The Wildrose Alliance has already demonstrated after its policy convention this past weekend that its membership isn’t ready to stick to its guns because of a fear of how the public might perceive them. For a fledgling party that is pushing the reigning Tories for first place in the polls, it is a decision that could ultimately suck away some of its momentum.
While party leader Danielle Smith had no problems ripping premier Ed Stelmach and his party’s policies to shreds during her address at the convention in Red Deer, the voting members of what’s supposed to be the heir-apparent of Alberta’s political right took more cautious steps towards the centre, aligning itself almost right alongside the Tory government it is trying to chase from office.
It has come as no surprise that the main competition for the Tories has come from Alberta’s right, given their 40 years in power and unending wave of political game-play. But while the Alliance might have seemingly softened its stance on some issues that might have proved more controversial, other pieces of its future election platform are worthy of concern.
It seems the Alliance is trying to turn teachers into enemies of the public, even though these are the professionals charged with educating our children and who, for the most part, do an exceptional job. An old Alliance policy declaring teachers an “essential service” and subsequently denying them the right to strike was softened to simply review which professions should be considered essential. It is a slap in the face to teachers who gave up their labour rights for five years in exchange for what was supposed to be a guaranteed salary increase. Now it’s the school boards, not the government, that are being forced to pony up that money. The Alliance also wants to “hold educators accountable for performance.” A novel idea, but how? When one considers the party also voted to allow more school choice, which means more private schools and teachers if the party is elected, how will an Alliance government reconcile these policies with its fundamental commitment to small government?
An Alberta constitution seems mundane enough that it is gratifying the motion to ensure the right to bear arms did not pass. Other policy decisions, such as pushing for “environmentally responsible” ways of developing oil and gas speak to no substantive political action or steps to achieve them. Giving health workers the rights to refuse to perform services they find morally objectionable — such as prescribing the morning-after pill — tread on the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to every Albertan. Giving individuals the power not to do something simply because they think it is wrong, even if and when they are compelled by law to do so, simply weakens our social welfare.
There are some ideas worthy of exploring. Rules-based budgeting sounds like a great idea, but how would the Alliance have dealt with last year’s recession if it had been boxed in by legislation? A provincial police force, especially in the wake of recent concerns about the RCMP’s role in municipal policing, is an idea worth exploring, but where will the money come from? How will this party guarantee the overall security, safety and health of Albertans with more than a provincial constitution when it is taking direct aim at the bureaucracy that is in charge?
Now that the Alliance policies have been developed, they can be sufficiently put under the microscope and probed for their true meanings. Until now the party had simply been riding on the strength of its genesis and the camera-savvy of its leader. Whether or not the Alliance turns out to be gun shy in the battle of popularity over platform remains to be seen.
