CanPol: *****-umen Showdown

[Flubber]

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

The Churchill deal was pure power play by Quebec. they said no deal unless they got their way and no federal government at the time would tell Quebec that in our federation we allow the crossing of resources. An impoverished newfoundland took the best deal it could get.

this deal however is seen in Newfoundland as oppressive and has poisoned Quebec-
Newfoundland relations for decades and prevented or impeded several other power projects which would have been viable. There are talks and plans for new hydro projects now but using an expensive and difficult subsea route to and then through other provinces. Bottom line is its all about politics and quebecs seats and population trump Newfoundland.

Here the oil sands are a huge national asset but with the competing economical and environmental interests it's tough to see how this plays out. Personally I find the BC approach offensive if it's being accurately portrayed. Royalties are a payment to the owner of a resource. For a jurisdiction through which the resource is shipped to require a portion of the royalty is exceptional IMHO . What if Alberta said they wanted a royalty on northern BC oil flowing into the Alberta pipelines and to US markets or to sask potash crossing on rail cars? Then what if every us state did the same? IT would be a mess

I am confused by the approach and the royalty demand. Provinces can tax assets in their jurisdiction. THat seems to me to be he proper approach. To go back and ask for a royalty share from the original jurisdiction instead of extracting taxes from the party that is actually shipping things through your jurisdiction..... It just seems wrong

[Flubber]

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

THIS. .... Although with the price of oil versus gas, BC might take that deal. but the point if it is proper for one natural resource why would it not be proper for all?

There is nothing super exceptional about a Gateway pipeline....

[Wezil]

The Churchill deal was pure power play by Quebec. they said no deal unless they got their way and no federal government at the time would tell Quebec that in our federation we allow the crossing of resources. An impoverished newfoundland took the best deal it could get.

this deal however is seen in Newfoundland as oppressive and has poisoned Quebec-
Newfoundland relations for decades and prevented or impeded several other power projects which would have been viable. There are talks and plans for new hydro projects now but using an expensive and difficult subsea route to and then through other provinces. Bottom line is its all about politics and quebecs seats and population trump Newfoundland.

Agreed.

Here the oil sands are a huge national asset but with the competing economical and environmental interests it's tough to see how this plays out. Personally I find the BC approach offensive if it's being accurately portrayed. Royalties are a payment to the owner of a resource. For a jurisdiction through which the resource is shipped to require a portion of the royalty is exceptional IMHO . What if Alberta said they wanted a royalty on northern BC oil flowing into the Alberta pipelines and to US markets or to sask potash crossing on rail cars? Then what if every us state did the same? IT would be a mess

Or every chemical rail car rolling out of Sarnia...

Again, agreed.

I am confused by the approach and the royalty demand. Provinces can tax assets in their jurisdiction. THat seems to me to be he proper approach. To go back and ask for a royalty share from the original jurisdiction instead of extracting taxes from the party that is actually shipping things through your jurisdiction..... It just seems wrong

I see a couple issues here. I have long been pessimistic about the long term future of Canada. I truly believe we are too regional in our thinking and politics to survive the long game. This is obviously a longer discussion but it leads to...

The politics of the matter have led us to this. The only way any BC leader could agree to the pipeline without taking serious political damage at home was to impose "sweeteners" to appease the BC electorate (I appreciate your comments on the approach taken). I would likewise expect any AB premier to react as Redford has and reject such demands for all the good reasons mentioned.

Which brings us back to the tough question... What is the solution?

[notyoueither]

I am confused by the approach and the royalty demand. Provinces can tax assets in their jurisdiction. THat seems to me to be he proper approach. To go back and ask for a royalty share from the original jurisdiction instead of extracting taxes from the party that is actually shipping things through your jurisdiction..... It just seems wrong

I'm getting the idea that BC's end game is an agreement between AB, BC and the feds on a tariff structure for the oil that goes through.

Of course BC could simply declare one, but it would be better if agreed to beforehand.

[Uncle Sparky]

Most of you are overthinking this. Clark's Liberals are way behind the NDP in the polls heading into an election. The NDP are against the pipeline. Clark wants to win.

[Wezil]

I get that. It's why the legal and moral arguments (i.e. who is "right") don't matter. It's about the politics.

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).

The only way any BC leader could agree to the pipeline without taking serious political damage at home was to impose "sweeteners" to appease the BC electorate...

[Fake Boris]

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?

Different case. The Churchill dam was actually built with Hydro-Quebec's expertise. They accepted a minority share in exchange for a beneficial long-term contract.

[Flubber]

Most of you are overthinking this. Clark's Liberals are way behind the NDP in the polls heading into an election. The NDP are against the pipeline. Clark wants to win.

That's why I don't understand this approach. Why not take a pro business approach and use waffle speech to say that they will obtain major benefits for the province. Part of assessment measures social and economic impacts as compared to the impact on he environment etc anyway.

I would never object to a province trying to get the best deal they can from a developer and to whip up the rhetoric in " fighting for the people".

But this approach? Its too " maybe yes" to obtain votes from those that oppose the pipeline and it's too " I might impose unreasonable demands" to get votes from among the pro-business crowd. It seems like they are trying to create a centrist position but wrapped it in a crazy demand. I hope she left herself room to backtrack. I remember when premier Williams on the Newfoundland Hebron project demanded better royalties , an ownership share and a refinery built in Newfoundland. Once he learned that a refinery would never ever be built he started talking about needing 2 of the 3 items and got away with it since he had never said he needed all 3.


So as a vote getter I don't understand this unless it's as simplistic as trying to provoke a fight and make the papers. Clark cannot believe that any province would share royalties with a province through which the resource is transported. There are many ways to extract money and benefits without proposing things which would be so philosophically offensive to other provinces.



On the larger issue Alberta should offer a share of the royalties if and when BC offers ALberta a share of the income taxes of all those BC residents that work and earn all their income in ALberta LOL. After all if we are going to play jurisdictional games for the detriment of All, we may as well go completely bonkers

[Flubber]

Different case. The Churchill dam was actually built with Hydro-Quebec's expertise. They accepted a minority share in exchange for a beneficial long-term contract.

You make it sound so friendly, fair even nice by Quebec.

There was other expertise available which could have and would have been used if Newfoundland had any choice in the matter. But Quebec used its political power to say "no". In an equitable world the federal government would have said that a province cannot preclude power crossing any more than they can prevent natural gas crossing . But in a political world where Quebec sovereignty is a threat and most federal governments need quebec seats, no one would ever piss off Quebec that much.

Newfoundland had two choices ....do a deal acceptable to Quebec or not see the development proceed. Many in Newfoundland wish they had chosen the latter course. Even now , decades later, politicians frequently cite Churchill falls as the type of deal they will never do. Every Newfoundlander is aware of the basics of the deal and a vast majority see it as an example of a big province with the Feds in tow, completely screwing a little province

[Fake Boris]

What exactly are you talking about?

The original construction of the plant, or the exportation high tension line to the US (a recent project)?

When Churchill was being planned, it turned out its potential was much higher than what NF would ever need. The only way to make it viable was to sell its production to Hydro-Quebec.

Ontario and the US were too far away back in the days to make exportation any further away than Quebec a sound possibility.

[Wezil]

It's a good thing Quebec was able to help the poor Newfs.

They might have been screwed otherwise.

[Fake Boris]

It's a good thing Quebec was able to help the poor Newfs.

They might have been screwed otherwise.

WTF is your beef.

It was a business venture. They sold a bad future.

[Fake Boris]

Oh, and let's not mention that Labrador doesn't even belong to the Newfs.

[giblets]

Are Canadian provinces constantly trying to screw each other or something? What a bizarre version of federalism.

[Fake Boris]

Are Canadian provinces constantly trying to screw each other or something? What a bizarre version of federalism.

Yes. The federation was formed on a mock election. No one wanted it, and it still shows.