That didn’t take long — the “Just Transition” has itself transitioned to the “Sustainable Jobs Plan.”.Some transition. I'm not going to parse the document in detail, other than to say it's reminiscent of the banalities of Klaus Schwab trying to sell the Fourth Industrial Revolution/Great Reset project. Or maybe it was written by ChatGPT..A few samples of egregious verbiage:."The term ‘sustainable jobs’ reflects the concept of decent, well-paying, high-quality jobs that can support workers and their families over time and includes such elements as fair income, job security, social protection, and social dialogue.".But what does this even mean? What's social protection? And isn’t social dialogue a redundancy? How can dialogue be anything but social?.Or what about this:."The Regional Energy and Resource Tables are a forum where our government is sitting down with provincial and territorial partners in pursuit of important economic opportunities in every region of Canada — helping workers, businesses, indigenous partners, young people and others build a future they want for themselves and their communities.".But what if young people want a future based on “decent, well-paying, high-quality jobs” in the oil and gas business? Will they get a hearing at these round tables?.And finally:."Even in a 2050 net-zero world, according to the International Energy Agency's Net Zero Emissions scenario, the world will still use about 24 million barrels of oil per day in 2050 — which is about a quarter of today’s consumption.".Oh really? Has anyone talked to the Chinese, Indians or Russians? Do our federal leaders really believe their Net Zero dreams are shared beyond the bubbles of Ottawa or Washington DC? Or Davos?.Having lived in different parts of the world I would be happy to disabuse them of such silly notions. Other than as a means of extracting free money from the developed world, there's limited interest in bizarre, net zero nonsense in the developing world..As policy documents go, the Just Transition cum Sustainable Jobs Plan leaves a great deal to be desired. Nevertheless, we are going to have to deal with it. Here are my thoughts..When the Syncrude pond “duck incident” occurred in 2008, I was dismayed by the oil industry response. The industry was faced with an existential threat and the response was to show pictures of baby bison. In 2018, at the height of the Bill C-69 furor, the group representing pipeline companies allowed that “they could live with the legislation.” I'm not a big fan of what passes for deep, philosophical thought in the Canadian oil patch and caution the industry has a bad record of protecting itself. But maybe the job is not really theirs to take on. Maybe it is time for the free citizens of Canada to protect themselves. .It's like the old joke: "If a swimming pool has citizens from many countries playing in it, how do you force the Canadians to get out? You yell, “All you Canadians! Get out of the pool!”.The Just Transition is the federal government calling for Canadian energy workers to “get out of the pool." Why would we listen? Why would we not just ignore the call to shipwreck ourselves on the rocky shoals of an Ottawa pipe dream?.I'm not one who believes if we “release the economic Kraken” of the Alberta oil industry that enormous new pools of oil and gas wealth will fix our future. The oilsands are not an inviting resource awaiting a more benign political atmosphere. They're a vast resource that's difficult and expensive to extract. Maybe future technology revolutions and price increases will change this. Nevertheless, the existing oilsand operations are based on a resource that has a long life with no decline until the last year. Oilsand mines are like factories that kick out widgets for many, many years. That's an enormous advantage to Alberta..So, what are we to do with this advantage? Allow it to be shut down because Ottawa has a benighted vision of the future? Do we wait for the legislation to be passed and then sue the federal government or do we proactively pass provincial resource development legislation and force the federal government to sue the provinces? Does it matter if the legislation passed by the provinces is constitutional? Does Ottawa always vet legislation for constitutionality? The Supreme Court decision on Bill C-69 will answer this question..Here is a question for the lawyers. If the federal government decides to shut down the oil and gas industry through legislation and policy, has it not nationalized the industry? Can you entice companies to build multi-billion-dollar projects and then say, “Oops, sorry. You must shut down now.”.If so, shouldn’t we be having parallel talks about compensation for lost profits and royalties?.This past winter, a MacDonald’s restaurant in Moscow, was abandoned under pressure from the US government. Instead of bemoaning the loss of jobs and fast foods, the Russians shrugged their shoulders and re-opened it with a new name..Similarly, if the major oil and gas companies in Alberta don’t want to get caught in the middle of an intergovernmental fight — a reasonable position to take — then maybe they can vacate their operations to please Ottawa and let others take over. Just a thought..The Sustainable Jobs Plan describes Canadian workers as having an unflinching, heroic, Soviet-like gaze into the future. I like the symbolism and suggest we adopt it, but we must look to a future decidedly contra Ottawa. It's time to act boldly. Maybe it's time for the bouncy castles again..I wonder what those who would lead Alberta in June think?
