"Respecting the voices of Alberta"

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Roger Gibbins, "PM doesn’t have to agree, but he should listen," open letter published in The Calgary Herald, December 12, 2000, p. A17.
   
2. Canadian Press/Léger Marketing, "Canadians and Bilingualism in Canada," March 2003.
   
3. The sole director, elected in 2002, who supported the abolition of the Board is from Saskatchewan.
   
4. 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 .
   
5. Ted Morton, "True Triple-E Senate Offers Balanced Power," The Calgary Herald, February 6, 2003, p. A21.