understand the potential impacts of separating from Canada,” said Dr. Mintz, who has for many years filled the role of the Alberta conservative movement’s favourite economist, in the government’s news release on Friday. 

In that canned quote he added that the “highly complex” work would be carried out by the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, which he led from 2008 to 2015 and with which he is still associated. “The advisory council will provide feedback to ensure that the in-depth assessment of economic considerations associated with separation enables Albertans to make an informed decision.”

The obvious problem with this is that on Dec. 19, 2018, Dr. Mintz wrote a strongly worded op-ed in The National Post that was headlined, “Alberta has better reasons to Albexit than Britain did for Brexit.” This accurately summarized Dr. Mintz’s arguments. 

In the op-ed, Dr. Mintz claimed federal environmental and economic policies presented an “existential” threat to Alberta’s economy and asserted that “whatever negatives Alberta would face are easily swamped by the positives that would come with separation.”

Although Dr. Mintz qualified that statement by suggesting in the op-ed that the moment might not yet be right for Alberta to become a separate country, he went on to say that “if Brexit happened, then Albexit is just as possible. Probably more so, given the existential threat to Alberta’s prosperity over resource development.”

In an interview that evening with the CBC’s As It Happens radio program, Dr. Mintz reinforced his previous comments, stating that he believed Alberta “has to” separate from Canada “if it’s really put to the wall.” The CBC news story on that interview does not indicate what specific policies or conditions Dr. Mintz believed would constitute Alberta being put to the wall.

Lots has changed since 2018, of course, but it is not clear if that includes Dr. Mintz’s mind. He has not yet responded to an email query about his current views about separation. 

In the absence of anything from Dr. Mintz, we are left to wonder if Alberta Premier Danielle Smith – who claims to be auditioning for the role of Captain Canada but appears more like a committed separatist if you judge her by her recent actions – has just appointed a committee led by a separation proponent to judge the merits of separation before Albertans vote in a separation referendum. 

While Dr. Mintz has an impressive curriculum vitae, there can be no question he is a strong and consistent supporter of Conservative political parties’ policies. Remember, when he wrote the 2018 piece, there was a Liberal government in Ottawa and a New Democrat Government in Edmonton, so it’s possible his intention was to suggest the United Conservative Party then led by Jason Kenney would be a better bet to keep Alberta in Canada than Rachel Notley. 

But the impression left to most readers of the article is surely that it presents a tendentious argument for separation based on the views of a true believer. 

In it, Dr. Mintz warns about “the possibility of leaving Alberta oil wealth in the ground” while demand continued to grow, claiming that this would be “an existential threat to the province.” This suggestion was completely unjustified. 

As premier, Ms. Notley had pushed hard, and successfully, for the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline to the B.C. Coast; the Trudeau Government had already purchased the pipeline and was determined to proceed with its construction; the federal environment minister was Catherine McKenna, and say what you will about her other policies she too was on board with TMX. 

The strategy adopted both by the Liberals in Ottawa and the NDP in Alberta was to ensure oilsands production could be expanded by creating “social license” through other carbon-reduction policies, an approach disparaged by Conservatives at the time. 

So, yes, there were still legal speed bumps on the road to completing the TMX, but here was zero chance in December 2018 that anyone in power in Ottawa or Edmonton had any intention of leaving Alberta’s oil wealth “in the ground.”

As for Dr. Mintz’s argument that “whatever negatives Alberta would face are easily swamped by the positives that would come with separation,” shall we say that regardless of his undoubted qualifications as an economist, that showed a remarkable degree of naivety about how the rest of Canada was likely to respond to Alberta secession and the complications of establishing trading relations with other countries. And that includes the United States, which in less than two years would elect Joe Biden as president. 

“Alberta will also be able to keep for itself the annual $20 billion more it sends each year to Ottawa in taxes,” Dr. Mintz cheerfully predicted, perhaps forgetting that as an independent country Alberta might have considerable additional expenses as well. Perhaps, as Premier Smith herself recently suggested, they might be in the vicinity of $70 billion a year plus start-up costs in the order of $300 billion. 

“Hard borders and potential trade barriers with the rest of Canada would be a cost, but these would be subject to negotiation,” Dr. Mintz continued in his 2018 peice, asking, “would they really be drastically worse than current internal barriers to trade (including pipeline obstacles) that already exist between provinces?” The short answer to anyone who has paid attention to geopolitics is yes. Considerably.

He speculated chirpily that Saskatchewan might like to join up, a common notion in separatist circles nowadays. Trust me on this, though. It won’t when it realizes its relationship with the relative behemoth next door in Alberta would be, yes, essentially a colonial one instead of a full province, a status some might argue is not justified by its small population.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, what Dr. Mintz’s 2018 article establishs is that he is not a suitable person to lead an effort that the Alberta Government has promised us will provide “objective, evidence-based analysis” so that we Albertans can be confident in how we decide to vote in Premier Smith’s dangerous separation referendum.

The right thing for Dr. Mintz to do is to admit that his previously published views make him inappropriate for this role, and gracefully step aside.