Canada will pay, pipeline or not
Re Ottawa must intervene in pipeline dispute: Editorial, Feb. 8 The Star’s editorial on the Alberta-B.C. dispute agrees in passing that something must be done to counter the potential environmental damage that might result from the delivery of bitumen to B.C.’s coast. But the real issue is how to stop the inevitable damage to the coast and coastal waters if the pipeline delivers on promises made by Premier Rachel Notley and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
It’s not an “if” question but a “when” question. Fishery, tourism and other environmental damage will result. It’s too great a risk. If Albertans wish to let B.C. grapes rot on the vine, so be it. If Alberta bitumen must be left in the ground and the tarsands are forced to curtail production, so be it. Surely the environmental threat from oil-laden tankers precariously navigating coastal waters is too great to seriously contemplate.
The political consequences are serious, it’s true. Notley needs to move oil to get re-elected, B.C.’s NDP government needs to stop the bitumen delivery to retain Green Party support and Trudeau doesn’t want to lose Liberal seats in B.C.
But the really big concern is the environment. It’s too vulnerable to risk. Pipelines and tankers have a history of failure and environmental damage.
So the answer is obvious: leave the bitumen in the ground and take the inevitable political hits. Bruce Rogers, Lindsay, Ont. B.C. is not squabbling with Alberta. It is defying Canada and Canada is too timid to react. Canada has abandoned Alberta by failing to enforce that province’s constitutional rights and at some point Alberta will have to take on Canada to enforce those rights. In the end, If Canada plays the wimp for too long, Alberta will have to canvass its alternatives, including joining the U.S.
U.S. control of all Alberta’s oil and gas resources certainly would make that country a petroleum powerhouse. It would also make it relatively simple for Canada to meet its carbon-reduction targets. Patrick Cowan, Toronto