Danielle Smith actions since becoming duly elected Premier of the Province of Alberta back in May 2023, have not always conformed to what was presented during the last election. One broken promise, the tax cut was called by Bob Breakenridge of Post Media on 26 December. 
Breakenridge’s column was preceded by a remarkably prescient column in early June. The early call was about the insincerity of the law to prevent taxes going up subject to referendum legislation. As so many political pundits have said over the years, governments can go back against their promises by ignoring them after an election of a majority government or by bringing in legislation that can be revoked at any successive legislative session.
Breakenridge observes the tax cut promise was rolled out with the endorsement of economist Jack Mintz
who said the cut was “a fair and smart way to boost the economy.” Alongside the business community the tax cut and the pledge never to raise taxes were distinctive pledges that appealed to most. The NDP honourably did not make those promises.
These two strategies- false promises and reversal of legislative actions- are distinctive features of our hyper-charged partisan, adversarial, driven by polls and party insiders, leaders, and party brands electoral carnival.
This tendency to deviate from election promises- not exclusive to Alberta- means that voters must be vigilant to accepting on trust promises and claims about what they will do and will not.
As I have written previously, with respect to taxation, Premier Smith and many in the business community, academic circles, and some labour unions- and I- agree about the need for a sales tax. Indeed, renowned economist Jack Mintz has been a strong supporter of the merits of consumption taxes. This vow, quickly rejected when raised by her leadership challengers, was walked back to assure herself support from the core.
UCP – Structure and Division
Take Back Alberta(TBA) appears to have control of the party executive of the UCP. However, there is considerable nuance to the power that directors have over various party functions.
The Board of Directors consists of 18 members including the leader, party president and six officers (CFO, Secretary, vice-presidents of membership, policy and governance, fundraising, and communications). Ten directors are apportioned two each from Edmonton, Calgary, northern Alberta outside of Edmonton; central Alberta; and southern Alberta outside of Calgary (Article 7.2). The president, treasurer or CFO, secretary, and vice-presidents are elected by party members. Non-voting directors that are members of caucus are elected by caucus. Terms expire after at the conclusion of the Association’s second AGM after the AGM when the Director was elected or acclaimed. Governance of the Association at its general meetings resides in its members while between general meetings power resides in its Board (Article 8.2-8.3).
The UCP Constitution gives considerable authority to the Board but the governance manual and by-laws ensure that directors – a majority of whom are TBA nominees- do not control all appointments to the decision making committees.
The Arbitration Committee which arbitrates disputes between party members, including leadership and nomination contests disallows any director, party official, MLA, or subcontractor on the committee. The Party’s Selection Committee includes five members of the general party and five directors. For Policy and Governance Committee, the Party’s Vice President of Policy is the chair with at least eight (8) other Members at large who must not be Directors. The appointment is annually reviewed.
In the case of the Finance Committee, the directors do make up all the members with the Party’s Vice-President of Finance as Chair. The directors also decide who sits on the membership committee, communications, and fundraising committees. What this means is that TBA will influence appointments in respect of policy, arbitrating disputes, and party candidate selection committee. The board of directors however control election operations including finance, fundraising, communications, and membership.
For comparison purposes the Alberta NDP constitution can be found here.
Will Danielle Smith’s dominant position within the party be challenged in 2024 as many in the NDP, electorate, professoriate, and media circles who hope and believe a cleavage is all but inevitable.
Tax Policy a defining issue?
Tax policy could be this friction point. Smith appears to be mindful of the longer-term consequences of short-termism in fiscal policy. Her hesitancy not to advance cuts shows that she may be more determined to get a rein on the fiscal roller coaster than her predecessors.
She may also be reflecting on the very expensive corporate handouts her predecessors, she and her ministers have advanced recently in terms of the petrochemicals industry and the oilsands. In addition, she has been sidetracked by some bad year end news about the Sturgeon Upgrader, which is one of the biggest black holes in the province’s fiscal history, and that is saying something! Another potential liability on the horizon is the government paying out up to $1.33-billion to the Local Authorities Pension Plan and two other provincial pension funds.
According to a Global News profile of Take Back Alberta’s leader David Parker “Parker’s world view begins with religious freedom, individual rights and the fight against big government.”
Parker is the son of a pastor and has been referred to as a “master string-puller of a far-right band of religious fundamentalists, COVID-19 anti-vaxxers and convoy supporters.”
In the context of tax questions, one would imagine that the government’s desire to hold back on tax decreases would not sit well with the TBA faction. Smith did however advance Bill 1, the Alberta Taxpayers Amendment Act which promises no tax increases without a referendum but it does not cover bracket creep caused by inflation. However, as noted above, this type of Bill is a symbolic sham. Also of note is that the Act does not cover fuel taxes which will be going up by nine cents a litre on 1 January.
More problematic may be Parker’s desire to starve government of funding. Smith, ever the pragmatist wants to keep the doors open to public services while incenting the private sector (free markets) to move into traditional areas of government services, namely health and education. This may prove an irritant, but probably not fatal unless the province’s finances deteriorate dramatically.
With oil prices headed lower at year end (oil has averaged about U.S. $78 over the first nine months of the fiscal year, just a dollar under the Budget’s forecast of U.S. $79/barrel), without a prolonged boost from the Gaza War and the threat of OPEC+ supply woes, this is a fiscally delicate time for the province.
Nate Horner is obviously urging caution. Conditions can change overnight in oil markets and bring in rapid windfalls. On the other hand, a world recession would savagely reduce oil demand.
Last but not least, there is the financial, ideological, economic, and political conflict over climate change. While one frequently hears reassuring voices about the future demand for oil and “natural” gas, daily and weekly events remind us 
that humankind is not entirely in control of our “natural” systems. This is a very big issue for Alberta’s future. One of the hopeful routes both the federal and provincial governments place great emphasis is on carbon capture and storage. However, the normally industry pliant International Energy Agency has not been a very enthusiastic endorser of carbon capture.
Second Broken promise- many questions
The second broken promise or misrepresentation from Smith’s election campaign was her pledge to “not touch Albertans’ pensions” despite a mandate letter to Travis Toews of 14 November 2022 before the election directing further exploration of this idea. Perhaps this direction was forgotten during the heat of the campaign, but it wasn’t forgotten for long.
The 21 September release of the Lifeworks report highlighting a transfer of $334-billion in assets from the Canada Pension Plan was accompanied by a slick advertising and
communications plan. Public consultations were to be led by Jim Dinning a healthy contributor to the UCP’s coffers since 2017. (Dinning targeted his donations to constituencies and party candidates.) The campaign entitled “Your Pension, Your Choice” was accompanied by a roughly $7-million advertising campaign and a $1.8-million price tag for the actuarial consultant whose name was withheld for “privacy reasons.”
In addition to this propaganda effort, Finance Minister Nate Horner tabled Bill 2 The Pension Protection Act, which set out whose pensions would be covered and how a referendum could be held to decide the issue. The title of course is suggestive that Albertans’ CPP pensions are not “protected,” presumably by “Ottawa.” Hence, the “guarantees” in the Act that Albertans will enjoy the same of better benefits or the same or lower contribution rates. Of course, legislation can change once reality sets it. Section 7 requires that all the money transferred from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board shall not be used for “any purpose other than the establishment and operation of the provincial pension plan.” But what happens after the transfer? And indeed, how will be money be invested? Don’t Albertans get to “choose” how investment policy is set? Will investment policy be set by the provincial cabinet?
Further questions arise as to the nature of the referendum. Firstly, the provincial cabinet controls the timing, the question, and whether a referendum will be binding. This raises a whole can of worms for the electorate. Secondly,because the referendum may not be binding,even if the APP is rejected the a non-binding referendum appears to meet the requirement that the establishment of an APP can proceed. Thirdly, and given a record of broken promises, will a referendum even be held given that it would not bind the cabinet? Fourth, why have a referendum at all if the government deems this move in the best interests of Albertans? Finally, the government, once the chief actuary of Canada confirms a lower asset transfer number meaning purported lower contributions and higher benefits is shown to be an illusion, could simply decide to amend the Act and proceed without public support. These are disturbing matters given the necessity of secure and stable pensions for many persons in retirement.