Separation advisor to provide Ottawa ‘a calm, steady hand’: strategist

Liberal strategist Sabrina Grover joins Alberta Primetime's Michael Higgins to discuss the appointment of an advisor to Mark Carney on the October referendum.

The federal government is appointing an advisor for a role meant to provide a “dedicated point person to manage engagement with external partners in Alberta.” Liberal strategist Sabrina Grover joined Alberta Primetime’s Michael Higgins to discuss this new role and why it’s necessary.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Michael Higgins: What would make this advisory role necessary that couldn’t be accomplished through the actions of the Carney government’s own three current MPs here in the province?

Sabrina Grover: I think when you look at the overall picture of this referendum and the separation movement, it’s not just affecting Alberta. It’s a conversation that is affecting Canada and I want to be clear, it’s not just one question, it’s nine different questions. So there’s a lot of moving parts to the referendum that I think can’t just be managed by MPs who are also regularly engaging with their constituents.

We also have a minister in this province who’s dealing with an upcoming flood, wildfire, climate change emergency management season. We think it makes sense from the prime minister’s perspective to have somebody dedicated in his office to have insight into what’s happening on the ground. Not just on separation but on all of the additional nine questions, which include constitutional changes, different things that the province of Alberta would like to see, more responsibility or more taking over of. I think it’s important to have that really dynamic conversation right in the PMO.

MH: How much of a power player is Morgan Breitkreutz? What does he bring to the table?

SG: I think Morgan is certainly a very well-versed Albertan and somebody who has experience across the province. I think that that’s what makes him valuable, and also having led campaigns in this province before. It’s challenging if you bring just an urban viewpoint, or if you bring just a Calgary or Edmonton viewpoint to this role.

One of the things Morgan brings is an overall picture and perspective of the province. That’s so important because you are seeing very many regional differences within the province in terms of how the question about separation is going and how some of these constitutional questions are going. We saw a Water Not Coal petition get the right number of signatures but not get on the referendum ballot, so that’s also adding an additional layer to some of these conversations. I think Morgan has that experience and is the right person to be in this role with the prime minister’s office.

MH: The Globe and Mail refers to him as a quarterback on the separation issue for that particular element. What kind of role do you see him playing there? What might that role involve?

SG: One of the things that I think the prime minister’s office is likely considering, both with Alberta and Quebec both discussing sovereignty movements at this time, is how does this affect our external perception and the external investments or trade deals or negotiations that we’re courting?

In the last two weeks, you’ve seen the prime minister travel across Europe, lead one of the biggest missions into Japan on the defence file, as well as trade. We’re, as a country, courting a significant amount of external investment and trade deals with Canada. At the same time, inside Canada, we’re having two separate conversations about provinces that want to leave the country and I think that that’s a significant economic impact.

Even if you look at the Calgary Chamber’s release, or some of the data that came out from them earlier this week; eight-in-10 say that this is a bad idea and it’s negatively affecting the economy. One-in-three Alberta jobs are tied to the Canadian economy reflecting that national trade economy and national trade interest. Forty-eight per cent of members of the Calgary Chamber said that they would leave Alberta if this happened.

That’s a significant economic impact for the province and for the country. From the prime minister’s perspective, I think they’re trying to manage some of these economic issues, both domestically, but also what the public perception is globally as we court all of these global investments.

MH: How do you see the government’s response to all this playing out through the summer months? Should Albertans expect to see more government members on the ground here in the province, if not the prime minister himself?

SG: Calgary Stampede is coming up, so I imagine there’s going to be a number of folks in town for that, then maybe up to Edmonton for K-Days. I think that the three MPs that we have here, especially Corey Hogan, has really been the voice of liberals in Alberta and I think that that makes sense, right? It’s somebody who’s reflecting the Alberta experience, somebody who’s lived here, worked here, and I think you’ll see the same from Mark Carney.

At the same time, Prime Minister Carney is dealing with a lot of these issues around the Memorandum of Understanding, the energy projects, the potential pipeline, so that will play into that. Having this person in PMO helps guide some of those conversations and helps prevent things from blowing up and I think that that’s the most important part of this, we need to keep a calm, steady hand.

There’s lots of interest groups in Alberta themselves doing some of the pushback on the separation, apparently also the premier and Pierre Poilievre, though I guess we’ll see more from them with what kind of campaign they’re running. But I think that there’s a lot happening and it’s just as important for the prime minister’s office to pay attention to the dynamics.

MH: You brought up the MOU, July 1 is the deadline for the Smith government to submit its pipeline plan and it’s obviously rapidly approaching. Anything to read in that regard by way of the senior advisor appointment?

SG: I don’t think so. I think they’re operating in their own veins and operating in two separate parallels that are overlapping, but not necessarily the same. We’ve seen the premier be really clear about her intent and I think we’ve seen the premier be really clear about courting proponents.

That’s the biggest question: does the July submission come with clear proponents? Or what are the conditions attached to getting a proponent involved? Because that seems to be the real stalling point here in terms of getting a pipeline built.