Trudeau can’t budge on pipeline feud

Canada is a rule-of-law country. That means you cannot be held by any level of government with no chance of release. Nor can you be tortured, nor can your assets be seized without access to the courts and the right to a trial with a judge and jury.

We sometimes take the protections provided by the rule of law for granted, but when it counts — which is always — the freedom from arbitrary actions against your person or property holds fast.

This means that no one can independently decide which laws they will obey and which they will violate.

Not obeying the laws of the land can result in fines and/or incarceration with, of course, the right to appeal. But after all appeals have been exhausted, the law must be upheld and those who chose to ignore it will suffer consequences.

Last year, after extensive hearings, the federal government decided to approve the construction of a pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby that would carry diluted bitumen for export to Asia. That decision conformed to all the requirements laid down in law — with respect especially to environmental concerns — and was clearly within the jurisdictional power of the federal government. In effect, the cabinet’s decision in favour of the Kinder-Morgan pipeline became the law of the land.

Some individuals and groups, particularly in the Lower Mainland, continue to object to this decision and the building of the pipeline. Their main concern is the potential impact of a spill, either at the marine terminal in Burnaby or somewhere along the coast as the tankers carrying the “dilbit” make their way to the open seas.

They fear a spill could have disastrous impact upon the marine environment and on water- and bird-life. They have little faith that emergency facilities to handle any spill will be adequate to the task and are determined to stop the pipeline from being built at any cost.

In effect, they object to living by the rule of law because it does not conform to their beliefs.

In making the decision to allow the pipeline, the federal government determined it is the safest way to transport the material to the coast. Tests to assess the impact of bitumen spilling into water, both fresh and salt, showed that a spill could be contained. Further, given the marine emergency resources that will be developed and installed before the pipeline is completed in 2020, the risks of a spill causing significant damage will be minimized.

Moreover, the best alternative means of shipping the material to the coast, by rail, generates an inherently greater risk of a derailment.

And derailments, unlike marine spills, are cleaned up at a cost to the public purse with little, if any, punishment in the form of fines to the rail company for the defective rails or rolling stock.

Finally, the federal government believes that national interests — not just Albertan — will be served by making it possible for the material to be shipped safely to places other than the United States, where it is sold at a steep discount from its world market value.

So, when the B.C. government recently announced its intention not to permit the shipment of diluted bitumen until it does further tests on how a spill could be effectively handled, it launched a political jousting match to score political points with the environmental lobby that had objected to the decision to continue with building the site C dam.

It was a bad decision to take on the federal government; the feds have the law on their side.

Further, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau knows that, if he caves on this challenge, he will face an endless series of provincial challenges from coast to coast. He hasn’t ceded federal jurisdiction yet in major contests with the provinces from financing health care to the imposition of carbon taxes and he is most unlikely to start now.

David Bond is an author and retired bank economist. Email: curmudgeon@harumpf.com.