Free trade has been a world opener for us in Canada however it has also brought with it a lot of unpleasentness that we Canadians could have avoided. If it is not possible to get cooperation then perhaps a tarriff regime is once again the best course for Canada. PR
Compare and contrast.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, recently in the House of Commons:
“Frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the current circumstances of the oil and gas sector, it would be crazy, it would be crazy economic policy to do unilateral penalties on that sector. We’re clearly not going to do that,” Harper told the House as Conservative MPs roared their approval.
“In fact, nobody in the world is regulating their oil and gas sector. I’d be delighted if they did. Canada will be there with them.”Jim Prentice, then federal minister of the environment, not quite five years ago:
“For those of you who doubt that the government of Canada lacks either the willingness or the authority to protect our national interests as a ‘clean energy superpower,’ think again,” he warned darkly. “We do and we will. And, in our efforts, we will expect and we will secure the co-operation of those private interests which are developing the oil sands. Consider it a responsibility that accompanies the right to develop these valuable Canadian resources.”
Back then, it was possible to believe the federal government would impose regulations on the oil and gas industries. The government certainly said it would, often enough. (Peter Kent in February, 2013: “We are now well into, and very close to finalizing, regulations for the oil and gas sector.”) But, as Chris Turner reminds us in his book The War on Science, Prentice quit as environment minister in November 2010, and the Harper government’s periodic attempts to demonstrate environmental virtue, even at some hypothetical cost to the resource sector, pretty much came to an end.
Of course, it can be hard to tell where the notion of oil and gas regulations ended. Prentice himself has been sounding much like Harper since he became premier of Alberta:
“Environmental performance is important, but so, too, is our industrial competitiveness . . . I think this low-price environment is a reminder . . . that we have to be careful laying on costs, including regulatory costs, on our industry, because we need to remain competitive.”
But is even that new? From my 2010 article, linked above:
“We will only adopt a cap-and-trade regime if the United States signals that it wants to do the same. Our position on harmonization applies equally to regulation. Canada can go down either road—cap and trade or regulation—but we will go down neither road alone.”
So the paper trail on the government’s oil and gas policy is a bit of a mess. The feds will only impose regulations in concert with the Americans? Well, there are two problems with that story. First, as Bruce Cheadle points out:
An Environment Canada briefing memo revealed last month by the Globe and Mail shows that the United States, in fact, placed what were called “significant” limits on its oil and gas sector in 2012.
“For oil and gas, recent air pollution regulations are expected to result in significant greenhouse-gas reduction co-benefits, comparable to the reductions that would result from the approach being developed for this sector in Canada,” states the June 2013 memo obtained by Greenpeace under an Access to Information request.
Mcleans
Yep!
Today in history: December 12 1911
Deli replaces Calcutta as the Capital of India.
The $5.4 billion pipeline project will increase the value of Canadian oil by unlocking access to world markets. The combined minimum fiscal impact for construction and the first 20 years of expanded operations is $18.5 billion including federal, provincial and municipal tax payments that can be used for public services such as health care and education. British Columbia receives $2.1 billion; Alberta receives $9.6 billion, and the rest of Canada shares $6.8 billion. Municipal tax payments (not adjusted for inflation) total $922 million to BC and $124 million to Alberta over the first 20 years of expanded pipeline operations. Direct capital spending for the construction phase of the project includes $3.8 billion to British Columbia and $1.6 billion to Alberta. At the peak of construction, 4,500 people will be working on the pipeline expansion. The expansion will also create approximately 3,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs per year during operations. Overall the Project generates a minimum of 108,301 direct, indirect and induced person-years of employment during project development and operations. British Columbia’s share is 66,132 person-years including 35,864 during project development and 30,269 during operations. Alberta’s share is 24,926 person-years including 14,632 during project development and 10,293 during project operations.
Kevin Griffiths
percypaschal
