"Respecting the voices
of Alberta"
Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Delta Bow Valley Hotel
Calgary, Alberta
April 16, 2003
Check against delivery
It has now been seven years since I first entered politics and became Canada’s
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I am often asked what gives me the
most satisfaction from this experience – an experience like no other.
Well, the greatest satisfaction does not come from people telling me:
"Mr. Dion, I’m going to vote for you." Although, that’s
always nice to hear.
No, what satisfies me the most is when people tell me, "Mr. Dion, I
don’t always agree with you, but I respect you because you’re a man of
conviction." For me, such expressions of respect are the greatest reward a
politician can receive. They make up for the exhausting work, the never-ending
travel, the stress and the precious family time that must be sacrificed to the
demands of politics.
Conversely, no criticism affects me more than statements accusing Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien or his government, or me personally, of lacking
respect for the Canadian public or for Canadians from any particular
province.
I readily accept people telling me that I made a mistake or that I lacked
judgment on occasion. Nobody is perfect and one must know how to learn from
criticism. But being accused of lacking respect is far more serious.
Here in Alberta, the federal government is sometimes criticized for not
respecting Albertans. This issue comes up from time to time in your largest
daily newspapers, and this concerns me a great deal.
When there is such a perception, I believe we need to deal with it right away
through a more meaningful dialogue. No doubt, the federal government has
not managed to dialogue sufficiently with Albertans, despite the admirable
efforts of my two Alberta colleagues in government, David Kilgour and
Anne McLellan.
I would therefore like to thank the Canadian Unity Council and the Canada
West Foundation for giving me this opportunity to speak with you on the need to
respect the voices of Alberta.
In particular, I would like to thank Michèle Stanners and
Roger Gibbins for this invitation. These two friends of mine are committed
to strengthening the dialogue and mutual respect between Albertans and other
Canadians. In fact, it was Roger who, in an open letter two years ago,1
advised the Government of Canada to make this notion of respect the cornerstone
of its approach to Western Canadians. I think there is a great deal of wisdom in
Roger’s advice.
In speaking with you about mutual respect, I could have taken the easy route
by highlighting the things that are going well, where there is broad agreement
between Albertans and the federal government. For example, I could have talked
about what the federal government, and Minister Anne McLellan in
particular, have done to stimulate oil sands development. The corporate income
tax changes presented in the 1996 federal budget, in conjunction with the
generic royalty regime introduced simultaneously by the Government of Alberta,
have been instrumental in the economic boom that Alberta has been experiencing
in the last six to seven years. Since 1996, about $25 billion has already
been invested in the oil sands. Or I could have described the productive
negotiation of a mechanism to prevent and resolve disputes which could result
from the interpretation of the principles of the Canada Health Act. This
was concluded on April 24, 2002 and was spearheaded mainly by Alberta
Premier Ralph Klein and Anne McLellan. Or perhaps I could have
mentioned the measures in the last federal budget which propose to extend to the
resource sector, over a five-year period, the reduction in the corporate income
tax rate from 28% to 21%, while improving the tax structure.
But it is always easier to respect one another when we agree than when we
disagree. So I am going to take the difficult route today and talk
with you about some federal policies that are controversial in Alberta. It
is precisely when we have different viewpoints that it is important to
ensure there is mutual respect. I would like to highlight two things. First of
all, these controversial federal policies do have some support in your province,
which needs to be noted. I believe strongly that we cannot respect a society
without recognizing its complexity. As a federal minister, I feel that
respecting Albertans is first and foremost a matter of being mindful of the rich
diversity of opinions expressed in your province.
Second, the Government of Canada had adopted these policies because, after
listening to and weighing all viewpoints, it determined they were the most
likely to serve the interests of Albertans and all Canadians. So respecting
Albertans also involves taking the time to listen before making a decision and
then coming afterwards to discuss with you the merits and the consequences of
those decisions.
1. Recognizing the complexity of Alberta society
On a number of issues, the debate in Alberta, like in other provinces, is
often framed in its own way. But this does not make Alberta a monolithic
society. Let me illustrate this point with a series of surveys on federal
policies that are controversial in Alberta.
- The war in Iraq: although public opinion is constantly changing on this
issue, the fact is that when the Prime Minister announced that Canada would
not be participating in the military intervention, nearly half of Albertans,
including almost two -thirds of Edmontonians, supported him (Figure 1).
- Kyoto Protocol: at the time of ratification, there were almost as many
Albertans in favour of the protocol as there were opposed (Figure 2).
- Firearms registration: more Albertans favour the registry than one might
think (Figure
3). Nearly four-in-ten Albertans continue to support the registry’s
concept and its completion despite cost overruns (Figure 4).
Opinions on this subject are likely divided along urban-rural lines, as is the
case elsewhere in the country.
- Bilingualism: although Albertans are evenly divided on the question of
whether or not to invest in bilingualism,2
three quarters of them think it is important to learn a second language and, of
those, two-thirds think that this second language should be French (Figure
5).
- Health: both universal access to health care and the federal government’s
role in this area seem to find favour with many Albertans (Figures 6
and 7).
Therefore, for the Government of Canada, respecting Albertans certainly does
not mean attributing a single viewpoint to them, one which denies the
pluralism of their society. Respecting Alberta means listening to its many
voices and searching for the decisions which best serve the public good.
Citizens usually do not want their governments to govern through opinion
polls. They want their governments to listen to all points of view before
deciding on a course of action that governments feel is best suited to the
common good. People want governments to engage them in an open, sincere
dialogue on the reasons for, and the impacts of these decisions.
2. Respect through dialogue between Albertans and the Government of Canada
To illustrate what I mean by a sincere and open dialogue, I am going to bring
up three particularly thorny issues in Alberta: the Canadian
Wheat Board, the Kyoto Protocol and Senate reform.
The Government of Alberta and many Alberta farmers want to do away with the
monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. But you know better than I that a number
of other Alberta farmers hold the opposite view. During the Board’s elections
last December, when its future was clearly the issue, four of the five directors
elected at that time by Western Canadian grain producers came out in favour of
keeping the Board. Of these four that were in favour of keeping the Board, two
represent Alberta farmers.3
There are many reasons why farmers are better off selling wheat and barley
via the Canadian Wheat Board. With the Board as the only seller of Canadian
wheat and barley, international buyers deal with a stable, reliable partner who
can provide assurances of high and consistent quality. Similarly, price
pooling reduces the volatility of prices that farmers would otherwise face as
individual sellers in the international marketplace. But the bottom line is
price. Selling wheat and barley via the Canadian Wheat Board resulted in an
extra $160 million per year for the farmers of Western Canada. In other
words, farmers received $10.49 more per tonne by selling through the Board than
they would have made if there were multiple sellers under identical market
conditions.4
These are some of the reasons why the Government of Canada feels that the
Canadian Wheat Board does a good job. We are, of course, prepared to discuss
this with the Government of Alberta and with any stakeholders who have different
views. A disagreement on an issue such as the Canadian Wheat Board should not
cloud our vision and limit our ability to discuss these issues of significant
public interest. But, above all, what I would like everyone to recognize is that
our position is founded on our interpretation of the public interest and in no
way reflects a lack of respect toward the people of Alberta.
Let us now turn to a topic that is of course less controversial!... the
Kyoto Protocol. The Government of Canada engaged the provinces, the
private sector, environmental groups, experts and the public at large in lengthy
discussions on the Protocol. In fact, I am sure that no other country has had a
longer or more intense dialogue on this question than Canada. But there came a
time when we had to make a decision. The Government of Canada opted, as you
know, for ratification of the accord. I know that this difficult decision and
the process for reaching it disappointed many, including your provincial
government. But I believe that the decision was taken with all points of view
understood and respected.
In particular, following intense discussions with stakeholders, the
Government of Canada strove to take into account the legitimate concerns of the
oil and gas industry. Let me illustrate this with three examples:
- First, there was a concern that reduction targets, if set too high, would
make a number of oil and gas projects uneconomic. In response, we confirmed that
we would ask the Large Industrial Emitters to reduce emissions by no more than
55 megatonnes of CO 2 equivalent.
- Second, there were concerns that an absolute cap on greenhouse gas
emissions would translate into limits on growth. We then agreed to adopt an
emission intensity approach rather than a "cap and trade" one.
- Third, there were concerns that we needed more flexibility in dealing with
large industrial emitters than a simple regulatory approach would provide. In
response, we agreed to negotiate covenants with the industry rather than
introducing regulatory instruments alone as a means to reach agreement on its
contribution.
Now that the Kyoto Protocol has been ratified, there is a lot of work we need
to do together. A successful implementation will require partnerships, cannot
impose an unfair burden on any given region and must fully respect everyone’s
interests. The prospect of fruitful collaboration between the Government of
Canada and the Government of Alberta seems very promising, especially in light
of recent initiatives taken by your provincial government, such as the recent
climate change bill and increased funding for the environment in last week’s
budget.
I also want to emphasize the absolutely critical role played by the energy
sector in Alberta in helping the Government of Canada define an
implementation plan for climate change.
We must work closely with the industry. In fact, this morning, I met with the
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. It is certainly good news that
Suncor announced, on April 4, 2003, further investments of
$3 billion to increase oil sands production by 50% within four years.
Suncor also pledged a further $1.5 billion to expand its upgrader near
Fort McMurray. This suggests that continued investment in oil production in
Western Canada is going ahead even as we tackle the problem of climate
change. It also suggests that the Government of Canada has been working in good
faith and is listening to the concerns of the business community about the
implementation of Kyoto. A strong, competitive energy sector is important,
not just to Alberta but to all of Canada.
And now to another lively topic: the Senate. Many Albertans, indeed many
Canadians, are in favour of reforming or simply abolishing this institution (Figure 8).
I know a lot of you would like your senators to be elected, chosen by you. I
have a great deal of sympathy for that position, which has been defended with
conviction by the Government of Alberta.
But the problem is the unequal distribution of senators per province.
Right now, as you know, Alberta has only six senators, whereas a province
such as New Brunswick, with only one quarter of the population of Alberta,
has ten. This inequality is not a major problem now, because senators, not
having the legitimacy conferred by being elected, fulfill their
parliamentary role with restraint, albeit often with talent, including your
Senator from Calgary, the Honourable Dan Hays, for whom I have great respect.
Elected senators would not exercise the same restraint and would exert much more
influence than the non-elected senators of today. At that point, the
under-representation of Alberta in this influential elected Senate would be very
prejudicial to the province.
So before electing senators, there would need to be agreement on a new
distribution of their number per province, which would require a constitutional
amendment. And that brings up another problem – the fact that Canadians do not
agree on the parameters for that distribution: Should we have the same number
per province? Per region? Some other formula? No one agrees on this. Even
the two "senators-in-waiting" have different views on this.
Mr. Bert Brown favours equal distribution by province, while Professor
Ted Morton is proposing distribution by region.5
I do not know how or when we will resolve this and other issues associated
with Senate Reform. But one thing is certain: reconciling these divergent
views has nothing to do with a lack of respect for Alberta and everything to do
with the plurality of opinions that are being expressed both in your province
and in the rest of Canada.
Conclusion
The many voices of Albertans are an important part of the Canadian fabric.
The Government of Canada is committed to a more intensive and sustained dialogue
with you on the choice and consequences of federal policies. We must do this
because we are all Canadians who care deeply about the well-being of every
province, territory, city and village in our great land.
In my province, I sometimes hear people say that Canadians from outside
Quebec should stay out of our debates in Quebec. I am adamantly opposed to this
assertion. What is happening in Quebec today and in the future concerns all
Canadians because it involves their country. A great Albertan such as
Anne McLellan does a lot to help her fellow citizens from Quebec.
For decades, Joe Clark has come to Quebec to offer his views on my
province. While I often disagree with what he has to say, I will always defend
his right to talk to Quebecers because, for Albertans, Quebec is part of
their country, and vice-versa.
Let us all agree that a Canadian is a Canadian everywhere in Canada. This
principle is essential if we are to widen our dialogue and improve our ability
to work together for the common good. As Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
I have always tried to nourish this dialogue and contribute to the pursuit of
the common good on behalf of all Canadians, whether they live in Lethbridge or
Laval. I will continue to invest all of my energy in these endeavours as long as
I have this responsibility, because there is nothing that motivates me more as a
Minister than earning the respect of my fellow citizens.
I would now be pleased to hear your views on respecting the voices of
Alberta.
- Roger Gibbins, "PM doesn’t have to agree, but he should
listen," open letter published in The Calgary Herald,
December 12, 2000, p. A17.
- Canadian Press/Léger Marketing, "Canadians and Bilingualism in
Canada," March 2003.
- The sole director, elected in 2002, who supported the abolition of the
Board is from Saskatchewan.
- Canadian Wheat Board, "Wheat Benchmarks Report – Establishing value
of a monopoly," Grain Matters (January-February 2002), http://.cwb.ca/en/publications/farmers/jan-feb-2002/01-02-02-2.jsp
.
- Ted Morton, "True Triple-E Senate Offers Balanced Power," The
Calgary Herald, February 6, 2003, p. A21.
|