Grant Notley: The Social Conscience of Alberta, Second Edition

Published by

The University of Alberta Press

Ring House 2

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2E1

www.uap.ualberta.ca

Copyright © 2015 Howard Leeson

LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA CATALOGUING IN PUBLICATION

Leeson, Howard A., 1942-, author

Grant Notley, the social conscience of Alberta / Howard Leeson. — Second edition.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Issued in print and electronic formats.

ISBN 978-1-77212-125-4 (paperback). — ISBN 978-1-77212-128-5 (PDF). — ISBN 978-1-77212-126-1 (EPUB). — ISBN 978-1-77212-127-8 (kindle)

1. Notley, Grant, 1939-1984.  2. Politicians—Alberta—Biography.  3. Alberta New Democratic Party—History.  4. Alberta—Politics and government—1935-1971.  5. Alberta—Politics and government—1971-2015.  I. Title.

Second edition, first printing, 2015.

First electronic edition, 2015.

Digital conversion by Transforma Pvt. Ltd.

Proofreading by Brian Mlazgar.

Fact checking by Jim Gurnett, Keith Wright and Kathy Wright.

Indexing by Judy Dunlop.

Cover design by Alan Brownoff.

Front cover photo: Grant Notley, 1982, by Arnaud Maggs. Library and Archives Canada, R7959-1323-5-E. Used by permission.

The University of Alberta Press supports copyright. Copyright fuels creativity, encourages diverse voices, promotes free speech, and creates a vibrant culture. Thank you for buying an authorized edition of this book and for complying with the copyright laws by not reproducing, scanning, or distributing any part of it in any form without permission. You are supporting writers and allowing University of Alberta Press to continue to publish books for every reader.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior written consent. Contact the University of Alberta Press for further details.

The University of Alberta Press gratefully acknowledges the support received for its publishing program from the Government of Canada, The Canada Council for the Arts, and the Government of Alberta through the Alberta Media Fund.

Ede and I would like to dedicate this book to Nancy Eng. Like Grant Notley, Nancy was taken from us too early in life.

Contents

A Note on the Text

Foreword

RACHEL NOTLEY

Preface to the First Edition

Acknowledgements

Introduction to the Second Edition

Introduction to the First Edition

1 | A Prairie Child

2 | University Years

3 | The Early NDP

4 | Provincial Secretary

Photographs

5 | The Leader

6 | The MLA for Spirit River-Fairview

7 | The Social Conscience of Alberta

8 | The Leader of the Official Opposition

Epilogue

Notes

Bibliography

Index

A Note on the Text

THE SECOND EDITION of Grant Notley: The Social Conscience of Alberta contains a new Introduction by the author, a Foreword by Rachel Notley, a new selection of photographs and a new Index. The main text of the book reproduces the original 1992 edition, with minor corrections.

Foreword

MANY PEOPLE I MEET describe my dad as having been a great public speaker; however as Howard writes in this book, my dad was quite shy. Public speaking often made him nervous, but he believed that anything could be overcome with a little (or a lot) of hard work. As I nervously prepared for the leaders’ debate in the 2015 election, I thought of my dad’s example: if I prepared enough, I knew I could do it too.

It has been suggested that the election of Alberta’s first New Democrat government came out of nowhere, that it was due to voter fatigue with forty-four years of Progressive Conservatives, or hinged on that key leaders’ debate. I disagree. Our victory was a result of many, many decades of work by many, many people who built the reputation and integrity of the New Democrat Party in Alberta. While that work didn’t always reflect in popular support for the party, it was reflected in underlying levels of credibility.

This book outlines much of the hard work that was done by Dad, but which unfortunately didn’t translate into popular support until after his death. It was then that Albertans experienced a collective recognition of how much they valued his contribution. In fact, when I talk to people who remember my dad now, they’re often surprised to learn that the height of his political career involved winning two seats—both by very small margins. So what was it about him that had such a profound impact? I think the subtitle of this book holds the answer: he was the government’s critical social conscience. They knew they could rely on him for that.

I’m often asked about his impact on my own career. Certainly I have felt the pressure that most children do to carry on their parents’ legacy; however, I got involved in politics because I enjoyed the camaraderie and the issues. I grew up in a campaign office and, unlike many other New Democrats in Alberta at that time, I took part in winning campaigns. I loved these elections and our family watching the results come in was a bit like Hockey Night in Canada, made even more important because winning and losing was about issues that mattered.

My political life has been significantly shaped by the fact that I grew up in a house where politics was not about fame and fortune, but about hard work and the reward of feeling like you’ve done the right thing. Dad taught me about political work and, together with my mom, taught me my political values: justice, determination, and integrity. Through both my parents I learned that if you actually care about something, you better get up and do something about it.

This book is a biography of my dad’s political life. However, it is also a primer for would-be politicians. Its most salient message? Political victory worth having rarely comes easy.

RACHEL NOTLEY

September 2015

Preface

to the First Edition

WHEN THE EUROPEAN SETTLERS streamed into this land a hundred years ago, the prairies seemed a vast almost unending region, a tabula rasa awaiting only the imprint of their collective hands. It was virtually unspoiled and unresisting. Over the years the settlers changed the prairies dramatically, building farms, homes, towns, and eventually cities. Just as importantly, they also built new social structures. The experiences of isolation, oppression, and alienation plowed new social furrows beside those in the land. These cultural roots remain with us today. They nourish us, providing us with a sense of heritage, a stability, a sense of place in a world which constantly seeks to change our values and norms.

As you might expect, we look to our community leaders for verification of these values, for personification of what we hold closest. Some leaders stand out in this respect. They are almost archetypal, so vividly familiar that we immediately identify with them. Somehow they reflect a truth about ourselves which demands our attention.

Such a man was Grant Notley. In the society and politics of Alberta he stood out. Albertans felt intuitively that he represented a part of their collective being, and his untimely death touched them deeply. When he died, a bit of Alberta died. He was us, and we miss him.

Acknowledgements

I WOULD LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE a number of people who have contributed significantly to the second edition of Grant Notley: The Social Conscience of Alberta. First, and foremost, I would like to thank Rachel Notley for taking time out of an incredibly busy schedule to write the Foreword for the new edition. That she would do so amongst the minor tasks of setting up a new government, putting together a throne speech, crafting a new budget and generally adapting to the job of premier of Alberta tells us much about her feelings toward her father.

I would also like to thank all of the people at the University of Alberta Press for agreeing to do a second edition. A special thank you to those who did considerable work on pictures, research, fact checking, rewriting, cover design, and marketing. Unless you have worked for a press or served on the board for a press, you have very little understanding of how much work goes into putting out a decent book. It is especially important that university presses be acknowledged for their work during this period of time when academic publishers are under considerable financial pressure. Well done University of Alberta Press.

I would also like to thank Brian Mlazgar, former head of the Canadian Plains Research Centre Press, for his help in proofreading and his general help and friendship in making this second edition possible. As with the first edition, a special thanks to Aydon Charlton for helping out with the crafting of the new Introduction.

Once again, I need to thank the Alberta New Democratic Party, the Provincial Archives of Alberta, and Tom Sigurdson for making photographs available for this edition.

Finally, I would like to again thank all of those who made the first edition possible. In particular I wish to thank Sandy Notley Kreutzer for taking the time to talk to me about Grant, as well as all of those people who permitted me to record their observations and recollections. I am also grateful to Mark Zwelling who sent me his tapes of conversations with Grant; to Linda Sarafinchan who provided many useful documents; and to Bill Dryden and Anne Hopp for their help interviewing and consulting. Finally, I would like to acknowledge Leanne Overend for enduring the many extra typings of the manuscript caused by my constant need to keep changing everything. Without all of their initial help there could never have been a second edition.

Introduction

to the Second Edition

Change has come to Alberta.

—RACHEL NOTLEY, election night, May 5, 2015

CHANGE HAS INDEED COME TO ALBERTA. Like the years 1921, 1935 and 1971, the year 2015 will be remembered as the year of the political earthquake. After almost 44 years in office the Progressive Conservative Party was not only defeated but was reduced to third-party status. It was replaced by a party that, as recently as 1993, had been wiped out of the legislature and, according to the polls, was in third place when the 2015 provincial election campaign began.

How could this happen? How could a province viewed by most as the conservative heartland of Canada decide to elect a majority New Democratic Party (NDP) government? Clearly part of the answer lies in the fact that the people of the province had decided that the Progressive Conservative Party needed to be removed from office. But they could have turned to the Wildrose Party, which had almost won power in the previous election, or the Liberal Party that had been the official opposition through several previous elections.

Why then Rachel Notley and the NDP? Beginning in September 2014, each of Alberta’s four major parties selected new leaders. Of these, however, only the NDP did not choose a leader under circumstances of crisis within the party. By the time the election call came, only the NDP was a party both strong and united. In Notley, the party had a leader who was bright, articulate, and intelligent, with a well-respected and well-known family name. As well, she and the party ran an excellent campaign with a well-crafted platform. Finally, Rachel did a superb job, especially during the debate with other party leaders.

These are all reasonable explanations, but in my opinion they lack one important element. The Alberta NDP was able to win the election, I would argue, not only because Albertans wanted change, but because they wanted change that was consistent with the history and roots of the province. In other words, they wanted safe change. For many Albertans Rachel Notley provided a way to throw the rascals out without throwing out the embedded values of Alberta. She represented real, but safe change.

This conclusion must seem counterintuitive to many who view the NDP as a radical left party, a group that personifies alien or foreign values of collectivism in a province renowned for its individualist and entrepreneurial spirit. They would be wrong. In fact, the Alberta NDP represents a stream of political culture with a long and honourable history in the province. The Alberta NDP, like its predecessors the Alberta Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) and the United Farmers of Alberta, occupies a legitimate political space that Albertans over the years have nurtured and continued. In short, many Albertans decided to vote for the NDP because they recognized that both the leader and the party were, like themselves, real Albertans. By electing Rachel Notley, voters in the province could make a dramatic change while respecting the history of their own political community. It was, in that sense, a very Albertan thing to do.

If we accept the premise that the Alberta NDP represents a legitimate political force in the province, we are still left seeking to explain how it was able to maintain that position in the body politic and why it was perceived by Albertans as an option in this election. Put another way, how did the NDP retain its legitimacy in what many concluded was an increasingly conservative province? Not surprisingly, I believe that part of the answer can be found in the work done by Rachel’s predecessors, including her father, Grant Notley, in the sixteen years that he was leader of the Alberta NDP. As I said in the Introduction to the first edition of this book:

He bridged the old and the new, he provided the necessary hard work to forge a link to ensure the continuation of a progressive social party in Alberta. Practical party worker, social conscience, pragmatic idealist, Grant squared the circle of contradictions that one finds in the social and political history of Alberta.[1]

And yet, so much has changed in Alberta since his death. How could what he and others started nearly 50 years ago still be relevant today?

Change and Continuity

The answer to that question is complex. Not long before the publication of the first edition in 1992, the Soviet Union was still in existence, China had yet to embark on a capitalist trajectory, George Bush the elder was president of the United States, and Brian Mulroney was still prime minister of Canada. By mid-1993, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, Bill Clinton was president of the US and the Progressive Conservative Party had been reduced to two seats in the House of Commons. In a very profound way, our comfortable understandings of the world and its future were swept away in the 1990s by the end of the Cold War. It was a huge shift in the paradigm of politics, the reverberations of which are still felt today.

In many ways the twentieth century was an artificial century. The period 1917 to 1992 was what many call the age of ideology. Increasingly after the Russian Revolution in 1917, all political action began to be interpreted in the context of the clash of left and right ideologies, capitalism and socialism. Not surprisingly, those who studied politics and attempted to make sense of it constructed paradigms of analysis that fit the new reality of the world. Thus, it seemed appropriate to Grant in his maiden speech to the legislature in 1972 to talk about today’s socialist, to cast his party and program in contrast to those on the other side in terms of left and right. For those on the left, the experiences of the Great Depression had solidified not only the need to take positive action to ensure more equality in society, but also the belief that inevitable historical processes were underway in the world that would sweep away the old order. The older bases of politics, family, clan, ethnicity, language, religion and region were submerged in a torrent of nationalism and ideology fuelled by technology.

And yet, even by the time of Grant’s death in 1984 that broad paradigm was under challenge. He died too soon to recognize the profound changes that began in the United States with the election of Ronald Reagan and in the United Kingdom with the election of Margaret Thatcher. The older divisions of society, submerged by the postwar consensus on political and social change, began to reassert themselves throughout the world. But it was the formal collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 that precipitated a vast and far-reaching remake of the political world. Most of us did not realize how profound that change would be. With the fall of the Soviet Union came the end of an experiment that had defined world politics for almost 80 years. Notwithstanding the continued existence of a number of communist regimes, the world began to adjust to a new reality. International and domestic politics were no longer defined largely by the opposing threats of capitalism and socialism. Most observers were slow to adjust to the end of a familiar and in many ways comfortable analytical world. We simply did not realize the impact that the fall of the Soviet Union would have on every political culture in the world.

From the vantage point of 2015, the changes that occurred are certainly understandable. While ignored, the older wellsprings of political division had not disappeared from society in the twentieth century. Rather, they had been temporarily submerged in the sharp ideological clashes generated from socialist experiments in various parts of the world. Indeed, even during the latter part of the twentieth century, before the collapse of Russian communism, older divisions had been re-emerging in many countries, including Canada. Regional ethnic and regional economic divisions in the form of Quebec separatism and western Canadian nationalism became dominant in Canadian political discourse during the 1970s and 1980s. But it was not until the 1990s and the early 21st century that divisions centred on religion in particular began to resurface in the world. The clash of civilizations paradigm that now seems to dominate international relations was not something that Grant would have been familiar with.

So, with these changes, can we come to the conclusion that a party like the NDP in Alberta is a leftover relic of an earlier ideological era, a strangely antique party that has somehow now managed to hang on long enough to become government? The answer I think is no. Although the Alberta NDP of the 1960s and 1970s concentrated on ideological divisions in society, it was also a party based on social divisions of a more lasting and therefore more profound nature. While many of the rocks of political stability that Grant took for granted have been swept away in an avalanche of change, many have remained.

The Old and the New

Despite the massive growth in population and changing demographics in Alberta, a profound sense of regional alienation remains strong in many parts of the province. The two types of Prairie activism that I spoke about in the original Introduction to this book are still forces in the political culture of the province even though the agricultural communities that spawned them have been reduced in influence and size. As well, battles over the control of resources and the huge royalties flowing from them in the 1970s and 1980s reinforced the earlier sense of Alberta isolation and alienation. That alienation has been harnessed by every government elected by the people of the province, and has been embedded to a greater or lesser degree in all of the Alberta political parties. Fighting the power of corporations and the federal government in the East found resonance in each political community. One need only look at the outcome of the election in May 2015 to see how deep-seated that alienation remains. The constituencies that consistently voted for the Social Credit Party after 1935 were also strongest for the Wildrose Party in the last election. Western alienation continues to influence all political parties in the province. Grant recognized that alienation and took note of it in all his political planning. So will his daughter Rachel.

While it is true that political divisions are now less fixated on ideological and doctrinaire bases, this does not mean that class politics has disappeared. Parties like the Alberta NDP continue to represent the less powerful and less affluent in society and continue to strive in their platforms and policies for a society that is more equal in material condition. In particular cases, like with Indigenous peoples, these divisions are much broader than class, encompassing racial, cultural, and even linguistic differences rooted in continuing practices of colonialism.

It is no accident that the NDP did much better in urban constituencies where the median income is below those of the more affluent urban ridings. Populations in those constituencies recognize and understand that the Alberta NDP speaks to their issues and concerns. In Edmonton, the NDP had a complete sweep, winning every constituency. However, even a quick look at the percentages for each party in the various constituencies tells us that the class base of politics is alive and well in the bigger cities. Grant would have felt right at home discussing western Canadian alienation and strategies for winning inner-city ridings.

He would also find that familiar regional differences within the province remain strong and recognizable. During his time as leader, he concentrated on rural constituencies in the north of the province, understanding that they provided more fertile ground for his party. Much of this difference is explained by the original settlement patterns of the province. The southern part was heavily influenced by American populists like Henry Wise Wood whose populism was rooted in a particular view of the yeoman farmer that counselled change in the system, and not rejection of it. A second view was much more rooted in a class interpretation, that was intensely critical of capitalism and therefore counselled rejection of the system altogether. This view was familiar to settlers arriving from Europe rather than the United States. As well, the agricultural realities of the areas northeast and west of Edmonton were much different than those of southern Alberta. Farms were much smaller in the north than in the south, with none of the influence of large ranching businesses that dominated much of the south. In short, farms in the north tended to be smaller and poor, while farms in the south were larger and more prosperous. As a result, Grant would have approved of the tried-and-true strategy that concentrated on these northern constituencies, as opposed to those in the southern half of the province. If you look at the rural seats that the Alberta NDP won in the 2015 election they are for the most part in the northern part of the province.

Finally, Grant would have recognized and approved of his daughter’s fiscal prudence. He was a fiscally prudent man, and insisted that his family also be prudent. Indeed, as you read this book you will see that this prudence enters into the discourse quite often. Nevertheless, Grant was in many ways a typically pragmatic prairie politician. He cut his political cloth to the measurement of Tommy Douglas, Allan Blakeney, and Roy Romanow. He had little time for those who thought that budgets should not be balanced, or that fleeting oil royalties should be spent today rather than conserved in a trust fund for tomorrow. Measures like reducing the cabinet size to 12 members, doing a thorough review of the finances of the province upon election, insisting that social programs be expanded only where finances were adequate, and insisting on balancing budgets in a reasonable period of time, all of which have been introduced by his daughter, would have been a natural political path for him. In short, he would have glowed with fatherly approval.

These and other political and policy approaches would seem familiar to him, the natural outcome of the election of the NDP in the province. However, other political and policy approaches would undoubtedly have appeared jarringly different.

One of the most striking differences would be the role of men and women in the party. Grant came from a generation in which women in politics were largely relegated to minor duties. I should emphasize that he was quite open to an expanded role for women, especially in leadership positions. He welcomed and promoted increased leadership roles for Nancy Eng, Jean McBean, Ede Leeson, and other women who were obviously capable of running for office and indeed of sitting in a cabinet. He did not subscribe to the maxim that women should make coffee and not policy. However, I believe that he would have been surprised at a number of outcomes in the 2015 election.

Perhaps most importantly, it is his daughter who succeeded him. Grant was well aware of Rachel’s abilities, but people from his generation still passed on their farms and businesses to their sons. During his time as leader, especially in rural areas, the patriarchy was alive and well.

The fact that there were largely equal numbers of men and women as candidates, and that this equality was reflected in the first cabinet would also have surprised him—he would not have resisted an important role for women, but he would not have believed that Albertans would elect women in so many constituencies, especially in rural Alberta. I remember many strategy sessions in the 1970s that involved discussions of whether or not a woman could win a particular constituency. He would be surprised that this was now almost a non-issue.

While Grant was not a doctrinaire socialist, I think he would have been astounded that there was absolutely no discussion of public ownership in the 2015 NDP election platform. During his leadership, many hours of discussion at provincial conventions focussed on whether or not particular areas of economic enterprise should be brought under full or partial public ownership. These discussions went beyond areas of natural monopoly like power generation, electrical grids, health care and other social services to include areas of natural gas and oil production for example. The fact that there could be an NDP platform in Alberta that did not even mention this matter would seem alien to him.

He would have been comfortable with the platform that proposed increasing taxes on corporations, but he certainly would not have viewed taxation policy as the only way to influence economic change. Giving tax incentives to private corporations to develop wind and solar energy power might have been an option during his leadership, but many in the party would simply have called for a public corporation to begin immediately the construction of these generation facilities. After all, in the 1970s even Conservative governments believed in public ownership of some utilities and corporations. Former Premier Peter Lougheed had no hesitation in purchasing an airline when it suited his purposes.

The role of First Nations, Métis, and other Aboriginal peoples in the province was already on the radar during his leadership, but once again I think that he would have been surprised at how this relationship has changed since his time in office. There were a number of resolutions on this subject at the March 1977 provincial convention of the Alberta NDP for example, but they all referred to treaty rights. Nowhere to be found were resolutions on residential schools, education for Indigenous peoples, or other issues that are of great importance today. It was only after the entrenchment of treaty and other Aboriginal rights in the Constitution Act of 1982 that the collective consciousness of Canadians about Indigenous peoples began the long slow process of development. History books written about Alberta as late as the mid-1990s still had very little to say about the history of Indigenous peoples in the province.

Like other left-of-centre parties, the Alberta NDP was appalled at the poverty in Indigenous communities. However, they largely viewed this as a social problem that could be lumped in with poverty generally. At the time they did not view Indigenous peoples as the First Nations of the province, as peoples with a different and fundamental constitutional and historical position in Canada. In addition to this general lack of education about the role of various Indigenous communities, there was also the belief that this was a federal problem. After all, the Indian Act governed most of reserve life, and for the most part Métis communities were viewed as odd population remnants left over from the settlement period. Therefore, there was very little discussion of these matters at provincial conventions. This began to change after 1982, and especially after the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report released in 1996.

Would Grant be surprised at the emphasis on these issues in 2015? I think that the answer would be yes. Would he understand how these matters ought to be dealt with by the Alberta NDP? I think that the answer to this question is also yes. Grant was a person who understood disenfranchisement, poverty, and the lack of opportunity very well. He would have applauded efforts by Rachel Notley to prioritize these issues in a provincial election campaign. In particular, I think that he would have appreciated the emphasis on basic services and education for Indigenous peoples. He would also, I believe, have strongly supported the inclusion of Indigenous candidates in representative numbers in the provincial caucus. I say this because he was a strong supporter of the insistence by Allan Blakeney, premier of Saskatchewan in 1981, that Section 35 on Aboriginal rights, be included in the Constitution Act. He understood both the necessity for and the justice of the inclusion of this section.

Some issues that commanded great attention in the 1970s and 1980s were almost completely absent from the campaign of 2015. The question of the foreign ownership of natural resources in the province was a huge issue during Grant’s tenure as leader. The NDP, both federally and provincially, made foreign ownership a major issue in each campaign. For the most part, the NDP was willing to talk about public ownership as a tool for reducing foreign ownership, but at the very least they wanted to ensure that Canadian companies, and not foreign-owned companies, were developing the resources of Canada. Grant was an avid supporter of more domestic ownership in the resource sector of Alberta. I believe that he would have been perplexed that this issue has slipped off the table and was not afforded a major discussion during the campaign.

Interestingly, the lack of debate about the role of foreign-owned corporations in the province is indicative of two major trends that have developed in the last two decades, both of which would have puzzled someone like Grant. The first trend is a decline in the concern about the role of foreign entities in the country. There is much more acceptance of the role of globalization and of international corporations in Canada. The second trend has to do with the role of private ownership and the decline of public ownership as an alternative. The general movement of politics to the right in the country has meant that the legitimacy of the role of the private sector in Canada in many key policy areas is now well established. Grant would certainly have bristled at P3S (public—private partnerships) that have now become commonplace as a result of the Stephen Harper Conservative government’s drive to privatize major areas of the public sector. The interrelationship of these two trends has meant that the matter of foreign ownership has largely declined in importance.

Grant would also be puzzled at the lack of discussion about federal–provincial relationships. These relationships dominated provincial politics in Alberta during the whole of Grant’s leadership. Fighting Ottawa was a staple of Alberta politics for several decades. Much of it was fuelled by the fact that there was a Progressive Conservative government in Alberta, and a Liberal government in Ottawa. This was still true as we entered the 21st century. In 2001, future Prime Minister Stephen Harper was one of a group of people who proposed erecting a firewall of jurisdiction around Alberta in order to preserve its control over natural resources in particular. Grant understood the need for the Alberta NDP to recognize and