July 2006 Features

Out of the West

Does China Make You Nervous

Friendly competition

Water, water Everywhere and nary...

Vive la difference

Developing a regional workforce

Out of the West .....comes PNWER. It is an organization so far below the radar that almost nobody has heard of it By P. Drake McHugh .

If it were a nation being compared to the world’s leading industrial economics, PNWER would rank 10th with a combined population of more than 20 million, and 12th with an annual gross regional product of almost $700 billion.

It is an organization so far below the radar that almost nobody has heard of it… but absolutely necessary to the continuing well-being and prosperity of the upper and outer reaches of North America.

It is called the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region—PNWER, pronounced pen-wer by those in the know. This unique, bi-national organization may have political clout and influence far beyond its modest size.

And, from July 16th through 20th when it holds its 16th annual summit, 500 delegates from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, British Columbia, Alberta and the Yukon will descend on Edmonton to swap ideas about how good neighbours can be better neighbours.

PNWER has been working since 1989 to smooth out cross-border issues that smack of protectionist attitudes. For an organization that perceives itself to be apolitical, it is sometimes a daunting task. When there is no agreement, the group works to build relationships and to keep trade on a two-way street.

Much of the role is to foster understanding. Canadians well understand that we are each other’s largest trading partners… Americans, not so much. In fact, most Americans are surprised to learn that Canada is the largest supplier of oil to the U.S. and that Alberta has the second largest known reserves in the world—thank you, 60 Minutes. Canada is the top consumer of exports from 39 states. Idaho’s exports to Canada in 2002 totalled $306 million US, while its imports from Canada were $436 million. Washington state exports to Canada were $2.9 billion, while imports totalled $9.9 billion. Trade between Canada and the four-PNWER-state members south of the 49th parallel totals $16 billion annually.

Still, the relationship does not always go smoothly. The long trade dispute over softwood lumber has cost Canada $1 billion even though the truculent Bush government lost internationally at nearly every turn and sullied its reputation for fair play. The closing of the American border to Canadian cattle on what many say was a trade-related issue was also a point of anger with Canadians. But PNWER keeps on trucking; keeping the lines of communication open. Indeed, with such a variety of governments and businesses involved, it is a wonder PNWER can accomplish anything at all. But it does.

It might be said of PNWER that what unites this region is greater than the differences that, from time to time, rent the fabric of cooperation. The organization appears to be an idea whose time has come in a world where free trade isn’t very free. From headquarters in Seattle, it reaches out to its member states and provinces in a unique manner.

“Any time you think about a forum of institutions, can you think of anything more dull and dry and boring,” muses current President Glenn Anderson (R-Fall City). “But the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region is a place to get the political posturing out of the way and work on the issues.” And there are issues. 

HANDS ACROSS THE BORDER

How do you get people and goods across the U.S.-Canadian border with a minimum of hassle and without jeopardizing, or appearing to jeopardize, American homeland security?

What is to happen when thousands of tourists head to Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics? What is the region to do with oil, natural gas and electricity being developed in Canada and Alaska? What about improving the region’s energy grid? And how can both sides of this international frontier better handle a pandemic? Should health care workers be able to go where they are needed in an emergency, even if that means crossing the border?

Cooperation is everything with the partners clearly recognizing that a ‘beggar-your-neighbour’ policy between the states and provinces is not a good way to do business.

“We all benefit more from leveraging the assets we have instead of duplicating them,” says Anderson.

Executive Director Matt Morrison has become a philosopher while watching the machinations of such a diverse group of individuals, groups, organizations and governments. What’s his overview?

“There are some truths on both sides of the border that we sometimes don’t like to hear. But, the reality is that the economic watersheds here are north and south. Often western parts of the countries find we have more in common with each other than with distant govern-ments in Ottawa or Washington.”

So, do Americans really know so much less about Canada than Canadians know about America? “I think the big difference is you get our news and we don’t get yours. Canada is often in reactive mode to America but, when we meet, often some of the states feel that they are the ones reacting just because there are sometimes greater populations in Alberta or B.C. It’s exactly the reverse of the situation on the national scale.”

There is good reason for the region to pull together. Morrison points out that in the last decade GDP for Canada was 90 percent… for the U.S., it was 102 percent… but for the PNWER signatories, it was 130 percent. “We have had a disproportionate amount of growth and now the oilsands may soon double capacity.”

THE BUSINESS OF DOING BUSINESS

While PNWER has no legislative capacity in either country, observers say many of the ideas first discussed at such meetings do go on to become legislation at the state/provincial level and at both federal levels.

As in many international organizations, the basis of decision-making at the executive committee level is by consensus, a delicate matter where both egos and sovereignty can be points of discussion. But what really sets this organization apart is the involvement of the private sector, which within PNWER includes non-elective public sector NGOs, other non-profit organizations, and state/provincial delegations. All sit on the private sector council and vote for its board of directors. The council puts the power of decision making in the private sector where often, problems and opportunities are first identified.

Roisin McCabe, with Alberta International and Intergovernmental Affairs, makes the point that the organization is not just for big business: “Industry associations and those who want to be aware of what might happen in the future use the conference to make contacts and to better understand the issues.” Interested individuals and businesses can still register for the summit at www.pnwer.org.

The intensive summit runs the gamut of interests and issues that have been identified for discussion by the organization’s 17 working groups and councils—resolutions will be presented and debated. In addition, tours that might bring a yawn from Albertans are of great interest to delegates who will visit the Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, the recently-opened Nanotechnology facility, Alberta Research Council Containment 3 Laboratory, Alberta Emergency Management Operations Centre, Edmonton Waste Management Centre, the Alberta oilsands, and EPCOR Genesee 3.

EPCOR’s director of government relations, Tim Boston, attempts to put the situation in perspective. EPCOR has energy and water business interests in Alberta, B.C., Ontario, and Washington and New York states. He is keen to showcase the Genesee III super-critical coal burning electricity generating plant. He says it is not yet a zero emission process, “but this is a huge step above previous technology. Everybody has a story to tell, and perhaps some of these people aren’t aware of the advances we’ve made. If you are in the industry, you always want to ensure that you are not working at cross-purposes. Energy is huge for Alberta and for the region. It’s not just production… but how to facilitate transmission. We’re all looking at the same things and looking to partner in the entire region. It’s a win-win situation for everyone.”

Ron Tenove, a Washington state management consultant and co-chair of PNWER’s working group on transportation, has some interesting observations: “Over the last two years, the issue of homeland security is… a top-tier consideration so, in many cases, changes will be made at a variety of levels… This is often the place they are talked about first, sometimes years before the legislators take action.”

Tenove sees transportation issues as complex and with huge potential to change the region. “Fifty per cent of all container traffic to Europe goes through the port of Rotterdam. If you can imagine Seattle and expansion in Vancouver and Prince Rupert, you can have an idea of the potential we have.”

His group is also looking at border transport, corridor development to take energy to market, and rapid rail between Seattle and Vancouver. “If you think of this as a big jig-saw puzzle,” he says, “then it begins to make sense. So often in these jurisdictions, we are each other’s best customer. It is only natural to want to expand those ties and set common goals where we can.”

And, according to Morrison, PNWER is looking for ways to allow easier passage for “trusted travellers and low-risk goods and services by land, sea or air.” This is particularly timely for the up-coming 2010 Winter Olympics. Discussions will focus on the development of common themes and brands throughout the North-west to direct tourists, and to upgrade transportation facilities such as the railway line between Vancouver and Bellingham. For Washington state, it is a gift: All the economic risk is being borne by Canadians. The reality is that many people will fly into Seattle and then head north. Estimates of economic benefits vary from tens to hundreds of million of dollars in expected contracts and state tax revenues alone.

DIFFERENT, YET…

The differences between a parliamentary democracy and a republic can lead to friction and misunderstanding when elected officials charged with representing their constituents have to make bigger decisions than might suit a particular lobby group.

Historically, the situation is not without humour. The Americans set out to build very powerful states as a hedge against too much centralized power: Canadians set about building a strong federal system for defence against the new republic to the south. Somewhere along the way, the countries swapped power structures. The American central government is extremely powerful while the Canadian federal government is relatively less so; but provinces have far more clout than do states. Throw into this an international frontier and it is no wonder there are frictions. Nonetheless, similarities abound, and geographical imperatives have greater power to influence.

Perhaps oddly, the idea for the organization began when Jim Horsman—then deputy premier of Alberta and now government relations advisor to the University of Lethbridge—connected with Washington State Senator J. Alan Bluechel at a State Legislative Leaders conference in New Orleans in 1988. Bluechel had been born in Alberta and attended the University of British Columbia, as had Horsman. Both had noticed that the people in the states and provinces of the Northwest shared much in common, including an ability to get along together sometimes better than with their respective federal governments thousands of miles away.

They also knew that the idea had no chance of success unless it was politically non-partisan: four legislators—two Democrats, two Republicans—from each jurisdiction, their Senates and Houses of Representatives, while the Canadians moved to involve representatives from all parties in their legislatures. Articles of ratification were passed in 1991 by various legislative means at the state and provincial levels. Amendments were passed in 1994, adding the governors and premiers, and updating other positions of the statutes.

 “We exist to encourage the Commonwealth of the Pacific Northwest,” trumpets Morrison. “We probably have the best economy and the best environment of anywhere in the world. Whether it be in nano-technology, resource capital or any area, we have the opportunity to diversify and we have respect for one another.

“And,” Morrison concludes with a chuckle, “all of us now have a better understanding of all forms of democracy, and that is a very good thing”.

Home

Does China make you nervous?

By Michael O’Toole 

Last November, PNWER held its regional economic leadership forum in Whistler, BC. A whole day was devoted to the galvanizing but undeniably contentious issue of China’s immense energy demand and what it really means for energy security in the Pacific Northwest.

China is once again high on the PNWER agenda at this summer’s annual summit in Edmonton in the shape of the China energy roundtable, an intriguing experiment in trans-Pacific cooperation co-hosted by the Energy Council and the University of Alberta’s China Institute. In the wake of the failed effort by the state-run China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) to take over U.S.-based Unocal Corporation, increased critical scrutiny is now being directed toward the China connection associated with Alberta’s oilsands and other Canadian projects, such as the Enbridge Gateway Pipeline between Alberta and BC.

Mel Knight, MLA for Grande Prairie-Smoky and co-chair of PNWER’s Energy I Working Group, explains: “Where the issue started to bubble a bit was a suggestion that bitumen could leave Alberta and land up in the Chinese market. And, of course, some U.S. states initially got excited about that because China’s economy is expanding at a tremendous rate and they have an insatiable appetite for energy.”

On this theme, Matt Morrison, PNWER executive director, recalls the irony of one particular moment at the Whistler shindig eight months ago: “It was absolutely fabulous to hear some very conservative Republicans saying ‘How can we trust the Chinese?’ and then having the vice-president of Enbridge tell the story that the purpose of the Gateway Pipeline, in a sense, was really to get oil down to the Long Beach California refineries… it was the LA refineries that went to China and said, ‘Look we need a partner to justify the cost. Would you join this deal?’ And that was very enlightening for our American friends to hear that.”

For anyone currently losing sleep over the Asian giant’s ‘insidious’ energy ambitions, Morrison has a blunt interrogative. “Do we really want China to invest their $120 billion into Iran, or should we be engaged? I mean let’s look at the future: Do we want to engage China where we are partners with them economically? That’s a great dialogue.”

Which brings us to the politically sticky matter of the oilsands, in which, as Knight observes, the Chinese are now investing, and where they could be said to have gained a tentative toe hold.

“And the answer to that is ‘Who’s been investing in the oilsands for the last 30 years?” Knight leaves the question open, but anyone hearing it is apt to glance southwards momentarily. “There’s already been offshore investment and we don’t discriminate between investors. We don’t necessarily question that it’s a company that’s not controlled inside the province of Alberta. We don’t ask them how much of their company is owned by U.S. investors and how much is owned by Chinese investors for instance. The corporation that runs the energy business for the Chinese government has investments in 17 different countries and literally hundreds of energy companies. So they’re invested in the U.S. and Canada already, whether we’ve taken the time to investigate that or not.”

Nevertheless, for Murray Smith, Alberta’s representative in Washington DC, one of North America’s largest issues today is sorting out how we will deal with the entry of corporations that are owned by foreign governments into either essential services or resource sectors or even general business operations. What, he ponders, are the appropriate policies, in this case, for a continent built on free market capitalism? The recent Unocal and Dubai Ports debacles may point the way to an entrenched “Hell no!” mindset, at least in the U.S. corridors of power. Whatever policies may ultimately result with respect to foreign state-backed investment, Smith reminds us that, from a PNWER viewpoint, China is just a natural trading area.

“Don’t be afraid of China,” he urges. “Be happy that there’s a middle class emerging of some two or three hundred million people in China—a colossal opportunity… but, at the same time, we’re seeing new competition for resources that we’ve not otherwise had.”

Veteran China engager Dr. Michael Raymont, CEO of the Calgary-based Energy Innovation Network (EnergyINet), who has been closely involved with PNWER in the preparations for the China energy roundtable sessions, is even more robust in his dismissal of prevailing fears.

“Frankly, if China comes in and buys a minority position in an energy company in North America, specifically an oil and gas company, I think it’s of no concern at all,” Raymont states with a calm directness. “They currently own well less than one percent of any assets in North America in the energy industry. And in Canada, 43 percent of our energy industry is owned by the U.S., and something like 65 percent of it is owned by foreigners. The fact that China might come in and own one or two or five or even 10 percent of it, in my view, would be a good thing, because they can bring some very interesting perspective and some technology which many people are unaware of. They’ve advanced very rapidly in terms of some aspects of oil patch technology.

“And finally, I think broadening of our customer base in the energy business is not a bad thing for Canada. Now, in the U.S., you will have a different reaction to that. They would like to think of Canada, particularly the oilsands, as being “our” quote oilsands, and I’ve been told that.”

Redirecting his thoughts to China, Raymont stresses the value of dialogue, dialogue and more dialogue with the Asian power. “The Unocal decision had more repercussions in China than are acknow-ledged in the U.S., perhaps in North America. One could say the Chinese overreacted. One can say the Americans were naïve or narrow-minded in that decision. There was certainly a cooling of interaction between China and the U.S., which actually has provided the opportunity for China to engage Canada more fully, but it’s also pushed China to engage Venezuela, Sudan, Nigeria, and other such countries that the U.S. aren’t particularly keen for them to engage.”

While PNWER will be focusing primarily on China’s demand for alternative and renewable energy technologies at this year’s event, the evolving shape of the Canada-China-U.S. ménage remains firmly in ‘watch this space’ mode.

“The issues are still boiling a bit on the back-burner,” Knight concludes good-humouredly.

Home

Friendly competition

We repeat: The Pacific Northwest is not a separate country. By Michael o'Toole

“By the time you get here to Washington, you’re really firing on all the big cylinders!” Murray Smith declares in a surprisingly relaxed semi-chuckle. Hard on the heels of an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the serving of diplomatic canapés to 150 guests at the Smithsonian, Alberta’s very own official representative to the United States eases suavely into the high protocol of an early morning chinwag with Edmontonians.

When he’s not jawing on the Hill and its environs, Smith has been known to don a set of white flannels and “chuck a few” on the cricket field, as he colourfully puts it, and can fake his way passably through any discussion of the finer points of the silly mid-off rule.

Incidentally, Smith is also a prime player in an altogether higher value game. “I’m the co-chair of the energy portion of PNWER, of the energy planning initiative,” he says, in a voice that seems to challenge anyone to chuck a few of the hardest hydrocarbon-themed questions back at him.

 The bi-national regional energy planning initiative is a far-reaching cross-border project that began to take shape after the 2003 PNWER summit in Calgary. Its aim is to address challenges such as congestion in the western electrical grid by focusing on the multi-jurisdictional issues of regional data sharing, unified permitting and trans-mission corridor planning. The initiative provides for the development of a bi-national regional council in collaboration with a whole smorgasbord of energy authorities and providers, including all the major players from within the PNWER footprint.

 “One of the most diificult things to site in the world today is a transmission network,” Smith laments, exercising a certain diplomatic privilege in the elongation of vowel sounds. “And so that’s the genesis of looking at how we can plan for future power load or the growth in the economy, the growth in demand, and where we get the supplies from. And that started the energy initiative.”

 With a few well-chosen historical allusions, Smith takes his acquiescent listener on the telephonic equivalent of a sweeping Stateside helicopter ride across the dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. From there, we visit the political foundations of that formidable old doyenne of energy provision in the Pacific Northwest—the Bonneville Power Authority—in the days of President FDR, and thence move to the current U.S. government’s reluctance to advance any funds to the BPA to handle either new load or new transmission. Now, and only now, Smith swoops to the PNWER-relevant nub of the tour: the burgeoning signifi-cance of energy delivery initiatives north of the border.

 “There is a very convenient route that runs down the east side of Alberta from Fort McMurray,” he specifies, in reference to TransCanada’s much vaunted Northern Lights project. “It can cross over into Montana or into Idaho, and then through a corridor from Idaho actually right down to Las Vegas, but also into the PNWER region. So one of the things we were able to get going was a feasibility analysis. Then, of course, the companies of Alberta transmit natural gas through the pre-built portion of the Alaska pipeline into California and Oregon. So there’s an energy presence already in natural gas sales.” Smith completes his trio of cherished north-to-south energy routes by tracing his finger along Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Edmonton through to Vancouver and down into southern Washington state. “These three energy commodities have a great interest to this trading region,” and, by implication, to the formative cross-border work of the bi-national regional energy planning initiative.

Turning to the specifics of the progress that the new planning body could bring, Smith cites a low-key example, but one that illustrates the potential for greater bureaucratic simplicity. “There’s a small tie-in line that is currently being proposed for Montana-Alberta, that is faced with, I want to say, in excess of 200 permits! So if we can start finding ways of either eliminating some of the duplication or have some of the permits for one jurisdiction serve the others, I’d certainly call that progress. And this is work that has never been done before.”

Smith ends his current reflections on an engagingly holistic note as he surveys the various challenges that a bi-national mindset may help to overcome:

“There are no silver bullets. You have to embrace the whole issue of conservation, hybrid, low-sulphur diesel as well as basic pipeline constraints, transmission capacity constraints for both electricity and oil. Those are the kinds of things where it’s great to have a cross-border forum.”

CROSS-BORDER ENERGY ENLIGHTENMENT

Matt Morrison, executive director of PNWER, is the man who could be seen as being at the eye of a cross-border storm, or, if you prefer, balancing in a place of perfect “equipoise” between the state, provincial and national interests that the organization has to accommodate. His outlook is pleasingly reassuring, if a tad left field to those of us who have grown used to the seeming inevitability of border-related controversies.

“In many ways, we think and act like a region. Whether BC, Yukon, Alaska, Alberta or Washington, we feel closer to each other than to Ottawa or DC.”

Not that the two capitals can be completely ignored. With reference to PNWER’s ongoing energy planning initiative, Morrison takes cheer from the fact that the U.S. Department of Energy has supported it, and that Natural Resources Canada may be persuaded to do likewise.

“We had an excellent meeting with [Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources] Gary Lunn last week. Again it’s an opportunity to really take the trilateral discussions that have gone on in energy planning in North America and get down to the brass tacks in a region that is highly interdependent. It’s very timely because the U.S. Energy Policy Act, signed in Albuquerque last August, commits the U.S. to developing energy corridors throughout the 11 western states. And it was PNWER that got the Department of Energy and the Bureau of Land Management to sit down with Alberta and BC officials, because they weren’t including Canada in this discussion of priority energy corridors.”

Morrison laughs incredulously at his own recollections. “Yeah, it’s amazing, since the energy is coming from north to south. It’s very important that the U.S. understand the potential of Western Canada… we find continuously that people who should know don’t know.” The importance of this cross-border enlightenment is heightened, in Morrison’s view, by the fact that the U.S. is not about to build significant new refining capacity despite its huge demand for gasoline.

Other energy concerns on Morrison’s regional mind include biofuels and the revamping of tax and royalty regimes across the whole Pacific Northwest.

Mel Knight is the MLA for Grande Prairie-Smoky and a veteran PNWER stalwart in the role of chair of the Energy I Working Group.

“All of the players in PNWER certainly have a common interest when it comes to being able to move energy, whether it’s molecules or electrons, back and forth across the borders as seamlessly as we can,” Knight remarks. “There’s difficulty, of course, with all of these bi-national discussions. For a long time, places like Wyoming would look at Alberta as a huge competitor in any attempt to move Alberta electrical energy into, maybe, the Nevada market. When we sit at PNWER roundtables now, or when we meet with our colleagues at the Energy Council, there’s a pretty positive aspect to it. But let’s not fool ourselves. There are some circumstances where perhaps some individuals feel a bit protectionist… Although we try to keep it as friendly as we can, it’s still competition.”

 Knight’s reference to the Energy Council brings us appropriately to another key facet of the Edmonton summit. This august body, formed 30 years ago by a handful of American legislators, encompasses the 10 major U.S. producing states and a number of international affiliates, the first of which was Alberta, after the province joined in 1991, first represented by Jim Horsman, Alberta deputy premier and PNWER founder. In a notable move, the Energy Council executive is attending this year’s PNWER summit under invitation.

Knight reveals the rationale: “I was Alberta’s representative on the Energy Council and also on the energy working group with PNWER, so I did a bit of work and got the two kind of married up because there are some strengths to be gained by having both of these groups attend some of these sessions together.” Significantly, as part of its involvement in this year’s event, the Energy Council is co-hosting the China energy roundtable, along with the University of Alberta’s China Institute.

THE CHINA CONNECTION

“We are bringing in a number of Chinese state officials,” explains Morrison. “It’s a critical issue to look at how we are engaging China. So this time, we’re focusing on China’s demand for alternative energy technologies. We really do hope to engage the Chinese in regional dialogue, but there are huge issues there that have big implications.”

Few people, if any, in North America understand those implications better than Dr. Michael Raymont, CEO of EnergyINet Inc., who has been a key player in facilitating PNWER’s new trans-Pacific engagement. Raymont spoke to Edmontonians this summer shortly after returning from his 47th visit to China (the first occurring a few months before the death of Mao Zedong—aka Mao Tse-Tung—in 1976).

“I think I’m up to four times this year already,” he observes drolly, and without any trace of the expected travel-weariness. “They [the Chinese government] announced, when I was there in November 2005 as part of Minister Dion’s delegation, a program of $184 billion U.S. on renewable energy and R & D projects between now and 2020.”

While acknowledging that few assumptions can be made with regard to China’s involvement in the Edmonton PNWER summit, Raymont, like Morrison, is a strong advocate of dialogue with Beijing. He also emphasizes the scope for commercial progress:

“I think it’s actually a tremendous business opportunity for North American businesses to both work with China and potentially supply technology, and I think we should have no concerns about supplying energy technologies to them. There may be people who have concerns about perhaps intellectual property. I think those issues can now be dealt with in China. It’s my experience that they can be, today. Five years ago, I wouldn’t have given that same answer. And the situation is improving every minute, but prudence around contractual details is important.”

Raymont sounds a further note of realism by reminding us that China’s participation in the PNWER roundtable session is something of a new experiment. “I think the Chinese will be cautious in wanting to understand what this really is other than an opportunity to engage in dialogue and so forth. But we will have to be careful as PNWER and as Americans and Canadians not to confuse them that, PNWER is…” Raymont pauses for a moment of light-hearted wordplay, “…a separate country. PNWER is an organization that has some cross-border cooperative issues, but maybe PNWER is also a model for trans-Pacific cooperation.”

So can we expect the Edmonton summit to foster future SINO-PNWER tête-à-têtes, tackling perhaps some of the more sensitive issues that still stand between the two hemispheres? Raymont is maintaining an open mind. “I think that’s really up to how well this goes and whether PNWER turns out to be an appropriate format for engaging China as differentiated from bilateral Canada-China and U.S.-China interactions. Can PNWER add anything to that? I have to say at this point I don’t know. It’s going to be interesting and, arguably, exciting to see what happens.”

Arguably laconic, but definitely true.

Home

Water, water everywhere and nary...

By P. Drake McHugh

It is not easy to have some sort of idea of the complexity of the PNWER partnership. Legislators, governments and businesses from two provinces and a territory and five states in the United States, not to mention the national governments and a devil’s convention of assorted lobby groups sitting down in conferences and workshops in an attempt to hammer out consensus. It is something like a bag of all sorts, any one of which may be poisoned by political necessity, misunderstanding, disagreement or national interest. Oddly, it seems to work surprisingly well… possibly because mutual interest trumps individual action. Still, from an Alberta perspective, it may be instructive to look at water.

Along Jasper Avenue in Edmonton, a bumper sticker reads: Alberta: Awash in oil, dying of thirst. Everybody wants more of a finite commodity. There is not enough to go around. Near Fort McMurray, it takes three barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. Snow melt from the mountains no longer comes in the quantity it used to… aquifers and ground water are at risk. PNWER founder Jim Horsman—now an advisor to the University of Lethbridge—is deeply concerned about water, indicating that the sides are not equal north and south of the 49th parallel because water is becoming a political issue. He is wary of the U.S. seeking mass exports of a commodity that “may be more important than oil.”

Montana is the latest state to say it wants a new deal. It wishes to rewrite the water agreement with Alberta. “In dry years we have not been receiving our appropriate amount,” said Mary Sexton, director of Montana’s department of natural resources and conservation.

“Alberta’s position is (that) nothing has changed since then (1921) to warrant reopening the order,” fired back Alberta Environment spokesperson Sherri-Dawn Annett. “The implications are enormous for Alberta if this order is reopened,” she said.

And it may not just be in that area where politicali-zation of issues leads to odd offspring. Canadians are deeply stung and uneasy about softwood lumber where Ottawa won most of the legal challenges and then capitulated to the Americans. There is not only worry that when you have no legal basis, you can bully your way to victory. The agreement has ramifications and potential to sour north-south relations. Or as one bitter observer put it, “If America isn’t good for its word, what is it good for?” The hyperbole runs as high on the American side of the frontier.

Observers argue that this shows why PNWER is unique and much needed as a forum for open discussion and consciousness raising. It refuses to take on a political role that can lose direction in acrimony and accusation. For instance, it firmly sidesteps disputes between two participing jurisdictions and keeps an eye on the far horizon of what will be good for the region. Planning, protection and sustainability are on the agenda. Political bashing and finger pointing are considered poor form and Alberta is not facing any emergency not shared by the partner political entities.

The good news is that Alberta is as well advanced as anyone in beginning to ameliorate the situation. At the University of Lethbridge, Greg Shyba, executive director of the Alberta Ingenuity Centre for Water Research, points out that “80 percent of water is used for agriculture and, with trends in global warming, we want to be more efficient. There is the added problem that rains may not be falling at the same times of the year, so it’s difficult to know when it will be available.

“We look at quantity and quality,” he says. “We have some things in common with our neighbours but some things different too. For instance in Idaho, 60 per cent of irrigation is from ground water and the energy to get it to the surface becomes an issue. In Alberta, we have agreements with our neighbours. We have a treaty with Saskatchewan to pass on 50 percent of our water and they have an agreement with Manitoba to pass on 50 percent of their water. In the South Saskatchewan River, we don’t have enough water to meet our own needs.

“Internationally, we look at the economics. You have to ask, should we be using irrigated water to grow corn to make a sugar base for soda pop for kids or should we be looking at cereal crops to feed people.” He argues that there is no right answer but that, increasingly, discussions will have to be held on the topic.”

The Centre conducts fundamental research at the Universities of Lethbridge, Calgary and Alberta with a $600 million grant from the Alberta Ingenuity Fund.

“We deal with all aspects of water, quantity and quality,” Shyba explains. And he thinks the next large issue for Alberta will be pharmaceutical waste. Drugs such as Ibuprofen are flushed down toilets. So far, research is indicating that this drug is leading to feminization of fish… males turn into females. It puts the fish population at risk and nobody yet knows what it does to human populations.

“The bad news is we could really use more funding… and the good news is we are making some inroads and people are far more aware of the issues than they used to be. That has to happen before change is possible.”

Home

Vive la difference

By the Honourable Ken Kowalski; Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta

It is my great pleasure to write a piece on the differences or similarities between the U.S. and Canadian legislative systems. As a member who has served in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta since 1979, I have had numerous opportunities to visit the United States on official, not to mention social occasions, as a member, a cabinet minister and as Speaker.

In comparing Canada and the United States, one can draw many parallels. The two countries share a unique relationship and a mutual respect for one another. Entrenched within each other’s cultures, the two nations are a likely source for comparison.

It has always amazed me that two nations that share so much in common and have such close links in virtually every level of cultural and economic activity can be so different when it comes to our respective systems of governance. A large reason for the differences is that Canada did not break its ties to Great Britain as did the United States. We are members of the Commonwealth, the successor to the British Empire. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association ties together the parliaments that follow the Westminster—British Parliament—model.

As we know, the United States decided about 230 years ago to depart from this model, choosing to form a republic.

Canada’s system is one of responsible government. Now that, of course, is not to imply that the US system operates irresponsibly, but rather to illustrate the definition of responsible government is one by which Canada adheres to the principle of parliamentary accountability.

So what does this mean? In Canada, the executive branch or government is a part of the legislative branch and, as such, the prime minister and ministers are also members of the assembly and must propose, debate and defend bills in the House. The most notable expression of responsible government in action is during Question Period when members who are not in the executive/cabinet get to ask questions of the government. This high drama is the part of the proceedings broadcast on television news. It is also the part that poses the greatest challenge to Speakers—we are the ones charged with maintaining order and decorum during what can be heated and rancorous exchanges. Stripped of its emotion, Question Period—whether in Canberra, Westminster, Ottawa or Edmonton—provides a great example of the strength of responsible government. In Canada, and subsequently Alberta, the prime minister or premier and cabinet ministers are confronted with questions of which they have no advance notice. Noting that it is called Question Period not Answer Period, responses often don’t meet questioners’ expectations. Interestingly, there is no requirement that the government answer the questions posed.

In the U.S., the executive branch is elected separately from the legislative branch. In other words, the president and his cabinet cannot introduce bills nor can they vote on proposed legislation. The president does, however, have the power to veto legislation, a power that the Prime Minister of Canada does not hold.

Ultimately though, the supreme power lies with the people in both countries. Through the rights and freedoms afforded through each nation’s constitution—the citizens of both Canada and the United States create and sustain the systems that govern them.

Both our countries have federal systems with two orders of sovereign government. Senates ensure that the regions are represented in the central government. In the U.S., the senate has developed into what is arguably the most powerful legislative body in the world—its 100 members wield enormous power. In Canada, senators are still appointed by the prime minister and the institution has, I suggest, considerably less credibility and influence than its American counterpart. Unlike the United States, the Canadian senate is the only second chamber in existence in the country. Provinces do not have second chambers.

So what would a visitor see in Alberta’s Chamber? To begin with, the Speaker enters the Chamber in a robe with tabs and a tri-corn hat that might remind U.S. visitors of the American Revolution. The Speaker is led into the Chamber by the Sergeant-at-Arms who wears a black cut jacket and gloves and carries a sword—the only weapon allowed in the Chamber. Historically, everyone carried a sword, so the desks were positioned at such a distance that members on opposite sides of the House could not reach each other. In those days, since all members had one hand on their swords, they would bang their desks with their free hand to show support, instead of clapping. It is a tradition that continues to this day.

We start every day of the legislative session with a prayer. American visitors may be surprised that Canada does not have the same separation of church and state as does the United States. As Speaker, I have attempted to make the prayer a type that provides a time for reflection and thanks.

The biggest difference in our structures is that our system is a constitutional monarchy: Queen Elizabeth II is also the Queen of Canada. Although our head of state in Canada is technically the Governor-General—the Queen’s official representative—it is the monarch whose name is invoked. I was honoured to escort Her Majesty to the Legislature Building together with Alberta’s Premier, the Honourable Ralph Klein when she visited Alberta in May 2005 on the centennial of provincehood. She addressed the Assembly in a province-wide broadcast, the first time a monarch has done so in the province’s 100 year history.

Now, as Alberta’s Assembly celebrates its centennial, I look back on the development of this province and reflect on its history in this country.

Both Canada and the United States started down very different roads and, some may say, ended up in the opposite direction from where they began. But what a journey it has been… for all North Americans.  

Home

Developing a regional workforce

Cooperative scheduling would be key

By Michael O’Toole

Neil Windsor is evidently one of PNWER’s great multi-taskers. As fate would have it, Edmontonians caught up with the organization‘s Workforce Development co-chair precisely as he was drafting a key resolution for the Edmonton summit. This happy coincidence seemed to add a special authenticity to the natural thrust and parry of the conversation. With such a cue sheet before him, Windsor, the executive director of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), needed little prompting:

“I hope we will get a resolution passed that will urge state boards to adopt a policy that they will waive certain examinations that are required—in fact, that they would actually accept full reciprocity between Canadian and U.S. engineers with, say, eight years experience after licensure so that they would almost automatically be licensed in another jurisdiction.”

If that sounds ambitious, it’s only a reflection of the fact that workforce mobility is on the list of the top three burner issues for almost every employer, legislator and lateral thinker within the region. Windsor’s interest in the matter, from a PNWER perspective, goes back to the late 1990s, when he first became intrigued by the organization’s evident commitment to the goal of removing regulatory and legislative barriers to the free movement of various types of professionals, without undermining standards.

Coupled with the perennial discussion of labour mobility are the underlying concerns regarding workforce and facilities shortages and the implications they bring in terms of the region’s prospects for sustainable growth and prosperity.

“There’s a huge shortage of manpower, equipment and materials,” says Windsor. “You’re looking at $250 to $300 billion of work in this region over the next 10 to 15 years. That’s an incredible amount of activity. We can best develop that by sharing our strengths and helping each other with weaknesses. If we have facilities in Alberta that may be under-utilized, why would they be building similar facilities in Alaska? Why not use ours, and vice versa?”

Windsor advocates, among other efficiencies, a system of cooperative scheduling of major projects. He reminds us that while, here in Alberta, we may identify a certain requirement for the oilsands, BC is also building huge facilities for the 2010 Olympics, and neighbouring U.S. states are engaged on their own large-scale infrastructure upgrades. And they’re all, potentially, drawing on the same labour pool.

“These people can’t work in three places,” Windsor points out, “so it benefits all of us to recognize what is the regional workforce, what are the regional strengths, what are the weaknesses, and what do we have to do jointly to try to resolve those weaknesses and help one another? And you can do that to some degree by scheduling activities and ensuring that not every activity of the same kind peaks at the same time.”

Windsor and his PNWER workgroup colleagues are also set on tackling the long-term challenges posed by the need for reliable accreditation of offshore labour, given that, in some professions, perhaps a third of the individuals licensed every year are likely to come from outside North America.

“These are the key issues we’ll be focusing on at these sessions,” he reprises. “Looking at the skills availability, the demand for skills. What is the requirement? What is the capacity of our educational institutions to generate more skilled professionals? What are the offshore skills that we can bring in, and what is our requirement for offshore labour? And of course sharing regionally, knowing within the region what we have and where we can access those skills.”

According to Matt Morrison, executive director of PNWER, the responsibility for economic progress lies very much in the region’s own lap. “We do feel that by bringing stakeholders together the best solutions are going to be hammered out by the people on the ground, not in Ottawa or DC,” he states emphatically. Morrison also stresses the cross-border amity that is essential to the economic development of the whole Pacific Northwest: “In a region like PNWER, it’s not like there’s this huge U.S. versus a little Canada. We’re equal partners.”

Of course, relations have not always been quite that rosy, as Morrison himself concedes. “I take a step back and say, if you look at the U.S.-Canada file, it’s been dominated by reaction to things like the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, the BSE closure of the border for live cattle, the softwood lumber dispute, and on and on. Issues that from a Canadian perspective [have involved] reacting to things that the U.S. is doing. But PNWER offers the opportunity to be proactive and take a stance at doing things the way we should be doing them, developing solutions before the irritants cause us to react.”

Like Windsor, the team at Alberta Economic Development, headed by Minister Clint Dunford, was also in the throes of drafting summit-related artefacts when Edmontonians paid a conference call to their impressively assembled ranks.

At PNWER 2006, AED will be making a joint presentation, along with BC, on the recently-negotiated Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between the two provinces. This provides for a much freer flow of goods, services and people, as well as greater reciprocity in terms of labour and accreditation standards. While applicable purely within Canada, TILMA, which will come into effect on April 1st 2007, is seen as a potential model for improved standardization and deregulation throughout PNWER and is already generating interest from other members.

 Another focus within the trade and economic development discussions at the event is likely to be the issue of moving specialized equipment such as computerized oil well service rigs back and forth across the border when similar equipment and trained personnel are not available locally. A PNWER-sponsored pilot project involving border customs and immigration officers is already proposed.

 A third major theme that Alberta Economic Development will be highlighting at the summit is the regional potential of the aerospace industry. In Alberta alone, the sector’s various clusters collectively employ around 6,500 skilled workers, and will be reaching out for strategic partners among the other jurisdictions within the organization.

Home

Now, you can view Edmontonians in Adobe Acrobat PDF format by clicking here for pages 1-10 and here for pages 11-20.