[LiNK] "B.C.'s Northern Gateway demands trigger showdown with Alberta"

[rfmcdonald]

British Columbia's demand for a greater share of the financial and other benefits of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline connecting the tar sands of Alberta to the ports of the Pacific Ocean via British Columbia's landmass remind me of nothing so much as the repeatedly challenged deal between Québec and Newfoundland struck in the late 1960s which let Newfoundland export its abundant hydroelectric production from Churchill Falls across Québec's territory at rates which strongly favoured Québec (sold at low prices to Québec, which then resold them to other markets at higher prices). I'm certain that the prospect that Alberta wouldn't fully benefit from the financial proceeds of the tar sands is something that lies in the backs of Albertans' minds. For British Columbians, demanding a cut might be the best way to discourage the creation of such a controversial pipeline.

The B.C. government has outlined five demands before it will support the Enbridge pipeline, including more financial and environmental support. But opposition leader Adrian Dix says B.C.'s residents are being let down.

“Absolutely not,” Premier Alison Redford told The Globe and Mail, saying jurisdiction over resources, and resource revenue, is “fundamental to Alberta.” Tinkering with it would amount to nothing less than an overhaul of Confederation, Ms. Redford argued, saying B.C. already benefits by the billions the province sends to Ottawa each year.

“To actually introduce the idea that we would renegotiate Confederation is quite troubling to me. At the end of the day it is true that we have resources in this province and we collect revenue from those, but those revenues are shared across the country,” Ms. Redford told The Globe.

The battle comes as premiers, including B.C.’s Christy Clark and Ms. Redford, gather in Halifax for talks this week. Ms. Redford will continue to push for a Canadian energy strategy, which would be meant to streamline major energy projects such as Northern Gateway.

The demand for a “fair share” of cash – a figure B.C. hasn’t finalized – was one of five conditions that B.C. laid out Monday as stipulations of its support for the project, which would see Alberta oil sent to Kitimat, B.C., and loaded onto tankers bound for Asia.

The other conditions include that the North Gateway project pass an environmental assessment by the National Energy Board joint review panel, which is already underway; have “world-leading” plans to respond to both marine and oil spills; and address first nations concerns and treaty rights.

Companies must go “beyond their minimum legal obligations to first nations,” said Mary Polak, B.C.’s aboriginal relations minister. Enbridge argues it’s already doing that, with 60 per cent of first nations groups signed on to support the deal.

Ms. Clark has long been expressing reservations about the project, but Monday’s announcement formalized her views, shifting from her previous assertion that she would avoid taking a stand before the NEB review was complete.

[. . .]

The B.C.-Alberta conflict could linger for years. Ms. Clark is facing a tough bid for re-election next May. The opposition B.C. New Democrats, far ahead of Ms. Clark’s Liberals in current polls, are firmly opposed to Gateway in any form. “We remain serene and determined to reject this pipeline, which isn’t in British Columbia’s interest,” NDP Leader Adrian Dix said Monday.