‘AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED THEIR JOB IS TO KEEP ALL OPTIONS OPEN’
NOTLEY SLAMS ‘HYPOCRISY’ AS FEDS REFUSE TO APPEAL B.C. PIPELINE RULING
When it comes to Alberta’s ability to influence the future of the Trans Mountain pipeline, Premier Rachel Notley said Wednesday the province will have to let the process play out.
“Unfortunately we’ve been dealt the hand we have been by the acts of successive federal governments, and we need to move forward on it,” Notley said.
Hours earlier, Amarjeet Sohi, the minister of natural resources and an Edmonton MP, announced the federal government would not appeal a Federal Court ruling that threw the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project into limbo. Instead, Sohi announced, the government would follow the ruling’s directive and redo consultations with Indigenous people. It appointed former Supreme Court justice Frank Iacobucci to oversee the process, which has a 22-week time frame.
Notley had demanded, in the wake of the August ruling, that the federal government appeal that decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.
“We understand that the path that they (the federal government) are pursuing right now is one that is likely to be more effective and faster,” Notley said, adding that the appeal should still happen, simultaneously. “Nonetheless, until that path succeeds, as far as I’m concerned, their job is to keep all options open.”
Still, there’s a simmering frustration in Alberta. Speaking at the long-awaited reopening of the Royal Alberta Museum in Edmonton, Notley contrasted Tuesday’s news about the $40-billion LNG Canada liquefied natural gas plant in British Columbia with Trans Mountain. B.C. is fighting the pipeline expansion.
“I think Albertans can be forgiven for being extremely frustrated with the way the federation is working right now because there is a high level of jawdropping hypocrisy,” Notley said.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t some levers for her to pull, such as seeking status for the Alberta government to give its input at the new National Energy Board hearings, which are supposed to wrap up in the new year. B.C. said Wednesday it wants to intervene in the next set of hearings to ensure the protection of its coast and the participation of Indigenous groups.
Notley said the federal government must keep its “toolbox” open, even if there might not be much inside — at least not for Alberta.
“The consequence of a decision about an interprovincial pipeline being in federal jurisdiction is that it’s mainly the federal government that can do anything about the ongoing process,” said University of Saskatchewan law professor Dwight Newman in an email. “Alberta does not have many tools other than keeping attention on the situation.”
Alberta Conservative Leader Jason Kenney, speaking to reporters in Calgary reiterated his argument that the Supreme Court should hear an appeal of the decision.
“Premier Notley made an alliance with Justin Trudeau. She gave him the carbon tax he wanted, has agreed with him on pretty much everything else, and so you would think that that would buy some influence for the government of Alberta,” Kenney said. “Why aren’t we getting at least an appeal on the federal court decision? It’s important if for no other reason than to get legal clarity around this very confusing issue of what constitutes the federal government’s duty to consult First Nations people.”
Kenney also suggested Notley scrap the carbon tax, as leverage against the federal government; she previously announced Alberta would withdraw from any federal carbon pricing plan, until the pipeline was constructed.
Kenney has called for a “fight back” strategy that includes a “war room” to “respond in real time to the lies about our energy industry,” the targeting of anti-energy foundations and the suspension of discretionary transfers from the federal government to British Columbia.
“It’s one thing to stomp around and say ‘we’ll hold their feet to their fire,’ or ‘the federal government should’ve done X, Y and Z,’ but I don’t see, from my own point of view, where there is a lot that the federal government could do that would increase the likelihood of having a pipeline underway earlier and not have it subject to a whole other set of appeals,” said University of Alberta business professor Andrew Leach. “I can’t see how any of the other solutions are faster or not more fraught with a whole lot of unintended consequences.”
Notley welcomed the new consultations that Iacobucci will spearhead, saying it has been her government’s position they needed to be done; she didn’t express concerns about the undefined timeline for Iacobucci’s work.
“The process itself is not one that can be held to a timeline, if it is going to be authentic and meaningful and demonstrate integrity,” Notley said.
Kenney, for his part, described the process as becoming “mired” in further consultations.
Tom Flanagan, a University of Calgary professor, said the big remaining question is what happens even after consultation, and whether or not there will be a showdown between the federal government and those who object to the pipeline.
“I don’t think there’s anything better that Alberta can demand right now, this probably is the most expeditious way of going about it,” Flanagan said. “But there is this confrontation looming down the road because consultation probably won’t work, if by work you mean getting unanimous agreement to it.”
Which leaves a few other options that aren’t precisely about getting Trans Mountain built. Richard Starke, an independent MLA, said the
(SHOULDN’T) PUT ALL OF OUR EGGS IN THE TRANS MOUNTAIN BASKET.
government shouldn’t “put all of our eggs in the Trans Mountain basket,” pointing to the Eagle Spirit pipeline and proposals for a rail line to Alaska, which could, in theory, move oil to other markets and circumvent B.C., while everyone waits for Trans Mountain to get sorted out.
“It’s frustrating in that we, OK, fine, we have this roadmap, but we have no idea how long it’s going to take,” Starke said.