Danielle Smith’s pipeline ransom note to Mark Carney is using Canada as her hostage
Here’s the to-do list Danielle Smith has set for Mark Carney. He has to:
- approve her proposal to build a pipeline from Alberta to the northern coast of British Columbia that has no private sector sponsor and no declared route;
- push it through over the strenuous objections of the government of B.C., environmental organizations, and the affected Indigenous groups, all of whom are sure to do everything they can to stop the project: legally, politically, and physically; and
- sweep away a raft of federal laws and regulations said to be responsible for the lack of private sector interest, including the cap on oil-sands emissions, the Impact Assessment Act and the ban on large oil tankers off the B.C. coast.
And he has to commit to doing all this inside of five weeks – in time to include the pipeline on a list of “major projects” receiving federal backing, to be released mid-November. The proposal will not be submitted to the federal Major Projects Office until May. Still, the Alberta Premier says she needs “a signal” of federal intentions before then.
Oh, one more thing: If he does not agree to every line of this ultimatum, it will not only be the Prime Minister’s credibility that is in question, according to Ms. Smith, but Canada itself. “This is a test,” she declared, “of whether Canada works as a country.”
As blackmail notes go, this is right up there. Do as I say – risk your government, Canada’s international climate commitments, relations with Indigenous groups, and God knows what else – or we blow up the country. Well, not “we,” exactly, but you know, those other groups I’ve been furiously winking at the past six months.
Were it not for the implied threat to the country, one might say: fair enough. Since entering politics, Mr. Carney has been playing a double game, suggesting he was open to building pipelines even as he promised no pipeline would be “imposed” on anyone. Ms. Smith wants to flush him out, and pin him down — to force him to choose.
To now, Mr. Carney and his ministers have been able to fend off any questions about their ultimate commitment by insisting “there’s no proposal” in front of them. Ms. Smith has sought to close off that escape route by presenting her own proposal. That’s a gamble on her part: were Mr. Carney to do as she asks, and still no private sponsor emerged, she would be left looking foolish. But to get to that point he’d have to spend large amounts of political capital – existential amounts, possibly.
What Ms. Smith is asking of him is not just to clear away any federal regulatory obstacles to its construction, but to back it in the face of determined B.C and Indigenous opposition. While some Indigenous groups are in favour, it is enough that any of those whose territory the line would cross are opposed to pose a major political risk.
Then there’s the matter of the laws Ms. Smith wants scrapped. The emissions cap would be no loss: it’s a terrible policy – costly, intrusive, and selective to boot. Offset by a tightening system of industrial carbon pricing, the result would be a net gain for the economy, and for national unity. Likewise, the Impact Assessment Act could surely be modified in ways that made it more acceptable to Alberta.
But the tanker ban? The north coast of B.C. is legitimately fragile. A large spill would be catastrophic, not only for the environment, but for the socio-cultural heritage of Indigenous people in the region. Mere repeal of the ban – or a one-time carve-out – is not on.
(Don’t U.S. tankers ply those same waters, unhindered, as former B.C. premier Christy Clark claimed the other day? No. The ban applies to tankers calling at ports in the region. But U.S. ships bearing oil from Alaska are obliged to steer clear of the area altogether via the “voluntary” Tanker Exclusion Zone, and have been since 1985.)
Could it be replaced, however, by regulation: multiple layers of prevention, preparedness and liability? Drawing on reforms implemented in Alaska after the Exxon-Valdez disaster, these might include double hulls (already the norm), mandatory two-tug escorts, traffic monitoring, plus robust response capacity and stringent, enforceable liability, among a long list.
At any rate, two points should be emphasized. One, the regulation of interprovincial pipelines is a federal responsibility: B.C. has no legal power to stop it. Whatever the feds decide, only they have the authority to decide it.
But two: their responsibility is to decide, not necessarily to approve. It’s fair for Ms. Smith to put pressure on Mr. Carney to decide the matter her way. It’s not fair – it is unacceptable – to threaten Canada in the process.
Andrew Coyne |
