Tantrum over Bill C-59 displays two key flaws of the UCP – no clue how to govern, or how to negotiate

Yesterday’s official tantrum over the rather weak and limited truth-in-environmental-advertising provision of Ottawa’s Bill C-59 by the triumvirate of Danielle Smith, Brian Jean, and Rebecca Schulz illustrates two troubling truths about the current version of the United Conservative Party.

First, the Smith Government knows how to campaign but has no clue how to govern. So all they do is campaign. 

Second, Alberta’s provincial government can give orders but is incapable of negotiating. It has no idea, in other words, how to function in a federation – a system of government that by its very definition requires constant negotiation and compromise.

So, if the UCP can’t win on the first pitch, it pitches a fit. 

Which is what has happened yesterday with the “Provincial Response to Bill C-59 Passing,” a “Statement from Premier Danielle Smith, Minister of Energy and Minerals Brian Jean and Environment and Protected Areas Minister Rebecca Schulz,” published on the government’s official website. 

No wonder the idea of separation from Canada and the devolution of Alberta into an authoritarian unitary petrostate appeals so much to the leading lights – if such a metaphor is appropriate to describe such an unilluminating bunch – of this sophomoric government. 

Say what you will about Jason Kenney, the founder of their benighted party, he at least had a sound grasp of how Parliamentary government worked, a degree of respect for the expertise of the civil service, and an understanding the basic principles of negotiating a compromise, even if like most of us he didn’t enjoy having to do it.

Not this bunch. They are capable of barking out orders and, when that doesn’t work for one reason or another, going full totalitarian. 

But lacking the power to make that stick with Parliament, there’s nothing left in their governance toolkit but a screeching meltdown like a toddler embarrassing his mother in a grocery aisle. 

In addition to being undignified, this is unlikely to be effective. 

Yesterday, the Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023, passed third reading in the Senate and now awaits Royal Assent. Lacking a way to direct Parliament like it can Alberta’s municipalities, the skills to negotiate with Ottawa, or the know-how to do anything but campaign against the Trudeau Government, we got a full-on tantrum instead.

The document is both childish and untruthful, although one has the feeling its signatories were so furious at not getting their way they may have ceased to comprehend the difference between facts and their fantasies. 

It begins: “The federal Liberal and NDP coalition has passed draconian legislation that will irreparably harm Canadian’s ability to hear the truth about the energy industry and Alberta’s successes in reducing global emissions.”

The only problems with this statement are that the Liberals and the NDP are not in a coalition, Bill C-59 is not draconian (on the contrary, its amendment to the Competition Act is too weak to be effective), and it will enhance the ability of Canadians to hear the truth about the energy industry. As for Alberta’s successes in reducing global emissions, a strong case can be made that they are largely fictional or aspirational. 

And that’s just the opening sentence. The statement goes on to accuse Ottawa of not being a willing partner to work with Alberta when the record suggests the opposite is true. It accuses Ottawa of demonizing the fossil fuel sector, also transparently false. 

“Bill C-59, when it receives royal assent, will prevent private entities from sharing truthful and evidence-based information that happens to oppose the extreme and untruthful oil and gas narrative of the federal NDP and Liberals,” it continues.

The problem with this, of course, is that, to the contrary, it will require them to provide evidence. As for the UCP narrative about the parties that support the bill, they are neither extreme nor untruthful, no matter how many times that baseless claim is repeated. 

I’m sure readers are starting to see a pattern here – an extreme and untruthful narrative, if you will. 

Indeed, this statement is so unhinged it borders at times on comedy. The bill “would appear to be part of an agenda to create chaos and uncertainty,” says a government whose policy is to emulate the tech bros and move fast and break things. I give you, health care in Alberta. 

The statement calls requiring fanciful claims to be backed up with evidence “absurd authoritarian censorship.” And all the amendment requires is evidence, not proof.

It complains about the Pathways Alliance’s perception it had to remove all the copy from its website. (As Environmental Defence said in a statement emailed to media yesterday, what this actually suggests is “they know they don’t have evidence to support the story they’re selling on carbon capture, and that its member companies’ business plans don’t align with a net-zero future.”)

The statement ends with a flourish, vowing to relentlessly defend the free speech rights of Albertans – unless, of course, they’ve set up a tent on a university campus, in which case the Edmonton and Calgary police services are presumably waiting around the corner to restore order, with rubber bullets, pepper spray and truncheons if necessary. 

As for the small section of Bill C-59 that is arousing this brouhaha, as already noted several times in this space, it is both weak and largely performative. 

It will be difficult to get a conviction using that section, and all corporations will need to do to avoid serious penalties is to comply with an order from the Competition Bureau to remove the offending claims. 

And if the federal Conservatives led by Pierre Poilievre win the next federal election, which seems highly likely assuming a wide selection of polls are to be believed, it will be swept away among the new government’s first orders of business. 

So this is undoubtedly much ado about nothing. Still, since there is no light at all between the UCP and the Conservative Party of Canada, it reminds people elsewhere in Canada of just who they’re contemplating voting for. 

Caveat emptor, folks.

Rachel Notley chooses to go out on a negative note

Raising a contentious issue at the 11^th hour seems like an odd way for departing NDP Leader Rachel Notley to welcome the party’s new leader, whose identity will be confirmed on Saturday.

It’s a little late to be running the colours of the True Democratic Party up the flagpole, after all, now that everyone expects the new leader to be former Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi, probably on the first ballot. 

The NDP brain trust decided after due consideration to let Mr. Nenshi run – which they could easily have refused to do on the perfectly reasonable grounds he had never been a member until he decided he wanted to lead their party. There were strong voices in the NDP that advocated that, and they were ignored.

It was also known from the get-go Mr. Nenshi had his doubts about the formal relationship between the federal NDP and its provincial parties, and general agreement among the Alberta NDP’s core policy makers that was worth preserving would have been another reason to say no to his candidacy.

Yes, there would have been some bad press. But it would soon have been forgotten. 

But they chose to let Mr. Nenshi run, invited new members into the party, and now that the coronation of the popular three-term progressive mayor appears to be hours away, the die is all but cast. 

Going at this late hour to Don Braid, the Calgary Herald’s ancient political columnist and no friend of the NDP, to call the idea short-sighted is just silly. 

If Ms. Notley plans to stick around as an MLA, this will just cement her role as a lame duck and reduce her chances of persuading the new leader to listen to her counsel. Alas, for all her successes and popularity with those who have stuck with the party, she can’t run it from the backbenches. 

Mr. Nenshi has promised to let party members decide. If the bulk of the new members are really just lapsed members, as Ms. Notley told Mr. Braid, perhaps they’ll get their chance to say no.