Advocacy is not a job, it is a responsibility. Without it, Canada would fail

Mac Van Wielingen farewell speech during the Business Council of Alberta’s members’ meeting as published by Viewpoint Investment Partners.

This is my last meeting as the chair of the Business Council of Alberta. I depart this role with a very high level of confidence in our new chair, Scott Bolton, who will be more fully introduced to you later in this meeting. I am also very confident in our future, given the leadership experience of our board of directors and our now-proven, well-established executive team. In the simplest terms, the purpose of the Business Council of Alberta is to advocate for prosperity and to make life better for all Albertans. The key word here which underscores what we do is “advocate.”

I have come to see that nothing can substitute for the advocacy of one’s own interests. Advocacy is not a job or a task to be taken up or put down at will. It is an enduring moral imperative.

Advocacy is a responsibility, in some way or form, and to some degree, for each of us, for all citizens, in order to be healthy as individuals and to create strong communities. The resources and platforms we have as leaders in business offer the opportunity to amplify the influence of our advocacy and have a greater impact. This is highly relevant for all of us as leaders in Alberta and similarly for leaders in our neighbouring provinces.

Given the structure of electoral politics in Canada, we in the West are under-represented in national policy decision-making. At every stage and level, from the elected to the bureaucracy, we are severely under-represented. We are not at the table when national policy decisions are being made. These decisions often have a profound impact on our interests, our families, our communities, and all our stakeholders.

Regional under-representation is a national problem

The problem of under-representation is not just regional or provincial, it is intra-provincial. We have communities within Alberta and the West that may be neglected, or worse, may be “grist for the political mill.” I’m thinking specifically about our rural communities and our agricultural and food sector, whose interests may simply be an afterthought or expendable in national policy decision-making.

The Business Council of Alberta was created in response to the profound need for an additional credible voice to represent Alberta’s interests, across all sectors of our economy. We are not the be-all-and-end-all solution to the problem of inadequate representation, but we can have influence as a credible and important voice.

To describe advocacy as a responsibility is not to imply a burden. It is an opportunity to build deeper meaningful relationships with others within our community and to gain the positive satisfaction that comes from contribution. Personally, I feel a great deal of satisfaction, and even gratitude, for having the privilege of advocating for Albertans and to have been so involved in the development of the Business Council of Alberta. It has been one of the most enriching and fulfilling experiences of my career.

We have created something that is very important for Alberta and, quite frankly, for Canada.

Why do I say, “for Canada?” One line from the Alberta Court of Appeal opinion on the Impact Assessment Act, formerly Bill C-69, explains this: “Federalism is…the defining characteristic of Canada as a nation.”

To quote from the highest court of Alberta: “Since neither level of government [the provinces nor the federal government] has unlimited power, each serves as a check on the other.”

We do not have an elected Senate in Canada that might offer more fulsome representation and protection of the interests of the regions of Canada. In Canada, it is the delineation of specific legal-based authorities for our provinces and the national government that creates a counterbalance or check on power. All provinces (except Nova Scotia and PEI) were lined up with Alberta against the federal government in the Supreme Court challenge on the Impact Assessment Act. Alberta’s strong advocacy for its interests was advocacy for the interests of all provinces. In fact, it is advocacy for a stronger Canada based on nothing less than the “founding constitutional principle that defines us as a nation.”

The Supreme Court agreed with Alberta’s position that the Impact Assessment Act was unconstitutional.

Unrestrained or unchecked centralized power is not good governance. In fact, as we have seen, it may well represent an affront to the established historic legal authorities that define Canada.

This affront was also evident in Ottawa’s listing of plastic as toxic and the invoking of the Emergencies Act in response to the Freedom Convoy. Both were ruled “unreasonable and unconstitutional” by the Supreme Court. These recent examples evidence a willingness in Ottawa to overreach and compromise the very authorities that define us as a nation. The Supreme Court decisions demonstrate though that the highest court in Canada will stand firm to protect these authorities.

Good governance matters—massively

When I advocate for a stronger Alberta, or for restraint on centralized power, I always believe I am advocating for a stronger Canada. This has been a powerful motivator for me.

My parents lost everything in the Second World War—all their material possessions and the cohesion of their families. Indeed, many of their family members lost their lives. They survived but lost their freedoms and dreams. They came to Alberta with a new dream. This was the opportunity to work hard and better their lives and to live in fairness, free from persecution.

When I entered Rideau Hall in Ottawa, and the room where I received the Order of Canada from the governor general, all I could think about was my parents. This honour symbolically completed something that felt deeply personal. My parents, if nothing else, were incredible survivors. They overcame some of the most extraordinary hardships imaginable. The recognition I received left me feeling that their suffering and their commitment to Canada were not in vain. There’s no question that the experience of my parents created in me a passion to do what I believe is right for all Albertans and, yes, for all Canadians.

I reference constitutional authorities as I know how important governance structures are for containing and managing conflicts. In this connection, the way we look at any particular conflict is often heavily influenced by our own biases, and where we stand politically with respect to those who are being advantaged or disadvantaged. The perspective of John Kenneth Galbraith, former advisor to President John F. Kennedy and former chair of Americans for Democratic Action, speaks to this (to paraphrase): “In capitalism man exploits man, and in socialism it is just the opposite.”

Good governance always involves structures that encourage transparency, accountability, and the balancing of otherwise unrestrained power, whatever the political slant or worldview might be of those exercising power. This is the deeper reason why corporations have boards of directors. This is to create accountability and to counterbalance the ever-present human tendency to push for more control and more power, which is invariably towards that which is self-serving. This is the reason why I emphasize the importance of constitutionally established distinct authorities for our provinces versus the federal government. This is an example of a governance structure that creates a check on the risk of self-serving control and power. Without it, I believe Canada would fail.

It is heartening that the Supreme Court of Canada has reinforced the importance of our governance authorities and, in turn, the enduring strength of Canada as a federation.

Polarization is poisoning our potential

In my work in public policy over roughly the last 10 years, I confess I have had moments of real darkness and disillusionment. We are in such a moment right now. Over and over, I have asked why polarization persists, and why does it seem to be getting worse? It eventually became painfully obvious. Polarization persists because there are those who perceive they benefit from polarization.Worse, there are those who are motivated to amplify polarization to create opportunities for political advantage. We’ve all heard the perspective of Abraham Lincoln, quoting Christ: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Let me be clear, the house of Canada will not fall because of polarization. In fact, the open expression of different and opposing views should increase the probability of optimal solutions and strengthen us as a nation. The problem is in the intentional amplification of polarization to create more opportunities for political advantage. But even this is manageable within a flexible and dynamic political system.

Where it becomes toxic and seriously damaging is when advantage-seeking becomes blind to the best interests of those being represented. This is a classic governance problem where the interests of insiders are in direct conflict with those whom they represent or serve. The result is to divide and create dysfunction within the house of Canada.

I am convinced that much of what we see as hostile policy initiatives directed toward the energy region in the West is mainstream political strategy in Canada. It reflects a large degree of advantage-seeking within polarization that tilts towards a blindness to the interests of Western Canadians and all Canadians. Our leading national governing parties are motivated to galvanize the hard-core part of their base; notably, interest groups focused on climate and environmental activism who are generally anti-business, anti-development, and anti-investment.

The environmental issues are incredibly important, but to the extent they are narrowly focused and rigid, they will lead to the subordination, neglect, or mismanagement of other priorities that are also incredibly important. This is a notable part of the story of Canada over approximately the last 10 years. The neglect of other essential priorities is part of the costs or damages of toxic polarization. We have seen this in Canada with the neglect of economic fundamentals, notably, those factors that drove inflation and created a cost-of-living nightmare for many families.

Another area of cumulative damage has been the failure to create the confidence to encourage much-needed investment. The result has been an erosion in the standard of living for Canadians. The Bank of Canada is now referring to our “productivity” problem as a crisis. Children and young people today are on track to be worse off overall than their parents, a situation we have never seen before in Canadian history. Another disturbing high-level cost of politicized advantage-seeking has been to breed distrust and discontent, particularly within Western Canada. The result is nothing less than a loss in the functionality of our nation.

More specific to Alberta, there are many examples of hostile policies that have been directed towards the energy sector. One is the freeze-out—or at least the chill—on Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) development, while the United States leapt ahead and became the world’s largest exporter of LNG. Hundreds of billions in economic benefit have been lost or foregone. There has been a further cost for our allies, and all energy consumers, as our natural gas is probably the greenest and most reliable in the world.

Another example is the emissions cap. The responsible minister seems proud to point out that Canada would be the only country in the world doing this. I would say we are the only country in the world doing this because of the great divide in electoral voting sentiments between the energy-producing region in the West versus Central Canada. If the emissions cap proceeds, we will likely see a loss of production, which would be the most expensive form of carbon reduction imaginable for Canada. As our Council has said, this is not an “emissions cap,” as other less responsible global suppliers will fill the void and overall emissions will be unchanged or even higher. The “emissions cap” is better described as a “prosperity cap.”

I often ask: what would energy policy in Canada look like if our energy resource, instead of being centred in the West, straddled Ontario and Quebec? Would energy policy in Canada be the same? Most people—elected officials, senior bureaucrats, investors, and business leaders—just laugh when I ask this question and exclaim some version of “get serious, no way it would be the same.”The fact is that energy policy in Canada is deeply politicized.

Now, as we head toward a federal election, the newest hostile policy initiative is a section in Bill C-59. Under the banner of truth in advertising, the new law, introduced with virtually no consultation, creates so much uncertainty and potential liability that it will prevent business leaders from discussing environmental progress. Critics are calling it a gag order, which I have to agree with. I believe it is another example of opportunistic positioning before the federal election. It is amplifying polarization and creating confusion within the business sector, ironically including renewables and clean technology. It will work against the interests of Canadians, creating less disclosure on environmental performance at exactly the time when we need more.

So why do this on a rushed basis, with parts of the new legislation being half-baked, creating huge uncertainty in corporate and investor decision-making? Do political realities have anything to do with this?

Unfortunately, there are additional divisive and hostile policy initiatives underway. One is Bill S-243, the Climate Aligned Finance Act, now before the Senate Banking Committee. This legislation applies to federally registered and federally reporting corporations, imposing costs and restrictions that have the look of a forced prohibition against financial support for fossil fuel exploration, infrastructure, and potentially the agricultural sector. Further, it is designed to prevent individuals from serving on federally registered boards if they have engaged in activities seen as “non-aligned” with defined climate commitments. These commitments include, of course, the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act.

It can be deduced from this proposed legislation that a Canadian oil and gas company would not be climate-aligned unless it is in wind-down mode. Therefore, any individual involved with a going concern exploration and development company would be restricted from serving on the board of federally registered corporations. It will create a sub-class of black-listed directors, particularly in Western Canada. All of the Canadian banks are federally registered corporations, as are Suncor, Enbridge, TC Energy, TransAlta, and ATCO, among many others. All these companies will have to assess the composition of their boards if this legislation gets passed and basically push out those black-listed directors.

Bill C-59 has the effect of muzzling corporations who wish to disclose and discuss environmental progress, and Bill S-243, if approved, represents a massive intrusion into the financial sector and corporate governance in Canada. What is the logic for doing this?

Canada is among the most reliable, responsible, and innovative suppliers of hydrocarbons in the world. The energy transition is going to be multi-decadal and probably multi-generational. Our energy and resource sectors offer the highest value-add opportunity for enhanced productivity across the economy. We already have a massive complex array of taxes and regulations in place in the name of climate and environmental protection. It is not beneficial for Canada to withdraw from hydrocarbon markets or to throttle back our resource sectors; it does not serve our interests, nor the interests of our global allies at a time of great geopolitical strife, nor the interests of global consumers, especially those in developing countries.

The answer to the question “where is the logic” lies in a comment I’ve heard many times from trusted contacts in Ottawa:

• “We understand your realities, they are based on fundamentals.”
• “You don’t understand our realities, they are based on politics.”
• Some will unabashedly add “… further, we have no electoral support in the West.”

The logic that explains Canada’s self-sabotaging national policy initiatives is political logic. The problem I’m pointing to is insider politicized advantage-seeking that is in conflict with the best interests of those who are being represented. The mindset behind these and similar initiatives is hostile to capital formation, reinforcing the impression that Canada is not business and investment friendly, and it is hostile to the fabric of national unity. The cumulative damage is a continuing decline in the standard of living for Canadians, certainly compared to our largest trading partner, the United States.

The sacrifice these and similar policies impose on Canadians is grossly disproportional to the problem we are all trying to solve: reducing global emissions. Canada is not a climate leader if we define leadership simply in terms of emissions. We are a climate leader only in form or image. We represent only 1.5 percent of global emissions. The climate leaders of substance are the largest emitters—China, the United States, and India—that cumulatively represent about 50 percent of the total. There is a lot we can do as responsible climate partners to reduce climate risk, but the direction is very different than what these policies imply.

For Alberta, Saskatchewan, and all provinces of Canada, our constitutional powers are the best defence against self-serving narrow politicized ideals and the centralized push for electoral support and control. At a deeper level, though, the foundational defence must be an alert and active citizenry committed to represent the interests of our families, communities, and the interests of all Canadians.

Advocacy is not a job. It is an essential aspect of civic engagement and responsible citizenship.