In a recent stopover in Calgary, Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, said Albertans should stop bringing up past grievances and instead focus on the future. As an example, Mr. Chretien wants Westerners to note his newfound fondness — notwithstanding his reported private comments to the contrary — for marketing Western natural resources to an energy-hungry United States market. 

All this talk about developing U.S. markets for Western Canadian natural resources is certainly welcome. But two recent actions of the federal government suggest Albertans would do well to pay more attention to what Ottawa does than what it says. 

First, following the United States’ formal withdrawal of its support for the Kyoto Accord, the federal Minister of the Environment made a formal statement saying Ottawa intends to “meet the greenhouse gas emission reduction commitment we made in Kyoto in 1997.” 

This statement contained no evidence that the views of provinces were considered — despite the environment being a joint federal-provincial area of responsibility and energy being primarily a provincial jurisdiction (the feds have some responsibility for international trade in energy). 

The lack of formal consultation with the provinces flies in the face of a federal-provincial agreement reached on April 24, 1998, in which environment ministers “agreed to establish a process to examine the consequences of Kyoto and provide for the full participation of the provincial and territorial governments with the federal government in any implementation and management of the Protocol.” Ottawa’s unilateral move to adhere to the Kyoto commitments also makes a mockery of the 1998 Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization. 

Furthermore, Ottawa’s unilateral commitment puts to rest the federal government’s talk about respecting Western economic interests — and adds weight to reports of Mr. Chretien’s private comments in support of export taxes on energy. While appearing to court Alberta, they are leaving open the possibility of harmful energy taxes or similar measures that can only harm the development of Western natural resources — eerily reminiscent of past Liberal treatment of Western oil and gas. 

But it is not enough for Alberta to gripe about Ottawa’s unilateralism. While Ottawa has the ability to sign these international agreements, they need the continued participation of the provinces to implement them. Alberta should therefore withdraw its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol while remaining committed to environmental improvements that are consistent with sustainable economic growth. This would prevent Ottawa from implementing the accord without blatantly overriding Alberta’s prerogatives in the areas of environment and energy. 

Exhibit two is Jean Chretien’s appointment of Roy Romanow to head up an inquiry into Canada’s health-care system. The Liberal government’s contribution to health care since 1993 has amounted to withdrawing federal dollars for health, producing a dust-gathering National Forum on Health study that recommended no further funds were required following those cuts, then replenishing funds the forum said were not necessary, and picking selected political fights with selected provinces over how they choose to run their health-care system. 

There is every reason to believe the Romanow inquiry will merely be a smokescreen to promote further federal intrusion into health care through such boutique federal programs as pharmacare and homecare. What possible other reason is there for a commission to report to the only senior government in Canada that does not administer an actual health system? The Romanow commission makes a mockery of co-operative federalism, particularly egregious because health is a provincial jurisdiction. 

It is unlikely the commission will make the case (as Alberta and Quebec have in the past) that the federal government should transfer the tax power needed to fund health care to the provinces — and that the federal role in health care, beyond perhaps ensuring portability, should end. Despite the fact that health care had its origins in a province, not in Ottawa, it is unlikely the commission will come to a vision that puts provinces at the forefront of health-care reform, as the laboratories most likely to find solutions. 

The Alberta government is much better placed than Ottawa to decide how to best meet the health needs of Albertans — particularly as federal pronouncements on violations of the health act (including past baseless rhetorical charges against Bill 11) seem more often motivated by the political needs of Ottawa than the health needs of Albertans. 

In our view, Alberta could, and should, back up this view with a promise to make Alberta’s health-care system the best in Canada. The province should also make it clear that it would rather pass on federal health dictates and any attendant federal money than sacrifice this goal. 

On Kyoto and on health, the federal government clearly has no intention of being sensitive to Alberta. It would be easier for Albertans to heed Mr. Chretien’s advice to focus on the future if his actions — as opposed to his words — didn’t consistently remind us of the past.