Smith and Carney—More Alike than We May Think

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith each made headlines this week, but objectively, the progress discussed was more about process than substance.

Mainstream media quickly drew the conclusion that the prime minister handled US President Donald Trump well and advanced Canada’s cause in his visit to the White House on Tuesday. No one expected the desired outcome–the stability of a renewed economic and security agreement between Canada and the United States–to be achieved in a first visit. The president remained as committed to his tariff policy on Tuesday night as he was Tuesday morning (and we are all unclear what precisely that means). Besides, who knows whether it’s even possible to negotiate a new formal agreement with the United States that will stick, given that President Trump is violating the terms of the previous agreement he signed. And the US president remains convinced, even publicly, that some sort of arrangement in which Canada would become part of the United States remains the ideal outcome. Despite the offence to Canadian sovereignty, he is prepared to continue discussing it (“never say never”). Notwithstanding all of these caveats, however, if the measure of success is merely proving that Canada and the United States can still have high-level talks and that it’s not impossible for our two countries to come to a new understanding, Mr. Carney achieved that.

While Mr. Carney visited Washington DC, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith delivered a province-wide address and then met with the media to explain how she would lower the threshold for citizens to initiate a referendum. This is widely understood as a step to placate the increasingly noisy group of Albertans who either want to redefine Alberta’s relationship with Canada or, for some, separate altogether from Confederation. The premier insisted that she remained a committed federalist and would (unlike various separatist Quebec governments) lead a government that would argue for remaining in Canada. Premier Smith also insisted that she is simply keeping her party’s election commitments to support direct democracy via citizen-initiated referenda and recall of politicians. She further argued it was premature to conclude that citizens would successfully achieve a referendum on separation (and if they did, exactly what the specific ballot question would be). The constituency Premier Smith is dealing with has Trumpian features, both in substance and method.

With a few exceptions, mainstream media coverage of Premier Smith was critical, accusing her of facilitating the breakup of Canada just as the country is facing a grave challenge to its sovereignty. The media frequently compared Premier Smith to British Prime Minister David Cameron. He allowed the Brexit process to proceed while personally opposing it, only to have the process snowball into a vote to separate the United Kingdom from the European Union, ending Prime Minister Cameron’s career.

Premier Smith and Prime Minister Carney made news simply by laying out future processes, opening up possibilities for future outcomes. The media judged one a success and the other a failure. While there are legitimate questions about the judgment and tactics of both Premier Smith and Prime Minister Carney, I am inclined to see their actions as more similar than different.

Both Mr. Carney and Ms. Smith desire outcomes which require building multilateral support. In Premier Smith’s case, she intends to see energy infrastructure built to provide broader markets for Alberta’s natural resources. She is dealing with decades of frustration during which many proposed private-sector projects were abandoned, in many cases because of federal regulatory obstacles. On top of that, Alberta’s hopes have been stymied by the resistance of other jurisdictions (be they other provinces or Indigenous communities) to allow the province to access tidewater. At the same time, activists have portrayed Alberta’s energy resources as “dirty” and out of step with the need to cultivate “clean” alternatives. 

Alberta’s government (with democratic legitimacy) has had to focus on challenging the federal government (through the courts as well as politics) and anti-oil activists. In a significant break from his predecessor, Prime Minister Carney has suggested he is willing to pursue energy infrastructure construction to strengthen Canada amid a US trade war. Many Albertans don’t believe him, though, given that his English words about energy development in Alberta seem to clash with his French commitments in Quebec on the same subject.

So what’s Premier Smith’s strategy? It appears that she is playing nice with Prime Minister Carney, providing positive feedback on her meetings with him and giving him some time and space to make good on his promises. In the meantime, she is moving to placate the noisy constituency that doesn’t believe the prime minister. This is essentially the same group that is large and organized enough to have driven her predecessor, Jason Kenney, out of the premier’s chair. Premier Smith has put into place a process which can provide a political outlet for that constituency, which will now need to focus on a future referendum. The calculation seems to be that this process will help ease the immediate pressure on her and put pressure on Prime Minister Carney and the rest of the country to follow through on their energy commitments.

From where I sit, western independence (which has some purchase in Saskatchewan, not just Alberta) is unlikely to gain enough support to seriously threaten Canadian unity. However, even this week’s first steps of the process caused Ontario Premier Doug Ford to change his tune and publicly speak to the “legitimate concerns” of Alberta. We don’t have enough data to know yet whether Premier Smith moved the ball forward this week on getting a better deal for Alberta within Confederation or simply helped ease the breakup of Confederation. Prime Minister Carney is dealing with an unpredictable and mercurial President Trump, and Premier Smith is dealing with an erratic and mercurial political base that includes a subset of Western populists. Both undertook significant process steps this week that may or may not lead to their hoped-for outcomes. In other words, they’re setting up the pieces on the chessboard, but we’ve yet to see them really play.

Canadian legacy journalists’ very different analyses of Mr. Carney and Ms. Smith tell us much about their biases and perspectives. Many in the media don’t seem to acknowledge that the assumptions framing the debate in Alberta and Saskatchewan are very different than the assumptions of the “Laurentian elites,” as many in the West mockingly characterize the power brokers of the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal triangle.

Sometimes, to get a deal, you need to provide an outlet for those with whom you differ to express themselves and then to show them the respect of listening and genuinely responding. Both are navigating the unpredictability of our tricky Trumpian times. Prime Minister Carney showed respect for President Trump and Premier Smith for the independence-minded crowd within her province. We don’t know yet whether their tactical decisions this week will ultimately be proved wise, but at this point, I’m prepared to give them both the benefit of the doubt.

WHAT I’M READING

Business Wading In

Open letters from business leaders aren’t the everyday norm of Canadian politics. Rather, the closed-door work of lobbyists and industry associations has been more prevalent. However, the current trade challenges with the United States seem to have prompted a rethink of tactics, with more than thirty prominent business leaders publishing an open letter during the election campaign, followed up by a series of full-page ads that included follow-up letters. This week, thirty energy CEOs signed an open letter urging Prime Minister Carney to “take action” to support the domestic energy sector. Quite apart from the stands on these issues, we may be witnessing a significant adjustment of the business community’s political engagement strategy. As someone who believes that politics is too important to be left just to the politicians because it merits full engagement of all civil society spheres, this seems to be a sign of health, even if the context is an economic challenge. 

Carney’s Catholicism

Jonathan Milloy, the Director of the Centre for Public Ethics, published an interesting take on Prime Minister Carney’s Catholicism this week. For a British audience, he drew on UK sources during Mr. Carney’s time as governor of the Bank of England. Milloy notes that in 2015, Carney was recognized as Britain's most influential lay Catholic. “Canada, like the UK, is polarised and dominated by a hyper–partisan political culture where the attainment or retention of power often drives decision–making,” he writes. “Although Carney may face a few high–profile decisions with direct ties to his faith, such as whether to expand assisted dying to those with severe mental illness, the often amoral nature of contemporary politics may challenge his Catholicism the most.”

Pence, Courage, and the Constitution 

There was plenty of partisan noise accompanying the awarding of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award to Mike Pence, the former vice president of the United States, for his stand on January 6, 2021 confirming the 2020 presidential election results. This Fox News report, to its credit, quotes both sides of the argument with Vice President Pence reiterating “I will always believe by God’s grace that I did my duty that day” in contrast to US President Trump’s assertion that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and constitution.” January 6th, it seems, remains a dividing moment for many Americans, not only regarding how they understand what their constitution requires of them, but also in how it defines the American ideal of courage.

Calling for Humility

Father Raymond de Souza’s National Post column analyzing the Canadian election results makes some vital observations on the distinction between humbling, humility, and humiliation. Whether his assessments of Prime Minister Mark Carney or Leader of the Opposition Pierre Poilievre prove accurate, only time will tell. It’s actual behaviour, not talking about it, that shapes virtue in public life. However, a discussion of “Aristotelian-Thomistic ethics” stemming from election night victory speeches is a rare enough event in Canadian public discussion worth noting.

MEANINGFUL METRICS

The Boomer Men Did It

Election outcomes are determined by vote switchers. Most voters default to voting in the next election the way they did in the last one. As a result, political campaigns focus on identifying and getting out their existing supporters while also pursuing that smaller group of voters who are “switchers.” The data analysis has only begun. From what I have seen so far, it appears that the Liberals and Conservatives increased their vote totals in every demographic save for the Conservatives among men aged 60-plus. The NDP, meanwhile, managed to hold on to only 32 percent of its voters from the 2021 election. Boomer men, NDP switchers, and the roughly six per cent of Canadians who cast a ballot in 2025, but didn’t do so in 2021, ultimately decided the outcome. 

TAKE IT TO-GO

That’s a Wrap

I was in the Cardus lunchroom on Thursday, observing the enthusiasm of a few of my colleagues who were testing “gas station shawarma” that had been recommended to them. I’m not all pumped to combine my vehicle and personal fill-ups, but it’s unfair to skewer them just for where they got their food. I understand that shawarma is Arabic for turning but I’ll resist the temptation to shawarmaize this take-it-to-go into a restaurant review. I’m too chicken to do that. So instead of slicing into anyone, let’s just call it a wrap.

Next weekend is a long weekend, thanks to Victoria Day, so Insights will take a break. We aim to be back in your inbox on May 24, just in time for King Charles to deliver the Speech from the Throne to reopen Parliament. I suspect there will be lots to talk about.

Until then.