Liberals are positioned to fight Donald Trump. Thanks to Alberta’s premier, the Conservatives seem to be ‘in sync’ with him.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on March 31, 2025.

OTTAWA—With friends like Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre needs no enemies.

In the first week of a very short federal election campaign, Smith managed to solidify the ballot question in the Liberals’ favour.

Her major gaffe involved an intervention with the White House, asking American officials to delay tariffs until after the election because that would help Poilievre. Smith stated Poilievre was “in sync” with U.S. President Donald Trump.

All this was recorded in an interview Smith gave to Breitbart, a right-wing podcast that’s been advocating a constitutional amendment to make Trump president for life.

Instead of apologizing for foreign interference in an election, when confronted, Smith simply doubled down and claimed this was her lobbying effort for Canada.

The Alberta New Democrats did not agree, organizing the unveiling of a Canada flag in front of the Alberta legislature to underscore their belief in our country.

Smith added insult to injury by flying to Florida on March 27 to headline an extremist American fundraiser for an Islamophobic group that, according to Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi, denies the history of slavery.

Smith was set to share the stage with Ben Shapiro, who has called Canada “a silly country” and the “Puerto Rico of the North.” Shapiro believes that Canada should be annexed as the 51st state without the right to vote.

Despite multiple requests to cancel her trip, Smith spoke in the Alberta legislature where she blamed the controversy on Liberals because the federal government had asked premiers to join in an all-in tariff lobbying effort.

Smith claimed the opposition to her Florida fundraiser came from eastern Canadian media elites, and the Liberals and New Democrats. She insisted that Albertans supported her.

The more she speaks out, the more Canadians learn about the deep ties between Canada’s Conservatives and MAGA supporters south of the border.

With the American vice-president joining his wife on an uninvited trip to Greenland, Canadians are taking the annexation threat very seriously.

Trump has refused to rule out the use of force to take over the island, but the local appetite for annexation is close to zero.

In the recent election, only one per cent of Greenland voters supported a party that promoted unification discussions. That party was the only one that did not get a single seat in parliament.

Back in this country, the ballot question for the April 28 election appears to be a vote on which leader is best placed to fight American tariffs and annexation.

Poilievre is trying to portray himself as the person with the chops to fight Trump’s tariffs, but quisling Smith’s cosy relationship with extremist Trump supporters is killing that narrative. Smith’s position is not lost on Canadian voters, and has helped to send Tory polling numbers downward.

The turnaround for the Liberals has been nothing short of astonishing. It is so positive that even a former Nova Scotia minister who left politics for “family reasons” made a surprise decision to return. Sean Fraser said last week it was a personal request from the leader that made him reverse his retirement decision, even though a successor for his riding nomination had already been chosen.

Other star candidates like a former mayor of Vancouver, the former acting mayor of Toronto, and well-known journalists Evan Solomon and Anthony Germain have jumped into the fray for the Liberals as the party’s popularity continues to rise.

The first week of the campaign has Liberals on a high.

Polling numbers across multiple platforms show that Prime Minister Mark Carney has eliminated Poilievre’s lead, and has moved to top spot.

The NDP has felt the pain of this Liberal swing because polls show leader Jagmeet Singh moving to single digits.

As Trump continues to threaten more tariffs and annexation, Liberal numbers continue to rise. Carney is viewed as the best choice to stare down the American president.

When it comes to the question of affordability, the Conservative leader fares best.

But it looks as though the ballot question will be who is best equipped to fight the United States. Carney’s massive resumé beats Poilievre’s by a mile.

Trump just added 25-per-cent tariffs to the automobile sector, and that is a huge blow to the Canadian economy.

As a pre-emptive strike, Carney announced a plan to fight the tariffs with a $2-billion auto industry fund the morning before Trump’s announcement. Poilievre was campaigning on tax cuts for seniors.

Liberals are positioned to fight Trump. Thanks to Smith, Tories seem to be in tight with him.

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 June 19, 2023.

OTTAWA—A Conservative private member’s attempt to revive the abortion debate by conferring unique legal status on pregnant women was clobbered in the House last week.

The governing Liberals united with New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-311 by almost a two-to-one margin.

Opponents of the bill introduced by Saskatchewan Conservative MP Cathay Wagantall numbered 205. Supporters mustered only 113 votes.

Under most circumstances, that should be the end of the story. But with the Conservatives leading in national public opinion polls, and their strong support for the bill, it will only be a matter of time before the question of the legal status of fetuses ends up being litigated when a future Wagantall bill is passed.

Witness the debate concerning the Violence Against Pregnant Women Act in Parliament to understand why this legislation could represent a threat to legal abortions in the country.

The United States is already experiencing a wave of anti-women and anti-gay legislation as a result of a Supreme Court ruling that put legal abortions at risk in parts of their country.

Canadian pundits said this could not happen here, but another item in the news last week paints a different picture.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith named her cabinet, including a health minister with a strong bias against legal abortions. Adriana LaGrange served as education minister in the United Conservative Party government of former premier Jason Kenney. In that role, she presided over one of the largest public sector cuts in Alberta history, firing 20,000 educational assistants, substitute teachers, bus drivers and maintenance staff.

With LaGrange at the helm and Smith’s well-documented ruminations on private medicine, it likely won’t be too long before the new government moves to start charging for more health services.

Even more concerning is the minister’s opposition to legal abortion in the province. Her maiden speech in the Alberta legislature four years ago was entitled, “The lord leads me where he needs me.”

While she was a school trustee, LaGrange served on the provincial board of Alberta Pro-Life. In her first provincial election, she was backed by RightNow, an activist anti-abortion organization.

As education minister, LaGrange introduced a controversial piece of legislation requiring parental notification when any student joined a gay-straight alliance club. The original protection from parental notification was designed to protect those students who could face danger if their parents became aware of their sexual orientation. Students were also denied the right to use the word ‘gay’ or ‘queer’ in describing after-school clubs, and administrators were permitted to keep their inclusivity policies secret.

If LaGrange was controversial in education, there is no reason to think she won’t repeat that history in health. Those who think that access to abortion is safe across the country need to face facts.

Wagantall in Saskatchewan and LaGrange in Alberta are only the tip of the iceberg. When the bill on pregnant women was introduced, the Conservative party was pretty much unanimous in support, starting with the leader.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has said that he will not introduce legislation on abortion, but he has also stated that other members of his caucus are free to do so.

He is the only leader ambivalent about his support for the LGBTQ2S+ communities, refusing to attend Pride parades or showing visible support for those struggling with a wave of homophobia across the country.

With a raucous parliamentary session coming to close, Poilievre’s popularity continues to outstrip that of the governing Liberals.

Abacus Data released a poll last week in which 35 per cent of the respondents said they would vote Tory if an election were held today. That number had increased three percentage points since the previous month, while the Liberals were down two points at 28 per cent.

The appetite for electoral change is there and the Conservatives are the beneficiaries. Approximately 80 per cent of those polled said it is time for a change in government.

Polls move, and most would agree that both Poilievre and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are stellar campaigners. The fight may come right down to the wire in a tight election in 2025 (or whenever it happens).

If there is a Conservative majority win, do not be surprised if limitations on women’s reproductive rights and rights for those in the gay community resurface.

Premier Smith did not hide her intention to move toward health privatization.

Her party has many abortion opponents sitting in the legislature. A key one is now occupying the health minister’s chair.

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 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.

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.

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.

After devoting 11 years to federal politics, the Calgary-Nose Hill Member of Parliament would be a shoo-in for a senior position if Brown were to win the leadership. Michelle Rempel Garner would likely have been in contention as well if Jean Charest were victorious, as he could win the leadership only with the support of the Brown team.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on June 20, 2022.

OTTAWA—Michelle Rempel Garner must be reading the tea leaves.

She was running the federal Conservative leadership campaign for Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown.

And mid-way through the campaign, the Twitter-verse has been filled with stories that she will likely be leaving federal politics to run for the top job of Alberta’s United Conservative Party.

Using Twitter as her preferred platform, Rempel Garner announced last week that she was stepping down as Brown campaign co-chair to give “serious consideration” to a provincial leadership bid.

“I owe it to Albertans to give this critical decision my full and complete attention,” she wrote on Twitter.

Rempel Garner went on to say that “I continue to be inspired by the optimism of Albertans, who have been through much but remain hopeful. We are—and always have been—worth fighting for. I’ll have more to say soon. Giddyup.”

In reality, Garner Rempel could pursue twin goals, a provincial leadership race along with the co-chairing responsibilities for her chosen leadership candidate.

There is more than a month separating the federal conclusion and the provincial vote, and much of the work on both fronts is carried out via internet and Zoom.

The sale of Conservative memberships is closed on the federal scene, so there is no need to travel extensively to recruit new members.

Instead, the campaign is entering the persuasion stage, where the candidates themselves need to keep travelling in order to attract undecided voters or switch those who have committed to an opponent.

Her decision to step aside comes as the final membership numbers place Pierre Poilievre in an unbeatable position. His campaign claims to have sold double the number of memberships of the Brown team.

Rempel Garner’s withdrawal is a blow to the Brampton mayor’s leadership bid, but not an unexpected turn of events.

The Alberta Member of Parliament is a proud, gun-toting Albertan and many observers feel her place in a provincial race would be as front-runner.

As for Brown, Jean Charest and other federal leadership candidates, the membership deadline confirmed the Poilievre front-runner status.

He is also extremely popular with current Conservative voters. Last week’s Léger poll claimed his support among Tory voters is almost triple that of his closest rival, Charest.

Poilievre was the choice of 44 per cent of Tory supporters while his nearest challenger, former Quebec premier Charest, polled at just 14 per cent. Brown was in the single digits at four per cent, clearly a signal that he has not resonated with the group he needs to win. Those numbers are almost reversed when it comes to polling opinions of Liberals and New Democrats. They believe Charest would be the best Tory leader. Charest polled 25 per cent support from Liberal and NDP supporters, while Brown polled at 11 per cent. Front-runner Poilievre garnered only six per cent support from those who vote Liberal or NDP.

But he doesn’t need those voters to win the leadership.

He only needs Tories. And Rempel Garner’s early departure is a clear signal that he is going to get them.

After devoting 11 years to federal politics, the Calgary-Nose Hill Member of Parliament would be a shoo-in for a senior position if Brown were to win the leadership. She would likely have been in contention as well if Charest were victorious, as he could win the leadership only with the support of the Brown team.

As for Poilievre, she has already burned that bridge. Two months ago, Rempel Garner took to the internet to call out Poilievre as a “fringe party on the right” leader and she went on to say “we can’t go through another leadership with the result being somebody who is unelectable.”

But it appears as though that is exactly what her party is going to do. Two Brown supporters in the caucus recently defected to Poilievre and the departure of Rempel Garner leaves Brown with only one Member of Parliament supporting his leadership.

Poilievre has 56 MPs supporting his candidacy, so the list of those seeking senior positions on his team is very long and there won’t be any room for Garner Rempel in the event the front-runner wins.

So, the timing for Garner Rempel to switch to provincial politics is perfect. She is well-known in Alberta and currently represents one of the most Conservative ridings in the country.

She will enter a crowded field of candidates, but her background and experience could reward her with an easy win. Her toughest job will then be building those Conservative bridges back.

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

Jason Kenney’s departure was unexpected as he had gathered together a group of key supporters for what was expected to be a victory celebration.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on May 23, 2022.

OTTAWA—Internal party warfare can be fatal.

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney eked out a bare majority in a party vote on his leadership, only to be forced out by advisers’ pressure.

Kenney’s departure was unexpected as he had gathered together a group of key supporters for what was expected to be a victory celebration.

Days before the United Conservative Party mail-in vote was announced, Kenney claimed that he would stay on if he secured a single-vote majority.

A large gathering of supporters was expecting to see Kenney continue in the job, but instead, he dropped a bombshell last Wednesday night.

In the end, the pressure inside his own party was just too great, so Kenney decided to step down after 48.6 per cent of UCP review voters said they wanted him out.

Meanwhile, the internal fight in the federal Conservative party gets more bitter by the day. Last week, saw candidate slagging candidate, and supporters’ slagging each other.

The climate got so difficult that former finance minister Ed Fast felt compelled to quit his job as Conservative caucus finance critic in opposition to Pierre Poilievre’s promise to fire the governor of the Bank of Canada.

Claims of party-based racism and sleazy politics were traded as candidate Patrick Brown accused Poilievre of aligning with racists in his support of the trucker occupation on Parliament Hill.

Brown supporter, Michelle Rempel-Garner weighed in on the racism theme, accusing Poilievre of being too slow to condemn the race-based slaughter south of the border in Buffalo.

Brown also attacked Poilievre supporters for allegedly criticizing his campaign’s push to sell memberships to racialized minorities.

The past week in the Conservative party has seen the temperature increase as the end of the membership sale period looms.

The federal party Twitter feed was vitriolic, with candidates lining up to accuse each other of stoking the flames of racism. In a media interview, Poilievre promoted his use of “Anglo-Saxon” language, a lift from white supremacists’ vocabulary.

Compare federal Tory accusations to the civilized official Ontario election debate last week. Hosted by TVO’s Steve Paikin and Althia Raj of The Toronto Star, the debate was positively benign in comparison.

Candidates respected rules and time limits. They were careful to attack their opponents on policies, not personalities.

New Democratic Party Leader Andrea Horwath delivered a surprisingly listless performance, absent her usual excellent communication skills.

Later in the week, she joined Ontario Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner with a diagnosis of COVID. Both were forced into virtual campaigns in the final stretch of the election.

While the NDP leader flagged, the Green leader shone in the debate. Schreiner was personable, articulate and knowledgeable, particularly on climate change issues.

Premier Doug Ford carried out his usual, aw shucks schtick, claiming friendship with everyone on the podium and defending government policies.

The most controversial was the Conservative promise of a $10-billion investment to build a highway which is not supported by any other leader.

In the last campaign, Ford promised a buck a beer in an attempt to reach out to the blue-collar cohort that was key to his victory.

This time, Ontario Liberal Leader Steven Del Duca promised a buck a bus ticket, vowing to take thousands of cars off the road by making public transit more affordable.

The Grit leader also promised to divert Ford’s $10-billion proposed road investment into education, repairing and building schools and cutting class sizes.

Horwath pitched an increase in the minimum wage, in direct contrast to Ford’s decision to abolish planned increases early in his term in office.

The NDP leader primarily focused on her base. But she took a direct hit when the premier claimed that unions were moving away from their traditional support for her party in favour of his re-election.

Ford’s strategy worked, with NDP support slipping after the debate.

That was good news for the Liberals because many anti-Ford voters want to rally behind the party that has the best chance to defeat the current government.

The latest six-point difference keeps Ford in the lead with just two weeks to go before voting day. But the 10-point difference between the Liberals and the New Democrats really favours a potential momentum shift to Del Duca.

As for internal Conservative struggles, on the federal level it is difficult to see how the angry differences among leadership camps of Poilievre, Charest and Brown can be healed in a post-campaign show of unity.

Centrist Conservatives may not elect a party leader.

But they hold the key to 24 Sussex.

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