ANALYSIS | Danielle Smith’s pension trifecta: Trudeau, Notley and Poilievre agree on something | CBC News

It’s not clear if Pierre Poilievre had already devised a position on Alberta’s proposed quitting of the Canada Pension Plan, but the Conservative leader issued one barely a day after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau proclaimed his own stance.

The Liberals’ unusually forceful opposition to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s pension ambition has doubled as a political wedge against Poilievre. Alongside trying to criticize the CPP-weakening gambit itself, Liberals applied pressure on Conservatives to squeeze their leader through one of three doors:

1. Lend support to Smith’s Alberta Pension Plan withdrawal;

2. Oppose the Conservative premier’s ambition; or

3. Be cool, quiet and neutral, like some minor alpine lake in Switzerland.

Every option had its downsides, even the Swiss one, given that Liberals had begun hectoring in Question Period and scrums that the Conservatives’ passive silence amounted to tacit approval of the giant rock Smith threatened to throw at CPP, that large placid lake of a federal institution.

LISTEN | CBC’s West of Centre podcast:

So which door, and which demons on the other side, would Poilievre choose?

He picked Door Number 2, leavening the conservative-against-conservative friction by yelling “Trudeau sucks!” as he crossed the threshold.

Jabbing right and left

“The division today on the CPP is entirely the result of Justin Trudeau attacking the Alberta economy,” Poilievre’s written statement began. The first three of its five sentences focused on his chief rival, his carbon taxes and energy policies.

Smith undoubtedly didn’t much like the rest of it: “I encourage Albertans to stay in the CPP. As Prime Minister, I will protect and secure the CPP for Albertans and all Canadians…”

However, the parts where he pins blame on other Liberal policies also serves to undercut much of Smith’s messaging on CPP — that this isn’t a political bargaining chip to settle other provincial grievances with Ottawa.

It’s abundantly true that the modern Alberta-firster’s APP dream was born in the days of Liberal prime minister Jean Chretien in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was reborn in the “fair deal” push by ex-premier Jason Kenney in the wake of Trudeau’s 2019 re-election. 

But Smith has long treated an Alberta pension scheme as a wise pursuit unto itself, and the provincially commissioned Lifeworks report gave her enticing numbers — like a $334-billion claim on more than half of CPP assets — to make her argue it’s a no-brainer, regardless of which party is pulling levers in Ottawa.

Neither Smith nor Poilievre likely want to be seen as undercutting a fellow conservative. Were the premier to push back hard against Poilievre, she’d also be attacking the more popular conservative in her own province — 55 per cent favourable to 38 per cent unfavourable for him in Alberta, compared to an even 47 and 47 for her, both in recent Angus Reid Institute polls.

Smith, in response to Poilievre’s CPP-defending statement, began by offering appreciation of the leader’s “tone and sentiment,” in contrast to her criticism of the rhetoric in Trudeau’s own pro-CPP letter. She celebrates their cause against a common enemy before any tut-tutting of Poilievre.

She continued: “As it relates to the Alberta Pension Plan; this is an opportunity Albertans are discussing that has potential to improve the lives of our seniors and workers without risk to the pensions of fellow Canadians.”

If others, in conservative circles or beyond, shared Smith’s belief this would greatly enrich Albertans without harming those left behind holding half the CPP pie — “only” a $175 annual bump in contributions, she reasons — Poilievre would surely have less hesitation in backing an APP.

But there is wide-ranging belief, including among national business groups, that this would be a risk-laden transition that weakens the national program to Alberta’s short-term benefit. Which means that Smith now has the Canadian Federation of Independent Businesses and Trudeau and Poilievre and the Alberta NDP and provincial public opinion all lined up against her policy position.

Even Smith’s provincial rival, Rachel Notley, can use Poilievre as a cudgel in her own advocacy that leaving CPP is “an attack on all Canadians — on your brothers, your sisters, your friends in other parts of the country,” as she said Friday.

“Even Pierre Poilievre thinks so and that’s why he’s urged Albertans to reject Danielle Smith’s plan and stay in CPP.”

If Trudeau was sincere in wanting cabinet to shout from the rooftops the risks of a broken-up CPP, and didn’t merely want to force Poilievre to choose his own awkward adventure on the question, ministers will in coming weeks or months add their own facts and figures to what is thus far a largely subjective, emotional and skeptical debate about the downsides of Alberta going it alone on retirement savings.

Meanwhile, Smith has hopes that public opinion turns toward supporting APP, but it’s been rough early sledding. Should the initiative ultimately fail, Poilievre will have handed the undertaker one of the coffin nails.

More Alberta, less of Pierre’s Ottawa?

But his opposition, and arguments that the mess is of Trudeau’s making and not Smith’s, raises another important question.

Should Poilievre win election and become prime minister before or during a 2025 pension referendum campaign, will Albertans have less stomach for leaving this federal program?

The idea may well fall on its own merits before then. But for a sense of the answer to the above question, consider that there are certainly hardline fans in this province of both an Alberta Pension Plan and Pierre Poilievre. We’re not hearing much from those folks, now that these two objects of veneration are at odds.