By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 22, 2023.

OTTAWA–As northern Alberta is engulfed in flames, Premier Danielle Smith must be breathing a sigh of relief.

The forest fires have taken the spotlight away from an election in which her own gaffes would have played a major role. Some have suggested that the election should be postponed because the fires have necessitated the evacuation of more than 25,000 residents in multiple communities.

What could have been a daily discussion of Smith’s multiple positions on private medicine and interference in the judicial system has taken a back seat to evacuation and safety briefings on the status of the fires.

Smith has also joined hands with New Democratic Party Leader Rachel Notley in getting updates on the emergencies facing residents in northern Alberta.

As the flames abate, all eyes might have been on the May 18 leaders’ debate. But the choice of timing ensured that the audience would not be huge. For some reason, broadcasters aired the debate at 6 p.m. Mountain Daylight Time, which meant that most Albertans would be busy getting supper ready or driving from work to home.

Polling shows more than 40 per cent of voters say they could be affected by the debate, so a major “aha” moment could prove to be a turning point for victory by the United Conservative Party or a defeat by the New Democrats.

Before the fires, the debate would have focussed almost exclusively on Smith’s plans to privatize the health care system. Before Smith returned to politics, running for the leadership of the UCP, she hosted a radio show that yielded plenty of election fodder for her opposition.

Some of the most shocking statements focused on her minority position against vaccinations. She confessed at one point that she was so disgusted with vaccine mandates that she refused to wear a poppy in honour of Remembrance Day. In videos from the pandemic period, Smith compared the 75 per cent of vaccinated Albertans to those who followed Adolf Hitler into tyranny.

She also claimed that doctors are not capable of managing the pandemic, and instead, it should be managed by soldiers, saying: “the problem with putting doctors in charge is that they seem hardwired against criticism. We seem to have a medical system that was almost like a military command structure that the person at the top cannot be argued with, cannot be contradicted, otherwise it’s some crime that’s worthy of punishment. If that’s the way the medical system operates, then I don’t think we can have them in charge again in a future pandemic.”

Now Smith says she wants citizens to forget about those comments and to focus on current issues.

But current issues should include how a premier would manage a future pandemic, and more importantly, how a premier would finance the health-care system. With such disdain for doctors, it is hard to see how she would support a public health-care system.

In a paper written two years ago, Smith said the healthcare system should change “to shift the burden of payment away from taxpayers and toward private individuals, their employers and their insurance companies.”

While seeking the UCP leadership, Smith proposed health-care spending accounts of $375 per Albertan to cover services and get people used to paying for out-of-pocket expenses.

She also claimed in a YouTube video discussion with a naturopathic doctor that it was within a person’s control to avoid stage four cancer.

On the morning of the debate, Alberta’s ethics commissioner upped the tension by issuing a report that found the premier in a conflict of interest for her interactions with the minister of justice and attorney general, trying to influence criminal charges faced by street preacher Artur Pawlowski.

The report could play a pivotal role in the election, as most polls claim the race is deadlocked. Notley is ahead in Edmonton while Smith leads in rural Alberta, so the election outcome will probably be decided by voters in the city of Calgary.

By all accounts, Smith has been premier-like in her handling of the fires. However, her party still refuses to accept the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming, which prompts an increase in catastrophic fires and floods.

Mother Nature usually doesn’t play a direct role in an election, but a rainy voting day can depress the number of participants who get to the polls.

If Smith pulls off a victory, she can thank the province’s ongoing firefighting efforts for taking the focus off her health and vaccine pronouncements.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

Controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 21, 2022.

OTTAWA—By summer’s end, the Canadian political landscape could change dramatically.

Ontario is into a provincial election in less than two months, smack in the middle of a national Conservative leadership race.

Quebec must have an election by Oct. 3, and next month Alberta’s controversial premier faces an internal review which could plunge his party into another fight.

Federal and provincial parties are separate, but the voting public sees them all as a single, homogenous mass.

So, controversy inside the Conservative federal leadership race will have a spillover effect into the provincial elections in Ontario and Quebec.

In Ontario, the premier has already stated that he will remain neutral and none of his ministers will be involved in any campaign.

That is bad news for Jean Charest, as the leadership list of Caroline Mulroney, whose family has deep ties with the former Quebec premier, could be very valuable.

Charest’s only path to victory is to saturate Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada with enough votes to overcome his socially conservative deficit in the west.

But even though Mulroney herself cannot get involved, there is nothing stopping key organizers from enlisting volunteers and voters for Charest.

The organizing skills of former provincial Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown are well known. He could secure a base for a more centrist vote which would likely end up in Charest’s camp in a frontrunner’s fight.

Brown has no love for the premier, as Doug Ford actually came to office after Brown resigned following two allegations of sexual misconduct, which he denied and for which CTV recently expressed “regrets” over some inaccurate details in its story. The Brown exit was ugly, and paved the way for Ford to beat Christine Elliott in a subsequent provincial leadership contest.

Any reference to the hate-hate relationship between Brown and Ford will not help the premier in the key ridings in Brampton. Mississauga and Scarborough where Brown has many supporters who would not likely support the premier in a general election.

As for Quebec, issues within the Tory federal leadership could definitely create some blowback in the provincial campaign. The bill that forced teachers to choose between religious headgear and their jobs has caused quite a stir across the country.

However, it is largely supported in Quebec, so attacks on Bill 21 by national Conservatives will simply reinforce the re-election chances of Premier François Legault.

Charest will have to tread carefully there because he needs to secure his Quebec base, but cannot afford to alienate the rest of the party on a divisive religious issue.

Alberta’s Jason Kenney, already hobbled by a popularity plunge in his home province, has historically tried to play a brokerage role in the federal campaign.

But given he has so many Alberta problems, the usual cadre of candidates lined up to seek his blessing will definitely decrease in this leadership campaign.

Ford is facing the voters on June 2, but 25 per cent of his current caucus has decided not to run again.

The most recent announcement by Christine Elliott, former leadership rival, that she is stepping down, does not augur well for the party’s election chances.

Most seasoned politicians can smell a change in the wind. When they decide not to reoffer, it is because they think their chances of losing are greater than winning.

Of course, they usually cite family or personal reasons for resigning, but in the end, a party on its way out loses more incumbent members than a party in the ascendancy.

Ford’s saving grace at the moment is that the New Democrats and Liberals are in a virtual tie as to who the replacement should be.

That being said, the Liberals have the edge as the NDP polls heavier in certain urban constituencies like Hamilton and Windsor, but it’s presence in rural Ontario is much weaker. That skews the numbers because an equal vote actually means more seats for the Liberals, in the same way that an equal federal Conservative/Liberal vote means more seats for the grits.

By October, we will likely have at least two new premiers in Alberta and Ontario, which also has federal repercussions.

In Ontario’s case, voters like to have political bookends at the federal and provincial scene. So, if the Liberals win the provincial election, it will open more doors for a Tory federal victory in the next election.

In Alberta, it is a Tory/NDP dance, and a provincial win for the New Democrats would provide energy and workers for the next federal election.

The only certainty in Canadian politics this year is change.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.