With only 11 seats in the legislature between the Liberals and the NDP, Alberta’s opposition parties’ capacity to challenge the Conservative government seriously diminished after the March 3 election. The province is not without dissenting voices, however, as citizens groups have stepped up to fill the void.

Some, like the Pembina Institute, are non-partisan, research-based organizations. Others act as advocates for the public, like Public Interest Alberta, which focuses on democracy and education issues. And a few outfits, like Greenpeace, choose to use acts of civil disobedience to get their message out. Whatever tactic is used, each group works diligently to bring important issues to the forefront of public discourse.

“When you have a government that refuses to listen to reason, refuses to listen to its own population, you need to have some more dramatic activities to raise the government’s attention and to get them to listen,” says Mike Hudema, energy and climate change campaigner for Greenpeace Alberta. The goal, he says, is to get the general public to remember social change sometimes involves people pushing the envelope, which can potentially involve illegal activities.

Formed in 1971, Greenpeace has tackled such environmental issues as nuclear testing and whale hunting using tactics some have labelled criminal. The group now has its sights set on Alberta’s oilsands, which it sees as one of the greatest threats to the environment. Having only set up an Alberta chapter in August 2007, Greenpeace has already garnered attention with its trademark acts of civil disobedience. In April, three of its members upstaged Premier Ed Stelmach at a Tory fundraiser by unfurling a banner from the rafters of the Shaw Conference Centre in Edmonton. On July 24, 11 members were arrested for trespassing at a Syncrude tailings pond after they broke onto the site and placed a large skull flag on the mouth of one of the discharge pipes feeding the pond.

Whether or not the government heeds its message, Greenpeace is definitely getting the public’s attention. Not all of this attention is positive, though. A cursory glance at a number of newspapers or websites shows a variety of opinions of the group’s most recent stunt. Some view the group’s members as environmental saviours. Others label them as nothing more than environmental extremists hell-bent on totalitarianism. If nothing else, Greenpeace’s actions have people talking. “Within Alberta, you’re going to face a little bit of backlash, because I think we’ve forgotten a lot of the history of social change and how direct action and civil disobedience has always been a part of it,” says Hudema.

According to Hudema, the only solution is to set a timeline to phase out unconventional sources of oil. With countries around the world moving away from energy sources with carbon-heavy footprints, it is time for the province to acknowledge the world is moving towards renewable energy. With its resources, both natural and monetary, the province could be a world leader in having the world’s cleanest energy supply, says Hudema. “Canada, and Alberta especially, is being left behind by a world that’s increasingly learning that non-renewable resources and being reliant on them for energy supplies is a losing battle and one that is too devastating to continue.”

Although some may brush off Greenpeace’s message because of the tactics it uses, the group is not alone in its thinking. Two Alberta-based research organizations, the Pembina Institute and Parkland Institute, agree with the notion that the world is moving away from relying on carbon-based fuels. The province, they argue, runs the risk of being left behind if it doesn’t take action.

“Albertans owe it to themselves to be engaged on these issues because they have significant implications for the future of Alberta’s environment and economy,” says Dan Woynillowicz, a senior policy analyst with Pembina. “Much of Alberta’s boom right now is driven by new development, particularly in the oilsands, so an incredible number of jobs are being created there. More jobs than we can actually fill right now.”

However, the jobs won’t last, says Parkland’s executive director Gordon Laxer. Many of the jobs in Alberta are in the building of oilsands projects. Once the operational phase of these projects begins, the number of jobs will fall to about one-tenth their current level, he notes. It is a construction boom similar to the one Alberta experienced in the 80s. “At least the Lougheed government had serious plans to have a petrochemical industry, to upgrade and to move into other industries other than oil,” says Laxer. “Now you’ve got a government that isn’t even trying to diversify.”

Instead of exporting raw bitumen, Laxer suggests the province should be upgrading, refining and turning it into petrochemicals and final products like plastics. “If you did that, you would produce less energy and that would help the environment, but then you get way more value at each stage, you keep that value added.” says Laxer. Diversifying the industry would also have the added effect of creating long-term jobs rather than the short-term ones associated with construction booms.

For example, the Keystone Pipeline project currently exports 435,000 to 591,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) to the U.S. This amount will double to 1.1 million bpd after the completion of a $7 billion expansion. It is estimated Canada could lose up to 18,000 jobs directly and indirectly, with many of those jobs being created in the U.S.

Part of the problem, says Laxer, is many of the transnational oil companies have existing upgraders and refineries in other countries. Economically, it makes sense to ship the raw oil rather than build new operations. “The dominant economic and political interests in the province are the transnational oil companies, and the government is very tight with them,” he notes. “It makes sense for them but it doesn’t make sense for Alberta. A government is supposed to be a government of the people, not the government of the corporations.”

However, when a quarter of Albertans, directly or indirectly, make their living from the oil and gas industry, there can be a tendency to be complacent or fearful of criticizing the province’s dominant industry. This combination of fear and complacency plays well into the hands of a government that screams murder when outside opinion, especially federal, is voiced.

“I’ve always found it ironic that the same Albertans who criticized the federal Liberals for running a one-party state in Ottawa couldn’t look in the mirror and see the same problems on a greater scale here in Alberta,” says Gil McGowan, president of the Alberta Federation of Labour (AFL). “We’ve got a provincial government that continues to make hay by refusing to take direction from Ottawa, but at the same time has no problems with taking direction from Houston.”

When groups or individuals do speak out, the Conservatives have a penchant for lashing out. At various times government leaders have called critics communists, subversives, or accused them of spreading misinformation. During the spring election campaign, Albertans were witness to a labour-union-funded advertising campaign cryptically sponsored by Albertans for Change. The commercials, paid for by a coalition of trades unions (the AFL and the Alberta Building Trades Council) aired on both television and radio and famously targeted the Conservative party and its leader for having “no plan.” However, many perceived the commercials as negative and were confused as to who was behind the ads, mistakenly believing it was the Liberals or the NDP.

For McGowan, one of the two unions behind the Albertans for Change campaign, the purpose was to convince Albertans political change is possible. “Raising questions, offering alternatives and pointed criticisms of the government is what democracy is all about,” says McGowan. “If individuals and groups don’t feel comfortable raising legitimate questions then the very foundations of our democracy are in question.”

According to McGowan, polling within the ranks of the AFL’s 125,000 union members showed there wasn’t overwhelming support for the Conservatives. However, union members also indicated they weren’t convinced political change could happen. “That’s one of the reasons why we launched the ad campaign,” he says. “We wanted to convince people that political change can happen, even in a place like Alberta, and encourage them not to give up,” says McGowan. “Despite our best efforts, six out of 10 Albertans still chose not to vote. Unlike the government, we don’t think that was a vote of confidence in the Conservatives.”

While the government holds 87 per cent of the seats in the legislature, it should be noted only 22 per cent of eligible voters actually cast their ballots for the Conservatives. Yet, despite the significant majority the Conservatives hold in the legislature, opposition criticism still provokes bullying, say their critics. Government members certainly do resort to name calling. It was Stelmach who called the Liberal party “subversive” in May for criticizing a $25 million public relations campaign. “You’d think this government would recognize the importance, to some degree, of opposition,” says Larry Booi, chairperson for the public advocacy organization Public Interest Alberta. “But they continue to act like bullies.”

“I think there’s a tendency for people to say, “Well, why would I mess with something that is basically putting money in my pocket,” says Booi. “But I really think there’s something that transcends that. I don’t think you have to throw away your financial birthright in order to have some badly needed democratic reforms.”

According to Booi, when a government holds such an overwhelming majority as the Conservatives there is an obligation to exercise good judgment. The limited size and capacity of the opposition parties means their ability to keep the government in check is significantly restricted. Raising one’s own salary behind closed doors and invoking closure to ram through legislation is indicative of a government choosing to ignore good judgment and the democratic process.

The Conservatives, Booi argues, have mistaken their victory in the March 3 election as a mandate to initiate massive policy changes. During the election campaign, Stelmach promised to govern with honesty and transparency and stated shortly after his election victory in March that, “The third way is DOA,” a reference to his predecessor’s last attempt at health-care privatization. There was no mention of overhauling the health-care system, massive pay raises or anti-labour legislation. “The government does not have a mandate to change health care,” says Booi. “Mr. Stelmach got a mandate in the sense that he won an overwhelming election. But he did not run on the policy of massive changes including privatization of health care. These guys confuse power with democracy.”