An interview with Alison Redford on September 2 2011. One month before she won the Progressive Conservative leadership race to become Alberta’s first female premier.
James Wilt : One of the intriguing parts of your platform is that you’re really focusing in on some of the more long-term solutions to major social issues. Compared to Orman – who’s on the far-right side and pushing for tougher sentencing – why are you choosing to pursue the more long-term solution?
Alison Redford : I think that whether we’re talking about justice issues or environmental issues or educational issues Albertans are pretty good at the long-term perspective. We understand that there are root causes of crime and if you don’t address the root causes of social inequality that you’re going to see manifestations of that later on.
The problem is that politicians operate in four-year cycles. A politician makes a promise hopefully keeps the promise and has to deliver on that promise before the next election because traditional politics has been that if they don’t the opposition says that they’re not effective and don’t vote for them. So it becomes this self-fulfilling prophecy and over decades it has become more acute.
Because that has happened in Alberta we haven’t had a government – and I’m going to go back 15 or 20 years – that we’re about to become a province that’s going to grow from two million people to three million to three-and-a-half – and probably in the next 10 years to four-and-a-half – and that means a different kind of policy. That means talking about a social policy framework long-term outcomes for environmental regulations what we’re going to do with the oilsands what education looks like.
And that’s what governments should have done because if government 10 or 15 years ago had done that we wouldn’t be in a position where we would now be dealing with situations that are a result of planning all that time ago. And Albertans know that. And I think that it’s time for us to change the policy conversation so that I as a politician can build a policy with Albertans and with stakeholders so we can talk beyond four-year election cycles.
I don’t mean because I want to be leader of the PC party and want to move through all these election cycles as premier. It’s because that’s what’s good public policy. I’ll talk about this example because I was justice minister. If you want to make sure that some kid who’s 12 years old makes the decision to not engage in high-risk behaviour you’d better understand the circumstances that have led him there. And it might be health issues. It could be a family situation. It could be economic issues. It could be something not working in the classroom.
So we as government and Albertans know it need to understand that all of those pieces at the beginning are precursors for what could come next. And that’s just the justice piece. Then if you overlay on that education health maybe in some cases different work that needs to be done in respect to Aboriginal communities and economic development all of these things fit together.
The other piece being that we have a lot of people coming to this province that are new Albertans who are here – just like when my grandparents came – because they want to connect in to the economic future and prosperity of the province. Well they need support so they’re able to qualify to develop skills to ensure that schools are accessible for their kids that so that we begin to see a long-term policy plan that relates all of these areas for our own future success.
JW : One of the big issues in this election is Bill 36 which is kind of a way of trying to remedy some the lack of foresight in planning in the past. I noticed on your blog that you don’t want to scrap it but do a rendition of it. What does it look like in terms of offering proper compensation to landowners?
AR : The compensation piece in Bill 36 is interesting. I’ve got to take you back a step. On Bill 36 the first thing I’d say is that generally in this province we’ve had a long tradition for 25 or 30 years of really good work on integrated land-use planning. There seems to be mood among a lot of stakeholders that it would be worth putting in place some kind of a legislative framework to take that further so that the plan wasn’t just policy but something a little more certain in terms of legislation.
Everybody generally seemed to agree on that. The problem was that when the legislation came in it was dealing with compensation consultation and access to the courts in a way that all of these stakeholders that had been involved up until that point didn’t think it reflected what they thought would be in the legislation. So what we need to do with compensation is to come back to it and say “Let’s ensure that the compensation is reflected in that act in a way that reflects the traditions of what we’ve had in this province.”
Now in this province we’ve had a relationship with landowners in respect to expropriation for some time and there’s an entire system in place to ensure that in cases where land is expropriated or is no longer being used for the purpose of which the owner intended it that you can get fair market value for that land. What people are saying is that people don’t see that reflected in Bill 36.
So my expectation is that as we move ahead – because I want to make amendments around expropriation – that what we’re going to see is a discussion that says “Let’s make sure that what’s reflected in the references to expropriation in Bill 36 are actually consistent with what we’ve done in this province.” So it’s bringing these two pieces together in a way that gives Albertans the certainty that they’ve had in respect to compensation.
I think that’s where we’re going to go. As we move into it we may see that there are points that people still want to address in compensation and I think that’s appropriate.
JW : You’re a lawyer. Do you agree with Keith Wilson’s analysis of Bill 36?
AR : Here’s the thing. I think he’s got some valid points. There’s an old joke – and I can say it because I’m a lawyer – if there’s not enough business in town for one lawyer get two. That’s what ends up happening. I could go out and talk to someone who interprets the legislation differently but that doesn’t mean that his interpretation is wrong. What lawyers do is interpret in the most extreme situation possible and that’s totally valid and changes the conversation.
We’ve talked to Keith Wilson about this. The point is that that’s not where the discussion can be anymore. The discussion has to be about where do we come to so that we’re not dealing with the extreme interpretations and we’re actually saying ‘Let’s ensure that we’re addressing the concerns of Albertans in this.’ I think it was totally appropriate for some of the public commentary to take those interpretations to the farthest point possible because the response that government was giving when people said they had concerns was “No you’re wrong you don’t understand.”
And that’s not appropriate. People did understand and they thought that there were problems. The government’s response should have been “OK let’s figure out what these are and make it better.” That’s democracy. We only have legislation because elected governments pass legislation. Well governments are elected by the people so the legislation better reflect the views of the majority of the people.
JW : It seems that you’ve written the most about the environment and sustainable energy. You mentioned sustainable hydrocarbon production. Some fear that that could be a contradiction of sorts. You also mention shifting towards renewable energy. What do the two look like together?
AR : It’s not an either/or between renewable energies and sustainable hydrocarbon production. It’s a discussion between whether we’re going to have sustainable hydrocarbon production or not worry about whether it’s sustainable.
We have an entire energy economy in this province that’s focused very much on conventional resources. In terms of an energy policy one of the things we have to do is make deliberate investments and policy decisions that encourage sustainable and renewable. That’s around local generation connecting into the grid ensuring that we’re dealing with wind. All of those pieces are part of what has to happen.
It’s not a contradiction in the sense that I believe it’s a big painting. You’re going to have this – which we haven’t done a good as job as we’ve need to – but we’re also going to have continuing hydrocarbon production. What we need to do as Albertans is to make sure that we’re continuing to push the envelope in terms of making that more sustainable all the time through new technologies and approaches. Through dealing with things like carbon capture and storage technology so that we’re actually reducing the carbon footprint. The cogeneration that’s taking place a lot in Fort McMurray.
Those are all things that we need to do to make sure that the hydrocarbon production is more sustainable all the time. It’s more I would say a complement that an either/or. In my view of the world they’re both there but let’s make sure that the hydrocarbon production is as sustainable as possible.
JW : What’s the funding going to look like for the renewable sector if you do become premier?
AR : It’s interesting. When you sit down and talk to the wind industry they’re not looking truly for subsidy. What they’re looking for is a policy framework that allows the electricity grid to ensure that they’ve got access to the grid so the consumers have choice. Those are policy decisions not subsidy decisions. And they’re not looking for subsidy. They’re just saying that we need to have a policy framework that understands what an energy economy actually looks like.
On top of that I think we can put in place – and we have put in some small pieces – that incentivize consumers to think differently in terms of conservation and energy efficiency whether that’s around household renovations or the building of new houses or what urban design looks like. I think that’s a piece we can do more work on. What a dollar amount attached to that would be right now I don’t know. But I think you could see programs with dollars attached to them.
JW : A lot of the long-term solutions such as increasing AISH will take more funding. Doug Griffiths has proposed the introduction of a PST and I noticed that you wouldn’t. Why is that?
AR : We don’t need to increase taxation. Most of what I’m talking about — with the exception of AISH — is about delivering government differently and understanding that if you make those long-term connections between health and education and how they impact things like preventative work on justice you’re still spending the same amount of money. But you’re delivering health in schools as opposed to waiting for a child to walk through the door in the emergency room.
So it’s about changing the way that we organize how government has provided services and resources to people. Something like AISH will make a difference in terms of a financial commitment and that’s fine because it’s important in terms of our values as a community. As far as I can see I don’t have the sense that government was prepared to say that this is an important value in our society. And there will be some of those and they will cost money but these are entirely manageable within a $30 billion budget if you decide that they’re values that matter to you.
Our budget growth will come from an increase in the percentage based on GDP and population growth. And as long as we’re doing that what that means is that the economy is growing and taxation revenue will increase. But in terms of a provincial sales tax we don’t need to go there. One of the reasons is that in Alberta we’ve fallen into this trap of thinking that whenever we have money we’ll spend it. That’s exactly what we do with non-renewable resources. The price of oil is going up? Let’s spend it.
Government got lazy about it and Albertans expected and then the cycle began. You put in place these long-terms plans. You talk about health care you talk about education. You decide how you’re going to be funding that and then you stick to it so that when those revenues go up and governments decide to spend the money the answer is “No we’re not so here’s our plan. This is what we’re going to do. This is what we need to. And we can do both. We can fund that plan without going into deficit and we can continue to put money in the Heritage Trust Fund.”
It’s entirely possible. It’s not about additional resources. It’s just about financial responsibility.
JW : As I’m sure you know most of the media refer to you as a “red Tory.” Some have concerns that if you became premier the gap between those that would vote for Morton or someone more on the right-wing would shift towards the Wildrose. What do you think it is about your platform that separates you from being a Liberal?
AR : Every single one of my policies is practical. They’re practical policies that provide solutions to issues that Albertans have. I don’t actually believe that Albertans are ideological as right-wing and left-wing. My fiscal plan is very conservative – and is very similar to Ted Morton’s fiscal plan – whereas my justice plan is fairly middle-of-the-road. I think that what Albertans want is government that is able to provide practical solutions and let them get on with living their life.
There will be a Wildrose Party and there will be some form of a Liberal Party. There may very well be an Alberta Party going into the next election that’s all fine. It’s good to have political choice. But at the end of the day people will have to look at the leaders look at the experience in government look at the plans and decide which one makes sense for their lives. I think at the end of the day that’s how they’ll decide.
I think we’ve had far too many politicians that have worried about positioning themselves just in case this and just in case that and to appease here and accommodate there. And I don’t think it’s led to very good public policy.
