Mac Van Wielingen, the immediate past chair of the Business Council of Alberta and the chair of Viewpoint Investment Partners Corporation, offered the following remarks upon recently completing his term as chair of the Business Council of Alberta on the essential role of advocacy as a responsibility of all citizens, as well the realities of underrepresentation and misalignment of interests in Canada’s political systems, and the consequences in terms of reduced prosperity, investment, and social cohesion as a result.

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.

It’s hardly a new development that the Liberal Party is accusing the Conservatives of importing “far-right American-style politics” to Canada. But one gets the sense the accusations have ramped up. Comparing Pierre Poilievre to Donald Trump, calling him a “puppet of the American right” and asserting that Canadian Conservatives are captive to Republican thinking has been central to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party’s key political message in recent months.

As evidence, they cite Poilievre’s vote against an updated free-trade agreement with Ukraine that codified the idea of carbon pricing, his support for single-sex spaces for women, and the Conservatives’ use of filibusters and marathon voting in the House of Commons.

Yet, despite this preaching around the Conservatives’ supposed adoption of American political ideas and tactics, there’s a persuasive case that the opposite is true: that the Liberal Party itself has greatly contributed to the “Americanization” of Canada. One can point to its importation of divisive identity-driven left-wing American-style talking points and politics, as well as its use of Democratic Party machinery and electioneering techniques as evidence.

The Liberals’ obsession with the United States

This Sunday, the Canadian Press reported on the Liberals borrowing the “weird” label that the Democrats have been using against former president Donald Trump and his running mate JD Vance in their latest attack against Pierre Poilievre.

However, this is just the tip of the Americanization iceberg when it comes to their preoccupation with the Democratic Party, the United States, and its politics.

Liberals have a habit of copying Democrat messaging, often in a desperate attempt to catch part of a progressive wave of support below the 48th parallel. Just last week, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault published an X post referencing the viral “Kamala (Harris) IS brat” meme.

The practice has been around for a while. In 2020, the Trudeau government used then-candidate Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” slogan for its own pandemic recovery strategy.

But, the party doesn’t just borrow rhetoric—they also take advice and tactics.

Appearances by prominent American Democrats have become a staple at Liberal Party conventions. Their most recent gathering featured multiple American speakers, including former Democrat Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. In 2018, they held a talk featuring senior Obama strategist David Axelrod. In 2016, they heard from campaign strategists for both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. And let’s not forget that they hired Democrat political strategist Jennifer O’Malley Dillon to help with their 2015 campaign.

Prime Minister Trudeau also has a history of commenting on U.S. domestic events. He’s commented on the death of George Floyd multiple times, often using his tragic death to call Canada systematically racist.

“In the US today, we saw accountability for the murder of George Floyd. But make no mistake, systemic racism and anti-Black racism still exist. And they exist in Canada, too. Our work must and will continue,” he posted on X following the conviction of officer Derek Chauvin.

Using American issues as wedges

More consequential than copying American political messaging or platforming Americans at their conventions has been the Liberals’ use of American events, protest movements, and culture wars for political gain on Canadian soil.

Following the February 2018 Parkland mass shooting in Florida, which ignited the March for Our Lives movement for more gun control in the United States, the Trudeau government introduced new gun control measures in Canada, including enhanced background checks. The prime minister then pledged to ban “military-style assault rifles,” a key demand of the American March for Our Lives protesters, in his 2019 re-election platform. In 2022, he announced a freeze of handgun sales after the Uvalde, Texas mass shooting, invoking the American tragedy as a reason for his freeze.

“We need only look south of the border to know that if we do not take action, firmly and rapidly, it gets worse and worse and more difficult to counter,” said Prime Minister Trudeau at the time.

In the process, the Liberal Party went after Conservatives and opponents of these gun policies using rhetoric similar to that of American Democrats. Trudeau claimed Conservatives are in step with an “American gun lobby” that “wants to put assault weapons back on our streets and in our communities,” while his party claimed that Canadians will be at greater risk of gun violence if Conservatives were elected.

But, the gun situation in Canada differs significantly from the U.S. In 2017, the year before Trudeau began his push for stricter guns laws, Canada had 267 gun homicides (0.72 per 100,000 people) while the United States had 14,542 (4.5 per 100,000 people). In 2021, the year before the government introduced its handgun freeze, Canada had 299 gun homicides (0.78 per 100,000 people) compared to 20,958 in the United States (6.7 per 100,000 people).

Some will say that 299 gun murders are too many, and that, therefore, more gun control is needed. However, Canada’s gun laws are objectively strict, most gun violence in Canada involves illegal firearms, and we are far less prone to mass shootings.

A report by Statistics Canada titled “Firearms and violent crime in Canada, 2022” found only 13 percent of handgun and 12 percent of rifle and shotgun homicides in Canada were committed by legal gun owners. Meanwhile, data shows that 77 percent of U.S. mass shootings between 1966 and 2019 were committed with legally acquired guns.

Rather than addressing gun violence in a Canadian context, the Liberals have framed the debate in American terms, something they see as politically advantageous.

The Liberal Party has also consistently imported the American abortion debate.

The abortion situation in Canada is far different from that in the United States. Since the 1988 R v. Morgentaler decision, Canada has had no abortion laws, and no major parties have proposed banning abortion in recent memory.

The Liberals adopted the American Left’s stance on abortion, supporting unrestricted access to abortion, even in instances of late-term and sex-selective abortions, and calling those who disagree anti-women. Pro-life candidates have been effectively banned from running for the Liberal Party since Trudeau took over.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the country’s landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling, the Liberals seized the opportunity. Trudeau and several of his ministers chastised America’s top court. Ahead of the ruling, when the opinion was leaked, they invited American women to Canada for abortions and also announced $3.5 million in new funding for abortion-related services in Canada.

While boasting about how “pro-choice” they are, the Liberals have repeatedly falsely claimed that Conservatives want to ban abortion in Canada.

Among other things, they’ve cited the fact that the Conservative caucus has pro-life MPs, and that some of those MPs have pushed pro-life petitions and attended pro-life rallies.

However, the Conservative Party’s policy declaration states that “a Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion,” and Poilievre has explicitly said he will not touch abortion.

Speaking to The Hub, Canadian-raised professor of politics at the University of Buckingham Eric Kaufmann said, “It is a common misperception that ‘culture wars’ are something only the Right does.”

He noted that the Trudeau-led Liberal Party is pushing what he calls “woke cultural socialism,” an ideology that “emerged from American progressive elite circles” and that has gone on to “stoke the cultural division upon which political polarization rests.”

“Trudeau has consistently signalled his support for this agenda, whether by centering race, gender, and sexuality on social media or in the press,” added Kaufmann.

The consequences of Americanization

The Americanization of our politics has not come without consequences.

A 2023 report entitled “Top Risks” by the Eurasia Group, a geopolitical risk firm, warned about growing American-style polarization in Canada, or what it described as a “contagion from the divided republic to the south.” It highlighted that deepening divides “will add to growing political instability on the continent,” and that “Canada’s combative partisan and regional politics are poised to take a turn for the worse.”

“Canada and the US are growing closer, but it’s less about alignment between Ottawa and Washington than cross-border alliances between sub-national governments and politicians of the same political stripe,” it explained. “In Ottawa, inflammatory attacks on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party will be met by attempts to paint the Conservative opposition as a Canadian version of Trumpism. Both are overegged…but will gain traction.”

Data from a Pew Research survey found a 22 percent increase in conflicts between Canadians who supported different political parties from the year before—44 percent in 2021 to 66 percent in 2022.

Another poll saw 40 percent of respondents say they reduced interactions with friends or loved ones they know over politics. Respondents also said that the 2021 election—which featured a Liberal Party campaign strategy to import what could be argued were primarily American culture war debates over COVID-19—was among the most divisive issues of that year.

A 2023 report by the Public Policy Forum noted that 44 percent of young adults believe Canada’s political stability is at least moderately threatened by political division. Nearly 40 percent said they believed that division will get worse. Out of the most polarizing issues, they cited COVID, vaccines, and public health policies; gender and sexual identity; ethnicity, race and racism; and the role of government—all issues the Liberals have used as wedges.

Kauffmann believes, “There is no question that Trudeau’s Liberals, by mainstreaming American woke cultural socialism, have driven polarization in Canadian politics.”

“Americanization in the Canadian context refers to Trudeau’s adoption of U.S. woke cultural socialism, stimulating a rising reaction to left-liberal extremism,” he said. “By contrast, in the U.S., we have witnessed a mutually recursive radicalization process.”

It’s important to note that not all the responsibility for this deepening polarization falls on the shoulders of Prime Minister Trudeau and the Liberal Party. Experts have cited other factors, including an array of right-wing actors and narratives. But, it would be dishonest to say that the governing Liberals do not bear considerable responsibility.

Canada is not the United States. While we share some commonalities, we also share significant differences, differences that we should be proud of.

The Americanization of our politics has not been good. The time has come to deport America’s divisive and polarizing identity politics and to embrace unity and a nuance-driven Canadian way of doing things. That starts with Trudeau and the Liberals getting over their obsession with American politics.