KEYSTONE XL DELAY – A LESSON LEARNED FOR CANADA TO OVERHAUL ITS THINKING, POLICIES AND TO BE SELF-DEPENDENT

On 18 April the US Administration displayed yet again how pusillanimous and spineless it is on Keystone XL pipeline approval issue by punting it further down the road – any final decision is not expected before the congressional elections this year in November.

The media reports suggest following commentary from both Democrats and Republicans:

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp blasted the delay, calling it "absolutely ridiculous," while Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., called the delay "irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable".

From the other side of the aisle, Republican House Speaker John Boehner said “this delay is shameful"; Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the delay "a stunning act of political cowardice".

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed frustration over the snail like pace of the administration’s decision-making. Harper's office was "disappointed that politics continue to delay a decision," his spokesman said. Canadian ambassador Gary Doer reportedly said the State Department should focus on the international crossing between Alberta and Montana and leave it to the state of Nebraska to figure out the precise route there. Incidentally, the U.S. State Department said Friday it needs to assess the impact of a court battle in Nebraska that could force a change in the pipeline’s route.

Notwithstanding whichever way the political circus pans out on Keystone, there is one most important lesson for Canada – it’s federal and provincial politicians, the top corporate executives, the First Nations and the general public: Canada and the Canadians got to diversify, and also be self-dependent. Canada’s policy of putting all eggs in one basket (i.e. depending on US) is past its expiration date. So, what actions should follow from this lessons learned?

·       The pipeline companies in Canada must find alternative pipeline route within Canada to get the bitumen to refineries within Canada and outside;

·       In regard to alternative pipeline routes, conclude negotiations with stakeholders, namely, First Nations, the Provincial Governments ASAP;

·       The Federal and the Provincial governments got to shove aside all politics and come together to make decisions based on win-win formula – a solution that ensures the stakeholders, like, the First Nations, the Province(s) get a reasonably fair deal out of the pipeline projects;

·       The companies in Canada must think about setting up an upgrader within Canada as a complimentary/ supplementary solution, to process the bitumen from Alberta (and potentially from Saskatchewan) and selling the synthetic crude oil (light crude) to US, refineries within Canada (if they have spare capacity to process) and refineries outside Canada;

·       The refinery companies in Canada should think about expanding and/or retro-fitting their refineries in Canada in alignment with production of additional amount of bitumen and/or synthetic crude oil;

·       Align increased gas production from gas fields in BC for use in oil sands production and the refineries and LNG production;

·       Think about putting up petrochemicals complex downstream of Canadian refineries; and

·       Put in place ASAP policy frameworks, tax regimes that are required for decision making on LNG projects and oil sands industry.

Canada may be justified in being utterly frustrated with US on Keystone, but it cannot absolve itself of the pathetically slow progress on pipeline projects within Canada, LNG project in BC and so on. It’s time Canada found solutions toward harnessing its massive natural resources within Canada itself rather than depending on US.

The political parties of Canada – Federal and Provincial both – must understand the basics of Canadian economy (GDP) – the components of the GDP – and must realize the importance of natural resources like oil sands and oil and gas in Canada’s GDP and the service sectors they support. Only then they would realize the futility of having divergent opinion on oil sands and LNG development and squabbling amongst themselves. Only then some political parties would not make irresponsible, ludicrous statements about environmental record of Canada and thereby cause damage to Canadian interests.

The political parties and their leaders must understand clearly that the first world like standard of living and wellbeing of Canada, which Canada is proud of, will be in absolutely serious jeopardy if Canada fails to appreciate the nature’s blessings and harness the nature’s bounty given to it. The delay in Keystone pipeline is nature’s way of warning and providing a wake up call to all Canadians to change its old ways of thinking, policies and working. Now, it is up to the Canadians whether they pay heed to nature’s warning!

DAVOS 2014: Canada’s Low Profile and Opportunities Missed

Every year the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting at Davos, Switzerland attracts big names from various countries – from politics, industry, media, not-for-profit organizations to international organizations. This forum provides an excellent platform for these people to put forward their views to a powerful set of attendees.

This year was no exception in terms of big-wigs turning up at Davos. US was represented, among others, by Secretary of State John Kerry who was at pains to explain that US is not withdrawing from international stage. UK was represented by PM and Deputy PM. Japan’s Prime Minister attended and caused ripples with certain remarks. There was high profile presence from other G-7 nations, namely, Germany, France and Italy.

But what about Canada - the remaining country from G-7? There were only two speakers - Elissa Golberg, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations, Geneva and Naheed Nenshi, Mayor of Calgary. There were 6 other Canadian nationals who spoke but they spoke on behalf of other countries’ organizations, e.g., Mark Carney was representing Bank of England.

So, why this low key, low profile representation from Canada? Ms Elissa spoke about humanitarian crisis in Syria – this was okay, it was in consonance with the big aid declared by PM Harper during his visit to mid-east in January 2014. But with no senior Canadian minister present in Davos, Canada missed an opportunity to:

·       Articulate its views on international politics (including, Middle East);

·       Put forward its views on global economic issues toward global economic turnaround;

·       Make a strong pitch for Canada as a solid investment destination;

·       Have bilateral discussions and achieve headway in flushing out some agreement outlines.

It is worth mentioning here that Mexico used Davos 2014 opportunity to wrap up investment agreements of around 7 Billion Dollars. Others, like, Japan PM Abe articulated some remarks which are bound to be followed closely in the backdrop of Pacific Rim politics.

It seems the current federal folks in Ottawa like to follow the policy of lying low, especially, when the opinion polls in Canada are currently not too favorable towards the ruling Conservatives. The strategists of Conservatives probably think that the more you stay out of news, you stay out of trouble. This concept, actually, is predicated on escapism – ostrich like attitude (put your head in the sand and you think nobody is watching you).

But high profile attendance at Davos would have had little impact on domestic politics and election fortunes of 2015. In fact, if some senior minister of Canada had attended and made statesmanlike articulations, it would have been well received at home. Not only that, such articulations would have furthered Canada’s economic agenda as well as enhanced its stature as an important player at international stage.

The rule of international image building and its maintenance is simple: if you lie low, you slowly fade away from public mind; people start ignoring you and your pronouncements, if you make any, do not carry that much weight. Canada might resent being treated as something like a non-entity by its neighbor in the south but if US does treat Canada like this, part of fault lies with Canada too – this kind of low profile attendance (of Canada) at important international forums like Davos adds to shrinking of stature and ebbing of gravitas.  

Political issues at home just do not go away even if one lies low – the political adversaries just won’t allow them to go away. The domestic issues need to be confronted at home with suitable counter strategy, and not showing up at Davos at similar levels as of your peers should not certainly be part of any such strategy.

The world’s 11^th largest economy need not feel shy or apologetic toward making a strong presence in international forums – it is absolutely important and beneficial for a country like Canada to project what values, principles it stands for, the leadership qualities that it can bring to play at international stage and so on. All these contribute to the image a country projects internationally and it has many potential spin-offs – near-term and long-term.

Some opposition parties and/or section of Canadian media who are not favorably disposed toward the party in power in Ottawa may try to present attendance at such forums as wastage of tax-payers money, but then there would always be some insular minded, dim witted schmucks to nit-pick – they need to be brushed aside with the contempt they deserve.

Hopefully, Canada would make a stronger presence next time at Davos and other important international forums and won’t let go any opportunity, which have the potential to project Canada’s image, pass by. This would be in the interest of Canada and Canadians as a whole.