Can you imagine the noise, the
rhetoric, the picket lines, the emergency meetings, the petitions and the
op-eds if the governments of Canada or Quebec ended the dairy industry’s
monopsony or called in their loans to Bombardier Inc.?
Either of these hoary burdens to
consumers and taxpayers alike would raise righteous hell, would have under Prime
Minister Stephen Harper and will, as surely, under Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau.
So, isn’t it strange that Barack
Obama and Canada’s new Prime Minister can kill two regulator-approved,
multibillion-dollar oil pipeline projects, blocking recession-racked Alberta’s
most economic new pathways to continental and global oil markets, and,
consequently, harm profoundly the economic credibility of the only reliable
growth region of Canada—and then move on, smilingly, hand in hand, to address
other business?
Obama reasons that TransCanada
Inc.’s Keystone XL project doesn’t fit with his green, global vision of himself.
After seven years of painful gestation, his "legacy" logic spreads gently like
you-know-what on troubled waters. While Trudeau, his Cabinet and chief office
networker Gerald Butts rush to assure Obama’s White House that their country
can take a punch and that he’s already as green as the President.
Trudeau doesn’t openly use his
predecessor’s National Energy Board's legislation to disallow the Enbridge Inc.’s Gateway pipeline to
the Pacific. He only insists that the oil that gets there by flowing it won’t
be able to use the Pacific Ocean to go any farther.
The actions of both politicians fit
the logic of their electoral politics.
Powerless Canadians would be
embarrassed by a sore loser Prime Minister. Furthermore, they still very much
like Obama, personally. While British Columbia’s asset-rich beach-dwellers long
ago decided that "their" rain-socked, essentially inhabitable, north Pacific coast
belongs to the gods of leave-things-alone.
The only weird part of this smooth economic
catastrophe has been the tone and seeming intent of the responses of the immediate
victims.
Enbridge’s pipeline spokesman whispers, for example: “We are confident the Government of Canada will be
embarking on the required consultations with First Nations and Métis in the
region, given the potential economic impact a crude oil tanker ban would have
on those communities and Western Canada as a whole.” Also, they’d love to have
one of those "re-set" chats with Trudeau.
These are the true
sentiments of a company that is laying off skilled employees, that has already
wasted tens, if not hundreds of millions, on law firms, negotiators,
anthropologists, environmental planners, engineers, media commercials, and,
needless to say, in-house and retained, multi-party government relations specialists.
Are they truly confident
that the Trudeau government—answering to an absolute majority of green Liberal
MPs who have no direct skin in the fate of Alberta’s oil industry—will
reverse itself? That Justin Trudeau will exclaim: “Oh my, Enbridge has convinced
half a dozen coastal First Nation bands to take a bit more of their money to
stop guarding their pristine coast.”
Such fake,
Pollyanna, convoluted, supine optimism reminds me of a proposition that ought
to be on every boardroom wall in the fossil fuel business:
“When the Fox hears the Rabbit
scream he comes a-runnin', but not to help.”
It almost seems ironic how the best thing for Alberta to do now would be to just branch off and join the US. I don't hear as many stories of hurt coming out of Texas as we do from poor Alberta. The pipeline would be approved instantly as would the abundant flow of capital and skilled labour (not to mention full energy independence for the US). I just wonder, how would the rest of Canada fair should such a senario become reality? Something maybe Ottawa should think about in the years to come.
ReplyDelete