Don Cayo: In my opinion
One problem: It would have to generate a bit of interest among media and public
A proposal for a single utility and transportation corridor across Canada would put an end to the endless debate over where to locate pipelines, roads and railways.
If it ever gains traction, the Alberta Opposition leader’s proposal for a “commercial corridor” — a kilometrewide swath of northern land for pipelines, roads, railways, transmission lines and more — could turn out to be a genuine Big Idea of a kind not seen in Canada for more than half a century.
Of course, that’s a big if. Since Wildrose party leader Danielle Smith pitched her idea Thursday to a business audience in Vancouver, it hasn’t generated so much as a yawn or a sneer from the media or the masses. Rather, like a variation of the idea proposed as long as 10 years ago, it has scarcely been noticed. And if it ever gets on the public’s radar screen, naysayers will no doubt pour out of the woodwork to argue it’s too big, too complicated, too costly, too risky and — maybe worst of all — it’s about icky, sticky resources, not cool smartphone apps.
Her idea: “A nationally negotiated transportation, commercial and utility right ofway essentially cutting through northwest Canada from Northern Ontario and Manitoba to the West Coast. These would be major preplanned routes in which commercial ventures would not only be permitted but actively encouraged.
“Rather than have industry come up with a multitude of ideas, proposals and routes that would ultimately wind up in a series of endless hearings, politicians would take the lead and settle as many issues as possible in advance.”
And, yes, she recognizes those issues that need settling — especially those touching on nature and natives — are very, very big ones.
“This is a national project. It requires national leadership,” she said. “The federal government would almost certainly have to do the heavy lifting because the bulk of the negotiations would have to involve agreement and buy- in from our First Nations as a starting point. It would deal with river crossings and protecting environmentally sensitive habitat.
“It would not be for the faint of heart or weak in spirit.”
My first thought as I listened to these ideas outlined to a luncheon organized by Leah Costello, the founder of Vancouver’s Bon Mot Book Club, was that this would be wonderful for landlocked Albertans, many of whom are increasingly frustrated by the rough ride their Western and southern pipeline plans are getting.
But, on reflection, this proposal doesn’t pass muster as an attempt to do an end run around the Northern Gateway pipeline approval process. No matter whether the Northern Gateway application that the federal government is to rule on next week succeeds or fails, it’ll be either a done deal or a
So this is not, in practical terms, about any proposal on the table now. It’s about all those to come in years and decades and maybe even centuries ahead.
dead duck by the time a project of this magnitude could come to fruition.
So this is not, in practical terms, about any proposal on the table now. It’s about all those to come in years and decades and maybe even centuries ahead, and the insanity of leaving in place a regulatory process that is certain to mire each one in its own endless tangle of red tape as they individually go through similar sets of hoops.
Which province or provinces would gain most from any or many of these future proposals is, given our imperfect crystal balls, anybody’s guess. After all, a lot of B. C. stuff already passes though Alberta on roads, railways, transmission lines, even pipelines on its way to markets in the East, and a national corridor for additions to the network would run two ways.
Smith dared to compare this idea to a couple of great ones from history — the St. Lawrence Seaway, completed in the 1950s at a cost that in today’s dollars would be about $ 4 billion, and the Canadian Pacific Railway that was built to bring B. C. into Confederation a century- and- a- half ago.
When these things were built, nobody knew what they’d carry in years to come, or who would benefit most. But both shaped the country’s future, which has become the prosperous present. And it’s depressing to think about what Canada’s economy would be — or even if Canada would be — without them.