It's widely accepted that British Columbia lacks the authority to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline. The argument goes that the pipeline proposal would be a matter of federal jurisdiction.
Maybe, maybe not. British Columbia's unelected, unelectable and outgoing premier, Christy Clark, says Victoria could kill the pipeline by simply refusing to supply the operation with electricity.
“British Columbia’s power would be required to power up the pipeline,
from B.C. Hydro – a Crown corporation,” she said while speaking to
students from University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. “There
are a whole number of different things the British Columbia government
could do.”
Ms. Clark, who requested the opportunity to speak to
the students, is trying to convince Albertans her five demands – three
environmental, one tied to First Nations, and another linked to economic
compensation – must be met if pipelines carrying heavy oil are to snake
through B.C.
“The pipelines need power and the power would
likely, would probably in British Columbia, have to come from B.C.
Hydro,” she told reporters after the speech. “You know what, though? To
me, all the speculation about how British Columbia would stop it is kind
of silly. Because if British Columbia doesn’t give its consent to this,
there is no way the federal government or anyone else in the country is
going to be able to force it through. It just won’t happen.”
And, much as many of us await eagerly Clark's removal from office, her point stands. Without the consent of the province and people of British Columbia, Harper would have a war on his hands if he tried to force this through. He'd have to use muscle, a lot of it, and he would provoke a response in kind. It's the sort of situation that would be out of his hands once it started.
2 comments:
Realistically, I doubt that the B.C. government can legitimately cut off power arbitrarily to a BC Hydro customer for political reasons (which I'm sure is how Enbridge would phrase it in the inevitable court challenge).
That said, I agree with your point more generally. Realistically, I can't imagine that a company would want to sink billions into a pipeline traversing the territory of a government that explicitly didn't want it there. It's just asking for trouble. But Clark, at least, will probably try to arrange some sort of mild political solution the instant she senses she can. We all know she wants the pipeline to be approved, and we all know her remaining time in office is limited.
I just spent an hour searching expropriation in Canada. when, why, and how. If it was for a railroad ....no problem.
Watch for some updates to that legislation in the next budget....streamlining and all.
I kinda followed the North American SuperCorridor land battles and texas pipeline land expropriations.
It gets bitter but it gets done.
Considering what harpco have done with impunity already, why wouldn't he just keep it up? There are three more years...his base will remain in line and at least give him a minority and if the libs and the ndp keep stealing votes from each other rather than present a unified front....who knows.
*warning*
political crystal ball reading may cause blindness, break your heart,result in severe depression or otherwise have bad effects on your happiness :)
Post a Comment