Wall portrays Energy East collapse as casualty of indifference to West
We have to decide, are we a country or not? Is this a nation? Are we going to move goods across the country?
The long road to building the Energy Easy pipeline hit a dead end on Thursday, with TransCanada Corp. announcing its scrapping of the controversial project once dubbed a nation builder.
Although there were signs of cooperation between the provinces in relation to the project, its demise this week resulted in renewed fervour for western separation and Premier Brad Wall comparing the federal Liberal government to a hostage taker.
How did we get here?
Energy East was announced in 2013. It would have converted TransCanada’s segments of a thenunderused natural gas pipeline into one that could carry oil from west to east, allowing access to markets across the Atlantic Ocean.
When announced, then-Alberta premier Alison Redford said, “This is truly a nation-building project that will diversify our economy and create new jobs here in Alberta and across the country.”
Wall was happy to see a project that would allow Saskatchewan oil to be sold somewhere other than the United States.
“This is important for us,” Wall said, claiming up to $300 million was being lost because the oil was being sold at a discounted price. “Saskatchewan people have not been maximizing the value of their resource.”
He had reason to be optimistic: Estimates showed Energy East would have generated more than $7 million in taxes for provincial coffers. TransCanada also had intentions of building a terminal — and with it, permanent jobs — near Moosomin.
In the early days of the project Wall was striking a stately tone in his support, saying things like: “We need to move oil across our country and accept the fact, be proud of the fact we’re an emerging energy power.”
David Alward, the premier of New Brunswick at the time, declared the project a “game changer.”
Other proponents had reason to be optimistic, too.
Then-prime minister Stephen Harper — surely thinking of the Lac-Megantic rail disaster — said in August of 2013 he supported such project in principle and announced Energy East would undergo a “rigorous” review.
TransCanada made plans to file a regulatory application with the National Energy Board (NEB) by the end of the year, with deliveries of Western crude oil to Quebec starting in 2017.
By then the idea of Energy East as a nation-building project was in full force. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling likened it to the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Trans-Canada Highway.
But it seemed for every voice suggesting a CBC Heritage Minute would one day be made about Energy East, there was another one warning of the project’s environmental impact.
The Ontario government started calling for assurances it would benefit from the project. That prompted Wall to show what Saskatchewan’s premier saw at stake.
“We have to decide, are we a country or not? Is this a nation? Are we going to move goods across the country?” Wall asked in response to Ontario’s early opposition.
Ontario’s government was joined by Quebec in opposition to the project. Only two months after being announced, TransCanada stated it wouldn’t file an application until the following year.
Meanwhile, opponents of the pipeline touring the country warned Energy East would encourage expansion of northern Alberta’s oilsands and threaten waterways in its path.
Ahead of a premier’s meeting in 2016, Wall once again railed against eastern premiers, at suggestions those provinces could block the project.
His parting shot to Ontario and Quebec was one of the most pointed critiques on the subject: “Maybe we need to have equalization payments start paying through a pipeline to finally get one approved through Central Canada.”
The idea of Energy East as a nation builder started looking like it may not deliver.
The October 2015 election of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau brought another saga to the now years-long process. He had campaigned on a platform that included plans to make changes to the NEB processes that reviews pipeline applications, bringing a degree of regulatory uncertainty to TransCanada’s approval process.
As 2015 bled into 2016, a countrywide spat was in full force.
“This is affecting national unity,” Rona Ambrose, at the time interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, flatly told reporters.
By spring of 2016, Wall was claiming “enough is enough” after Quebec decided to seek an injunction against Energy East to ensure the province’s own environmental regulations were met.
TransCanada agreed to give more detailed information about the project to Quebec.
As the debate raged on oil prices continued to decline and natural gas — being transported in the Energy East pipeline — had become increasingly more valuable. Oil production estimates dropped too.
Other pipelines capable of carrying western Canadian oil to global markets have a brighter future: The Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from Alberta to Nebraska, is still alive and Enbridge’s Line 3 project has been approved.
In the summer of 2016, Wall was on the road travelling to Toronto and Saint John to promote the Energy East project.
That same summer saw the NEB begin 21 months of hearings into the project — dumping millions in extra funding to help interveners participate in them. But the first day of hearings were delayed by protests.
“This review will be unlike any other in the NEB’s history,” vowed NEB director Jean-Denis Charlebois. “All Canadians who wish to take part in the decision on this project will be heard.”
What were described as “minor delays” were soon needed after it was revealed some people on NEB’s approval panel had met privately with a TransCanada consultant.
Trudeau, meanwhile, started moving forward on his plan to overhaul the country’s pipeline regulator and rewrite environmental laws.
By the beginning of this year, the process had basically been reset. Hearings restarted and those wanting to argue for or against Energy East — now a $15.7-billion project aiming to be in service in 2020 — resubmitted paper work.
But it was all for naught. The project dubbed a nation builder brought renewed divisions between the west and east, resulting in renewed attention being paid to fringe groups calling for western separation: the leader of one such group was even welcomed onto local radio talk shows.
That fracture could clearly be seen in Wall’s statements Thursday: “The expectation of course from the federal government, and some powerful central Canadian interests, is that the West will just grin and bear this latest blow to our economy and our people.”