Just Winging It?: Stephen Harper’s National Energy Policy

Elise Sammons

According to many, Canada lacks a national energy policy or strategy. This argument has been raised by groups from both sides of the political spectrum. Right-leaning groups, often represented by industry players, have remarked that the landscape of natural resource policy is fragmented and confusing and that a national energy strategy or plan is required to make resource development easier and more predictable.[1] Industry groups have called for clarification of government positions and a clear direction on regulatory and environmental expectations and for the fostering of an economic environment that encourages innovation.[2] Left-leaning groups, especially environmental groups have also called for a strategic plan for Canada’s energy future in order to allow for the creation of stronger environmental standards and their more consistent application. The provincial Premiers have also called for a national energy strategy and the Premiers have begun discussions around the issue, although BC and Quebec seem to be at odds with the strategy that has been discussed thus far due to environmental concerns surrounding the proposed pipelines through their territory.[3] As well, a recent poll found that 78.2% of Canadians agree on the need to develop a national energy policy in Canada.[4]

This project began as an attempt to understand why, despite all these calls for a national energy plan, the federal government had not engaged in creating a national energy strategy. It seems that lately a lot of the public conversation and the criticism around natural resource development centres on this idea that there is a need for a national energy strategy. In fact, the conversation around the federal government’s energy policy often begins from the assumption that there has been no coherent plan or strategy to their approach to energy. Just as much of the commentary does, and as most reports do, my project initially took for granted that the Harper government has no energy strategy and that it would be good for the government to develop one.

As I began reading and researching, I came across a statement from Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, where he claimed that the Harper government has already been implementing a National energy strategy without naming it as such.[5] Such a statement begs the question: is it possible that the groups that have called for a national energy strategy missed understanding the Harper strategy because the government has never called it such or advertised their policy? Many groups have called for an overarching national energy strategy or policy in recent years; is it possible that the government has had a strategy after all and that they have simply not named it as such in order to avoid drudging up the negative memory of the national energy policy in certain regions of the country, as Mr. Oliver seems to have suggested?[6] At first thought it seems like a minor distinction.As far as the government’s critics are concerned, is having no plan really that different from having a bad plan?

This paper holds that there is a distinction to be made. First of all, it is important to accurately assess the situation, rather than relying on assumptions that may not be fully informed. Therefore it is helpful to assess the merit of such an assertion, rather than just considering it to be true. Second, it also seems possible that potentially such a distinction could alter the conversation around resource development, and could result in different strategies amongst those calling for changes. Attacking the government as having no plan has united critics from all sides. This could be a good thing if it were having the effect of starting a national dialogue where citizens have a chance to discussion their views on resource development, but so far, the government has not engaged in this national dialogue. As I will outline later, the government has been able to take the aspects of proposed plans that fits with its priorities or plan, and has implemented those, ignoring other suggestions. I think that the fact that many critics have lamented the lack of national energy strategy, rather than focusing their attacks on the poor energy strategies of the governmentis significant.

This paper explores the Harper energy policy by reviewing speeches, news releases, and considering policies that have to do with energy from about 2010 until the present (Natural Resources Canada only has speeches and news releases available online until 2010 and Environment Canada until 2011; but Mr. Harper’s speeches were read back to 2008 for the research of this paper) . The paper’s findings challenge the consensus that there is no national energy strategy. Though there is much to criticize in the strategy that is revealed, this paper argues that it is important to acknowledge the strategy or plan that does exist,and that critics of that strategy may do better to frame the conversation around their particular issues with the current administration’s strategies, rather than to start from the assumption and talking point, that there is no strategy.

So, if the Harper government has established something of a national energy strategy, without ascribing such a name to it, why does that matter? I would argue that such a distinction is significant because if critics from all sides are taken up by their calls for a national energy strategy, and perhaps are working together to call for a national energy strategy, despite very different priorities for such a strategy (e.g. industry groups and environmental groups), perhaps less work is being done to actually call for the specifics of what people want. Using the umbrella term of “national energy strategy” has allowed a number of actors to appear as though they are on the same side, when some proponents, from for example, Western provincial governments or the oil and gas industry, may want to eliminate barriers in order for as much development as possible to take place. Other proponents of a national energy strategy may have very different goals in mind: environmental groups for example, may want to reduce the pace of development or stop certain projects. Obviously, there are still groups calling for this, but resources and publicity around calls for a national energy strategy, could perhaps be put to better use calling for the specific priorities that groups are interested in. It is possible that by people assuming that the government had no plan and no strategy, that those opposed to their priorities have actually been less effective at protesting or pushing for alternate policies or priorities than they may have otherwise been.

The key pillars of the Harper government’s energy policy have been: encourage resource development wherever possible; defend the oil sands; pay lip service to balancing environmental and economic priorities; and open up international trade avenues for natural resource products. Through my review of speeches, news releases and a consideration of policies the government has enacted, it becomes clear that these elements have been promoted quite consistently over several years of the Harper government. Now, having priorities does not necessarily equate with a national resource strategy, but the fact that a small number of objectives have been quite consistently pursued by the government during their current administration suggests more of a plan than many have acknowledged. There is a clear plan to develop Canada’s resources as quickly and as much as possible.

The first aspect, developing or encouraging resource development wherever possible, is evidenced in the Harper government’s push for resource development in the North.[7]The Harper government has been more focused on exploring resource development in the North than any previous government. As well, Mr. Harper has made numerous speeches and remarks that fall along these lines: “Be it in the forestry, mining or gas sectors, it is imperative that we seize the opportunities that are before us. And in so doing, we’ll continue to bring about economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity for all Canadians”.[8] This theme that Canada needs to seize the opportunities where possible and reduce any barriers to development, such as bureaucratic processes, is brought up again and again in speech after speech. In a speech in December 2012 to a St. John, New Brunswick audience, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver states: “Our objective is to see Canadian oil production grow, driven by domestic and foreign capital, and to ensure that our resources reach foreign markets. We’re committed to this objective and we intend to see it through.”[9] The language of speeches and policies is quite clear: development is good. Canada has natural resources and energy to sell, and the government’s main job on this file is to facilitate that interaction.

A second key pillar of the Harper energy strategy has been a defense of the oil sands. Numerous speeches and news releases have been directed at defending the development of the oil sands and commenting on misinformation that surrounds the debate and fuels people’s opposition to the oil sands. One typical example is taken from a speech by the then Minister of Natural Resources, Christian Paradis in 2011 “We are well aware that some of the criticism directed at the [oil sands] industry is founded on mistaken facts or analyses.”[10] Another example is from a December 8, 2011 speech given by Joe Oliver as Minister of Natural Resources, “the oil sands will help to pay for the schools and hospitals and other services those families need — providing government with tens of billions of dollars in royalty and tax revenues”.[11]This is a typical point in discussion of oil sands by this government – that the revenues from the oil sands will pay for important social services, especially education and health care. This argument comes up again and again in speeches by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Harper in an April 2012 interview, and on numerous occasions, also defends the oil sands. He says, “You know, oil sands oils, while they are heavy in emissions, are no heavier than typical heavy crudes, no heavier than Venezuela, for example, which is where a lot of the displaced oil will be from. So, and I say, not that they’re... not that there aren’t environmental challenges in the oil sands. There are. But they should not be exaggerated or somehow unique or somehow out of the mainstream of the oil industry. That’s just not the case.”[12] The government has made a focus out of promoting the oil sands as in line with other oil development as far as environmental concerns, despite the fact that this assertion ignores the reality that oil sands development has a greater environmental impact that other oil development.

Another key pillar has been to pay lip service to balancing environmental and economic priorities. The government has routinely vocalized commitments to balancing the environment and energy and resource development and exploration. It is important to note that there has not been a lot of follow through – updated regulations and green house gas reductions targets for the oil and gas sector, in the government’s “sector by sector” approach, have been promised for years now and never delivered.[13] However, vocalizing such commitments has been quite a consistent message of the Harper energy strategy. Again, some comments from one of Mr. Harper’s speeches that exemplify this: “Canadians also expectthat Canadian resources will be developed with future generations in mind, in ways that make use… sensible use of energy and respect the environment”[14]. Another comment from Mr. Harper, “We must develop those resources so that we can meet the challenges of what still remains a very fragile global economy, but we also have a duty to ourselves and to future generations, the duty to develop those resources in a way that is responsible and that respects the environment.”[15]

The Environment Minister is also a part of this discussion, of course. In a January 2011 speech, Environment Minister Peter Kent, stated that the government “will ensure our national environmental and energy policies strike the right balance between economic renewal and sustainable development”. He also made statements in that speech to reaffirm the government’s commitment to the environment: “this government is every bit as serious about the stewardship of Canada’s environment as we are about ensuring our continued economic prosperity”.[16] However, in general, with such statements, the Harper government, whether it is the Natural Resources Minister, the Environment Minister or the Prime Minister, has made clear that the economy is the top priority. There is emphasis on the understanding that Canada can have both economic prosperity and strong environmental regulation, but that the priority will be to fit environmental regulation within the existing economic structures.

Again, as with the oil sands defense, there is a bit of a problem with some of the claims, as this government has so far done a very poor job of balancing economic and environmental priorities. One aspect that the record has been especially poor on is reducing green house gas emissions, despite repeatedly claiming to prioritizeemissions reduction targets.The report by the independent Environment Commissioner released in 2012 notes that Canada is not on track to reach the emissions reductions target established by the Conservative government and agreed to at Copenhagen (17 percent reduction of 2005 emissions levels by 2020). They note that the Environment Canada Emissions Trend report indicates that by 2020, Canada’s GHG emissions will be 7.4 percent above 2005 levels, instead of 17 percent.[17]

The Harper administration has expressed an interest in promoting Canada as an energy superpower. In numerous speeches to foreign audiences while travelling abroad, Mr. Harper highlights that he wants to make Canada an appealing destination for foreign investment in energy development. Mr. Oliver, in a December 8, 2011 speech to mark the completion of an important milestone for the Joslyn North Mine Project (an oil sands project) talks about the jobs that will be created by the opening of the mine project and then says:“But we cannot take these jobs for granted. Oil sands development does not just happen. Investors have other opportunities. Our government is committed to making Canada one of the best places in the world to invest.”[18] As well, they have made it clear that it is a key priority to gain access to more markets for Canadian oil, and liquid natural gas Pipelines have been a majority priority for this government for this reason. Mr. Harper says, “We have made it clear to the people of Canada one of our national priorities is to make sure that we have the infrastructure and the capacity to export our energy products outside of North America.[19]

The Harper administration has made these overarching priorities quite clear throughout the last several years in office. These priorities come together to create the Harper national energy strategy. So, rather than failing to have any national energy strategy, I would argue that the Conservative government has the wrong national energy strategy. Their national energy strategy has focused on development and paid only small attention to the environmental concerns or to the voices of citizens that want to take things a little slower. There is the potential that centering the conversation around the idea that Canada is missing a national energy plan has allowed some of the voices that do not necessarily agree to come together in this call on the federal government. Initially working together sounds like a good thing, but if calls for a national energy plan are louder than calls for specific changes to such a plan, some groups’ calls for change may be less productive than might otherwise be possible. There is also the danger, that Canadians will see any policy that is called a national energy strategy as a good step, and that is questionable. For example, if the plan that the Premiers have agreed to work on moves forward, it is possible that little will change in terms of Canada’s priorities, but we will have an official document called the national energy framework. It could be argued that it is progress just to have the Premiers attempting to coordinate some of their efforts on energy and resource development, although there have been many suggestions that Allison Redford, who has really spearheaded these discussions, has actually had as her main focus the goal of obtaining support from the other provinces to increase development in the oil sands.[20] Though such a plan may result in some improvements in coordinating regulations for the benefit of industry, does little to assuage serious environmental concerns or to bring in the concerns of many Canadian citizens.

Of further interest in this regard is to note that some of the specific aspects of some reports that have called for a national energy strategy, have gained traction with the government and resulted in some changes. One of the goals identified by industry players in their calls for a national energy plan is to reduce and simplify environmental regulations and hearings to cut down on the review time involved in approving projects.[21] These calls have been relatively successful, likely because it fits with the Harper strategy of encouraging resource development wherever possible. The Harper government realized that this would fit with their plan, and made this a priority. Another goal for industry, and in fact for Alberta Premier Allison Redford, has been to call for better access to markets for oil and liquid natural gas. The government has also made this a key priority as this fits with their vision of promoting development and creating a business environment that facilitates quick resource development. What have received little attention are the calls for better and stronger environmental regulations. As has been outlined, there has certainly been lip service to balancing the environment with development, but though some small projects are underway to address some environmental concerns, overall, the picture does not look very balanced. The government has failed to bring environmental considerations into their national energy strategy in a meaningful way.