PARLIAMENT HILL – Environment Minister Peter Kent’s vigorous defence of the Alberta oil sands as a source of "ethical oil" over the past week has sparked widespread surprise and reaction from major environmental groups and could be a sleeper that might kick-start public concern over the environment in a federal election.

Environmental experts were also surprised to learn Monday that Mr. Kent (Thornhill, Ont.) is playing second fiddle to Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L’Érable, Que.) at the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Energy Security—with Mr. Paradis chairing the committee and Mr. Kent in the position of vice-chair.

The positioning went by with little notice during Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) cabinet shuffle last week. It suggests Mr. Harper will continue to dominate his government’s environmental positioning and that he has firmly seized the argument put forth by right-wing author Ezra Levant that the Athabasca tar sands are a stable petroleum source for the U.S. and other countries from a democratic country. Mr. Levant’s position compares Canadian oil sands petroleum as an ethical choice compared to oil from Persian Gulf states such as Saudia Arabia and oil from Venezuela.

“It is ethical in the sense that the proceeds of that oil goes to strengthen democracy, the environment, the Canadian society, it doesn’t go off to support terrorism, injustice or tyranny,” Mr. Kent said on CTV Question Period, in the most lengthy and unusual defence of the "ethical oil" position he adopted soon after taking his post.

But environmentalists point out Canadian refineries in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces import some of their oil from some of the same sources the government is now portraying as questionable, including Saudi Arabia.

One of the senior critics pointed out that if it is unethical to import oil from undemocratic countries, as Mr. Levant, Mr. Harper and Mr. Kent are suggesting, it could be equally unethical to export oil to undemocratic countries, including China, which is positioned as a major buyer of oil sands petroleum under a pipeline route proposed to the B.C. coast.

Peter Robinson, chief executive officer of the David Suzuki Foundation, argued the argument Mr. Harper and Mr. Kent are laying out about ethical sources of oil “disguises” other issues associated with oil sands production, including the effect on the environment, pollution, the health of aboriginal communities downstream from the refineries and plants, and the wider effect on Canada’s economy.

“It implies as well that the origin is all that we’re worried about, if it comes from an undemocratic country and then is sold to some place, then we’re taking oil and encouraging and undemocratic regime,” Mr. Robinson told The Hill Times. “The challenge with that is it doesn’t answer the question of what happens if you’re selling it from a country like Canada to an area that might be deemed to be undemocratic.”

Interviews with environmentalists suggest Mr. Kent’s appointment, and the strident position he espoused during the weekend on the oil sands, and earlier comments, has inflamed passions in the green-energy camp on a wider scale than the government expected.

“I’ve worked with many provincial and federal environment ministers and I’ve never seen a more horrifying first day on the job than Minister Kent,” said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada. “Right from hour one on the job, apparently he has thrown in the towel on cleaning up the most polluting industry in the country.  I just think on a very, very basic level he has miscalculated here. I opened my morning paper and I almost spit my coffee across the room when I was reading what he was saying on his first day on the job.”

The environmentalists also agreed it is Mr. Harper, not Mr. Kent, who will determine the federal position on oil sands and greenhouse gas emissions. It was widely known in the sector that the former environment minister, Jim Prentice, had freedom to make decisions in certain areas, such as national park designations and environmental reviews, but that Mr. Harper made the decisions on climate change policy and the oil sands, experts said.

“I’m sure that Peter Kent is a capable minister but decision making authority rests in the Prime Minister’s Office, so what Peter Kent as environment minister is able to do on the environment file entirely depends on what Prime Minister Harper allows him to do,” said Ed Whittingham, executive director of the Pembina Institute.

Mr. Whittingham also accuses Mr. Harper and Mr. Kent of attempting to deflect attention from the effects of oil sands production on global warming and the Alberta environment.

“Yes, Canada’s system of government is of course better than Saudi Arabia or Iran or a non-democratically elected system of government,” he said.

“We can acknowledge that, but with that still comes responsibility to address the environmental impacts we have in places like the oil sands. So while corrupt government and human rights violations are unethical,  we think that not managing your environment well enough developing a resource to the point where Canada doesn’t fulfill its international greenhouse gas emissions, putting sensitive species like caribou at risk, that’s unethical as well in a system of government that is top notch, like one that Canada has."

Meanwhile, this could be a liability for the Conservative Party, Ekos pollster Frank Graves told The Hill Times.

“The Conservative party suffers a net liability on environmental issues,” he said. “It has probably been the most obvious barrier between them and a majority.”

Mr. Graves added “it’s a possibililty” that the furor over Kent’s statements could draw voter attention back to the environment, which was the top priority of voters in 2007, the year before the recession began to take hold.

tnaumetz@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times