The UCP's Internal Struggles with Jim Groom

Today's conversation on the Porch delves into the political landscape of Alberta, focusing on the dynamics within the UCP, the implications of federal politics, and the challenges faced by local governance. Brian and Jim discuss the push for independence among UCP members, the impact of federal decisions on provincial politics. Brian and Jim also turn to municipal issues including the financial challenges confronting municipal leaders as they navigate budgetary constraints and public expectations.

Transcript

0:00

The, Premier is stuck between a rock on hard place, so she's used the bait and switch straight from the get go. When you are elected as leader based on, a sovereignty act, and then the sovereignty acts as a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada, there's a lot of people who said, no, that's not that's not what we wanted. And, you know, Rob Smith was on the president of the UCP. Was on an uh morning on an interview, and he said over 50% of the UCP membership won an independent Alberta. This episode of Bring Back the Porch, brought to you by Bernie Leahy, River Street Realty. Let's get you home. And joining me again on the porch is Jim Groom, political scientist, retired or just retired from the college? Yeah, it's a bit of everything there. Isn't that enough of you? Ever. You don't ever retire being a political scientist because you're always watching. That's very true. Yeah. I like to keep my finger in the pie a little bit and see what's up. It's, It's always interesting, you know, and it affects everything we do every day of all the day. And there was lots to watch on the weekend from the UCP convention. I mean, we had a Prime Minister of Canada being cheered. Not by the UCP convention, you know for sure. And then the UCP body booing their own leader. So let's kind of dive in. Where do you want to start. Do you want to start with the the reception, the Mark Carney you received when he signed that Pro pipeline memorandum with the Premier? Yes. Well, it's kind of nice to see a Liberal Prime Minister get some acknowledgment for his some, some efforts. You know, I don't think that Carney is particularly political. I think he's more of a technocrat, and I think he's cut through some of the politics because there's just no political advantage for him for doing an MOU with with Alberta to get to the coast. So just just as an even within his own party, as we see Guilbeault resigned right away in the minister and you know, to a certain extent, Alberta had vilified him as it was because of his he represented the Trudeau, greenwash type of an aspect. And I think that probably symbolic to a big change in the party. But it's a big part of the party is also environmentally sound and wants that environmental, profile to be, responsible environment for, for the future. And so it's going to be interesting to see how that works out now, of course. So Carney has until his mandate runs out with a, with a minority government, so he can play fast and furious with the, with the chips if he wants to. But there's 20 MPs, Liberal MPs in BC. There's two in Alberta. The political you know, the political, calculations weren't really didn't make very much sense. But it's nice for him to get that acknowledgment that he is, business oriented and we're open for business type of announcement, and we're progressing. And that was his objective, I think when he came in, when he was elected, was let's get us moving again and all that starting. It was interesting that, Danielle Smith, when she was speaking to the convention after that, memorandum had been signed that she didn't mention it in her remarks, I guess, until somebody, brought it up about 35 minutes into her address. And then when she did, that's when the boos came out. Yeah. Stuck between a rock on Hard Place. So she's used the bait and switch phrase from the get go. When you are elected as leader based on, a sovereignty act. And then the sovereignty acts as a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada. There's a lot of people who said, no, that's not that's not what we wanted. And, you know, Rob Smith was on the president of the UCP. He was on an unsworn on an interview, and he said over 50% of the UCP membership want an independent Alberta. It's, you know, they banded about 30% and 40%, but he he literally said 50 over 50% want an independent Alberta in the party itself. So here's Daniel Smith negotiating with Ottawa, which is the last thing that that group of people want. And they reject her, her position, you know, absolutely. And for many, many years she's been able to kind of hold out that, well, I really am on your side. But I also have to be a nationalist because, you know, the forever Canada, petition that 450,000 signatures. So here she is with, the prospect of getting an another government, based not on the position of her party, but based on appeasing Albertans and and how does she do that? How does she balance that off when you have over 50% of your party wants independence and you have huge numbers of people in the party, in the electorate generally who say no, we aren't interested in independent. How do you win the next election based on those kind of numbers? So do we hear the fissures beginning to crack in the UCP party? I think I think there's something has to give. Either they have to, unify under another name or title or, they find a leader that is pro separatist and they simply become a separatist party and that that becomes their, their raison d'etre, as it were, that that's what they need to do. So then we will be dividing the right after uniting the right. Exactly. We were. You know, it was always a shotgun waiting at the best. And, Progressive Conservatives have often said, well, the wild roses have just simply taken over. And even the extreme side, the take back Alberta side of the world, roasters have taken that over and it's, it's just moved so far to the right. And there is a recognition within the party that they want power just like every other political party, and they aren't going to get it from the general electorate by having the policies that they've been pursuing at this stage. I don't think. The recalls of several UCP MLAs also playing into the the dynamic here. And now I hear that maybe they're going to change the legislation so that that won't happen. Yeah, it would be pretty, contentious to do that, obviously, you know, and you'd have to do it retroactive in some way, shape or form, and that becomes, like what value of any of the laws that we have if you simply change when you don't like it. Now, by Mobil did that back in 1937 where he was going to be, you know, impeached as well, sort of thing. And, you know, he finally he said, well, we'll just do it with the legislation. And of course, the, you know, Albert passed away before the the next real election. But the, you know, the Social Credit went on the wind up until about 1972 or something before. Until Peter. Law came in, you know, and then there the Progressive Conservatives came in. So it it didn't seem to do them any damage. And that's one of the problems in Alberta, is we are so stridently, right of center that the right of center party is going to be supported. This almost seems like no matter what you do. What do you think now? Even then, she's thinking and feeling about all of this that's happening with, the government. Well, he's in a tough position because he if he comes out against the MOU or something of that nature. Well, there are a lot of Albertans who want that pipeline. And it's it's fundamental to Canada. It's fundamental to Alberta's economy. So he can't he can't object to that. But he can't also put his finger in the pie of the recall legislations as an example, because that's definitely interference and that's, you know, would be seen as inappropriate, but it would also be an exploitation of a weak position. And I think he doesn't want to be seen as picking up the bones sort of thing in that regard. So I think he has to take a real balanced approach. And one of the criticisms of Nenshi lately is that, you know, he's finally starting to talk. It's taken him a long time to find his footing and actually come forward and have some issues and of course, the teacher strike was one of the big ones that galvanized the population. It also galvanized his party. And I think his leadership and, you know, they tried their best. And by limiting debate to an hour for for each, stage of the legislation, it made it pretty difficult to do much of a job. And, you know, opposition. And that's just a travesty of our democracy when it's abused that way. And the use of the notwithstanding clause, not once but several times approach. Sure. Yeah. Preemptively, I should say. Yeah. It's just unheard of. Quebec did that, of course, because they didn't sign the Constitution 82 and they blamed the, then over the long knives and all these sort of things. But, you know, relevant. Levac was a separatist, Premier, and he he was tempted to sign the document. And then the his advisor said, you know, we're a separatist government. We're supposed to part from Canada, not sign on to the agreement of it with the not with, you know, with, with the Constitution. And so, of course, they had to then disavow. And up until 85, every piece of legislation included a, a notwithstanding clause. But that's such a different situation than what we find here of course. And this is, I think if if they'd use the notwithstanding clause, forced teachers back to work, but then went to a mandatory arbitration, I think they would have least saved some, some respect for themselves because they simply said, well, you disagreed by 90% for this last contract, but that's what we're going to impose upon you. And it just seemed like it was way too self-serving. Premier Smith did say that her government will not cooperate with Ottawa in the, gun buyback legislation. I don't know if that's sort of throwing her, right flank a bone or not. Oh, absolutely. Yes. I mean, after she made her comment or somewhere in that context about the pipeline and supporting Ottawa and collaborating with Aurora and getting the booze, all of a sudden the red meat came out and it was, you know, all these things, folks were going to ban books. We're going to make sure that we have parental involvement in education, our own police force. You know, they they dragged that all out again. And one of the things that was very popular, of course, is the, ignoring the federal rules on, on firearms, changes that they've made. That piece of legislation federally has been a debacle right from the get go. The original minister that was handling it, mishandled it quite badly. And of course, at the 11th hour, they started adding more and more firearms to it, and it became even the liberals didn't really want to support it very much. But this is another this is this is really going to be a very direct confrontation between the two. And, you know, the typical approach is, of course, Alberta with legislation of, avoiding following the, the firearms regulations. And then it would go through the courts. And of course, the Supreme Court eventually would say, well, this is federal jurisdiction, and then they would invoke the notwithstanding clause. So it will be interesting to see if they simply jump to the chase and say, well, we're going to put the notwithstanding clause in place, and then we don't have to go to court. We can just deal with it that, you know, Daniel Smith has said, well, democracy lies in the legislatures. That's not really the case. You know, even Plato in, the ancient Athenians said tyranny of the majority was one of the things they feared 51% can lorded over the 49 and they can dictate things to them. And that's not democratic. So we get constitutions in order to balance that aspect off. And, that gets that 49%, at least some minimal, rights, no matter what the majority determines. You know. Rob Smith was reelected, I believe is the president of the UCP. And several of the things that the, the more right flank of the party wanted, those people that supported that also, I think, did not take control of the UCP board. So do you see anything changing, really in the next two years before we go to the votes again? Well, I don't think within the party there would be much, much of a change. One of the aspects, of course, is when you go to an election, that party base is really important for your ground game. And if they are only lukewarm about you because you haven't decided, you know, sovereignty within a united Canada is not what they're looking for, then will there be, party support for it? Because, you know, they have a large number of, of members and they're influential members and they're, in a position. But if, if when you're going in Doorknocking, you all you want to talk about is independence. And it's really not a party platform, you're going to have a contradiction. That's, that's going to be difficult to run with. Mark Carney lost, someone from his cabinet, Stephon Gilmore. As soon as that memorandum on the pipeline was signed, he stepped away. He has been an activist for the environmental movement. Does that hurt the Liberal government? Absolutely. Yeah. Well, of course, he was the the Quebec lieutenant as well. So he he actually has a lot of respect for him in Quebec. He's seen as, as is their minister sort of thing. Representative Legault. And this is an affront to Quebec that, they would would harm the future. Now, the conservatives aren't going to make any inroads in Quebec. The they just don't like patios. They have. I think under Harper, they were able to get like a maximum of 12 seats in Quebec or something like that. So they've never really been able to break that, that barrier there. But the Bloc Quebecois, on the other hand, is is still surging. And that could be the where the damage to the liberals come. They still need this enormous support in Quebec in order to make them, well, even a minority government as they have now. But if they want to make them join the government, they've got to watch that. And of course, here we have BC 20 MPs in BC, and if they've, irritated those 22 much, then there's another threat that might go and, and we talked a little bit about the NDP being under down. But that's where the NDP would gain some potential growth is by taking over some of the liberals that are disaffected and say, you know, that enough is enough. Jack Layton was strong in Quebec, in 2015, I believe, when they formed the official opposition. But the NDP are in a bit of a conundrum right now. They had a leaders debate, the five candidates in Montreal. It was supposed to be French language. And yeah, their French language skills were not where they probably should be. And, you know, ironically, like Layton was not exactly bilingual himself either. But there is something that the Québecers like to put back. And 60 seats, I think is what they gained at one point in Quebec. And it was like, an anomaly for whatever reason. But he had won their hearts to the extent that they were willing to, to go with him. And, you know, there were some MPs who didn't even who ran for the NDP in Quebec, didn't even campaign the one famous lady was in Las Vegas during the entire time and, and came back and realized she was now the a member of Parliament for her community and she was not bilingual either. And etc.. So the the language issue can be overlooked in Quebec, but it's not easy for them to do it. There's got to be something else. And Layton, as you say, had a cachet of some sort that just appealed to the Québecers. They said, this is this is the guy we want sort of thing for this particular time, this moment sort of thing. And that lightning in a bottle is difficult to replicate twice. Let's face it, the NDP, you know, the minivan party because they have only seven members and they can fit in a minivan. It's it's a very difficult time for them. And no one is covering their their leadership race very much. Right. It's like, it's an also ran and it's going to be difficult to see what, what occurs there. With, the, liberals and Mark Carney. There's another elephant in the room and that's, Donald Trump. Carney apologized in the House of Commons for a flippant remark when he was asked when the last time that he had had a conversation with Trump, he said, who cares? Yeah, yeah, maybe not the best choice of words. No, as I said, I don't think he's a politician. He's a technocrat. And a lot of times he's said in offhanded comments, you know, as soon as he's asked a question, he was asked about Doug Ford and he made a joke. And it was instead of saying, Doug Ford is a loyal Canadian, good, good ally, which is he has been for Kearney in particular. He made kind of a like a mocking mockery of them a little bit. And, if he's got a political future, he's going to have to. Well, the economy bounces back and everything becomes super, then nobody cares. But otherwise he's going to play all the angles and, flippant remarks is, of course, never going to be be good. And of course, any remark that made about Trump gets back to Trump. And it's just we just, you know, Trudeau paid the price when he made some comments. And Trump said, well, I have 12 televisions on Air Force One. And I watched your comments and, you know, your backstabber and tell him, you know, that becomes hard to make up for that. The liberals did gain one MP, from the conservatives, and there was talk that perhaps there might have been another who he just decided to become an independent, but there might still be some others that might walk across the floor. How does that impact the dynamics of our government? So there's nothing like polls to drive, a politician, of course, and poorly of I think his, prospects for being prime minister is that like 20% or something. And Carney still up there at 40 or something. Whereas the party is more it's more popular than the leader at this time. And people, you know, people see that and they observe it and they obviously are cognizant of it. The best thing for, for, Polley of is that he has the West Western, conservatives somewhat fully support him. But Daniel Smith has got to be just a burr in the saddle for Polley of during the election, the things she did in this thing, she said it and even she said, you know, at the end, they benched me for the last two weeks of the election because of the things I was saying that nobody wanted to hear. And the pivot, the failure for the conservatives to pivot, get rid of, his advisors and, change his the tone he tried. I mean, he even appears on CBC occasionally and, in discussion, but he's an attack dog. I don't know if he's got another mode, but people don't see that it's prime ministerial. They see it as way too confrontational. In in the general electorate, there is a caution of the Conservative Party that loves that and that's drawn their numbers. And, they support him fully. But everyone recognizes that in order for them to become the next government, they need to go beyond that. Although he did increase, their numbers, increased, in every way, shape and form. But now that it's, a bit of a buyer's remorse and happens every time for the conservatives, when they lose an election, they, they look inwardly and they start to consume themselves a little bit, I think. And, polyester and the conservatives have, data coming up in January when, his leadership will be under review. Yeah. I've heard some say that he'll get 80% approval, but I don't know. You know, right now, he doesn't there's doesn't seem to be a congealed opposition to him. There's the odd and as you say, a floor crossing and, an MP who decides to resign in the in July. But analysis is now and some weird anomalies there. If, if more of those start to surface and there seems to be a general movement, then the bandwagon effect will kick in, I think, and there will be people saying, yeah, the problem is the leader. And a lot of times there's lots of problems within a party, but it's always the leader that has to hold hold to be held accountable. And of course, the January, decision making just happens to hit right at the time when he's got to do that. He's had some personal problems as well, of course, with losing his own seat in Ontario and other things of that nature. I don't know if I'd want to say 80%, or even a victory depending, because it's a long time between now and January in politics. A lot of things can happen, too. Yeah. We have not had a chance to sit down and discuss our new medicine and city council inaction since, we last met November 17th. They, received the, tri annual report on the city's finances, which in a nutshell was kind of shocking. We saw some of the older aldermen, old term councilors, councilors actually asking some pretty good questions. What did you take from that first meeting? There's nothing that, focuses attention like, when the administration comes forward and says this is an unsustainable process, your budgets are not going to work anymore. And I think so. And of course, this is like within weeks of their hitting the ground running, they've gone through the senior citizens aspects and everybody is very proud and happy and everything. And now it's like, okay, now you got some tough decisions, some some tough positions to determine. You've got to really galvanize to go and, I think generally speaking, that the response is being mature, thoughtful, bringing forth, you know, we need more information from, from the men. And, and I think that being fairly, understandable that they would do that. And it also shows the responsibility. I didn't see anybody, grandstanding at this point and saying, you know, dominating the mic. And, you know what? We've got to start firing people left, right and center or anything of that sort of thing. So they seem pretty balanced. One of the things that will occur because of the budget is, is polarization. We'll see that they start to divide in the pockets, I would think, which is human nature. And it's natural we're going to have those who want to, push the envelope and try and bring in more services to bring in more businesses. And those who say we have to be fiscally responsible first and foremost and get our ducks in a row because we can't keep, you know, diving into the, the reserve funds in order to do that, just not going to be sustainable. Many of them campaigned on a three year tax freeze, which now looks pretty hard to keep. Yes, yes. And it's even worse. Inflation, 2% inflation I mean, to to say that you're going to freeze it looks great on paper. It looks good when you're out, when you're trying to to win a campaign. But to actually put that in place, even when you want to review and you have want to bring in outside people to review, there's an a cost and expense there too. And sometimes there's upfront expenses for long term gain and discriminations that, how are we going to save a million while we have to spend a few thousand in order to determine the best way to save that million? And so it's yeah, it's I think the reality of the situation kicks in pretty quick with the BR councilors. It'll be interesting to see the debate over whether or not they proceed with, either the sama's solar project or the South side, recreation center. Yeah, pretty big tickets. Yes. I think the south side is a pie in the sky at this point. They, you know, when it comes forward with that information over the budget, it's just nothing new. Sam is, on the other hand, the, the solar power array is really a long term aspect. And I think there's going to be a determination can do we spend now for the 20 year gains that we're going to get out of it, or are we, because we're elected every four years, we're going to go with the short term and the quick fix. And, let's put this on an on the back burner. Let somebody else deal with it. All the hard questions type of think so. And that'll be, a bit of a divider I think, as well. So we'll see how that kind of flushes out. Well, there's never a shortage of things to talk about when Jim Groom comes to the Porch. I think you're right. Thank you very much. It's always interesting to chat with you for sure. Thank you very much. Thank you.