Energy economy can't turn on dime
2008-09-16
By RICKY LEONG
With Canada firmly in the grasp of an election campaign, all eyes have turned toward the East.
As demonstrated in a Sun Media-Nanos poll published in the Sun yesterday, most Canadians appear confident in their ability to weather an expected economic downturn -- except our cousins in Quebec and Ontario, where the manufacturing sector has taken a beating in recent years.
The parties are posturing to convince Canadians, easterners in particular, who is best suited to steer Canada through tough economic times.
To this backdrop, add waning interest in Quebec independence, which gives federal parties other than the Bloc Quebecois some room for seat gains.
Then you have Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams' fiery rhetoric to convince voters in his province to vote for anyone but a Conservative.
It's often presumed Albertans will only vote for one party, which makes it easier for any federal party to exploit us or even ignore us completely.
With all that in mind, allow me to hold up a proverbial shiny object to draw attention to a major Alberta concern that will impact the national stage.
I look forward to the upcoming televised debates to hear what the federal leaders have to say about the oilsands, assuming the subject will come up at all.
On the one hand, oilsands development has almost single-handedly kept the country from falling off the wagon, giving thousands of Canadians steady work through direct and indirect employment. Continued economic growth in Alberta and Saskatchewan, while not enough to fully offset the woes in the central Canada, has cushioned the blow.
On the other hand, there are undeniable downsides to their development when it comes to pollutants, water use and the energy required to tap into the resource.
The only major promise we've heard so far involves one party leader calling for a halt to further oilsands development and, eventually, reclaiming land strip-mined for bitumen.
Whatever happens, I hope Canadians aren't led to believe this issue is black and white with no shades of grey, and that government by itself can do everything to change the way we feed our hunger for energy.
It should also be pointed out market forces might have more impact than government on changing energy companies' plans for our black gold, with crude oil far below the $200-a-barrel target price once thought inevitable.
I can see an argument for moving away from fossil fuels towards cleaner sources of energy, but I'd be leery of anyone who tries to convince us we can turn green on a dime without it costing us one.
Party leaders who want to reduce Canada's reliance on oilsands production should explain how they would make up for the lost revenues to energy-producing provinces' coffers.
No doubt, reduced revenues from royalties, as paltry as they might be, would reduce government's capacity to operate. It doesn't matter whether you're a proponent of tax cuts or more social programs. The money won't be there.
Then there are side-effects, most notably economic.
The federal parties are bending over backwards to salvage jobs in Ontario. Would they do the same for us? We need to be told what economic alternatives would be available to alleviate the inevitable loss of jobs should oilsands production be reduced or halted.
Election promises calling for curtailing or ending oilsands operations need to be dissected and challenged, when necessary. (Not to say there shouldn't be any changes.)
In any event, whoever forms the next government needs to carefully weigh the impact of such massive changes, otherwise it might end up costing all Canadians much more than we've bargained for.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Leong_Ricky/2008/09/16/6779406-su...
