New times, new governments, new problems for opposition parties

It's not easy being in opposition these days. Especially not in Alberta, nor in Ottawa, where radical regime change has elected governments with radically different ideas about how governments should do business.

It is plainly obvious that voters have rejected the old way of doing government business, so how does the opposition (which represents that old style) successfully oppose the new?

That's the challenge for both the Wildrose Party in Alberta and the federal Conservatives in Ottawa. If you like, it even poses a tangential challenge to the governing Saskatchewan Party whose leader Brad Wall seems to have manoeuvred himself as an opposition leader who just happens to hold the reins of power.

In Ottawa, it's way too early to tell if the Conservatives can morph from a decade of being increasingly autocratic government leaders to becoming opposition defenders of democracy against government autocracy.

Suffice to say that adopting a slogan like “change of tone” will not be enough.

Interim Conservative Party leader Rona Ambrose strode out to meet the press following her appointment, to begin this process. She promised a more open and inclusive approach to federal politics, took three quick questions, then turned her back and walked away.

It appears “change of tone” will not come easily.

But you have to give them points for trying. Friday's headlines hint at something more positive. The Huffington Post, for instance, reported Friday that the Tories will give the “benefit of the doubt” to the Liberals on climate change.

If that's the path forward, it's a smarter one. It reflects the tone of the Liberal Party during the election campaign when leader Justin Trudeau said he wanted to see the details of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement before deciding whether to support it.

The NDP under Tom Mulcair rejected the TPP out of hand — a classic opposition move, but one that did not resonate with voters who have gotten tired of government-by-competing-autocracies.

Compare this example with Alberta's Wildrose Party statements on the issue of what governments should do about climate change.

On Thursday, party leader Brian Jean suggested that because Alberta environment minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd even spoke to her federal counterpart, Catherine McKenna, on Wednesday, that it was complicity toward a new round of the National Energy Program. Whoa, Nelly. Really?

From 1980-85, when that debacle occurred, the Progressive Conservatives under Peter Lougheed were governing Alberta, and Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre, was prime minister. The NEP was a stun gun that froze investment in Alberta, killing thousands of jobs. It also killed Liberal Party prospects in the province. There has been no forgiveness since, earned or offered.

Now, said Jean in a party release, the NDP are in charge and they “are more than happy to go along” with a new federal scheme for a repeat. He said the fact the two ministers were even talking shows that the Alberta government is willing to let the federal government dictate how we run our energy-based economy.

Never mind where people may stand on the issue of what governments should do concerning the environment; this is about what opposition parties need to learn to persuade people, in today's political realities following regime change.

Alberta voters have rejected the tone and substance of us-versus-them governance. Canadians in general rejected the notion that ideologues can dictate a narrow viewpoint from a small office onto the country, with no accommodation for anyone else.

In today's reality, an opposition can't win hearts (or votes) by throwing stones (or mud) anymore. Not in a time when people feel threatened enough already.

Alberta is on the verge of economic crisis driven by low energy prices. Canada needs a policy on how to react to a global refugee crisis driven by sectarian violence and terrorism. The whole world is looking for unified leadership on preventing a potential climate disaster that we have all worked together to create.

The change is this: we have elected political parties with policies of co-operation on these issues. An opposition party cannot succeed by simply refusing to co-operate.

Whatever core support a rather overconfident premier Brad Wall may have in Saskatchewan, it's a minority view to say he doesn't want to co-operate on faster processing of Syrian refugees. That ship has sailed, and the non-profits are already at the table with money and resources to bring them in.

His announcement that Saskatchewan will be 50-per-cent reliant on renewables for energy supply sounds more like a government people will want to elect (or re-elect).

How will opposition parties there or in Alberta win debates now? By creating bogeymen of higher-priced electricity (which people can offset by being more efficient) or of potential loss of profits for large corporations with large pollution footprints? These just won't fly in an era when people are looking for solutions, not excuses that solutions are just too much change.

In a climate where people want change, being in opposition is not easy.