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.
Kevin Griffiths
percypaschal
The Proprietor Review 