Like it or not, the oilsands are a national project and you're a stakeholder

The Energy East pipeline was mourned this week as a "nation-building project" that could have been,with the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, the premier of Alberta and the mayor of Saint John, N.B., all applying that patriotic stamp on Thursday.

Those are rather lofty words for a single capital project proposed by a private company, not to mention a pipeline that had not been cleared by an independent review.

To be sure, oil from Alberta would have travelled east to New Brunswick, with construction creating jobs in other provinces along the way.

But,as recently suggested by author Chris Turner,if there is a national projectto grapple withhere it already existsat one end of that proposed pipeline.

"It is a fixture on the Canadian landscape. It employs tens of thousands. It is a truly national project, or else the term has no meaning," Turner concludes in The Patch,his new book about the people and politics of the oilsands.

"We have all benefited. We are all stakeholders. We are all complicit."

Oilsands history

In making a national case for the oilsands, Turner can go back to Sidney Ells, an engineer from the federal Department of Mines, who was dispatched to survey the land around Fort McMurray, Alta., in 1913.

Ells at least has a spot in theCanadian Petroleum Hall of Fame. Poor JeanChrtienis still waiting on induction.

Sixty-twoyears after Ells' journey, and with Chrtienat the negotiating table as a member of Pierre Trudeau'scabinet, the federal government partnered with the Ontario and Alberta governments to prop up Syncrude'smassive project at Mildred Lake, northwest of Fort McMurray.

In 1996, Chrtien's own government gave oilsands developers expanded access to the accelerated capital cost allowance, allowing companies to deduct the cost of capital purchases and expansions. (When Stephen Harper's government announced in 2007 it would discontinue the allowance, officials estimated it was worth about $300 million annually.)

There's also the millions in federal funds that have gone toward oil-related research and development over the years.

"We also helped the province of Alberta develop their tarsands because we know that it is very important in the interests of all Canadians to develop the technology and the potential of these reserves, so they can be used later on," Chrtien told the House of Commons one afternoon in 1996, defending his government against complaints from Reform MPsthat it had invested public money in Bombardier.

"That is what Canada is about. It means being able to find what works in each part of the country so that everyone can benefit," Chrtien continued. "If the oil companies make money in Alberta, they pay taxes to the central government, which redistributes the money to all Canadian provinces."

• Energy East's cause of death: Business, politics or climate?
• Notley'deeply disappointed' by Energy East cancellation

As if on cue Thursday,Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall sneeredat "heavily subsidized jets in Quebec" while enthusing about how much revenue governments have gained from oildevelopment.

Indeed, as Chretien hoped,the taxes paid by the companies developing the oilsands havecontributed significant sums to the federal treasury. Meanwhile, the developmenthas employed thousands of people from outside Alberta. And, as Turner points out, investments in oil companies have bolstered pension funds.

Climate change vs. federalism

Of course, if successive federal governments (and governments in other major countries) had also done more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, if pipelines didn't periodically leak and if 1,606ducks hadn't died in a tailings pond in 2008 (the starting point for Turner's book), it might be easier to celebrate what Canadians built and how Canadians have prospered.

Instead, beginning with Keystone XL, pipelines from Alberta have been attacked as referenda on humanity's commitment to the planet.

Brad Wall now suggestsEnergy East's demise this week could amount to a national unity crisis.

"Today is not a good day for Canada. It is not a good day for the federation," he said.

"Something needs to change. For the West to continue on like this in our federal system is the equivalent of having Stockholm syndrome."

If the Trans Mountain pipeline through British Columbia survives legal challenges, Wall's faith in the federal system might be at least partially restored.

The most ardent opponents of oilsands development might not be satisfied unless all production in Alberta is shut down, but Turner challenges them to imagine what that would look like right now: the political and economic upheaval that would result.

Indeed, turning northern Alberta into a massive solar panel factory is probably easier said than done. At the very least, Alberta would likely be justified in asking the rest of the country for substantial assistance to manage any transition.

If you build it, then what?

That the oilsands amount to a national projectdoes not justify the building of any particular pipeline, let alone one that no longer hada solid business case.

But understanding the oilsands as a national project forces a certain reckoning with its existence.

"We did this. And it's now built. And it's there," Turner saidin an interview. "And so now how do we intend to manage it?"

We built it. We allowed it to grow. We benefited from it.

It's easy to object to apipeline. It's harder to contend with the massive national project that is the oilsands.

• Quebec politicians hail demise of Energy East
• Brad Wall pits West against Ottawa as Energy East scrapped