Friday, April 13, 2018

Trans Mountain pipeline - between a rock and a hard place

The stand-off continues between Alberta and British Columbia over the proposed $7.4 billion Trans Mountain pipeline extension - "extension" because it actually just parallels an existing pipeline an adds new capacity to it - which is to be built between the Alberta oil sands and the BC coast by Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd (which, despite its name, is 70% owned by a Texas company).
Alberta's NDP government (as well as the opposition Conservatives, for that matter) is strongly in favour of the pipeline, going so far as to suggest that its building will make or break the province's oil-based economy (this despite the fact that its economy is actually doing pretty well after the big hits it took in the last few years as the price oil plummeted). It is even willing to go out on a limb and buy up the whole project if need be.
British Columbia, under its relatively new NDP/Green government, objects to the project just as strongly on environmental grounds, claiming that the increased shipping traffic would threaten the pristine and ecologically-sensitive coastline of northern British Columbia (and, having been there quite recently, I do have some sympathy for that view). But, while BC always talks a good environmental game, critics point out that its environmental record is not quite as spotless as they might like us to think, pointing to, for example, its controversial push towards liquefied natural gas (LNG) production, anyd the province's horrible stats on untreated sewage pollution (by far the worst in Canada), and the toxic mess remaining from around 1,800 abandoned mines in BC. Others maintain that introducing these considerations is a political red herring, and that the comparisons are nothing like equivalent. And what about the people of British Columbia? Well, it turns out that a majority of British Columbians are actually in favour of the Trans Mountain project!
Anyway, the inter-provincial spat has led to some pretty nasty exchanges, with BC threatening to bar exports of its wine to Alberta (oooh!), and Alberta threatening to impose punitive levies on, or even halt completely, its BC-bound oil and other related products, and calling on the feds to disallow some of BC's transfer payments. And BC in return is threatening to sue Alberta if it carries through its threat to choke off inter-provincial oil shipments. And so on and so forth.
And, parallel to all this, is the fact that, after long years of economic and environmental assessments, the National Energy Board and the federal government of Justin Trudeau has ruled that the project meets Canadian environmental standards and is in the national interests of the country, (although many opponents argue that the Harper-era environmental assessment was insufficient, and that there was insufficient public consultation, particularly with First Nations groups). Kinder Morgan has been issued with a whole slew of strict environmental safeguards they need to build in to the project, but they have essentially already been given the go-ahead by the federal government. Given that this is a project that crosses provincial boundaries, and therefore comes under federal jurisdiction, that should really be the end of it. And Canadian case law is clear that, where provincial or municipal laws conflict with federal law, federal law prevails: provincial or municipal laws can not apply if they would impair federal jurisdiction.
Trudeau has gone on record many times to say that the project is indeed in the national interests, that the rule of law will be upheld, and that the pipeline WILL get built, come what may, although he may have to squander some political capital in BC in order to force the issue. Many contend, though, that Trudeau has dropped the ball on this issue, and should have jumped on it weeks ago, although he is admittedly in an almost impossible position. And now, Trudeau is to set off on an official and long-planned 9-day overseas tour, which is certainly unfortunate timing given that this is turning into a full-blown constitutional crisis, although he does apparently plan on breaking up his trip in order to attend a summit with Alberta and BC on the Trans Mountain issue.
But now, at what might be described as the 11th hour, BC premier John Horgan is looking to extend the process by going to the courts yet again, asking for "clarification" as to whether he can legally pursue the matter further. Kinder Morgan, for their part, have brought things to a head, saying that they are fed up with all the delays, and have issued an ultimatum to the effect that, if all the regulatory obstacles are not removed by the end of May then they will just pull out completely, regardless of the millions they have spent to date, i.e. they will take their ball, and go home to Texas.
Personally, I am torn. I don't like the environmental challenges the project raises, nor the fact that it perpetuates Alberta's dirty, carbon-heavy oil sands production. But, on the other hand, whether you like the federal position or not, "rules is rules" as they say, and this is essentially a federal decision after all. A couple of decades ago, I might have relished the prospect of some civil disobedience in the interests of environmental protection; these days, in my dotage, I tend to see the value of democratically-voted rules and laws.
Plus, this kind of wishy-washiness on economic decision-making at a national level gives a bad impression of whether or not Canada is really open for business, whether it is in fact a safe country to invest in, an impression we can ill-afford to broadcast. It seems to me that the horse has already bolted and, this time at least, we need to hold our noses and live with it. Maybe we should be focussing our efforts on reducing our reliance on, and demand for, oil and its derivatives, and not tinkering with the supply parameters.

No comments: