David Staples: The quality that makes Steven Guilbeault uniquely dangerous? Zero credibility on climate change

Article content

Does Premier Danielle Smith’s scorching rhetoric aimed at federal Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault strike you as over the top? Or right on target?

It’s worth noting that historians struggle to point to another such episode in Alberta’s history. It’s not easy to find where a premier has referred to a federal minister as “treacherous,” as Smith did in regards to Guilbeault due to his buzzsaw effort at the international climate conference in Dubai to get oil and gas phased out, starting in Alberta

Smith called out Guilbeault as a radical activist doing all he can to push the world towards energy poverty and economic stagnation.

“It was a national embarrassment to witness minister Guilbeault at an international conference actively sabotaging the interests of Albertans and other Canadians by releasing a series of incoherent and illegal policy pronouncements that he and his government have absolutely no legal authority to impose upon the provinces of Canada,” said Smith.

“Although he ultimately failed in his ambitions to include language in the final COP28 agreement regarding the elimination of oil and gas production, Albertans will not forget his continued treachery against our province and millions of other Canadians.”

Smith threw this rhetorical body slam on Guilbeault off the top rope, elbow smashing him to the mat with the hope of bouncing him right out of the ring onto a concrete floor.

She didn’t use the words “treasonous traitor,” but came close.

As mentioned, historians were left scrambling to pinpoint a time when such heated language has been similarly employed.

Two stand-out conflicts came to mind, first in the late 1930s when then-Alberta premier William Aberhart led a failed provincial revolt against federal power, with the Ottawa Liberals using the now obsolete power of disallowance to reject 11 pieces of Aberhart’s oppressive legislation. Heated words flew back then.

The second instance was Peter Lougheed’s far more successful campaign standing up to Pierre Trudeau’s grab for control of Alberta’s oil to lower prices for eastern Canadian consumers.

Lougheed’s relationship with Trudeau Sr. was as difficult as the current Smith-Trudeau Jr. relationship, said Grant MacEwan University history Prof. Bob Irwin in an interview, but the language of the two leaders was more temperate than what we see now.

“Social media has caused us to live in a world of inflammatory rhetoric, which is probably not as helpful as it could be,” Irwin said.

Tom Flanagan, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Calgary, said the first Trudeau government was far more ruthless and effective in its plan to seize profits from Alberta oil and gas. “But the goal wasn’t to destroy the industry. They regarded the industry as the goose that was laying the golden eggs. They wanted to grab more of those eggs for themselves but they didn’t want to kill the goose. In the long run, today’s Ottawa is far more dangerous because there are many people there who actually want to kill the goose. The goal is now to destroy the oil and gas industry.”

Mount Royal University political science professor Duane Bratt said he can’t recall a term like “treachery” being used in a similar spat. Bratt wonders if Smith has something personal against Guilbeault. “It’s just the disdain she has when she speaks his name.”

But Bratt has an alternative explanation, that it’s all about Guilbeault’s strident policy. “He’s not the right person. Guilbeault is showing why you don’t put an activist in a ministerial job.”

When it comes to Guilbeault, I can’t get past one fact — that it’s clear the issue he cares most about in life is climate change. But he nonetheless got it dead wrong on the top solution with his fierce opposition to nuclear power, the single best, proven way to lower emissions worldwide.

Good reason to doubt Guilbeault was also evident at Dubai when he spoke at a major panel on eliminating coal. He and other speakers talked for 24 minutes on the need to axe coal burning. They mentioned the United Kingdom eight times, Canada seven, and the United States twice, but not once did they bring up China, by far the world’s biggest coal user, as a major culprit. This elephant in the room crushed Guilbeault’s legitimacy.

If he got it dead wrong for so long on nuclear, and if he can’t bring himself to talk about China’s emissions, how is it anything but irresponsible to trust our energy future to his wobbly hands?

This doesn’t necessarily make him treacherous, but he’s got zero credibility.

If that so alarms Smith that she resorts to enraged rhetoric, I get it.

dstaples@postmedia.com