PHOTOS: Canada’s provincial and territorial premiers in Newfoundland, with St. John’s Harbor visible in the background (CBC Photo). One hopes they didn’t have to walk up that hill! Below: Alberta Premier Rachel Notley and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall (CP Photo).
The acerbic public disagreement between Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley at the annual premiers’ gathering in St. John’s is not merely a spat about tactics as portrayed by the media.
Rather, their war of words about how energy development should proceed at the national provincial and territorial premiers’ meeting this week reveals a significant rift over how Canada ought to be governed that is important to the future of the country.
On Wednesday, Mr. Wall blew a gasket and accused Ms. Notley of offering a “veto” to Ontario and Quebec on bitumen pipelines from the West. Dismissed as “ridiculous” by Ms. Notley and most of the other premiers in St. John’s, the Saskatchewan conservative’s outburst was approvingly parroted by Alberta mainstream media throughout the day yesterday.
Ms. Notley kept her cool and her trademark charm, shrugging off Mr. Wall’s tantrum as “a little bit of showboating” and expressing the view “you don’t get things done by picking fights with people gratuitously. You do get things done by having good conversations …”
However, it’s said here Mr. Wall’s frustration reflects the opinion of many on the right, including his ideological fellow travellers in Ottawa, at the challenge mounted by Ms. Notley and Alberta’s new NDP government to their neoliberal approach to governance. No doubt they are particularly vexed by what this might mean for their attempts to eliminate the ability of citizens within the Canadian federation to control the energy industry in their own jurisdictions.
Mr. Wall and like-minded conservatives elsewhere in Canada, including here in Alberta, have long attempted to erect, if readers will forgive me, a Saskatchewan Wall between the public face of democracy and the ability of citizens to influence fundamental policies undertaken by their governments.
In other words, in the neoliberal worldview, democracy is only about the periodic selection of leaders expected to carry out economic policies already determined by an “expert” leadership consensus.
This would explain why Mr. Wall, the Alberta mainstream media and MLAs from this province’s Opposition Wildrose Party are all so appalled by Ms. Notley’s efforts to build consensus with other provinces to facilitate export of Alberta’s petroleum resources.
From their perspective, the very notion of consensus building is dangerous because it opens the door to the expectation participants in Canadian democracy may have some role other than merely electing powerless representatives who know enough to behave themselves and abide by the elite consensus.
Take this to its extreme – which would presumably be fine with both Mr. Wall and Prime Minister Stephen Harper – and you have Greece, at least in terms of the negotiability of policy decisions that have already been decided elsewhere behind closed doors. In this sense, recent Harper Government social media advertising about the NDP has it exactly backwards – it’s the Conservatives who want to turn Canada into Greece!
For this reason, any argument Ms. Notley has a clear mandate to keep the promises she made during the campaign leading up to her government’s election on May 5 seems nonsensical to many conservatives. From their perspective, she has no more of a mandate than, say, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras!
From Mr. Wall’s point of view, building pipelines to all points of the compass and catering to every whim of the energy industry is not just sound policy, it is simply non-negotiable. Asking other provinces – or, God forbid, their ordinary citizens – what they think about it must seem deeply subversive to someone who believes such perspectives ought to be irrelevant.
The idea Ms. Notley was seeking consensus to help Alberta apparently appeared so outrageous to Mr. Wall he let his mask of congeniality slip in public. Well, he wouldn’t be the first person to mistake Ms. Notley’s engaging manner for a lack of steel. This is a serious error, as some have discovered already.
Ms. Notley, by contrast, has a fundamentally different, much more traditional, view of democracy in which political parties are needed to act as brokers of conflicting ideas to build consensus on policies that a majority of voters can support.
That means for Alberta to succeed with its wish to benefit from the province’s oil resources – which Ms. Notley shares, despite the ravings and rantings of some right-wing newspaper columnists – then social licence must be granted by citizens of the parts of Canada through which those resources flow on their way to market.
As noted, this is deeply threatening to neoliberals, for whom democracy is only a cosmetic tool. All the worse, from Mr. Wall’s point of view, if Ms. Notley’s plan works better than his alternative, which may well turn out to be the case.
Of course, there may also be a personal side to Mr. Wall’s barbs. Some have suggested he may harbour ambitions to play larger role than possible on Saskatchewan’s tiny stage, and that could be upset by Ms. Notley’s example. If so, his snarky resentment is showing through, surely doing no good to his reputation as the Mr. Congeniality of Canadian politics.
Nor will it help Alberta’s opposition very much to claim Mr. Wall has this province’s interests at heart when he has just proved he doesn’t by using the NDP’s plans for a badly needed royalty review to try to purloin businesses away from our province.
But the exchange between the two premiers should remind all Canadians that an opportunity may soon arise for them to choose between the neoliberal view of democracy represented by Mr. Wall and his friends in Ottawa and the traditional interpretation represented by Ms. Notley and Thomas Mulcair’s NDP, in which citizens actually have a meaningful role.
That is scheduled to happen on Oct. 19.
This post also appears on Rabble.ca.