If Danielle Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out. Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on December 5, 2022.

OTTAWA—Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants sovereignty in a united Canada.

She claims it has nothing to do with a desire to separate, but the first bill she tabled as premier says otherwise. 

The crux of the bill is to give her cabinet the right to refuse to proceed with any federal legislation or action that it perceives as detrimental to Alberta. 

Notwithstanding her promises while running for the United Conservative Party leadership, she makes it very plain that her cabinet decisions take precedence over the Canadian Constitution.

Observers have underscored problems with the legislation, but they have more to do with internal Alberta politics than anything coming from Ottawa.

The decision to give cabinet the right to overturn all laws could actually cause problems for democracy in Alberta.

The move certainly seems to diminish the power of the legislature’s involvement in the approval, rejection, or amendment of any legislation.

In a majority government, the cabinet recommendation is usually carried by the legislature. But that is not a given. 

Minority governments are unlikely in Alberta, given the dominance of only two political parties. But the decision to simply override parliamentary opinion by way of a cabinet fiat is definitely a political mistake. 

At this point, the premier has to be a lot more concerned about her standing amongst Alberta voters than her popularity, or lack thereof, in the rest of the country.

She has to face the voters in less than six months, and even her immediate predecessor has made it very clear that he disagrees with her sovereignty pitch. 

In resigning on the same day that Smith tabled the sovereignty bill, outgoing premier Jason Kenney took an indirect hit at Smith’s first piece of legislation by way of his retirement statement: “I am concerned that our democratic life is veering away from ordinary prudential debate towards a polarization that undermines our bedrock institutions and principles.”

There has never been any love lost between Kenney and Smith, but this oblique reference underscores the divide that still exists inside the UCP.

While its name is “United,” in reality the party is badly split. That division is natural during a leadership period, but Smith doesn’t have much time to heal the deep wounds that can occur during internal party races. 

Some are already characterizing Smith’s legacy as that of the shortest-serving premier.  

The sovereignty legislation did little to reach out to those inside the party who share Kenney’s perspective.

As for Smith’s attempt to clarify that sovereignty and separation are not the same thing, she needs to take a deeper dive into Quebec’s peregrination.

While the rest of Canada considered them separatists, successive leaders of the Parti Québécois claimed the movement was about sovereignty, not separation. 

Sovereignty is a positive moniker. Separation represents division. But in the end, all Quebec sovereigntists want to leave Canada to start their own country. 

Smith claims otherwise, but that is about the only affirmation of Canadian unity that she is likely to make. 

Her main reason for running the province seems to be a plan to run down the country.

Smith probably thinks that an anti-Eastern sentiment will encourage a majority of Albertans to vote for her. 

But chances are their interest in personal prosperity outstrips that of her continuous assertions of public enmity. 

She will be running against Ottawa, while Alberta New Democratic Party Leader Rachel Notley will be running against the Alberta Tory record. 

The blame game actually works in two directions, and at this point in time, Notley appears to have the edge. 

By introducing her sovereignty bill as the first piece of legislation, Smith is signifying that fighting the federal government will be her top priority.

Notley says she wants to work with the feds on common issues of economic importance. 

That message of co-operation may resonate with Albertans who are looking for solutions, not brickbats.

At the end of the day, Smith’s sovereignty move does not look much different from the Parti Québécois’ offering during the last referendum.

They told Quebecers they would keep the dollar, the military, the trade agreements and all the benefits of belonging to Canada, while setting up their own sovereign country.

Smith is seeking a similar sort of autonomy.

All the reasons to endorse Canada remain intact, including access to currency, international treaty status, and military protection while none of the responsibilities will matter.

If Smith doesn’t like a federal law, she and her cabinet will simply toss it out.

Sovereignty in a united Canada—sounds just like the separatists. 

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

On the day after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dug herself out of an anti-vaxxer hole, she decided to add some levity to her Twitter feed. To do so, she took a picture of her nylon-clad legs and patent leather pumps with the tag line: ‘It’s a beautiful day.’

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 17, 2022.

OTTAWA—#ableg has taken on a whole new meeting in the Twitter world. It used to be a hashtag for the Alberta legislature.

Now it is a hashtag for the premier’s legs.

Does that sound bizarre?

If so, that is because it is.

On the day after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dug herself out of an anti-vaxxer hole, she decided to add some levity to her Twitter feed.

To do so, she took a picture of her nylon-clad legs and patent leather pumps with the tag line “It’s a beautiful day.”

Supporters lauded her sense of humour. Opponents accused her of poor judgment and sexism.

The vast majority simply asked the question, “Why?”

Why would a premier post a photo of their legs? As a woman, Smith must know how her gender has fought hard to avoid being defined by body parts.

But the post also prompted a larger question. What kind of judgment will Smith exhibit as a leader?

So far, she has not had a stellar start.

She spent her first post-inaugural day explaining away the claim that those people who chose not to be vaccinated were “the most discriminated group” she has witnessed in her lifetime.

Smith refused to apologize for the comments, but tried to put them in context, saying she did not try to “create any false equivalencies to the terrible historical discrimination and persecution suffered by so many minority groups over the last decades and centuries.”

But she did. She also used her first day in office to announce the firing of Alberta’s chief medical officer of health, Deena Hinshaw.

Hinshaw, who was seen as a capable manager of the pandemic, received public scorn earlier this year when it was revealed she received a $228,000 bonus for her work during the pandemic.

In the private sector, the bonus would likely have been expected, given the number of additional work hours attached to the pandemic response. In many ways, it literally became a 24-hour-a-day response.

But of particular concern, is that Smith supports the current and former health minister, both of whom were laudatory about Hinshaw’s leadership throughout the pandemic.

The premier is supporting the politicians who managed the pandemic and firing the scientists and health professionals. What does that say about the kind of government she would run?

Two days have produced two lapses in judgement.

The leggy tweet won’t do any lasting damage, but the decision to rewrite COVID history by turning anti-vaxxers into victims will.

That revisionist history couples with her backpedalling on the proposed Alberta Sovereignty Act.

During the campaign, Smith said she was prepared to fight federal laws and court rulings that were not in Alberta’s interest. She characterized Trudeau’s involvement in provincial affairs as “lawless.”

But within hours of taking office, she was already changing her position, promising to uphold any Supreme Court decision on jurisdiction, and claiming that her new sovereignty legislation would respect the rule of law.

The reversal was probably necessary. Even her United Conservative Party leadership opponents said her proposed sovereignty law did not pass the smell test.

But what about those UCP voters who supported her precisely because of her attack on the “lawless” prime minister.

Her comment on the mistreatment of anti-vaxxers is a sign that she wants to continue to appeal to the small percentage of Albertans who did not get vaccinated.

More than 80 per cent of Albertans have received at least one vaccination, so her target audience is less than 20 per cent.

But that same group does not expect her to reverse her sovereignty position within a day of taking office.

UCP opponents are pushing hard for an election. They claim Smith will not have a mandate until she is elected by all the people.

Smith’s predecessor, outgoing premier Jason Kenney, will have nothing to do with her, even though they hail from the same party.

By law, the election is expected to happen in little more than six months, on May 29 of next year.

If Smith’s next few months are like her first week, the opposition should hope that the election is delayed a little. The more she speaks, the less she appeals to the average voter.

But in the next six months, she may be able to harness the power of conservatism in Alberta to win.

Given the missteps of her first few days in office, that seems unlikely.

Her path to power may involve keeping her mouth shut and staying off Twitter.

And that’s no mean feat for a politician.

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

With sovereignty looming as a potential Alberta issue, it is time for the federal government to engage in Canadian nation building.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on July 25, 2022.

OTTAWA—Sovereignty is back on the political landscape. But this time, the s-word is not coming from Quebec, but Alberta.

The race to replace Jason Kenney is on.

And former Wildrose leader Danielle Smith is making the sovereignty issue a centrepiece of her campaign.

The gist of her proposal is a plan for the Alberta legislature to systematically refuse to uphold or enforce any federal law or policy that runs counter to Alberta’s interests.

Multiple legal experts have jumped in to claim the law would plunge the province into a legal quagmire and create an uncertain political climate which would be bad for business.

Smith doesn’t mind. The proponents of the original bill, the Alberta Sovereignty Act, appear to want legal chaos. Called the Free Alberta Strategy, the group’s leader Rob Anderson predicts the adoption of such a law will trigger a constitutional crisis.

He also thinks that something good will come out of the crisis that sovereignty legislation will provoke.

He hasn’t explained the positives in any detail, but Smith dismissed the claims of chaos, saying she is a person who believes in asking for “forgiveness rather than permission.”

Chaos is just what Anderson and his supporters want.

And votes are what Smith is looking for. She must believe that appealing to Tory extremists will differentiate her from other candidates in the running.

According to a Léger poll published last week, Smith is running a few points behind Brian Jean, former Wildrose Party leader who was behind the ousting of Kenney. The third most popular candidate is Kenney’s finance minister, Travis Toews, who is seen as the choice of the party establishment. That could be more of a curse than a blessing. The Léger poll focused on which candidate was most popular with the general public, but the leadership candidates are more focused on party members’ support.

Using her first day as an official candidate to endorse the sovereignty legislation, Smith is carving out a position that she hopes will separate her from the rest of the pack.

Opponent Jean stepped in quickly to douse the sovereignty fire, reiterating his support for the “rule of law” without which “you head toward tyranny.”

Smith obviously believes the controversy is worth the criticism.

Meanwhile, federal Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre has made hay by focusing on controversial issues like firing the Bank of Canada governor and replacing currency with bitcoin as the Canadian money of choice.

Most economists scoff at the Poilievre plan, but it won’t be the economists who could put him in office.

Instead, he is reaching out to the anti-government members of his party who are crowding the right wing.

And that is the same cohort that Smith is going for. She shares Wildrose’s right-wing credentials with Jean.

But she needs a platform that will clearly differentiate the two.

And it seems like she has found it.

As long as the Liberals are in power in Ottawa, there will be plenty of reasons why the United Conservative Party will want to turn its back on the federation.

Managing the challenge of climate change and fossil fuel extraction is tricky, and even after the federal government purchased a pipeline, the oilpatch was not satisfied.

But when a Conservative government comes to power in Ottawa, the Alberta sovereigntists may find themselves in the same political dilemma.

Sometimes national decisions must be made in the nation’s best interest.

No politician in their right mind would want to turn their back on any province, but on a global issue like climate change, domestic oil production is obviously affected.

The seeds of separation were sown in Alberta many years ago, but no one really expected the mainstream Conservative party to embrace them.

However, there is a good chance that Smith’s strategy will work and she will succeed in differentiating her candidacy from Jean and Toews.

If she does, the fragility of the federation will be centre stage once again.

Perhaps future federal governments should focus on the things that bring us together.

Just recently the premiers all demanded more cash for health care while at the same time the majority of health ministries don’t even share data points on common issues like maternal mortality and cancer.

Provincial management of our long-term care facilities has been disastrous. Making common cause in that area is something that most Canadians, not politicians, would support.

With sovereignty looming as a potential Alberta issue, it is time for the federal government to engage in Canadian nation building.

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