Provincial "squabbles"? Don't listen to me!

I would love to work for a Think Tank. 

According to a definition from McGill University: "Think tanks are organizations, institutes or groups involved in research and advocacy in a range of fields including social policy, political strategy, economy, science and technology, industry, business and national defense. Many think tanks are non-profit organizations; their funding may come from governments, businesses or private advocacy groups, or from consulting and research work they engage in. (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/caps/CanadianThinkTanks.pdf)

There are so many of them in Canada that you would think that I could find one that would hire me or at least listen to my rantings.  I thought that I found one in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, but no.  Unless you are a lawyer, an economist or an accredited journalist they, like the rest, could care less what you think.  You would think that with people of those exalted qualifications every utterance they make would be a gem of logic.  But no.

In a recent report from the MLI entitled Sustaining the Crude Economy, authors Laura Dawson and Stefania Bartucci tackle the issue a National Energy Policy for Canada under the guise of "Global Energy Competitiveness".

What first struck me was the way MLI introduced the paper; "Provincial squabbles threaten future energy exports, study says".  The term squabble is used when a pushing argument breaks out on a playground.  The "squabble" they are talking about is the one between Alberta and B.C. over the Northern Gateway Pipeline.  Squabble?  Are you kidding me?

When papers like this (you can read it at http://www.macdonaldlaurier.ca/provincial-squabbles-threaten-future-energy-exports-study-says/) tackle a complex issue such as inter-provincial disputes, it would be worthwhile if they took a stab at being more inclusive with the issue, rather than picking and choosing their study points.

The issue of the pipeline is not one of only getting Alberta raw materials to the coast to be sent to Asia to be processed.  It is a far more reaching issue of who pays when the process fails... when the pipeline springs a leak or when a tanker runs aground.  Think these things can't happen?  B.C. sits on an active fault line.  One good jolt and the rigid pipe could break.  Who's going to pay to clean that up?  And before you say that nature will take care of it over time, remember that this is not oil in the pipe... it is bitumen (upgraded or not) and bitumen does not break down in nature like oil.  Same goes for the shipping.  Unlike the pretty cartoons that the oilsands folks use to describe the shipping route, the channel from Kitimat is narrow and winding.

So let's take a minute to break down this "squabble".  The oil industry wants to ship a volatile and dangerous substance across pristine land to a port on the west coast, load it on boats the size of small countries and ship it to other countries to be refined and used (and in some cases ship it back to Canada in some finished goods, like plastics).  The Alberta government and their friends at the federal level are all for it... after all they stand to make a lot of money in royalties and excise taxes.  The government of B.C. are potentially going to be left holding the bag if any fault occurs anywhere along the process.  Is B.C.'s concern shared by the federal government?  Pigs will fly first.

So is this a squabble?  Are two kids arguing in a playground?  And what about the people?  Remember them?  They are the ones who elect the politicians (who subsidize Think Tanks) and pay their salaries.  You think, just maybe, they should ask our opinion instead of just reading yet another burp from a Think Tank?

(Bet you that just cost me a job prospect!)