CanPol: *****-umen Showdown

[Wezil]

So the natives can extort AB for more cash and you are willing to play that game?

**** BC!?

[Asher]

So the natives can extort AB for more cash and you are willing to play that game?

**** BC!?

They don't extort AB for cash and jobs - they extort Enbridge. Huge difference.

BC is trying to take from the residents of Alberta.

[Wezil]

Iirc, BC hasn't said where the cash should come from only that the current arrangement is unacceptable.

Again, Upper Churchill for your precedent either way...

[Asher]

Precedent has already been set. Perhaps you have heard of Upper Churchill?

You need to be a lot more explicit in your reasoning, because on the surface there's no comparison to be made.

Are you saying Upper Churchill is a precedent of one province preventing the free flow of resources from another province? That is the precedent required, because that is what section 92 of the BNA act states.

[Wezil]

Nfld hydro-power (energy) goes through Quebec to reach market, for which Quebec receives the massive share of profit for the next 65 years.

AB oil (energy) goes through BC to reach market, for which BC receives X% of profit for the next X years.

Clear?

[notyoueither]

Iirc, BC hasn't said where the cash should come from only that the current arrangement is unacceptable.

True, except that the sequence of comments went something like:

BC, We need cash to let the pipeline through

AB, You aren't getting a cut of our royalties

BC, Then no project.

Again, Upper Churchill for your precedent either way...

I was thinking of that. The response of the federal government and other provinces to Quebec's odious behaviour to Nfld has been to build around them.

That is what will happen here, except that there will be no agreement a la Upper Churchill. The government of Alberta will never agree to any such thing, and there are alternatives for getting the oil to market.

[Asher]

Nfld hydro-power (energy) goes through Quebec to reach market, for which Quebec receives the massive share of profit for the next 65 years.

AB oil (energy) goes through BC to reach market, for which BC receives X% of profit for the next X years.

Clear?

You left out the part where the Quebec government was directly involved in the construction of the hydro-power facility...

BC has **** all to do with the oil sands.

And this doesn't seem to have anything to do with legislation? Quebec and NFLD agreed to a contract.
Alberta & BC never did.

[Wezil]

Please understand Asher, I'm not arguing BC is correct or justified in what they are doing. I'm simply saying I can understand their argument and there is precedent for this sort of thing.

You can ***** and moan all you want but the reality is that without the BC government and natives on board this just isn't going to fly. No PM is going to force a pipeline over the express wishes of a province (keep in mind the BC opposition is even more anti-pipeline than the government - this is as good as it gets) and no PM wants another Oka on their hands.

[Wezil]

You left out the part where the Quebec government was directly involved in the construction of the hydro-power facility...

BC has **** all to do with the oil sands.

The $$ is for transit/access rights (with even less potential damage than an oil pipeline).

[Asher]

Please understand Asher, I'm not arguing BC is correct or justified in what they are doing. I'm simply saying I can understand their argument and there is precedent for this sort of thing.

Again, I don't think there is.

Quebec & NFLD entered an agreement/contract and this was enforced.

BC & Alberta have done no such thing. The BNA explicitly forbids what BC is doing. It did not forbid what Quebec did.

[Wezil]

So how does it happen?

Does Steve compel BC (and the natives) to accept the pipeline?

[notyoueither]

You need to be a lot more explicit in your reasoning, because on the surface there's no comparison to be made.

Are you saying Upper Churchill is a precedent of one province preventing the free flow of resources from another province? That is the precedent required, because that is what section 92 of the BNA act states.

A province has a very hard time regulating the content of trucks, trains, or airplanes crossing it. Regulations are easily used to prevent a project requiring major construction.

It's not that great a comparison though. At the time, Nfld had no other path for hydro to reach market other than through Quebec.

What sort of response will Montana, Idaho, and Washington state have to a pipeline that would bring a large amount of activity to a port in the US? There's that or rail.

[Asher]

So how does it happen?

Does Steve compel BC (and the natives) to accept the pipeline?

Either that or the courts. More realistically, we go around and BC is out $7B and thousands of jobs.

I'd imagine there could be some surprise tariffs appear for BC products...

[Wezil]

With time the courts may be able to compel things (providing AB wins the arguments). When were you hoping this thing could be built by?

The courts won't help a bit with the natives. They are immune to enforcement.

I still think a go-around project is the most feasible.

[notyoueither]

Either that or the courts. More realistically, we go around and BC is out $7B and thousands of jobs.

I'd imagine there could be some surprise tariffs appear for BC products...

They have a lot of gas in Northern BC that I imagine they will want to pipe through Alberta to market...