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.

There has to be a reasonable way for elected representatives to receive police protection when necessary.

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

OTTAWA—Former energy minister Marc Lalonde used to be accompanied by armed guards when he visited Alberta back in 1980.

As the minister responsible for the introduction of the National Energy Program, he and then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau were hated by many Albertans.

“Let the eastern bastards freeze in the dark” was a popular Alberta bumper sticker in the seventies.

Stephen Harper, in his pre-prime ministerial days, advocated for a firewall around Alberta, including a withdrawal from Medicare and the Canada Pension Plan, and replacement of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by a provincial force.

Today, a major candidate for the United Conservative Party leadership is calling for Alberta sovereignty.

All this animus is not the result of social media or a twisted citizen. It is a political strategy practiced by some politicians to gain favour with constituents.

Hate sells. Just ask Donald Trump. Divisive campaign slogans drive votes. And if you can convince citizens that a politician from another party is an interloper, that is a guaranteed vote in your corner.

It may be a little rich for politicians who specialize in division to disavow the traitorous and misogynistic claims of an Albertan couple attacking Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Dog whistle politics sends a message out to ordinary citizens. The message is simple: it is okay to attack a politician from another province or party because they are not one of us. They are enemies out to plunder our fields and steal our oil.

Ironically, Freeland was born in Alberta.

As for the misogynistic slur directed at the minister, that should come as no surprise.

The good news about social media is that people can now be filmed saying horrible things, and risk being exposed for the miscreants that they are.

But the content is nothing new.

I was called a slut in the House of Commons. And that didn’t come from a random passerby, the insult was from the mouth of another Member of Parliament in the middle of a heated debate.

I was stalked by a constituent who had already been arrested for attacking a journalist. He entered Hamilton City Hall with a magazine bearing the image of a soldier carrying an Uzi, and slammed it on my mother’s desk. She was an alderman at the time, and he swore at her, and said that was the gun he was going to use to kill me.

I called the RCMP, which was responsible for ministerial protective details. Its local detachment was closed for the weekend, so early the next week, an officer got in touch to discourage me from pressing charges, claiming this action was clearly only the work of one crazy person.

I insisted, and when charges were laid, it was discovered that the individual had already stabbed a journalist.

Regular death threats, and a brick through my office window were common. My provincial counterpart, New Democrat Bob Mackenzie, suffered the firebombing of his office. The perpetrator, an angry constituent, was never arrested.

Those incidents occurred in one riding in one city in Canada.

Threats to politicians are nothing new. It will only be a matter of time before someone’s verbal attacks go deadly.

The government has ordered a review of Freeland’s security. But it should actually undertake a review of security measures for all Members of Parliament, especially when they are outside of Ottawa. Round-the-clock security may not be the answer, but there has to be a reasonable way for elected representatives to receive police protection when necessary.

An angry constituent can quickly turn into a dangerous constituent.

And the level of respect that used to be afforded politicians of all political stripes has gone by the wayside.

People think nothing of parading a Fuck Trudeau poster in their truck window or on their property. That is not against the law, but violent language can lead to violence.

The number of Canadians embracing the rhetoric of the Ottawa anti-vaxx occupiers is truly disturbing. Those politicians who align themselves with anti-democracy movements are also contributing to the problem.

Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre characterized the Freeland attack as “unacceptable” and said he has hired a private security firm to protect his wife from social media attacks.

But Poilievre’s whole campaign has been based on the same dynamic of people versus elites.

With the advent of social media, everyone is a critic. Civil discourse is past history.

But politicians who use venom as their tool of choice must bear some of the responsibility.

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.

Instead of trying to go it alone, provinces are stronger when they work together.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 27, 2020.

OTTAWA—The death of separatism is an unintended outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic.

For the first time in my memory, provincial governments are looking to the federal government as more than just a cash machine.

They are actually working together, pooling resources and information in an effort to fight the spread of a pandemic that knows no borders.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has been positively glowing in his exhortations for partners across the country to work together.

While announcing the redistribution of excess Alberta personal protective equipment, the premier was effusively collegial.

It was a far cry from only a few short months ago, when Kenney was lauding the Wexit movement for shining a light on Alberta’s oil troubles.

Premiers across the country have been working together with the prime minister to solve the common problem of access to COVID-fighting information, protective equipment and health care human resource shortages.

Without a scintilla of criticism, the Quebec government called in the Canadian military to supplement the shortage of personnel in the province’s long-term care facilities.

Pre-pandemic, a similar move would have prompted a howl from those separatists who think Quebec’s strength lies in going it alone.

The pandemic also gives us a better picture of the shared benefits of acting as a strong team. Compare the infection and death rates in our country to those in the United States, and it is abundantly clear that a national, public health-care system is a better weapon against an anonymous virus than the hodgepodge of medical supports available south of the border.

At press time the American death rate was 40 times higher than Canada’s, with only ten times the population.

So, one lesson has been learned from our time together in collective self-isolation. Canada works better as a country when we all work together.

On the domestic level, we have an oversight of just what is working and what is not.

The death rate in Quebec is almost double that of Ontario and the gold standard bearer for COVID containment is the province of British Columbia.

With a population of more than five million people, the province has suffered fewer than 100 COVID-related deaths. Quebec’s population is almost 8.5 million, but their death rate is 11 times greater than that of B.C.

Pandemic post-mortems will undoubtedly delve deeply into the reasons for the mortality discrepancies among different provinces.

Some of the provincial differences are self-evident.

The first, and probably most significant, was the difference in the date of spring break between Quebec and British Columbia.

Quebec’s break was in early March, at a time when the ferocity of the virus was not yet fully understood by politicians.

Self-distancing had not yet started, and Quebecers brought the virus back home with a vengeance.

In the case of British Columbia, it was the latest school recess in the country, and by the time break-week arrived, the province had already clamped down on travel, effectively limiting the viral path.

Provinces also have different regimes managing their long-term care facilities.

British Columbia did not allow personal service workers to operate in more than one nursing home.

That regulation is cited as one of the reasons that the rapid spread of COVID-19 in Ontario and Quebec homes was not replicated in British Columbia.

During the pandemic, Ontario and Quebec have modified their regulations, but the issue of health workers’ pay has not been addressed in kind.

Most health care aides would love to work in one facility only. But the companies that manage many of these facilities for government focus on hiring part-time workers to keep their costs down.

Discussion is ensuing about topping up the pay in these low-wage high-risk health environments, but that is only part of the problem.

The other part is the lack of government oversight into what is actually happening in nursing homes.

Quebec Premier François Legault is promising a fulsome investigation into the deplorable situation in some of the homes in his province. His effective communication skills managed to build public confidence early in the crisis, but the widespread number of deaths in long-term care homes has been eroding his credibility.

Ontario cut the number of inspections in its homes to only nine of 626 homes last year, with the lack of oversight partly responsible for inspection spread. Three years ago, all facilities were inspected annually.

The post-mortem will spawn serious changes to disparate long-term care regimes.

Instead of trying to go it alone, provinces are stronger when they work together.

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

The bottom line is that when you are literally one turkey dinner away from the vote, the last thing Andrew Scheer needs is public speculation about who will replace him when he loses.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 14, 2019.

OTTAWA—When a party starts public rumination about a new leader, it usually means it knows something the rest of us don’t.

The Globe and Mail’s front-page story last week about Peter MacKay’s potential move to replace Andrew Scheer could not have come at a worse time.

Canadians were chowing down on turkey and politics on the weekend, and families will likely be discussing differing viewpoints on the campaign and which party to support.

Some people like to vote for the party they think is going to win. Unless they are political ideologues, most people do not like to throw a vote away on a party that looks as though it is headed for defeat.

That’s why Elizabeth May’s retort during the last debate was the most devastating zinger of all, notwithstanding public spin on how Jagmeet Singh’s “Mr. Delay and Mr. Deny” quip posted the win.

May affirmed to the whole country that Scheer would not be prime minister, and when he protested, she offered to bet him on it.

If looks could kill, Scheer’s glare would have lasered May in half. But his own people must be giving him some of the same distressing numbers that May is privy to.

The media have been continually repeating that because of the closeness of the vote, the election is too close to call.

But for the past month, on any given day, the Liberals have been leading the Tories in seat count by at least 20 ridings.

The Globe and Mail’s front-page story on Oct. 10 about Peter MacKay’s potential move to replace Andrew Scheer could not have come at a worse time, writes Sheila Copps.

So even polling means a guaranteed Liberal win is in the offing for a week Monday. The Conservative leader’s own numbers are so strong in Alberta, and the Prairies, that anything close to a tie in popular vote means Scheer has zero chance of forming the government.

MacKay’s people must have made that calculation based on the party’s dismal numbers in Atlantic Canada. Notwithstanding the retirement of three popular Liberal incumbents, it looks like Nova Scotia is heading for a second clean sweep for the Grits.

There are similar possibilities in Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. The only Atlantic province that appears to provide any hope for the Conservatives is New Brunswick, where the party is leading in almost half the seats. Some of them have been Conservative since Confederation except for the last election.

MacKay may also have been a little irked at the amount of ink that has been spilled in covering the Ontario campaign appearances of Alberta Premier Jason Kenney.

Globe columnist Konrad Yakabuski penned a piece last week, musing about how different the federal campaign would have been with Kenney at the Conservative helm.

Scheer did not join Kenney during his Ontario campaign swing, probably realizing that Kenney would overshadow him, making Scheer look weak.

The MacKay Globe story takes this potential East-West rivalry to a new level. It also sets the stage for a nasty internal battle between social conservatives, and any progressives who might be left in the Conservative Party.

After all, MacKay was a former Progressive Conservative when Kenney was happily pounding away at Reform Party and Alliance alienation themes.

Kenney has continued playing the alienation card hard as premier, even suggesting that Canadian unity could be at risk if the Liberals are re-elected.

The only potential hiccup in a Kenney return to the national scene is the current RCMP investigation into identity fraud in the team Kenney effort to merge the Alberta Progressive Conservative and Wild Rose parties into one United Conservative Party.

Five Calgary-area ministers in the Kenney government have been interviewed by the RCMP in connection with alleged fraudulent activities.

Last December, former Kenney organizer Tariq Chaudhry swore an affidavit with the office of the Alberta elections commissioner alleging irregularities. Chaudhry alleges he spent $27,000 on events and memberships for which Kenney personally promised a reimbursement that never came.

In a leadership race, it is not legal for someone else to pay for a party membership. Kenney has publicly mused about cutting the commission’s investigation budget in an upcoming round of belt-tightening measures.

Kenney’s current halo could well be tarnished by the time a national Conservative leadership rolls around.

And eastern Canadian party members might want to support a leader whose popularity extends beyond the oil patch.

The foregoing is entirely speculative but the bottom line is that when you are literally one turkey dinner away from the vote, the last thing Scheer needs is public speculation about who will replace him when he loses.

This campaign has been getting odder by the day.

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