Debate Regarding Western Separatism

There is an interesting argument between someone called "Da Bear" and me on a fascinating forum called Puget Sound Radio. You might want to take part in this discussion which is still going on. Click here to visit Puget Sound Radio and follow this discussion.

A National Energy Policy?

The National Post, on Saturday the 26th of May, 2012, at the beginning of the Financial Post section, had a large article by Claudia Cattaneo regarding “The Trouble with Resetting Canada’s Energy Spine”. TransCanada Pipeline was looking to raise rates or even switch its namesake pipeline from gas to oil, which may create a huge controversy.

I read the article carefully, and as far as I can see, what it amounts to is offloading the costs of shipping western oil east onto Western Canadian consumers. I quote the article, as follows:

“After years of unsuccessful negotiation, TransCanada presented a restructuring proposal to the NEB (National Energy Board) in the fall it says achieves ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ – but that doesn’t seem to make anyone happy. It’s the reason the proposal has landed before the NEB for a ruling.”

My comment is that the greatest good for the greatest number generally means the greatest good for the people of Ontario and Quebec where this pipeline will end.

Quoting further, the article says:

“Western Canadian gas producers find many of TransCanada’s arguments outrageous and its restructuring proposal a way of transferring Western Canadian wealth to the East.”

This, to my mind, is exactly what has happened all too often in the transfer of wealth from the energy sector to the consumers of Eastern Canada, so they can have cheap gas and oil. It is, in effect, requiring Western Canadians to pay and subsidize the main line to Central Canada. The article goes on to say:

“Western Canadians find it ‘very offensive’ that the regional carrier, NGTL, might subsidize the Mainline, said Nikol Schultz, vice president for pipeline regulation and general counsel at the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which will represent producers interests at the hearings.”

The article concludes with the suggestion that probably it would be better for Eastern Canada to pay the world price for oil and gas, relying on the shale gas production from the Eastern United States, rather than having it shipped all the way from Alberta on a “Canada Mainline.” The article in its final paragraph says:

“Whether it’s in the business of shipping oil or gas, producers believe it’s time for TransCanada, as the owner of the mainline to start bearing the risk of its choices, rather than shifting it to others.”

In my opinion, shifting it others (Western Canadian gas consumers) is exactly what the NEB and TransCanada are likeliest to do. In the present political climate, no Western Canadian Prime Minister is ever going to rock this boat when it would cost him the votes of Ontario and Quebec.

Therefore, I find this whole controversy another strong argument why Western Canada should not be trying to ship its gas and oil to the consumers of Eastern Canada, but rather should be shipping it to the port of Prince Rupert, from where it can be sold at the highest possible price to the consumers of Korea, China, Japan, and probably in the future, India and Indonesia.

There is no long term benefit from a pipeline that ships oil and gas from Alberta to the consumers of Quebec so that they can have cheap energy at the expense of Western Canadian consumers or oil and gas producers. Let the revenues from the resources remain in the land where the resources come from and you will see a developing industry, secondary manufacturing, and a reduction in the costs of living and taxation that Western Canada has every right to expect from retaining the ownership, use, and profit from the resources located here for the long term benefit of Western Canadians.

This is something Ottawa can never do for us, and the National Energy Board as they call it will simply do the political thing again, and make the people of the West subservient providers to the consumers of the East in the interests of the political survival of whatever party happens to be in power in Ottawa.

"Quebec and the Fairy Godmother"

Some time ago, Lisa Corbella, the editorial page editor of the Calgary Herald, published an article entitled “Quebec and the Fairy Godmother.” I quote from it, almost completely, as follows:

Quebec and the Fairy Godmother

Today, let’s have some fun and play Fairy Godmother to Quebec. Let’s grand the province the wish it articulated in Copenhagen. Wave the magic wand and poof, wish granted. Shut down Alberta’s oilsands, except, since it’s Quebec making the wish, we have to call it tarsands, even though it’s not tar they use to run their Bombardier planes, trains and Skidoos.

Ah, at last! The blight on Canada’s reputation shut down. All those dastardly workers from across Canada living in Fort McMurray, Calgary and Edmonton out of jobs, including those waitresses, truck drivers, nurses, teachers, doctors, pilots, engineers etc. They can all go on Employment insurance like Ontario autoworkers and Quebec parts makers!

Closing down Alberta’s oil industry would immediately stop the production of 1.8 million barrels of oil a day. Supply and demand being what it is, oil prices will go up and therefore the cost at the pump will go up, too, increasing the cost of everything else.

…

The 530-square-kilometre piece of land currently disturbed by the oilsands (which is smaller than the John F. Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Fla. At 570 square kilometres) must be reclaimed by law and will return to Alberta’s 381,000 square kilometres of boreal forest, a huge carbon sink…

Quebec, of course, has clean hydro power, but more than 13,000 square kilometres were drowned for the James Bay hydroelectric project, permanently removing that forest from acting as a carbon sink.

…

Quebec hasn’t made a net contribution to the rest of Canada for a very long time. This is not to be critical (after all, Fairy Godmothers never criticize), it’s just a fact. In 2009, Albertans paid $40.46 billion in income, corporate and other taxes to the federal government and received back just $19.35 billion in services and goods from the feds. That means the rest of Canada got $21.1 billion from Albertans or $5,742 for each and every Alberta man, woman and child. In 2007 (the last year national figures are available), Alberta sent a net contribution of $19.49 billion to the ROC or $5,443 per Albertan – more than three times what every Ontarian contributes at $1,757. Quebecers, on the other hand, each received $627 net or a total of $8 billion, money which was designed to help “equalize” social programs across the country.

…

The July 2009 Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) report states that between 2008 and 2032, the oilsands will account for 172,000 person-years or employment in Ontario during the construction phase, plus 640,000 for operations over the 25-year period. For Quebec, the oilsands will account for 84,000 person-years of employment during the construction phase, plus 292,000 for operations over the 25-year period.

…

The dream of many Quebecers to form their own nation and separate from Canada has died at last. Alas, in Alberta, separatist sentiment has risen dramatically, citizens vote to separate and the oil and gas industry returns.

Albertans start to pocket that almost $6,000 for each person that used to get sent elsewhere and now their kids get free tuition. Fairy Godmother’s work is done. Wish granted. Quebecers must now sign up for foreign worker visas to work in Alberta to send their cheques back home so junior can start saving up to pay for college.

My comments are as follows:

1.) If, in 2009, Alberta surrendered a loss of $21-billion to subsidize the rest of Canada, which in the hands of Quebecers is now being used to subsidize their university education, and if as quite correctly alleged, the oil sands will generate 170,000 person-years of employment in Ontario and 84,000 person-years of employment in Quebec, why should this money and these jobs go to Ontario and Quebec when they could provide for the people in Western Canada who live here?

2.) Why should we continue to subsidize a bankrupt government in Ottawa that annually goes deeper in debt, while a Western Canadian government could be self-supporting with all our government services paid for with reduced taxation?

3.) Why should Western Canadians continue to cater to the Ontario preference for a multicultural society with bilingualism everywhere, while we in Western Canada have to listen to bilingual announcements on WestJet airlines?

4.) Why should Western Canadians in Fort McMurray, Prince Rupert, or anywhere else, be held to ransom by foreign-subsidized “environmental groups” receiving vast sums of donations from American corporate entities while Western Canadian jobs are held to ransom by an Ottawa-based decision making process?

5.) Why shouldn’t Western Canadians have their own country, with their own Parliament, with a regionally-elected Senate, and the rights of referendum, initiative, and recall, which would give all Western Canadians a feeling of participation in their own government for a change?

6.) Why shouldn’t lower taxation be translated into greater respect for private property and perhaps a constitutional entrenchment of that right, which the Ottawa government has not and will not give us?

7.) Why should Western Canadians continue to allow decisions to be made where the decision makers are primarily elected in Quebec and Ontario, where the Supreme Court of Canada is appointed primarily from Quebec and Ontario with six of the nine judges coming from those provinces, and the Senate and central Canadian media, owned, operated and dominated from Quebec and Ontario? Why is this good for us and why should we continue to pay for it?

8.) What is the reason and benefit behind all the wonderful analysis of Lisa Corbella if it doesn’t provide a positive alternative in a Western Canadian independence that makes all the economic sense in the world?

9.) Why does Lisa Corbella have to address the subject as if she was a “fairy godmother,” knowing full well that the changes that will be inflicted on Western Canada in the name of environmentalism and by the transfer process will inevitably kill the oil sands and the pipeline to deliver to the hungry consumers of China, India, and the Pacific Rim?

10.) Why do we need a fairy godmother to pretend when actually Western Canadians could, if they chose in a referendum, make these wishes which were always tongue-in-cheek less likely to be a reality?

11.) If we need a fairy godmother, why wouldn’t we want one that would give us our wishes and not accomplish the dire and destructive preferences of the central Canadian establishment, who have one sole goal – that is to keep Western Canada as a captive audience for provision, at less than world market price if possible, of oil, natural gas, fresh water, fishery, forestry, mining, and agriculture, to the rapacious spendthrift governments of Ontario and Quebec? Why should we continue to put up with this?

These are questions that Lisa Corbella and those who only complain about the problem, never really ask. It seems it’s so much easier to pretend than deal with the real world and do something about it. At least with the Western Block, Western Canada Concept, and my efforts since 1974, there was a clear alternative provided and an answer that would make Western Canada a better alternative.