|
"The West and the Liberal government
at the beginning of the new mandate:
the need to work better together"
Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Saskatchewan
Institute of Public Policy
University of Regina
Regina, Saskatchewan
March 6, 2001
Check against
delivery
Our country is so vast and so diverse that our knowledge of it is always
limited. This could be a disadvantage. I believe on the contrary that we
draw three advantages from this. First, a permanent call to modesty:
all Canadians know they have a lot to learn about their country. Next, an
invitation to listen: we know that it is by listening to one
another that we will learn. Finally, a creative candour: a
Saskatchewanian's fresh viewpoint on Quebeckers can be useful for them,
and vice-versa.
It has now been five years since Prime Minister Jean Chrétien gave me
the opportunity to serve my country within the Government of Canada,
five years in which I have worked side by side with Canadians from all
regions of the country. I have learned much, and continue to do so, by
looking at how one Saskatchewanian is effectively contributing, with all
his energy, to the development of agriculture and natural resources in my
province. But I learn just as much by helping him with all my strength,
here in his province. I am proud to work alongside this son of
Saskatchewan, Ralph Goodale.
I have learned a great deal from my relations with provincial
representatives elected throughout the country, including, of course, your
recently retired premier, Mr. Roy Romanow. I believe that he embodies
your province's great tradition of public service, from which all Canada
benefits so much.
But what has taught me the most in the past five years have been my
contacts with ordinary Canadians. I knew Western Canada before I entered
politics. I know it much better today. But I am aware that I do not
know it as well as you or Ralph. There are some things I think I
understand, but there are many that puzzle me.
I am going to talk with you today, with my candour as a Quebecker, about
some of these things that puzzle me in the West. I would like to open the
discussion on two questions that have often been put to me, especially
since the last federal election: does Western alienation exist for the
Chrétien government, and if so, what do you plan to do?
1. Does Western
alienation exist?
I am not really keen on battles over wording. So let's go with alienation
if that is how you define your situation in Canada. But many Western
Canadians are saying and writing that this is not the case. Be that as it
may, it seems to me that the vast majority of Western Canadians have no
desire to define themselves as alienated in the way that, at one
time, Mr. Bouchard went around everywhere reiterating that he was humiliated.
In any case, I can assure you that there were many of us in Quebec
who refuted Mr. Bouchard: Quebeckers are not humiliated in Canada.
But beyond the choice of words, I will tell you what my understanding is.
I am aware that you are greatly attached to and very proud of your Western
identity. At the same time, you do not want that Western identity to mask
in any way the differences between the four provinces and those within
each one of them. As soon as we speak about the West, those of you from
Saskatchewan have a word of warning: careful, we're not Alberta! And in
Edmonton, they warn: careful, we're not Calgary!
You have made your Western identity a source of enhancement for Canada,
and never something that would be against Canada. I know the extent to
which Westerners are committed Canadians. When some of you talk of
alienation, it is not your country that is the subject of your discontent.
Rather, you are referring to powers that have marked your history, powers
you did not have, powers often found in what you call Central Canada-a
phrase which, I have to tell you, is unknown to Quebeckers. You are
thinking of economic, financial, and also political powers.
The capital of your country often seems very far away from you, and not
just geographically speaking. More often than not, the party in power in
Ottawa is not the one that garnered the most votes in your province or in
the West as a whole. You feel a concern about the federal government's
ability to listen to you, to understand you and to work with you. It is
a feeling I believe I understand as a Quebecker. Although we
Quebeckers have been in such a situation less often than you, we are
always afraid of it happening. A federal government made up of few or no
Quebeckers-and which moreover, in our case, would barely be able to speak
our language-would certainly have its work cut out for it in Quebec.
And this is the situation you find yourselves in once again after the last
federal election. The Liberal party forms the Government but came in
second in the West (with 25.3%), and third in Saskatchewan (with
20.7%). Faced with a government which is once again made up of few
members from your region, you feel the apprehension I have just mentioned.
That is why we need to talk with each other, so as to start off on
the right foot at the beginning of this new mandate.
That is why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has asked eight of the fourteen
Liberal members of Parliament elected in the Western provinces to sit at
the Cabinet table. For a number of years now, he has assigned the
chairmanship of the two most important Government committees-on the
social union and the economic union-to two great Western Canadians,
Anne McLellan and Ralph Goodale.
Red Book III, which includes our commitments to Canadians, is something we
are going to achieve together with you, the people of Saskatchewan.
In all areas, we are going to work harder than ever to ensure that
our actions are adapted to your everyday realities, and are undertaken
together with you.
It is all the more important for your federal government to intensify its
contacts with you considering that the West, and your province in
particular, have traditionally been a breeding ground for innovations that
have inspired all of Canada. The process of putting our financial
house in order that began in the 1990s, for example, owes a great deal to
the initiatives undertaken by your provincial governments and to
approaches developed in your academic and business communities.
We have a long way to go to meet together all the challenges facing us at
the beginning of this mandate in all areas, be it agriculture, the
environment, or research and development. Together with Ralph Goodale and
Rick Laliberté, the Government of Canada is determined to work with all
of you to help Saskatchewan's agricultural sector in these difficult
times, to ensure that your young people are better prepared than ever to
take on the new economy, and that your Aboriginal populations have the
same opportunities in life as other Canadians. All of the commitments in
Red Book III must be fully realized, in Saskatchewan as they must be
throughout Canada.
Some people will say bravo for that determination, but will add that it
would be naive to believe that this will be enough to allay the feeling of
Western alienation. What is also needed, they believe, is a large-scale,
fundamental reform, a shift, a shock treatment.
But other voices are also being heard in the West, which are expressing
doubts as to whether such a major reform would make the difference. For
example, in an open letter written recently to the Prime Minister, the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada West Foundation,
Professor Roger Gibbins, wrote:
The root of the regional problem at the current time is not to be
found in profound disagreements between east and west. There is no single
policy issue that separates the West from the rest of the country. As
a consequence, there is no single legislative act, no policy commitment in
the upcoming Throne speech, that will put Western discontent to rest.
One of the reasons that I share Professor Gibbins' opinion is that when
you examine the plans for fundamental reforms that have been put forward,
they seem unlikely to forge consensus in the West. Many Westerners do not
consider them to be desirable. This is true for the three main shifts that
have been proposed: a conservative shift, a decentralist shift, and a
populist shift.
2. A conservative
shift?
Some people say that Liberal policies will never fit the West because the
West is fundamentally conservative. I am very interested in knowing your
opinion on this theory, but for my part, it raises certain doubts,
especially when I am in Saskatchewan, the birthplace of Canadian social
democracy!
In any case, more than one opinion poll suggests that the ideological
differences between Western Canadians and Canadians in other regions are
not that great, if not "only slightly"(1).
It is not uncommon for ideological differences between the West and the
rest of the country to be less prominent in polls than those
differentiating the Western provinces from one another (or the urban and
rural regions of each province).
For example, consider the question of fiscal conservatism. If one is to
believe the polling data, when Canadians are asked whether the federal
government should use its surpluses mainly for 1) debt reduction, 2) tax
cuts or 3) investment in social programs such as health care,
there are no spectacular differences of opinion between the different
regions of the country (Graph 1 and 2). Alberta does appear to be
less favourable to investments in social programs, especially compared
with the higher-unemployment regions of Quebec and Atlantic Canada (Graph
1), but otherwise, there is no indication of the alleged solid Western
conservatism.
Similarly, the key issue for Canada of openness to immigrants and visible
minorities in no way pits the West against the rest of the country (Graph
3).
It is with respect to moral issues that there is greater indication of a
distinctly Western conservatism (Graph 4). Support for capital punishment
is slightly higher in the West than in Ontario or Atlantic Canada, and
distinctly higher than in Quebec. With respect to both abortion and
homosexual rights, your province, Manitoba and Alberta are more
conservative than other regions, but British Columbia is less so than the
Canadian average.
You can tell me whether these findings confirm your own observations, but
the impression I get is the following: regional differences exist, but the
broader picture does not indicate that the West is systematically more
conservative than the rest of the country. After all, if your region were
truly more conservative, my party would be permanently unpopular in
the West. In fact, though, the Liberal party regularly leads the polls
between elections in three out of four provinces, and places a
respectable second in Alberta. When there is an election in the offing,
however, Liberal support diminishes in the West. I hope I will not
seem too partisan in saying that this phenomenon concerns me, and I would
like to know the explanation behind it.
Another electoral phenomenon in the West puzzles me: why do your rural
ridings so strongly support the Alliance? It seems doubtful that such a
party, which is committed to slashing federal spending and reducing its
revenue sources, would invest more in agriculture or transportation than
the current government does.
One thing is certain: I refuse to view these electoral phenomena as
inevitable. Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Goodale and all of our Liberal team
are resolved to redouble our efforts so that the next time we keep your
support right into the voting booth. The only way to achieve this is to
work together with you to give you the best government possible.
A conservative shift? My sense is that there would not be any more of a
consensus on such a move in the West than there would be elsewhere.
3. A shift toward a
radical decentralization?
Some people claim that Western Canadians (or at least those from Alberta
and British Columbia) would be very favourable to a substantial
strengthening of provincial power: they would like to see the provincial
governments inflated with responsibilities currently assumed by the
federal government. For example, you know that six Albertan intellectuals
recently wrote to Premier Klein urging him to opt out of the Canada
Health Act or withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan. They call that
the "Alberta Agenda." But I am not sure that is what Albertans
really want-let alone Saskatchewanians. In any event, according to the
poll published in the Globe and Mail on February 14, 2001, two
thirds of Albertans do not support the so-called Alberta Agenda.
My contacts with ordinary Canadians, like all the public opinion polls
I have seen, show that the majority of Canadians in every region of
the country do not want massive transfers of powers toward the provincial
governments in this federation which is already one of the most
decentralized in the world. What they want above all is for their
governments to work better together. That is the direction in which the
Chrétien government has concentrated its efforts, with results such as
the agreement on the social union and the agreement on health and early
childhood development. We are committed to continuing to make that sort of
progress in all fields. That is why I was quick to make contact with your
new premier, Mr. Lorne Calvert, and my new intergovernmental affairs
counterpart, Mr. Chris Axworthy.
4. A populist shift?
Some people say that Western Canadians are more populist than those in the
rest of the country. They say, for example, that you want to see frequent
use of citizen-initiated referenda, relaxation of party discipline and a
proportional voting system. They say that the refusal of other Canadians
to accept such reforms is a major source of frustration in the West. They
anticipate that Western alienation would be greatly reduced if the federal
government proceeded with such reforms.
I do not need to tell you that populism is deep-rooted in the West.(2)
The West has been the cradle of major populist parties from the
Progressive Party to the Alliance. But populism has taken on many
different shapes in the West.(3) In
Saskatchewan, as is well known, it was expressed through the cooperative
movement rather than use of referenda. You even held a referendum in 1913
to repeal the provincial referendum legislation passed in the same year!
But coming back to the present. If it is true that Western Canadians are
more attached to referenda and other measures of this kind, it puzzles me
that the four provincial governments do not put these ideas into practice
to a greater extent. After all, such reforms depend only on them and on
you. They do not require any constitutional amendment or any negotiations
with the federal government or other Canadians.
Currently, two provinces-yours and British Columbia-have legislation in
place that allows for citizen-initiated referenda. So how is it that in
those two provinces, not a single popular initiative referendum has been
held since that legislation was passed?
Can it be that Western Canadians have a reticence similar to that of their
fellow citizens in the other regions of the country about resolving often
complex and sensitive issues through referenda? Do you think that the
Californian example of referendum after referendum is a positive
development? Or that of Oregon, whose residents had to vote on 26
questions last November? Matthew Mendelsohn, a Canadian political
scientist who has studied the American experience, has concluded that
"no growth in political efficacy accompanies the introduction
or expansion of direct democracy. Citizens in those states that use
initiatives do not feel more efficacious [...]."(4)
Do we need to do away with party discipline? If your answer is yes,
I would expect party discipline to be significantly more relaxed in
your legislative assemblies than in the House of Commons. Is that
really so? Perhaps, for your part, you too support the principle that
candidates of the same party elected on a platform need to work as a team
to implement that platform. One can wonder if, here again, the American
example is instructive: the absence of party discipline does not make the
US Congress any more popular with Americans than our Parliament is with
us.(5)
Does the voting system need to be amended to incorporate proportional
representation? If so, your legislative assemblies can proceed with such
amendments for your provincial elections. After all, that is what a
federation is for: to try out different solutions so that the
good ones can be borrowed elsewhere. Foreign experience can also be
useful here. New Zealand recently abandoned the British voting system
in favour of a formula of proportional representation. The conclusion that
Professor Jonathan Boston of the Public Policy Group at Victoria
University of Wellington, New Zealand, has drawn from this experience is
not at all encouraging: "[On the basis of New Zealand's
experience to date], [a]ny suggestion, therefore, that electoral
reform may provide a cure for the constitutional discontent that
currently afflicts many democracies can be quickly dismissed. Indeed,
there is a risk that it might simply make matters worse."(6)
And then there is the issue of Senate reform, which for its part, requires
the agreement of all the regions of Canada. My feeling is that this
issue does not oppose the West to the rest of the country. In all
regions, there are more supporters of an elected senate than an appointed
senate (Graph 5). In fact, abolition would appear to be Saskatchewanians'
solution of choice.
If we were to opt for Senate reform that made it elected, I believe that
the major problem we would need to resolve would be the allocation of
senators: the same number for each province? For each region? Some other
formula? No one can seem to agree on this. Even Alberta's two
"senators in waiting" have different views, with one in favour
of equal distribution by province and the other opposed.
I do not know how or when we are going to resolve this problem. But
I do know one thing, and that is that this has nothing to do
with any lack of respect for the West and everything to do with the
plurality of opinions everywhere in Canada.
Conclusion
As you can see, I have a lot of questions for you, which are also things
that puzzle me. And I have not covered everything there is to cover.
For example, I could have addressed the issue of the West's "fair
share" in relation to the other regions. The Prime Minister is in the
habit of saying that Canadians share two views on this issue. The first is
that Canada is the greatest country in the world. The second is that their
own province does not receive its fair share. This second belief would
seem to have more resonance in the West at this time than in the other
regions of the country, according to some studies.(7)
This is a complex issue in a region where two provinces receive
equalization payments and two do not. For today, let me just say that the
key to finding ever-greater fairness lies in ongoing dialogue. We must all
ensure that the programs administered by the Government of Canada and
addressed directly to Canadians are based on the most objective criteria
possible and that they reflect the needs of Canadians in every region of
the country. And we must move ever closer toward the ideal of all our
provinces and our three territories being able to provide their population
with services of comparable quality.
But I would like to conclude on another aspect of the Western issue, which
I have not sufficiently dealt with. That is the notion of respect. In his
open letter to the Prime Minister that I mentioned earlier, Roger Gibbins
placed this notion of respect at the heart of the matter:
Simply put, the heart of the problem is not policy or money, but the
lack of respect.
This feeling of not being sufficiently respected is of great concern to
me. Because if there is one thing that is worthy of respect, it is
certainly this extraordinary human adventure that is Western Canada.
Exactly ten years ago, I was a research fellow at the Canadian Centre for
Management Development in Ottawa. I will never forget the conversations I
had with my office mate, a most distinguished gentleman named Al Johnson.
He was one of the greatest public servants in the history of our country.
He was the leader of a group of influential public servants who, after
having achieved so much in your province, went on to help the federal
government modernize itself in the 1960s. They were known as the Saskatchewan
Mafia. Canada owes a great deal to your province, the pioneer of our
health system and the first to have adopted a charter of rights. It
has perhaps been the country's most innovative province.(8)
If you believe that you are not well respected, then that is a serious
problem that we need to talk about. Because the last thing I would want is
for you to doubt the tremendous pride that a Quebecker feels in having
Saskatchewan and Western Canada as part of his country.
1. André
Blais, Neil Nevitte, Elisabeth Gidengil and Richard Nadeau, "What is
it that divides us? Canadian voters cast very regional ballots, say
political scientists", The Globe and Mail, December 18,
2000, p. A17.
2. David
Laycock, Populism and Democratic Thought in the Canadian Prairies,
(Toronto, University of Toronto Press), 1990, 369 pages.
3. Tom
Flanagan, "From Riel to Reform: Understanding Western Canada",
Working Paper presented to the Fourth Annual Seagram Lecture, McGill
Institute for the Study of Canada, October 26, 1999.
4. Matthew
Mendelsohn, "Introducing Deliberative Direct Democracy in Canada:
Learning from the American Experience", American Review of
Canadian Studies, 26 (3), p. 455.
5. Louis
Massicotte, "Parliament: The Show Goes On, But the Public Seems
Bored", Canadian Politics, 2nd Edition, (Peterborough,
Broadview Press), 1994, pp. 328-343.
6. Jonathan
Boston, "Institutional Change in a Small Democracy: New Zealand's
Experience of Electoral Reform", revised text of a speech
delivered at the conference "Parliamentary Government at the
Millennium: Continuity and Change in Westminster Systems", Canadian
Study of Parliament Group, June 10-11, 2000, p. 43.
7. Blais et
al.
8. Dale H.
Poel, "The Diffusion of Legislation Among the Canadian Provinces:
A Statistical Analysis", Canadian Journal of Political
Science, IX, no. 4, December 1976, pp. 605-626.
Graph 1:
Priorities for using surpluses
As you may know, the
Government of Canada has said it will have a budget surplus over the next
several years. How would you prefer the Government of Canada make use of
this budget surplus ? Would you like to see the Government of Canada ...?
Source: Ekos, Federal Election Survey-1,
October 2000 (2,265 respondents)
Graph 2:
Preference between lowering taxes
and reducing
federal spending
|
Those who agree with
the statement |
Source: a) Ekos-Toronto Star, June
2000 (1, 200 respondents)
b) Ekos, Rethinking Government 2000-3,
July 2000 (1,505 respondents)
Graph 3:
Attitudes toward immigration and visible minorities
- In your opinion do you feel that there
are too many, too few or about the right number of immigrants coming
to Canada?
- Forgetting about the overall number of
immigrants coming to Canada, of those who do come, would you say
there are too many, too few or the right amount who are visible
minorities?
- Does the fact that we accept
immigrants from many different cultures make our culture stronger or
weaker?
Sources: a) and b) Ekos, Rethinking
Government 2001-1 (December 1999), 2000-2 (April
2000) and 2001-1 (January 2001); Ekos-Toronto Star, June
2000 (7,353 respondents; average of the four polls);
c) Ekos, Rethinking Government 2000-2
(April 2000) and Ekos-Toronto Star, June 2000 (2,705 respondents;
average of the two polls)
Graph 4:
Attitudes on moral issues
|
Those who agree with
the statement |
Source: a) Environics, Focus Canada
2000-2 (2,020 respondents); b) and c) Ekos-Toronto Star, June 2000
(1,200 respondents)
Graph 5: Changes
to the Senate
In your opinion, should
the Senate of Canada be ...?
Source: Environics/CROP for the Centre for
Research and Information on Canada, average of the polls of
September 1999 and October 2000 (4,000 respondents; average of the
two polls) |
