An acquaintance relayed a story recently of how his Alberta friend took a fishing trip up in the Queen Charlotte/Haida Gwaii islands. As the story goes, his friend chatted with the owner of a local store that sold gas and fishing equipment; the proprietor said British Columbia did not need “Alberta’s” pipelines or the Alberta oil and gas sector in general to prosper.
My friend’s friend then noted how he had just dropped $250 in his store and perhaps he should take his business elsewhere if the store owner really thought he made no money from oil and gas.
When the owner didn’t understand what the trucking entrepreneur was driving at, he informed the proprietor that his own business was 100% dependent on energy contracts – and thus the store was indeed profiting from Alberta oil and gas.
He also added that he’d bet three-quarters of the visitors who came out for expensive fishing excursions likely came from Alberta, with at least some of their money made in the energy patch.
That story was relayed to me the same day I read the Business in Vancouver column by Peter Ladner where he argued that Premier Christy Clark and Prime Minister Stephen Harper were a little too focused on short-term job creation by promoting energy development. (“Job plans long on short-term gain, short on long-term vision” – BIV issue 1261; December 24-30.)
As per many criticisms that emanate from some on the West Coast vis-a-vis Canada’s energy sector, the critique was twofold.
First, Ladner noted that few actual jobs would be created for some of the proposed new and expanded oil pipelines.
Second, he thought such development would shift B.C. to a “dependence on fossil-fuel exports,” which he saw as regressive.
With respect to Ladner, whose many accomplishments I admire, he misses the bigger picture.
The energy sector is not “Albertan” but cross-Canadian in scope and produces a plethora of jobs, incomes and tax revenue in multiple provinces.
The jobs are not necessarily created in large numbers everywhere a pipeline exists – pipelines cross multiple provinces and states across North America – but so what? The same is true of mining and forestry.
Should people in other provinces oppose mines and forestry in B.C. – and the white- and blue-collar jobs they produce in B.C. – just because the “only” thing that other provinces receive is the end product, i.e., the lumber and the minerals extracted from B.C.’s mines?
In any event, the spinoff benefits from energy – and mining and forestry (also often attacked by those who think extracting anything from the earth is an antiquated or undesirable act) – are substantial.
For example, consider resource revenue to provincial governments from energy, mines and forestry.
Last year, B.C. took in $7 billion or 20% of its own-source revenue from revenue and royalties that flowed from energy, mines and forestry.
That is the same revenue proportion Alberta garners as a proportion of its own-source revenue.
In other words, B.C. is just as dependent on resource revenue as Alberta is, and more than many British Columbians might realize. Such revenue pays for a lot of hospitals and schools, government employees and doctors, nurses and teachers.
That energy development and mines are a thing of the “past” and green energy is the “future” is a popular notion, but the assertion sets up a false dichotomy.
Oil and gas allows for homes to be heated, for strawberries to be transported from Mexico in winter to climates that would otherwise survive on “local” produce (zip in much of Canada for much of the year).
Mining allow for windmills, eco-cars and bikes to exist. (Where do people think the steel for windmills and smart cars and the titanium for bicycles originate?)
It would be wonderful if oil and gas could be replaced tomorrow by some miracle clean energy and at a cost that is as affordable as oil and gas. But until the miracle arrives, it is folly to portray fossil fuel energy as a thing of the “past.”
Critically, it is anything but regressive to sell to people, whether in B.C., the United States or Asia, what they can afford to buy at a reasonable cost to improve their lives and keep from freezing or starving.
It is the decent thing to do. And for those in B.C. who need jobs, it is also the smart thing to do.
To engage in such activities does not preclude new inventions; it merely recognizes there is an immediate need and a useful possibility to create a product and jobs out of what is near to one’s locale.
It is thus unhelpful – and impractical – to demonize what works at present for energy sources not yet practical. •
