Government of Canada, Privy Council Office
Francais Contact Us Help Search Canada Site
What's New Site Map Reference Works Other PCO Sites Home
Subscribe
Press Room

Press Room


"CANADA: A FAIR FEDERATION"

NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BEFORE THE
CALGARY CHAMBRE OF COMMERCE

CALGARY, ALBERTA


APRIL l 4, 1997  Alberta is the home of the pioneer spirit in Canada. That spirit combines the determination to beat the odds and the fortitude to open up new frontiers. But it is balanced by a gentler side. The hardy pioneers who built this province knew that surviving the harsh conditions on the frontier meant helping each other out. It meant sharing and making sure that everyone was treated fairly. This aspect of the pioneer spirit still informs Albertans' actions: 39.6% of Albertans volunteer, a higher percentage than in any other Canadian province.

This January, an article in the Calgary Herald caught my eye. The headline read "Calgarians united by their gentleness." The writer, Peter Menzies, talked about Canadians' commitment to fairness and sharing -- a commitment which led thousands of Calgarians to offer their sympathy and cash to the family of Grayson Wolfe. As you will remember, Grayson's parents were facing huge medical bills, which they could not pay. "Instinctively, Calgarians know this is wrong," Mr. Menzies wrote. "In our world, you do not have to go bankrupt to save your baby's life."

This is what our federation is all about. It is about fairness -- balancing our belief in individual initiative with a commitment to sharing. Helping one another out in times of need. Supporting one another's endeavours. This sharing makes Canada greater than the sum of its parts.

Indeed, the vast majority of Canadians believe that we have built something special together. Committed to fairness and sharing as personal values, we have built a nation that embodies those same values writ large. This is vital in so vast a country, which, while blessed with tremendous natural and human resources, must nonetheless deal with the challenges which accompany distance, disparity and diversity. It is important that we remain committed to striking the right balance between the self-reliance of individuals -- and individual provinces -- on the one hand, and the need for sharing and fairness on the other.

Debates about fairness in Canada are as old as our federation. Perhaps they are inevitable in a country so strongly committed to the ideal of sharing. The National Policy Tariff of 1879, for example, which aimed to develop Canada's manufacturing sector as a whole, to generate the revenues necessary to construct national transportation networks, and to encourage east-west trade, was nevertheless widely viewed in the West as being geared solely to help the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec. The Crow Rate, popular with Prairie wheat farmers, was nonetheless seen by southern Alberta's beef producers as inhibiting the livestock industry's development.

Then there are some policies that are just plain wrong. Liberal politicians, beginning with my colleague, Natural Resources Minister Anne McLellan, will forever be conscious of the consequences of the National Energy Policy. This is also an example of what can happen if you don't have representation from all regions of the country in government.

These debates continue today. An opinion poll last October found that only 30% of Canadians believe the federal government treats all provinces equally. Polls have shown that Canadians living outside Quebec think that la belle province is treated better than the other provinces, while Quebecers think that Ontario is treated best. These are very serious concerns -- concerns which, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs with special responsibility for national unity, I feel I must address. Interregional jealousy is inherent to federations. But we in Canada are in a unique situation. We are a federation threatened with break-up, and faced with a separatist ideology which promotes suspicion, divisions and envy between citizens. When one group of MPs arrives in Ottawa with the sole mandate of promoting the interests of their own region, this encourages other regions to elect MPs who in turn promote only their interests, and we lose any sense of a national opposition committed to the good of Canada as a whole. It is important that our federal political parties be capable of balancing different regional interests. Otherwise, interregional jealousies will continue to escalate. And it is vital for national unity that our spirit of generosity overcome these jealousies.

Canada should not be seen as a sort of zero-sum game, because, within Canada, we are all winners. If our country dissolved into ten inward-looking republics, Canadians would no longer enjoy the tremendous advantages we share together today. In many provinces, the social safety net would be substantially weakened. Furthermore, internationally, a united Canada is a major plus. Our economy is sufficiently large to afford us membership in the G-7. In major trade discussions, we have the critical size to be invited to the table with the European Union, Japan and the United States. We constitute the United States' biggest trading partner. Furthermore, Canada plays a key role in the World Trade Organization and other international fora. Together, we enjoy membership in APEC, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie.

Canada is not a zero-sum game. Each province has its own strengths and identity, which together add up to a strong and diverse country. Today, Alberta is a "have" province, but should a time arrive when the global market does not favour your particular strengths, then you know that you can count on the help of other provinces, just as you are helping them now. Indeed, as recently as 1986-87, Alberta received $419 million under the Fiscal Stabilization Program because of a year-over-year decline in its revenues -- the second province to benefit from this program, the first being British Columbia. That is what Canada is all about. And this "insurance scheme" aspect of our country also promotes investor confidence. Helping one another helps our economy.

Perhaps our generosity as a country is most evident at times of tragedy, when, like any family, we instinctively band together to help one another out. The Canada-wide efforts in response to the Edmonton tornado of 1987 and, more recently, the horrendous Saguenay floods in Quebec, are good examples.

Canadians' commitment to generosity and fairness is reflected in the fourth Paul Martin budget. In particular, this budget addresses the need for fairness to young Canadians. Intergenerational fairness means sticking to our course of fiscal responsibility, but making targeted, responsible investments in future generations. Thus, following up on the work of the federal-provincial-territorial council on social policy renewal, we announced a federal-provincial partnership to create a new $6 billion Canada Child Tax Benefit by July 1998. We enriched federal assistance for higher education and skills training by $275 million and doubled the annual contribution limit to Registered Education Savings Plans. We have also invested in excess of $2 billion in a youth jobs strategy, to help young Canadians escape the vicious circle of no job, no experience -- no experience, no job. To give one more example among many, we agreed with our provincial partners, including your premier, to increase the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) rate in steps to reach 9.9% by 2003, ensuring that it will be sustainable and that no additional burdens will be passed on to Canada's younger generations.

In fact, all four of our budgets have been about ensuring fairness for the Canadians of today -- and for tomorrow's Canadians too. Our strict fiscal policy has been accompanied by a commitment to tax fairness. To that end, my colleague Paul Martin established a Technical Committee on Business Taxation. It is considering ways to enhance fairness of the taxation system, to simplify business taxation and thus reduce compliance costs and headaches, and to encourage job creation and economic growth. We are committed to fairness for all categories of Canadians -- businesspeople, language minorities, Aboriginal Canadians, young Canadians. But, of course, fairness does not mean uniformity, which is why it is also fair to recognize the specificity of Quebec. After all, if North America were a Francophone continent and Alberta its only majority-Anglophone component we would need to recognize that specificity too.

But my speech today is concerned with fairness between Canada's provinces and regions. I believe that we have a fair federation. That being said, our federation is constantly evolving, and we should always be looking for ways to fine-tune and strengthen it. We must not become blinded by interregional jealousies to everything Canada has to offer.

Interprovincial fairness

How do Canadians think their ideals of sharing and fairness should shape the way our federation works? Well, according to a 1995 Canadian Policy Research Networks' study, only 10% of Canadians believe that government spending on poorer regions should be decreased or eliminated, while 60% believe that Canadians have a right to expect a minimum level of service wherever they live, including 66% of Albertans. Furthermore, an October 1996 CROP & Insight poll revealed that 70 to 80% of Canadians across the country like the fact that the federal system permits Canadians to share wealth between poorer and richer provinces.

Our values of generosity and sharing have been part of our federation from the start. As one of the Fathers of Confederation -- Georges-Étienne Cartier -- said, our federation was founded on the "kindred interest and sympathies" of our different communities. And as Queen's University professor Thomas Courchene has argued, the roots of the idea of equalization can be seen at the time of the British North America Act, in, for example, the special grants accorded to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick because of their specific fiscal needs.

A key advance in interregional fairness was proposed in 1937. That year, the Rowell-Sirois Commission recommended the arrangements for federal transfers be formalized in a system of "national adjustment grants" to the poorest provinces. In 1957, Canada adopted a formal equalization program along these lines. Although it is hard to imagine against the bustling backdrop of Alberta's economy today, your province was a recipient for the first 8 years of the program. In 1982, the principle of equalization was deemed sufficiently important to be enshrined in section 36 of the Constitution, "to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation."

We have achieved a great deal together. However, as I said before, our achievements have always been accompanied by debates about fairness. These debates are, in my opinion, being aggravated and intensified by the lack of a truly national federal opposition party.

Interregional jealousies in the 1990s

Let me transport you for a moment to the House of Commons last fall. We, as a government, were faced with a very strange situation. To caricature it, day after day, the Bloc Québécois stood up to complain that when Calgary-based Canadian Airlines has a problem, everyone stampedes to help. On the other hand, the Bloc alleged, nobody cares about Montreal-based Air Canada because, as usual, Quebec is the victim of the federation. The Bloc wants one airline for two countries, while we want two airlines for one country. Then Reform stood up, saying that if Air Canada were in trouble, we would all rush to help it, because Quebec is the spoiled brat of the federation. But, according to Reform, we were dragging our heels about helping Canadian Airlines because it is a Western-based company, and the West always loses out.

Imagine I am Gilles Duceppe...

Imagine, for a moment, that I am Gilles Duceppe, the Leader of the Bloc Québécois. In "Ensemble le défi, ça nous réussit," the working document of the Bloc's 1997 Congress, I will tell you that over the past three decades, the federal government has taken many decisions which have had negative repercussions on the Quebec economy. That the Borden line favoured the development of oil refineries in Ontario, at the expense of Quebec. That the federal government's decision to cease obliging foreign air carriers to service Montreal's Mirabel airport in order to gain access to Toronto's Pearson airport made the former lose its position as a major international gateway. That the 1965 Automobile Pact with the United States ensured Canada's car manufacturing industry was concentrated in Ontario, at the expense of Quebec. And that the federal government went out of its way to favour rail transport in the West, while allowing Quebec's sector to dwindle.

Still as Gilles Duceppe, I look at the Chrétien government's record and tell you that the proposed Canadian Securities Commission will undermine Montreal's role as a financial centre. That Coast Guard fees will have negative repercussions on the competitiveness of Quebec's ports. That AECL's decision to move 26 positions from Montreal to Mississauga will undermine the former's position as a centre of nuclear expertise.

It's difficult to pretend to be Gilles Duceppe. Being the leader of the Bloc Québécois requires a very active imagination. So now I'll go back to being Stéphane Dion.

The Borden line was established, as you doubtless know, to create a domestic oil industry by establishing a market for Western Canadian crude oil. Did it negatively impact Quebec's petrochemical industry? Far from it. While all points west of the Ottawa Valley were required to purchase Canadian crude at higher than international prices, Quebec and points east were able to continue importing cheaper foreign crude. This actually gave them a competitive advantage. Montreal oil refineries were closed down in the 1970s and 1980s, it is true, but so were refineries elsewhere -- as a result of economic factors stemming from the oil crisis, not because of the Borden line.

Did the federal government's 1986 decision on foreign airlines hurt Mirabel airport? Well, what we do know for sure is that its previous, coercive position was driving interested carriers away from not only Montreal, but from Canada as a whole. The best way to attract international air carriers to a particular airport is for government and local leaders to demonstrate that servicing it is both attractive and potentially profitable.

The Auto Pact does not stipulate where companies should locate their production facilities. Rather, it provides a framework to encourage production within Canada. Did the federal government negotiate a pact to favour Ontario? No. But the federal government cannot control U.S. economic geography nor the locational decisions of the private sector, and the plain fact is that Detroit, the U.S. "motor city", is located close to the southern Ontario border. Furthermore, whereas Quebec now has a flourishing auto parts industry -- not to mention General Motors' factory in Ste-Thérèse -- without the Pact, Canada's auto industry would have been much smaller.

Has the federal government favoured Western rail transport at the expense of Quebec? Historically, the federal government has invested billions of dollars to build transportation infrastructure of various sorts throughout Canada. This has been very important for expanding the Canadian economy -- and has historically benefitted Quebec manufacturers, for example. Today, it is no longer possible to invest billions in new transportation infrastructure, and the emphasis has shifted to restructuring and modernization. Privatization has placed CN and CP on a level playing field, and CN is positioning itself for a future of long-term growth as a strong, Montreal-based transportation company.

The Canadian Securities Commission is a voluntary one and Quebec will therefore not be penalized for choosing not to participate. Rather, Quebec-based companies wishing to raise capital elsewhere in Canada would benefit from the single window a national securities commission could provide. Moreover, a national securities commission would work with its provincial counterparts to improve coordination and promote harmonization of securities regulations. The argument that it would remove a large part of Montreal's remaining financial sector is simply not true.

Will Coast Guard cost-recovery fees hurt Quebec ports? Well, according to an in-depth economic impact study commissioned by the federal government, the average impact over the next two fiscal years would be minimal -- a mere 0.09% of the value of commodities shipped. Furthermore, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will be working closely with industry stakeholders to establish principles to guide regional fee structures and service levels. Additionally, the introduction of ice-breaking fees was deferred until 1998/99, lessening the impact on regions such as Quebec which are dependent on this service. And it should be remembered that the whole point of cost recovery fees is to decrease the burden on Canada's taxpayers, while continuing to ensure the safe and efficient operation of Canada's waterways.

Moving 26 AECL positions from Montreal to Mississauga is part of an overall internal restructuring geared to making Canada the world leader in the nuclear reactor field. Will this undermine Quebec's nuclear industry? Not at all. In fact, Quebec industry benefits to the tune of some $100-150 million from each CANDU reactor sale abroad. Therefore, it is in Quebec's interests that AECL operate as competitively as possible.

Imagine I am Preston Manning...

Now that I have briefly dealt with Mr. Duceppe's complaints, let's imagine that I'm Preston Manning. I will tell you that Alberta and British Columbia are carrying the seven poorer provinces, through programs like equalization and the Canada Health and Social Transfer. That the federal Liberals do not care about or understand Western issues. That when times are bad, the British Columbia and Alberta economies are left to fend for themselves, but when times are good, they are exploited for the benefit of Eastern and Central Canada. That the federal government's regional development programs also exploit the West. Mind you, I should mention that Reform's ability to make political capital out of interregional jealousies has been blunted by the realization that, as Preston Manning told a Vancouver audience, "the real test of Reform's progress is whether we break through in Ontario and to what extent."

Sadly, this did not stop Reform's Monte Solberg suggesting that federal aid to flood victims in Quebec's Saguenay region was politically motivated. With a particularly unfortunate choice of words, Mr. Solberg alleged that "the floodgates opened when it was time to provide aid in Quebec", but that there had been little help for the victims of flooding in his riding. For the record, federal financial assistance to disaster victims is based on a fixed formula.

Are equalization payments fair -- are Alberta and British Columbia "carrying" the poorer provinces, as Preston Manning said recently in Winnipeg? Equalization payments are calculated on the basis of a formula that is set out in legislation. Basically, the amount a province could raise at national average tax rates is compared with a representative standard (based on the capacities of Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia). If a province's total revenue-raising ability falls short of this standard, its per capita revenues are raised to the standard level through federal equalization payments.

Taken out of context, the figures involved might seem unfair. For example, in 1996-97, Newfoundlanders are estimated to have received, on average, $2,520 per person in major cash and tax federal transfers, compared with $1,469, on average, for every Quebecer and $816, on average, for every Albertan. But put these figures in context: Alberta tops Canada's GDP-per-capita tables with a predicted $33,353 for 1997, while Newfoundland will produce only half as much ($17,785). Let me stress that again: Alberta's GDP is twice that of Newfoundland, yet Newfoundlanders will receive only $1,704 per capita more in federal transfers.

Would it be fair to Newfoundlanders, Quebecers, and other beneficiaries if these payments did not exist? I don't think so and, as I indicated earlier, nor do the large majority of Canadians.

Let's look at the Canada Health and Social Transfer, which replaced the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Programs Financing with a single envelope. Is it fair? Well, in restructuring it, we took note of suggestions from the Alberta government and others about how to make it more equitable. As a result, each province's allocation of funding will be gradually adjusted to more closely reflect the provincial distribution of population. For example, we have set financial year 2002-03 as the benchmark for halving per capita disparities.

Has our government ignored the interests of Alberta, British Columbia and their Prairie neighbours? You will remember that, during the Mulroney years, Mr. Manning campaigned with the slogan "the West wants in." I haven't heard him use that line in quite some time, because with Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's government, the West is in. I can assure you all that Natural Resources Minister Anne McLellan and Senate Leader Joyce Fairbairn are very strong voices in our Cabinet, as are David Anderson, Lloyd Axworthy and Ralph Goodale.

The initiatives taken by both levels of government to change the oil sands tax regime have helped current investors and contributed to Shell's recent announcement that it will be investing $1 billion in a new oil sands project. I should mention that a 1995 study conducted by the Institute for Research on Public Policy showed that, in terms of federal tax breaks, Alberta is the biggest winner in relative terms, benefitting from almost 16% of total tax breaks while its economy accounts for under 11% of GDP. At the international level, we have pushed forcefully for reductions in agricultural subsidies during the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, and now under the auspices of the World Trade Organization. And our government is putting the combined strength and solidarity of all Canadians behind your bid for Expo 2005. Your city, in turn, will make an excellent showcase for all of Canada.

The issue of equitable immigration settlement funding was of particular importance for British Columbia. Last month, we announced extra funding for certain provinces to reflect the number of immigrants they are welcoming. British Columbia will receive an additional $22.4 million this year, Alberta $2.9 million and Manitoba $730,000. In responding to the announcement, B.C. Premier Glen Clark observed: "We've had grievances with the federal government....The Prime Minister listened. He listened to us and we worked hard and we resolved several historic problems." This is an excellent example of our step-by-step approach to resolving regional grievances and was, as Premier Clark observed, "a victory for British Columbia and a victory for Canada".

The West has benefitted from many development measures, such as, historically, grain transportation subsidies, funds for branch-line subsidies, and funds for hopper car purchases. And, as I mentioned earlier, the first two provinces to receive funding under the Fiscal Stabilization Program were B.C. and Alberta. The federal government has also provided substantial amounts of cash for "one-offs", including $200 million for the Calgary Olympics, $27.8 million for the Fraser River Action Plan and funding to the B.C. government for this year's APEC infrastructure.

Other regional grievances

Of course, other regions have their grievances too -- I will mention one or two briefly. The Atlantic provinces sometimes argue that federal industrial policy favours Central Canada. Yet the Atlantic region has benefitted from the frigate program, assistance to the fishery sector, and the important support provided by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to the region's industries. Certain Atlantic provinces have raised a concern about the current formula used in the equalization transfer program, which means that "have-not" provinces see their equalization benefits decline as natural resource revenues increase. Yet the equalization transfer can be, and has been, adapted to provide flexibility when a "have-not" province depends heavily upon a natural resource revenue that is cyclical or temporary in nature. And, of course, it should not be forgotten that equalization payments are there to provide transitional funding to ensure reasonably comparable levels of services regardless of the level of income flowing from the local economy into the provincial treasury, not to provide a permanent source of revenue.

Meanwhile, Ontario shared British Columbia's complaint about immigration settlement funding, but will receive some $35.3 million in additional funding this year. And, of course, there are also intra-regional grievances -- need I mention the rivalry between your city and the provincial capital?

We should look for fairness in the big picture. In that picture, no Canadian province can say it is getting a raw deal. Canada should not be seen as a sort of cheque book to be divided out among provinces. Canada is a family of provinces, territories and people, which has equity as its underpinning principle. As Premier Klein has said, "our goal must be a strong Alberta, in a strong and united Canada."

Your former -- and greatly admired -- provincial treasurer, Jim Dinning, has earned kudos across Canada for helping your premier put Alberta's fiscal house in order. Mr. Dinning eloquently summed up the fairness issue when he said:

"Albertans believe in the principle of equity. Clearly those who have sometimes are going to be asked to pay more than those who have not ... I don't believe this government is a believer in cheque book federalism." Reflecting on Alberta's experience in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, Mr. Dinning concluded that Albertans "are in fact net beneficiaries of being a partner in this country."

Conclusion

In fact, Canadians from coast to coast to coast are net beneficiaries of being partners in our country. Canada is a fair federation. It responds to the varying needs of its citizens and component regions, but it does so in a way that ensures all are treated in a just manner. The big picture is a fair picture, one in which we can all take pride. Of course, we must keep working to ensure that this fairness is maintained, and that legitimate grievances are addressed. The recent Paul Martin budget took major steps to address the concerns of young Canadians. And our government will continue its step-by-step approach to addressing other fairness issues, and to building a better future for us all.

I am confident that, in spite of the challenges we face, our federation will enter the 21st century strong and united. Why? Well, one reason is my faith in the generosity of Canadians. As I've already said, Albertans are very generous Canadians and will contribute a lot to the movement for national reconciliation. Canadians do not pass by on the other side of the road. Our generosity and fair-mindedness will win out against interregional jealousies, and against those who seek to manipulate these jealousies for short-term political gain. For the sake of our country, it must do so.

Check against delivery.  


  Printer-Friendly Version
Last Modified: 1997-04-04  Important Notices