Saturday, February 18, 2006

Tar Sands Threaten Canadian Sovereignty

I read an interesting piece that highlights the American perspective on Alberta's tar sands. George Bush's declaration to end America's "addiction" to foreign oil was supposed to be a plea for new energy alternatives, while instead it has increased the focus on Alberta's oil deposits. 60 Minutes did a piece that offered Alberta's oil as America's energy savior, while daily news publications tout the possibilities moving forward. The Americans seem to forget that Alberta is "foreign", instead they seem committed to ensuring that the oil flows south, and south only.

Arguments like this, even though tongue and cheek, reveal the challenges ahead for Canadian sovereignty:
Last month, Canada threw out its namby-pamby liberal government and ushered in a new era of conservative rule. Thank goodness for small favors. Now when we run out of crude oil and natural gas down here in the United States, we won't have to invade our neighbors to the north to make sure the lights stay on. We can just arrange a friendly annexation.

O Canada! We love your beer, your funny accents, your flag with the botanical theme. Now be a dear and just let us have Alberta. Hey, it's just one province. You have nine more, plus three territories. You can keep the ones named after a dog (Labrador) and an SUV (Yukon) and all the rest. We just want the one with those nasty, dirty tar sands. We'll practically be doing you a favor...

You may have heard that President Bush, in his State of the Union address last week, mentioned that the U.S. must slash its dependence on oil from "unstable nations" in favor of cute little science projects like ethanol, nuclear plants and solar panels. But surely you knew that was sort of an inside joke. Most of those projects are a decade away from viability.

What he really meant was that we'd rather strip-mine our BTUs from the perfectly stable Alberta tar pits, which are so close to home that they might as well be ours.

Dick Cheney wants to visit the tar sands. Alberta has an office in Washington. American investors are encouraging Americans to get a piece of the action. The tar sands have inspired frenzied debate, and clearly America is betting its future on Canada. I see a scenario wherein American companies attempt takeovers to secure control. The lure of money will entice Canada to encourage more American investment, a "partnership" will evolve. The goal will be extraction, with little consideration for the long term consequences to Canadian sovereignty.

Americans are treating these oil deposits as if they are there own, and once a dependency takes hold, it will compromise Canada's independence. We have already seen early warning signs, that oil money translates into a province assuming supposed federal roles. Alberta's Klein found it necessary to reassure Americans that our policy on Iraq wasn't necessarily a reflection of his province's views. Canada's ability to forge an independent vision is handicapped by our "co-operation" with America.

Despite the current scenario, where "the west is in", practically, as a matter of population, future Canadian governments will always slant east. We can reasonably expect situations where Albertans continue to feel alienation, where their voice is marginalized. Couple this reality with the hyper friendly Americans, offering bags of money and goodwill, and you can see the temptations. Conventional wisdom usually looks to Quebec as the main threat to a future Canada. I would suggest, as tar sand potential becomes reality, Canada will face its greatest threat as Alberta is Americanized. The appearance of innocuous deals and mutual benefits, belies a threat to Canadian sovereignty. I fully expect the Americans to exploit Canada's "internal" issues to their benefit, just as they do now throughout the world.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait until the Americans western aquifiers dry up, which is inevitable. Oil and water don't mix but work together as threats to Canada.

James Bow said...

Yeah, oil will definitely be a pull for Alberta, but water is Ontario and Quebec's trump card.

To be honest, I can see a continental congress in our lifetimes. Depending on the deal we can work out, I'm not 100% certaint hat this is a bad thing...

After all, it would ensure that we'd never have another Republican president, ever again. :-)

Steve V said...

james

I would like to hear you flesh out the "continental congress" idea. If there is a way to leave out the deep south, it might work out okay ;)

James Bow said...

Well, let us consider the consequences of full annexation, which would effectively eliminate the federal government in Ottawa and bring in the provincial governments as states. A number of federal powers would devolve to the provinces in the form of their states rights.

Canada is capable of contributing nine states to the American union. Only Prince Edward Island presents any question -- all the other provinces are larger than a number of American states. Ontario would be one of America's ten largest states.

Each state receives two senate seats in the U.S. As for congress, take the populations of various provinces, divide by 500,000 to 750,000 and consider how many seats Canada would add.

Consider for a moment how these seats would lean.

Now consider how finely balanced the American house and senate are between Democrats and Republicans. It's even money to say that the Democrats could take control of the House and Senate in 2006 without our help. We could have 16 senate seats that would lean Democrat or something further left, and a fair number of 40 or more congressional seats that would lean the same way. The electoral college could also shift the combined number of additional senate and house seats.

Ergo, Canada would tip the balance in the United States and effectively eliminate Republican control of the three levels of government.

And for this reason, I don't see annexation happening unless (a) the south splits or (b) the Democrats gain control of the three levels of government and seek to cement that control. :-)

Steve V said...

james

Interesting take.