Threatening to deprive B.C. of Alberta oil is a risky gamble

We shouldn’t be so eager to cut off our collective nose to spite our face

Political consensus is hard to come by these days, especially here in Alberta. Yet when it comes to smiting our enemies, there is very little daylight between the NDP government and the United Conservative Party opposition.

That Premier Rachel Notley would so quickly pivot from mocking the UCP’s idea of “let’s turn off the taps” to making it a centrepiece of her government’s agenda speaks to just how volatile the mood in Alberta is right now.

On the heels of what had seemed like an armistice in our war with B.C. over the Trans Mountain pipeline — the end of the B.C. wine boycott — Thursday’s throne speech suddenly dialed the tension right back up with talk of reducing the flow of oil to our western neighbours. A sudden and dramatic spike in gas prices would no doubt get attention in B.C., but would it accomplish anything ?

That’s almost become a moot point. There’s a growing pessimism about the pipeline’s chances, and perhaps the mere notion of kicking B.C. in the teeth — if only for revenge — has some appeal. But it’s not clear that we’ve passed any point of no return, nor is it clear that going nuclear in our fight with B.C. is going to have the desired effect.

First of all, it’s entirely possible that such a strategy could turn public opinion in B.C. against Alberta. While we might see it as a message of “see how important fossil fuel infrastructure is,” B.C. residents might instead read it as a “give us what we want or your gas pumps will get it” threat. If we’re viewed as the hostagetakers in this scenario, I wouldn’t expect a lot of sympathy coming our way.

Even if B.C. Premier John Horgan were to suddenly relent and embrace the pipeline, what’s to say he’d survive as premier? What’s to say that those opposed to the pipeline wouldn’t swing to Andrew Weaver and his Green party?

But here’s another point to consider. Surely, both Notley and Jason Kenney are ardent in their belief that this pipeline is a crucial project. Therefore, there’s nothing Horgan could do to convince them to change their minds and back down. What makes us think we can convince Horgan to change his mind? Or, more importantly, that we need to?

Federal jurisdiction on this is clear, and constitutionally, B.C. doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to blocking this pipeline. Barring Canada’s courts suddenly taking leave of their senses, B.C.’s delay tactics shouldn’t amount to much either.

The only real danger here is Ottawa getting cold feet on the project, but last week Prime Minister Justin Trudeau reiterated that the project is in the national interest and the project will go ahead. If for no other reason than to reassure investors that Ottawa’s word means something, those words need to be said. It’s also a helpful reminder to politicians in B.C., too.

What might not be helpful, however, is the suggestion that Alberta usurp federal jurisdiction on interprovincial pipelines by taking control of what’s going in and what’s coming out of existing pipelines. It might expose B.C.’s hypocrisy, but it hardly advances the rule of law by threatening to monkey around in this area while simultaneously telling B.C. that they have no basis to do so.

As University of Alberta professor Andrew Leach pointed out last week, when it comes to a “common carrier” pipeline such as the existing Trans Mountain pipeline (as opposed to the proposed expanded pipeline), it would require a level of collusion among existing shippers on the pipeline, some of whom stand to lose a great deal in the process. Perhaps cutting off our nose to spite our face isn’t the wisest strategy.

Ultimately, politics is supply and demand — especially when elections are looming. Albertans understandably are demanding tough talk from our politicians and it’s certainly being supplied. Whether it’s actually helping matters is another question, though.