In my last column I postulated that Canada now is faced with the need to address its dependency upon oil as the major source of our energy, a state that only can be described as an “addiction”.
This idea isn’t really a stretch of one’s imagination, when you consider that, first, the tar sands discovery literately turned Alberta into a “cartel” sized “distributor” of petroleum. Add to this scenario that the United States, with its huge collection of very large “dealers” (ExxonMobil, Conoco, Phillips 66, Chevron, etc.), whose markets are easily accessible and therefore easier for us to provide product “on demand”.
Finally add to this mix the reality that the province must see atleast $4 billion in oil export revenues to produce a “balanced budget” and we can reasonably examine how Alberta’s fiscal affairs are now creating massive challenges to both our sovereignty and viability as a nation.
The first reality we have to face is that the “dealers” now control the cartel. Previous royalty rates have been lowered to the point where Alberta is now nothing more than a “bargain basement distributor”. The question is, “WHY would we change the market conditions that ultimately deprives us of the profitability that Norway, as an example, has created for its own petroleum industry?”
This really isn’t a “stupid question. In more than one article contributed to our online media sources, such movement of industry is a reflection of the fact that ever since our nation was created, we’ve been nothing more than hewers of wood and drawers of water, yet still manage to create a “profitable” petroleum enterprise. Or do we?
In actuality, we probably don’t, as since most of our customers are major multinationals who do their tax returns stateside. Their taxation potential is minimal at best, especially when we massively subsidize their existence to continue to operate, such as when we ended up creating a major pipeline to the British Columbia coast in response to a request from then Premier Notley – to Justin Trudeau, no less.
Somehow, though, our “conservative” governments and their wannabe federal counterparts always seem to put up vaguely plausible “objections” such as Alberta whining that “the rest of Canada is picking all of the fruit from our oil money tree” or that Trudeau’s “replacement”, Mark Carney, is STILL a “Liberal”, so must have attained that status through eastern “resentment” of Alberta’s wealth and non-renewable riches, or through bribery or coercion.
The problem with most of our “affordability” issues is that they emanate from our neighbour to the south, where the “Orange Menace” maintains its traditional rightest approach to its own economic success by starting wars in places where oil is in plentiful supply (Iraq, Venezuela and Iran), or assisting countries being plagued by terrorism (Nigeria), or via economic intimidation such as Trump is now perpetuating upon Canada.
When combined with the awareness that in the last seventy years only two Alberta premiers, Lougheed and Notley, understand the difference between the purpose of government as opposed to the purpose of business, we are forced to listen to the voices of arrogance maintaining that only a businessperson can manage the fiscal affairs of the nation – a ludicrous pronouncement, especially considering the budgetary disaster that Brad Wall and Scott Moe have created with their $40 billion provincial debt load.
Governments are put in place to both manage the economy AND protect a nation from harm, including its security. In short, they must create a societal infrastructure that allows for a nation’s business activities to function on a scale that creates the least uncertainty. Moreover, in order to meet such needs, that government must have sufficient funds available to adjust to such crises, and therefore is forced to tax both individuals and businesses to support such needs – with the petroleum industry providing only a token amount to do the task.
For a business to survive, it must first rely upon its government providing proper transportation routes for product exportation, as well as standard infrastructural utilities. Only then can they demonstrate their individual or collective capacity to earn a reasonable living, pay their employees fair wages, manage work schedule, supply health safety nets in conjunction with governments, so that at the end of their working lives their employees may be able to enjoy the final years of life in reasonable comfort. No one will argue that these are not “reasonable” capitalistic objectives for businesses seeking profit, but when a business strategist exceeds his capacity to provide such options by pursuing the ultimate monopolistic state, invariably there becomes a breakdown in the moral integrity of that business pursuing such pathways.
For instance, while Trump scoffs at moral principles such as DEI, he fails to recognize their overall contribution to success, in particular when the “E” stands for “equity”, which not only implies a “fairness” in the application of business practice, but “value”, be it in the quality of that business that allows its customers to return for future purchase, or the amount stored by the business in its building or home assets.
In short, Alberta’s current fiscal issues are cluttering up the front pages of our media sources because successive Conservative and UCP governments failed to understand the necessity of government being consulted prior to the establishment of any business activity. The “didn’t do that” list of inadequate and politically misdirected advice the provincial government never considered to be relevant is staggering. The list includes sloughing off the Trudeau-Lalond National Energy Program approach that would have provided both energy self-sufficiency to Canada’s petroleum developmental ideas as well as value-added industries such as refining that now make us totally dependent upon American enterprise. As well, it ignored the reality of an inevitable end to the creation of royalty wealth coming from its no-renewable source of revenue streaming, devaluing it as a contributor to budgetary wealth in excess of public need, a mistake that Norway is thankful that it never believed or followed.
All of these factors have thus contributed to Alberta’s current economic struggle that affects its ability to continue obtaining reasonable wealth from its many resources. Still, the nauseating voices of a “Take Back Alberta” campaign now force Canadians to ask the question, “Just WHAT is it that Alberta must take back that it doesn’t already control?”
Ken MacDougall is a retired teacher and former election candidate for the federal NDP. His column appears on Saturday.
