Trudeau’s role in pipeline spat

Re: Anti- oil sabotage must be stopped, Editorials, Feb. 3; Time for bold leadership on pipeline, John Ivison, Feb. 3

The real villain in the piece is the federal government, which refuses, beyond a little babble from Trudeau, to exercise its power to intervene. The last time I looked, B.C. was a Canadian province and the waters off of its coast were Canadian waters.

If Trudeau had a small fraction of the cojones his father had, this brouhaha would be settled in a heartbeat but, sadly, our pipsqueak PM lacks the brains and the backbone to protect the national interest.

Lee Morrison, Calgary

The government of B. C. should bone up on the provi nce’s history. Recognizing the economic benefit of Canada’s national railway extending to the west coast, B.C. demanded the railway’s construction as a prerequisite for joining Confederation.

The economic reasons for extending pipelines through the province are as critical today as they were for extending the railway. The revenue from both important infrastructures benefit the whole country.

Justin Trudeau could ensure pipeline construction by passing legislation to that end. As your editorial stated, “This is where the federal government has a critical role to play. Mr. Trudeau, we’re waiting.”

Darcy Charles Lewis, Calgary

John Ivison proposes that the prime minister should “use his constitutional power to declare the Trans Mountain pipeline a work for the general advantage of Canada under the Constitution Act.”

This displays a not- uncommon misunderstanding of the applicable constitutional powers. The optional federal “general advantage” power is required only for works “wholly situate within the province.” Trans Mountain, of course, is not that; it is a work “connecting the Province with any of the other or others of the Provinces.” As such, it required no Parliamentary declaration to be in force; the federal power applied from the outset, and allowed the federal government to approve the line, which it has already done.

British Columbia having so far only proposed “consultation” about a possible prohibition of bitumen, there is no B.C. regulation or law to be challenged, hence no “deed” for the prime minister to do.

John Edmond, Ottawa

This January, an Iranian oil tanker exploded and sank following a collision with a cargo ship off the coast of China. Toxic fumes and fuels were released over many square kilometres, and 32 crew members were killed.

The plan to increase tanker traffic seven-fold through narrow straits in B. C. invites a similar disaster here, threatening the health of both the human and wildlife populations, and the potential loss of tens of thousands of jobs in the tourist and fishery industries.

As for Alberta, its legitimate needs could be met by a visionary federal government making major investments in transit infrastructure, building retrofits, renewable energies, clean technologies, and community employment programs.

A f ederally- supported Just Transition program would assist workers and entrepreneurs in all regions as our economy transforms and reduces reliance on fossil fuels. The national interest demands policies that promote common prosperity, not divisive stances that incite an interprovincial war that will not have two winners.

Larry Kazdan, Vancouver