Disappointment

I am disappointed. And that is a profound understatement.

In spite of my sometimes cynical, perhaps even pessimistic view of politics and the people who inhabit that sphere, somewhere within my very core I needed to believe that when the political leaders of Canada, Alberta and British Columbia met on Sunday that they would find a way to at least partially resolve their respective differences.  They didn't. All they appear to have done was to further entrench their positions as to whether or not the pipe line expansion would proceed. The three individuals went into the meeting with a clear agenda and they walked out with nothing changed. No compromise, no promise to continue to work together, no possible vision of a world where everyone would at least partially benefit - a world where harm would be limited. There are no indications that they even listened to each other. There were some clarifications of positions and on the part of the federal government there were clear indications of how far they were prepared to go - all of which, unfortunately were predictable.

I am most disappointed in the federal government as they, in their role of the senior government, had the greatest responsibility to demonstrate leadership. By drawing a very clear line in the sand, they have left no room for negotiation. This clear line is in part defined by how much money and political capital they are prepared to spend to ensure that the pipeline gets expanded.

In a country where there is (apparently) not enough money to ensure that all communities have access to safe drinking water or decent housing, where there are insufficient funds to provide universal day care, access to affordable proscribed medication, and a social safety net that actually works - the federal government has decided that we should give millions and millions (if not billions) of dollars to support the infrastructure of an international for-profit company (check out how much the value of their shares has increased since Sunday) ; the government has decided that in spite of a significant national debt and rising interest rates, that it will borrow even more money so that Kinder Morgan will be reassured that the pipeline will go through.

I, I confess, am somewhat conflicted over the issue of the pipeline expansion. I think that, depending on what you read, it is easy to become convinced that one's point of view is the only correct point of view. I think it is far too easy for us to only ever see one side of the story and to draw our own lines in the sand. I deeply wish that we could all have an open and non-antagonistic debate over the pros and cons, if we could look at all Canadians and determine what is best for all of us as a collective. However, I am not at all conflicted as to whether or not my taxes should be used to provide some sort of reassurances to a for-profit company - a company that if the pipeline does get expanded - will stand to make extraordinary profits. We have processes in Canada - there are traditions, regulations and laws. Kinder Morgan, while it may be frustrating to their investors, need to live within those traditions, regulations and laws. And that includes taking things to the Supreme Court to determine jurisdictional matters. For the Federal government to wave its big financial stick assuming that they can bully other parts of Canada into ignoring their rights to due process is wrong.

Anyone who has studied politics, history and economics understands that it has long been the responsibility of governments to support the capitalist; that it has always been the role of the ruling elite to ensure that those who control the "means of production" continue to do so. It has always been that way. But that does not mean that it always needs to be that way in the future. It is time for Canada to, at the very least, stop supporting companies who want to use our natural resources to make obscene levels of profits and at the same time want protection from some of the risks.

The debate over the use of carbon based fuels, who uses them and how they get to the consumer is a valid, perhaps critical debate. There can be no debate over whether or not we subsidize companies to do so.