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.

If you compare the Trump triumph in the United States to the storm circling Alberta Premier Danielle Smith because of judicial interference allegations, it is a contrast worth reviewing.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 10, 2023.

OTTAWA—Donald Trump’s felonious behaviour has vaulted him to the front of the pack as the Republican choice for president.

The rest of the world is left shaking its collective head, but the circus surrounding Trump’s shenanigans simply seems to ignite his base and strike fear in the rest of his party.

As of the indictment last week, it appears possible that a convicted felon could become the Republican nominee for president of the United States.

What is truly bizarre is that the Republican Party is the one that claims it is on the side of law and order. Yet the majority of the leadership is lining up behind the first former president to be indicted.

It is painful to see Senator Lindsey Graham grovelling at the altar of Trump, asking people to send money for Trump’s legal defence fund.

Trump’s team said that it had raised $8-million in the wake of the indictment announcement. That does not include money that will be made flogging prison t-shirts, caps and memorabilia.

According to press reports, an initial $4-million came in within the first 24 hours after charges were filed.

Media also reported that Trump was using a fake, photo-shopped “mugshot” as part of his fundraising package, although Trump did not actually take a mug shot during his booking and arraignment.

It is hard to fathom how anyone would donate a hard-earned penny to the Trump circus.

His speech at Mar-a-Lago following the Manhattan booking was unbelievable. Replete with lies and accusations against anyone and everyone, the former president really looked as though he had lost his marbles.

He also ignored court admonitions to refrain from making comments that would put anyone in danger.

Trump’s Florida allocution was a no-holds-barred attack not only on the prosecutor, but also the judge and members of their families.

Even Trump’s lawyers admitted outside the courthouse that they were incapable of shutting the man up. He and his son, Donald Trump Jr., continued their disproven allegations in speeches, social media, and on multiple platforms.

None of the above seems to have dampened Trump’s appeal to his base. The allegations have cast him as a political victim and actually encouraged a bump in his numbers among Republicans, at least in the short term.

Most commentators think last week’s hike will lose steam if other charges are laid.

But in the meantime, Trump’s status as a potential criminal president has made him ever more popular with voters in his party.

What is wrong with American Republicans? It is simply inexplicable.

If you compare the Trump triumph in the United States to the storm circling Alberta Premier Danielle Smith because of judicial interference allegations, it is a contrast worth reviewing.

Smith is limping into an election next month, badly wounded because of her own admission that she tried to get charges dropped for an anti-vax pastor and supporter.

Smith has been dogged by allegations ever since she, herself, stated publicly in January that she was in touch with Crown prosecutors over charges related to COVID-19 violations.

Smith subsequently walked back her claim, but last week, the CBC reported on a leaked video where Smith had promised a defendant that she asked prosecutors almost weekly about the charges.

Smith is now stating she will pursue legal action against the public broadcaster and is refusing to comment further on the issue.

Her election challenges started long before the alleged judicial indiscretion. But that interference really seems to have hurt her politically with her base.

That stands in stark contrast to the Trump trajectory.

There is no doubt that the allegations have damaged Smith politically. A Leger poll published last week had the United Conservative Party locked in a dead heat with Rachel Notley’s New Democrats in Calgary.

The NDP enjoyed a strong lead in Edmonton with the provincial numbers at 47 per cent for the NDP and 44 per cent for the UCP.

The Leger online poll of 1,001 voters was conducted even before any reports of the secret tape of Smith’s conversations.

The numbers are no slam-dunk for the New Democrats because their huge lead in Edmonton is balanced by a gigantic UCP lead in rural Alberta.

The number of seats outside cities mean that a UCP victory in rural ridings could negate Edmonton wins for the NDP.

Therefore, the battleground for the May 29 election is Calgary, where the parties are locked in a dead heat.

The allegations swirling around Smith have handed the electoral momentum to Notley. Unlike Republicans, Calgarians are unlikely to reward such behaviour.

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

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.

Alberta believes the best way to tackle climate change is to appoint a minister who knows nothing about it. How else to explain the chorus of criticism levelled at the prime minister for appointing Steven Guilbeault to the post?

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on November 1, 2021.

OTTAWA—Alberta believes the best way to tackle climate change is to appoint a minister who knows nothing about it.

How else to explain the chorus of criticism levelled at the prime minister for appointing Steven Guilbeault to the post?

By all accounts, the minister knows his stuff.

Prior to joining the Liberal government in 2019, Guilbeault founded Quebec environmental organization Equiterre in the aftermath of the 1993 Rio Earth Summit.

Rio was meant to be a political and populist call to arms, encouraging governments and citizens to begin the enormous work of saving the planet from self-imposed destruction.

Guilbeault, along with five other Quebecers, took the call to heart and founded an organization rebranded as Equiterre three years after receiving status as a not-for profit organization dedicated to sustainable and socially equitable living.

Guilbeault remained as a director after joining Greenpeace Canada in 1997. A quick study, he became Greenpeace’s Quebec bureau chief in 2000 and three years later organized their international climate campaign.

When all is said and done, Guilbeault has devoted most of his adult life to tackling climate change so it is certainly disingenuous for both Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and NDP Leader Rachel Notley to claim he is unsuited for the job, with the premier accusing him of a “radical agenda that would lead to mass unemployment.”

The electorate certainly gave the Liberals a mandate for radical action, with more than two-thirds voting for parties which promised major action on climate change.

Trudeau reinforced his intention to move aggressively on the climate file with Guilbeault’s appointment, and that of Jonathan Wilkinson to the energy portfolio. By naming Wilkinson as natural resources minister, Trudeau is creating a powerful duo to lead the way on Canada’s commitment to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets.

It is not going to be an easy task. If anything, the one risk Guilbeault faces is trying to do too much too soon with the possibility of losing cabinet support.

Guilbeault came into politics because of his commitment to environmental change, but governments never move as quickly as activists would like them to.

In the end, Guilbeault will have to swallow some of his ambition if he is to move on the agenda.

The fact that he has a committed environmentalist in the Natural Resources portfolio will be a huge asset. Historically, these energy and environment priorities have always clashed in the federal government.

But with the support of the prime minister as well, the trio will be able to chart the legacy piece that Trudeau is looking for.

The focus for Wilkinson will be on moving his department toward cleaner and more sustainable energies. That will be no small task, as NRCan has always seen itself as an oil and gas supporter.

I can speak from personal experience that the biggest block to our climate change commitments in preparation for the Kyoto Protocol did not come from other governments. They came from other ministries, with the natural resources minister lining up with the former finance minister to block any calls for a simple single digit reduction in greenhouse gases.

That was more than 25 years ago, and the political climate has changed dramatically.

With the exception of a few recalcitrant premiers, most Canadians are itching for real change to meet our climate change obligations.

So, Justin Trudeau can safely tell the world at COP 26 in Glasgow that Canada actually has a domestic plan to meet our reduction targets.

And with two committed ministers in the right portfolios, the chances of achieving those targets are possible.

Already scientists from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are calling on governments to do more.

A commitment to keep the hike in world temperature to l.5 degrees is only a starting point, and there will be pressure to do more.

However, it is still unclear whether China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia will even attend the conference. All three, and Australia, have refused thus far to increase their commitments to accelerate fossil fuel reduction targets.

Another anti-climate politician, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, continues to aggressively log the country’s rainforest, even though it is acting as a natural carbon sink, swallowing up global carbon dioxide emissions.

Even if Canada does its part, the chance for the world to come to grips with climate change really depends on many other major emitters.

Negotiators in Glasgow have two weeks to conclude a renewed set of global targets.

With Guilbeault and Wilkinson, the planet’s chances look brighter.

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 on Monday, April 23, 2018 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Politics can be a four-letter word. Last week that word was ugly.

Political disputes between Alberta and British Columbia and the opening salvos of the Ontario election left most spectators wondering how low politics could go.

The Western oil fight is particularly ugly because it involves two provinces whose leaders ostensibly share the same political values.

Both Alberta and British Columbia have rarely had a New Democratic premier at the helm, so one would think that the leaders would make a special effort at reconciliation.

But British Columbia Premier John Horgan didn’t even give his Alberta counterpart a head’s up when he yanked the rug out from under the Trans Mountain Pipeline, effectively dooming thousands of jobs and potential future investments in oil exploration in Canada.

His government hangs by a sliver, and that sliver is being supported by the Green Party, which believes the best way to wean the country off oil is to stop delivering it.

Well, they may get their wish.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, pictured on the Hill on April 15, 2018, after meeting with B.C. Premier John Horgan and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

Rachel Notley, embroiled in her own strongman battle with United Conservative provincial leader Jason Kenney, has signalled her intention to use all the tools at her disposal to pressure British Columbia. That includes legislation curtailing the shipment of fuel and oil to her neighbours on the West Coast.

The Canadian government is vowing not to pick fights but the energy minister has signalled introduction of new legislation to guarantee federal primacy over the project.

That proposed law, yet to be tabled, has caught the attention of the Quebec government, with Horgan ready to make common cause with Philippe Couillard in opposition to federal authority.

Horgan has qualified the legal proposal as “trampling on provincial rights” but says in the same breath that provinces are trying to establish those rights. That statement itself undermines his claim that British Columbia has wide-ranging authority over pipeline permitting.

And he is intent on bringing Quebec into the dispute, to buttress his view that provincial jurisdiction takes precedence in any discussion about pipelines.

Meanwhile, the company behind the Trans Mountain Pipeline, has given the politicians until May 31 to come to an agreement that will permit the $7.4-billion expansion to go ahead.

That deadline is literally one week before two other political events take centre stage. Ontario goes to the polls on June 7 and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau hosts the G-7 nations in the heart of Quebec on June 8 and 9.

Kinder Morgan had to know their deadline would put ultimate pressure for a solution on the national government.

Prime Minister Trudeau will be hosting leaders from key economic partners around the world, and sustainable development will be central to the economic discussion.

How to move away from a non-renewable fuel dependence in a country that is one of the top world producers of oil and gas is no mean feat.

It is one thing for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to heed the strong Green Party presence in her country.

She is not reaping royalties from oil and gas.

But the German economy is dependent on the success of Volkswagen and other key industrial partners, who have had problems with overstating environmental emission standards in automobiles.

No one is coming to the table with totally clean hands. But there is a lot more pressure on Trudeau to keep his environmental message on target while still supporting safe carriage of oil and gas products.

Pipelines are still the safest way to move product, and unless British Columbia wants to stop tourists from visiting its beautiful province, people will need gas to get there and oil to fuel business.

By the time the Charlevoix G-7 gathering takes place, the government may have already met the test of certainty sought by Kinder Morgan.

But the interprovincial tinderbox lit in the past week is not going to be snuffed out any time soon.

Meanwhile, Canada’s most populous province does not need to fight with anyone else. That slugfest is internal, with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Conservative leader Doug Ford mincing no words in their mutual mistrust.

According to Ford, most Liberals should be in jail, and according to Wynne, her opponent is in this race only for himself.

Both came out of their respective corners itching for a fight last week. The formal election call has not even been launched and already the tone is down and dirty. More dirty than down.

The only certainty in interprovincial relations is it will get worse before it gets better.

Uglier than last week.

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

OTTAWA—New Democratic Leader Tom Mulcair may have difficulty staying out of the numbers game. He is doing his best to avoid the trap, saying he will work to secure the support of all party members.

But Mulcair may not have a choice, with NDP Party President Rebecca Blaikie tossing around a challenge even more onerous than the one that sunk former Conservative leader, ousted prime minister Joe Clark.

When the party president cites a number, the die is cast. No one can blame Mulcair for staying away from the numbers game. Many before him have suffered from that fatal mistake.

But it also begs the question on the silent killer of sitting New Democrats in the last election. Why does it take 70 per cent of a party to affirm a leader and only fifty per cent to break up a country?

Mulcair’s orchestration of the Sherbrooke Declaration and the killing of the Clarity Act was a deadly electoral mistake in most of the country, except Quebec. It was the one error he did not even mention in recent interviews providing an autopsy of his own mistakes.

Mulcair’s biggest challenge will be to re-establish socialist credentials. The voting public may prefer the moderate middle. But the New Democratic Party base tilts definitely leftward.

Party insiders are not very happy about an election where their leader deliberately positioned the platform to the right of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

Mulcair acknowledges that mistake, saying it was his decision to play it safe, an electoral choice that turned out to be fatal.

He also says he has cleaned house. Some of his longest-serving allies have headed West to work for Premier Rachel Notley. That is hardly a demotion, but a recognition that those who have tasted the potential sweetness of power actually want to work in government.

Languishing for four more years in a rebuilding mode on the federal scene is certainly not as attractive as actually delivering policy today.

Mulcair has his own nemesis out in Alberta with former rival Brian Topp running the operation for Premier Notley and recruiting the castoffs from the good ship Mulcair.

They have a good three years to hone their governing skills in Alberta with the hope of coming back to be part of a winning national team in the next election.

Meanwhile, if Mulcair really wants to dig deep, he has to acknowledge a couple of flaws in his own post-election post mortem.

The leader put a tremendous amount of emphasis on his principled stand in favour of the niqab, pointing to insider polling that saw his party drop 20 points overnight. For sure the decision hurt, but the winning party also had the same position.

So reading too much into that call is not borne out by overall election results. Mulcair’s statements on the niqab were more pointed than those of Justin Trudeau. But his speaking style in general was more aggressive.

Trudeau ran a very positive campaign, while Mulcair admitted his lawyerly rational approach was not appreciated.

It goes deeper than that. And that is why the referendum question cannot be overlooked when New Democrats reflect on their choice for future leader. Mulcair was the architect of the Sherbrooke Declaration, which became his way of demonstrating to nationalist Quebecers that he was one of them. That is probably why they were so shocked to witness his support for multiculturalism by way of the niqab. They knew the Liberals were strong supporters of multiculturalism, so the Grit head-covering stance was expected.

But not so for Mulcair, who was supposed to be “one of them.” Nowhere was the nationalist streak more visible than when Mulcair attacked Trudeau’s father for his position on the War Measures Act.

The timing couldn’t have been worse, as it was the anniversary of Pierre Trudeau’s death, and Justin hit him right between the eyes on that, and on the number that Trudeau considered definitive for referendum purposes. Nine Supreme Court judges validated the Clarity Act and contradicted Mulcair.

Most anglophone Canadians who could remember supported Trudeau’s 1970 actions. By attacking him and by vowing to repeal the Clarity Act, Mulcair lost seats in Atlantic Canada and Ontario that otherwise might have survived the purge.

By refusing to reflect on the problem that he created with the Sherbrooke Declaration, Mulcair ignores a big factor in his defeat.

If it takes more than two-thirds of a party to affirm a leader, how can you not ask the same for a country?

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