To no one's shock, Danielle Smith was voted in as leader of the Wild Rose Alliance over the weekend, and Mark Dyrholm, quite appropriately, was given the boot.
The WRA since it's inception has been a somewhat uncomfortable alliance between the fringe far right (anti-gay, anti-Canada) and the more moderate right who are just unhappy with government, particularly those in the energy industry who have heavily funded the WRA.
Now with Dyrholm out, and the party given the distinctly more moderate flavor of Danielle Smith, it will be very interesting to say where she takes the WRA. No doubt, there will be those on the fringe far right who will bail, seeing a, gulp, *woman* as leader, who will not take the hard right course of action they demand.
(Recall Dyrholm as having no understanding or interest in understanding climate change issues, and suggesting that we should have referenda to redetermine our place in Canada.)
Smith, however, is a different sort of leader. She is careful to walk the line between the hard and moderate right side of politics, trying to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters. What does she stand for - well, looking to her own
website:
Gun Control - well, most of it I would not oppose philosophically. However, as she alludes to, gun control is currently a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction and there is, in reality, almost nothing the Provincial government can do to interfere with that. It might be noted that the criminal law regarding gun control has already been declared constitutional, and, as such, other than lobbying Ottawa, which our government has been doing, taking most of the steps advocated by Smith will be pointless and result in significant expenditures in legal challenges that will, doubtlessly, be unsuccessful, but will look good to the right side of the political spectrum;
Property Rights - clearly, Smith understands the need to have the right of expropriate for broad public benefit projects, and not to be prevented from doing so. So, to clarify for her supporters, when Danielle talks about "property rights", she is not talking about taking away government rights of expropriation. Under current legislation, such rights also obligate the government to compensate the land-owner for the value of property taken. What Smith proposes, however, is expanding that right of compensation no only to land taken, but also for other land "devalued".
Think about that. When a highway moves, not only do YOU, the taxpayer, have to pay for the land taken - but, in theory, for EVERY LANDOWNER who wants to argue that their property, while not taken, is "devalued" will be entitled to have a hearing, and arbitration, with rights of appeal, to argue they should get some money from YOU as the taxpayer. Considering the concerns of the WRA with fiscal accountability, one might question opening up this can of worms.
Energy Industry - this is where the big boys support the WRA. Danielle's policy suggests that the current royalty framework is "excessively punitive". Danielle and the WRA want to roll back royalty changes to make the removal of our resources cheaper for the oil industry, even though every measure of compensation I have been able to see makes it clear that our royalty framework is still among the lowest in the major petroleum producing nations. With the sole exception of the U.S.. the same party who suggests to Albertans that our MLA's have been overly generous with their own salaries, are suggesting the current royalty regime is too generous to the province.
You know, I'm no economist, but when it comes to our budget, I think most Albertans can understand that making our MLA's the FIFTH highest paid in Canada will probably not affect our bottom line in nearly as negative a fashion as decreasing the cost of oil to major energy producers. If Danielle suggested, "Let's keep our MLA's and our Oil Producers at a mid-point for compensation" we would have our salaries for MLA's stay where they are at and oil royalties would actually go up, not go down as the WRA suggests.
Health Care - nothing in her policy seems outrageous or inappropriate. Her plan, if elected? "One of Danielle’s first acts as party leader will be to appoint a qualified task force to identify successful models from elsewhere that will work in Alberta." So. She's going to have a study. And maybe the study will say that what we're doing is appropriate, and maybe it wont' Guess we'll wait for the study to find out.
Environment - typical government speak - and to be honest, I think the PC party could strongly improve it's position on this point and if there was an Achilles heal of the party, it might be the lack of strong environmental protection policies. We have an excellent water strategy, as far as it goes, but we could be much stronger on steps taken against those breaching appropriate environmental standards. Fortunately for the PC party, however, the WRA is pretty much onside with lots of platitudes, but no real effort to curb environmental hazards.
Smith writes "Alberta companies have an enviable record of developing environmentally friendly processes and technologies for resource extraction and harvesting. Alberta should be a champion for these innovations and focus on ways to streamline the green-technology patent process, to assist in the export of this technology to other countries that currently do not produce or use hydrocarbon fuels in a sustainable manner." Uh. What exactly does that mean? Clearly it doesn't mean carbon capture techonology as she wants to do away with the government support of that - in it's place, she wants the government to support.. uh.. well, she doesn't say. I guess it's support to "develop environmentally friendly process and technologies for resource extraction, but not to include carbon capture." Ok. So we know what you don't support - what, specifically DO you support. Or is this a way of saying, "we're environmentally conscious, but we don't want to actually do anything about it."
Again - I'm not crowing about current Alberta efforts - but, there's really nothing to distinguish the WRA from current plans. Likely equates with "same old".
On the specific issue of Climate Change, "The debate on the contribution of man made carbon dioxide to global warming remains unsettled, and we should continue to hear from all sides." Maybe so, if you don't buy into the IPCC, but, there is no recognition of how we reconcile that with the position of the U.S. and other trading partners.
Democratic Reform - Danielle advocates repeal of the ability of the HRC to prevent free speech on political issues. On this point, I am in full support, and on this point I myself have voiced
my displeasure with Minister Blackett. In this effort, she would have my unqualified support.
On other points, however, I am less enthusiastic. She wants to repeal a bill banning third party advertising. She suggests that is a "free speech" issue. In some respects, I guess I would agree - but the point of this bill is to prevent the well-funded from "buying" an election. If there is ONE insidious attack on the democratic process, it is the ability of money to buy advertising, to buy electoral success. Alberta is the only province without limits on party donations. Not only should we not allow highly funded third parties from interfering with the democratic process, we should also limit party donations. I am very surprised that a "grassroots" party would seek to do something that is so at odds with that concept.
EVERY Albertan should have a platform to voice their opinions - not just those with the most money. Perhaps because of their connection with the Oil Industry, the WRA has included this in their platform. I think it is going backwards, away from a "one person, one vote" concept, towards the support of corporate manipulation of the voting process. And it's not just about big industry - it also comes from the other side of politics. Millions of dollars are donated to the Suzuki foundation by Liberal supporters federally, and David Suzuki gets in his bus and drives around Canada crowing about how terrible Stephen Harper is and how we should not vote for him.
Free speech is one thing - allowing millions of dollars to be spent to influence government is one area where a restriction on free speech is paramount if we don't want to lose our democracy to special interest groups - from the left or the right.
Fixed Election Dates - I have no opposition to and have supported our government doing the same - a step which I believe the Alberta government will, in due course, endorse. Currently, however, for good or bad, it's not a major priority.
Direct Democracy - recall of MLA's, demands for referenda on spending initiatives. I'm a little on the fence about this. On the one hand, it allows for direct responsibility to the electorate, on the other hand, it can be a costly and time-consuming process that, if abused, could result in policy being mired in quicksand before it can be implemented. I come down on the side of efficiency. We vote in a government - to have them manage the Province - and I would as soon let them govern and take them to task on voting day, as opposed to seeking to have a government under the constant pressure of trying to appease everyone with an agenda.
Senate Elections - we are the only province currently electing our Senate representatives. Danielle Smith makes no change, other than with regard to fixing the election dates (see above).
Current opinion? Really, nothing remarkable, but, that being said, nothing frightening either. Some issues I think are approached in a somewhat naive manner, but for the most part, I can't take too much issue. I suppose my summary of Danielle Smith would be best summed up as "PC Lite".
