Alberta Premier Danielle Smith signalled early that she would be following the Quebec separatist path of obfuscating the facts and promising what she cannot deliver. 

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 12, 2025.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wants a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada.

Sound confusing? It is.

But confusion is the only way separatists can make their case to leave Canada. The last time the country faced a referendum was when the Parti Québécois asked Quebecers to endorse the negotiation of a better deal with Canada, and if that failed, to separate. They told Quebecers that under separation they would still be able to negotiate the use of Canadian money, border access, and military support, all of which were patently false.

Truth doesn’t matter when you are trying to break up a country.

Smith signalled early that she would be following the Quebec separatist path of obfuscating the facts and promising what she cannot deliver.

The premier said it was a sheer coincidence that she launched her new referendum rules the day after Canadians decide to elect a Liberal government under the leadership of Albertan Mark Carney.

Opponents bristled when Carney self-identified as an Albertan, even though the vast majority of his youth was spent in Edmonton.

His background is similar to that of Pierre Poilievre, who also spent his youth in Alberta and only moved to Ottawa to work in politics.

Now that Poilievre has been defeated in his own riding, he is being welcomed back to Alberta as a native son. Somehow the same open arms don’t apply to Carney.

Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning set the stage for the Smith referendum launch when he threatened during the election that a vote for the Liberals would prompt a separatist movement in the West.

Alberta separatists keep referring to the West, but they are hard-pressed to defend that case as Liberals managed to garner the largest popular vote in British Columbia.

The West, like the rest of the country, is not a homogeneous mass. Alberta is not a homogeneous mass. Depending on which pollster runs the survey, between 70 and 80 per cent of Albertans do not want to leave Canada.

But the 20 to 30 per cent who do are largely followers of the party that Smith is leading. And while her government is mired in an RCMP investigation into the awarding of health contracts, a referendum debate takes attention away from internal governance problems.

Smith has already lost one cabinet minister to the health-care contracts scandal. Peter Guthrie resigned from cabinet after claims that a member of the premier’s staff interfered in the awarding of health privatization contracts.

Since his resignation, Guthrie has been turfed from the United Conservative Party of Alberta. Alberta’s current justice minister has also been linked to the scandal as news reports revealed last week that Minister Mickey Amery is related to the health investor under investigation.

Amery is also the deputy House leader, and told The Globe and Mail that he was related by marriage to investor Sam Mraiche, who is being sued and is the subject of multiple investigations, including by the provincial auditor general.

Guthrie released an open letter last month, accusing the premier of both ruining electoral chances for federal Conservatives, and fudging her position on separation.

Smith reverted back to the trope that she believes in a sovereign Alberta in a united Canada.

Now that Poilievre will soon be running for a seat in Alberta, it will be interesting to see how he navigates the separation question.

The FU crowd following him from rally to rally are likely the major supporters of a move to leave Canada and join the United States.

By expressing his strong support for Canada, Poilievre risks losing their support. The anti-vaxxers are already unhappy because they feel that Poilievre did not attack the courts for hearing the cases against occupation organizers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber.

During the federal election campaign, Lich was critical of Poilievre, claiming he withdrew his support. However, Poilievre’s disastrous 4,000 vote loss in his long-held riding of Carleton, Ont., was largely prompted by his earlier decision to promote occupiers at the expense of his own constituents. That choice, and the indefatigable work of Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy over the past two years, led to the shocking loss of a seat that Poilievre had held for two decades.

In the upcoming Alberta byelection, Poilievre will have to navigate the separation roadmap laid out by Smith.

The premier continually claims to believe in Canada, but she moved recently to lower the bar for referendums, and permit referendum funding by unions and corporations.

Poilievre will have to be clear in his support for Canada.

No sovereignty-association allowed.

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

By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on October 8, 2018.

The phrase was coined by retiring premier Philippe Couillard on the eve of the worst defeat in the history of the Quebec Liberal Party by CAQ Leader Philippe Couillard. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade and courtesy of Flickr

OTTAWA—Incumbent syndrome is an affliction sweeping across the country. The phrase was coined by retiring premier Philippe Couillard on the eve of the worst defeat in the history of the Quebec Liberal Party.

His party faced an unstoppable wave, and despite outward claims of optimism, Couillard and his team saw it coming.

Just like the movement for change in Ontario and New Brunswick, once the wave takes hold, there is nothing an incumbent can do to stop it.

Therein lies a message for the federal Liberals as they prepare for the next election.

Unlike Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the outgoing Quebec premier had plenty of advance notice of his party’s plunge in popularity.

Having inherited a province in deep economic trouble, Couillard’s first two years included an austerity plan that many Quebecers found hard to swallow. In addition, the premier himself was not an emotive political leader. Many felt he was too cold and aloof to really connect with the people. Quebecers appreciate passion, and they reward it at the polls.

But in the months leading up to last week’s vote, the Liberals were polling in the twenties. Despite an upward bump in the final weeks, the outcome was never really in doubt.

Most polls predicted a much tighter race but Quebecers did what they usually do. They voted en masse, and the collective decision was a ballot for change.

Voters threw all the bums out, including the deliverance of a potential death blow to the Parti Québécois, denied party status for the first time in history.

Couillard looked positively relieved when he took to the stage with a graceful concession speech on election night.

If he looked relieved, PQ leader Jean-François Lisée appeared positively shell-shocked. So complete was the separatist party’s repudiation that Lisée lost his own seat to upstart Quebec Solidaire candidate and former fellow journalist Vincent Marissal.

The QS rise mirrored the fall of the PQ, breeding a rivalry that will be hard to bridge in the near future. Even if a fusion of the two parties were possible, political support for sovereignty has bottomed out.

Coalition Avenir Quebec winner François Legault was inclusive and positive in victory, pledging to work with all Quebecers and reaffirming his commitment to the place of Quebec within Canada.

The olive branch Legault held out was an important message of economic and social stability. Legault’s political career has been chequered at best, but he has a solid reputation as a successful business leader who understands the importance of constancy to a strong economy. And Couillard delivered him a strong economy in spades.

Not that the Liberals got any credit for it.

Coming from medicine, Couillard probably had no idea that the confidence we bestow on doctors will never translate into political gratitude.

Who can blame the man for being a little confused?

He delivered the province from a heavy debt load and attracted new investment and economic growth to take Quebec from the back of the Canadian pack to the front.

And his thanks was a collective voter decision to throw him out in favour of a party that did not even exist seven years ago.

To be fair, the warning bells sounding for Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick Liberals are not currently tolling for the federal party.

Trudeau’s success in bringing home a new free trade arrangement for North America may actually help him dodge the change bullet.

There is no clear alternative in the wings. The Conservative leader is running television advertisements which sound like a casting call for Father Knows Best.

Although the focus of the ad is Andrew Scheer’s mother, his dull intonation is that of an old man in a young person’s body. The Harper lite label is not going away any time soon.

Federal Liberals are also currently benefitting from the lack of New Democratic Party lift-off via their new leader, Jagmeet Singh.

However, Singh is the new kid on the block and a positive election campaign could position him to represent change in the same way it helped Trudeau the last time out.

After a strong debate performance, the prime minister vaulted from third to first place because he best represented generational change.

That playbook is spent so the Liberal brain trust will have to come up with a new way of making Trudeau become the voice for another new change. Otherwise, the weight of incumbency could drag the party down.

In this day and age, the status quo is death in politics.

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