There are strange things happening politically these days. Everything old is becoming new again. In Canada we have Prime Minister Harper promoting asymmetrical open federalism and musing about transferring some international and foreign relations powers to the provinces.
This approach is the same as Joe Clark proposed many years ago in his view of Canada being a “Community of Communities.” Pierre Trudeau, a strong centralist, called Clark the “Head Waiter for the Provinces.” Paul Martin was also becoming very adept in this Head Waiter role too. I wonder if Harper will wear this tag too. Elizabeth May is likely to be the source of such a “reprimand.”
Quebec and Alberta will love the new Harper approach to redefining a decentralized Canada. Many others, primarily those who are Ottawa-dependent and Ontario, who is in economic decline, will see it as weakening Confederation. It will mean that Alberta will become more aggressive in setting up more foreign offices to advance its trade beyond the US and help recruit for labour shortages. This is an idea that is already in the works and bound to happen.
Obama is reviving some old ideas of Ronald Reagan and revising his energy position too. Obama’s suggestion that the Americans release their Strategic Petroleum Reserves to reduce oil prices was a tactic effectively implemented by President Ronald Reagan. In Reagan’s day this policy decision had a dramatic and immediate downward impact on oil prices. Releasing these oil reserves put Alberta’s economy immediately into the dumpster.
This happened just before the NEP took hold, which would have devastated the Alberta economy if it was given the chance. The NEP’s disastrous impact on Alberta’s economy is an urban myth because Reagan’s release of the Strategic Oil Reserves actually beat the federal Liberals to the punch in destroying the Alberta economy back then. But we Albertan’s have never “forgotten” the NEP - nor have we ever forgiven the Federal Liberals for it.
Obama is now “nuancing” his off shore drilling opposition and his anti-NAFTA stance now too.
All this Obama shifting has significant implications for Alberta and especially the oil sands development. One of the reasons Obama want to release the Strategic Oil Reserves now is to put light crude on the market to reduce gasoline prices. He also wants to replace the reserves with heavy oil that is lower priced but requires refining. I expect the Americans are going to be looking to Alberta’s oil sands as a long term source of that heavier oil, and why wouldn’t they?
If Obama becomes President with a Democratic Congress and all this happens, the States will soon start seeing the oil sands as their best source for reliable continental energy supply. Then Alberta will need to respond. Alberta's response will be to take advantage of Harper’s new decentralized Canada approach of more provincial powers on international matters.
Alberta will have to establish its own provincial foreign policy to deal directly with the United States. It will start being about energy and environmental matters around processing and exporting of oil sands - a provincially owned natural resource with serious international and geo-political implications. Who knows where it will lead but, one thing for sure, it will be interesting times.
Not so fast, Ken.. Obama's office is on public record as saying that they would look to not import oil or gas sources that are heavily polluting the atmosphere with GHG's - and Alberta certainly fits that bill.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, one of Obama's advisers specifically mentioned the tarsands as one place they would look to NOT buy oil from.
As for the decentralization stuff by Harper, he would eviscerate the federal government completely with his proposal. Canad and the federal government deals with foreign policy.. not the provinces. That proposal must be stopped dead in its tracks.
Obama and the American Mayors are a tad naive on the oil sands. They are using old data. While there is a serious CO2 problem and potentially growing, they have not considered what is being done to deal with it on current future oil sands development.
ReplyDeleteBesides - once a molecule is refined - how will they know it is oils sands or conventional? And when Obama pulls out of Iraq and wants to lessen foreign oil dependency he will soon see Canada as not "foreign" and the only friendly reliable and stable AND continental energy source.
Conservation is the key for all of us personally in terms of short term climate change responses.
Harper may well evisceratethe federal government because he does not value it. His view of Canada is not widely shared in the land.
Actually, not so fast Scott...
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the exact text of what Obama's spokesperson said, he left Obama an easy out. He said they would not buy GHG intensive crude oil (whatever that is... feel free to use your own definition) unless steps were taken to reduce emissions. As Alberta is already taking steps to do so, one could argue - and I certainly would - that it is pure political posturing on his part. Look for Obama (if he becomes President) to imply that because of pressure he exerted on the "formerly dirty tarsands", they will continue to buy from us. And he will preface it by his famous preface "... as I have always said ..." [it's worked on campaign finance, on Iraq troop levels, it will work again].
Obama may be short on experience, short on foreign policy knowledge, short on many things... but he is not stupid. He will play his "yes we can" schtick all the way to the White House, whereupon he will be forced to confront the economic realities facing the U.S.
I'm not anti-Obama, nor am I pro-McCain. [Not particularly enthused by either, actually.] Just looking for the President least damaging to the interests of my country and province.
One of Ken's favourite lines is "you elect the government you deserve" (or some such). What worries me is that we Canadians also have to deal we the President they elect.
I believe that Harper is simply respecting the Constitution as it has been drafting while, at the same time, realizing that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that changes with the times. The Liberals sought to create divisions in Quebec and then become the saviours. Quebecers are sick of that approach and are moving towards the Conservative Party. Expect a massive Mulroney-like breakthrough in the province.
ReplyDeleteI look forward to your comments when the Conservatives take the Guelph riding in the next byelection.
The NEP cost Alberta over $100 billion.
ReplyDeleteAre you writing this blog from Castro's head office?
The Cons in Quebec were doing well when Harper pandered to them. But he has no depth and no legs to sustain and grow Quebec voter support by the looks of it.
ReplyDeleteHe got a bump in the polls when he admitting to a fiscal imbalance in Quebec - when the facts show there is none.
Then he tried feeding the nation notion in Quebec pulling out a divisive and emotional trump card.
Then he tried to buy them off (shades of CF-18s) by giving them lots of money and most of the environment cash from his budget as pure pork-barrelling.
Then the Cons broke the Elections Act by the In-Out advertising scam of their own focsed on buying Quebec voters in 2006.
This favourtism and pandering to Quebec to buy votes is what got Chretien in trouble and resulted in Ad Scam.
Resistance to this divisive policy approach towards Quebec, perfected by the Federal Liberals in the past, was a founding reason of the Reform Party. Remember "the West Wants IN"? How soon Harper forgets.
Harper has moved to being an old-style politician where Quebec is concerned. In fact it is worse. He has moved to being an old style Liberal politician where Quebec is concerned.
As for him following the Constitution - I agree anda like the decentralization idea but we still need a national consciousness and concept. Who speaks for Canada when the national voice is muted, muffled and stifled? Certainly not this Prime Minister.
I think you have selective memory regarding the impact of the NEP. . .
ReplyDeleteRemember the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax? Remember that it had provisions that had Alberta selling crude oil BELOW posted world prices?
Reagan may have released crude from the strategic petroleum reserve, but Brian Clark (he of the TD Bank chief executive suite), Mark Lalonde and Pierre Elliott Trudeau put the boots to Western Canada when they were already on the floor.
You are sounding a little bitter Ken. That does, however, make sense given the fact that Liberal candidates are dropping like flies.
ReplyDeleteWhat Alberta needs is clearly more provincial rights. Stephen Harper is onside with that and so is Ed Stelmach. The only thing that could cause serious issue is the nonsensical Green Shift from Stephane Dion. Canadians will see through the radical leftist wealth distribution scheme that this is, and nothing more.
ReplyDelete"Alberta will have to establish its own provincial foreign policy to deal directly with the United States."
ReplyDeleteGod no! The further decentralisation of Canada is in none of our best interests. To say I shudder at the thought of our provincial government holding any more power than it already has.
First off Albertan's let's get over the NEP. Cdn. policy does not control energy prices. Give your head a shake, we control less than 5% of the worlds oil!
ReplyDeleteI'm a big Obama fan, but, clearly his anti-nafta, anti-dirty oil comments are political posturing to win an election. Of course, america will buy oil from the oilsands. They really don't have a choice. Other producers aroudn the world aren't too fond of the yankees.
I don't believe releasing US reserves will have as big a longterm impact on the cost of a barrel like it did in the 80's. Like a lot of people I believe we are at peak production at around 85 million barrels per day.
It boils down to a supply demand issue and from that perspective the rules of the game have changed!
J. Leinweber
Ken, I am glad that you have stopped posting liberal propaganda
ReplyDeleteOh, I think there were a few other forces besides NEP and Reagan at work when it comes to the 1980s collapse in oil prices.
ReplyDelete* Recession, and ensuing decline in oil demand.
* Breakdowns in OPEC's cartel behaviour.
* Venezuela's rise, and a general increase in oil production in non-OPEC countries.
MORE