Ours To Treasure

"The package should deliver neutral, balanced and factual information.  Currently, much of the language is too pro-industry, and would make the government to be perceived as bias(ed) and thus not credible or serving the public good."

Now that was a good piece of advice  delivered back in 2009, as a critique by Environment Canada scientist Mark Tushingham for Natural Resources Canada officials having put together a "pro-industry" assessment of the Alberta oilsands.  Of course Canada, like any other country that has become wealthy on the export of its natural resources, treasures what it has, and acts in concert with industry to promote the quality of what it has.

On the other hand, there is the matter of the public good.  And although it does benefit the larger public of the country to have a wealthy country where employment is kept as high and stable as possible, and where the standard of living is immensely assisted by trade and export, there is also the little matter of how we respect our environment and this is not an inconsiderable dilemma.

Which was brought home to public notice just recently with the report that while Canada has succeeded in meeting its new greenhouse gas target emissions overall, there will be a steady rise of emissions continuing to be centered on oilsands extraction.  The federal bureaucrats who had gone out of their way to responsibly caution the Harper government not to become "cheerleaders" for the oil extraction industry were merely being careful.

"Given the ever-increasing attention this issue is receiving in the U.S. and Europe, and the importance of the issue to the Canadian economy and our international reputation, a more concerted strategy is needed in some jurisdictions.  At the same time, we must carefully balance our messaging to ensure that we cannot be accused by oilsands opponents of simply being cheerleaders or apologists for the industry: the environmental challenges of the oilsands are huge (although not as dire as some NGOs claim) so taking a facts-based approach is vital."

Not off-the-cuff facts, but real, proven ones.  But this is not quite what has resulted.  The current government has made it its official position that it speaks for the oil extraction industry in Canada.  We have this huge resource deposit, and we will exploit it, and although we do have a cautionary eye to some facets of environmental degradation, we will rely on the industry to manufacture solutions not yet imagined to minimize that potential.

We have a government that is aggressive in its approach to selling Canadian resources.  And that's pretty nice, except that there are some industries - like chrysotile asbestos for example, mined exclusively in Quebec, that we should morally be ceasing to mine and export - that require a more cautionary approach.  It would be just as well to move more slowly on the oilsands extraction file, to impress on industry the need to find solutions to current extraction methodologies that seriously impact the environment.

It really is not dignified, nor is it government's place to give the cover of acceptance and respectability to an industry that has the potential to wreak havoc in its wake of extraction.  Lobbying and marketing activities on the part of the federal government that benefit an industry that should be performing due diligence on its activities doesn't quite seem the way to go.

Our heritage is not only the vast amounts of resources we have inherited, but the beauty and the intact nature of the environment that is ours to treasure.