Attorney General David Eby slapped a writ on the Alberta government Tuesday in a bid to head off a looming economic disaster were Alberta to follow through on the threat to “turn off the taps” on B.C.’s oil supply.
Eby has repeatedly insisted the chance of that happening is “very unlikely, extremely remote.” But he’s been saying that for months. Nothing that has happened has diminished the threat. The Alberta legislation was introduced and passed against his expectations, and all indications so far are that Premier Rachel Notley is ready to use it.
If that previously unthinkable scenario were to play out, it would happen well before the case he just started is concluded, because the pace of the battle has quickened in the past few weeks. So B.C. would file for an immediate injunction to head off any restrictions until a ruling on the validity of Alberta’s move is delivered, Eby said. He had already warned Alberta to refer its new law to court for a ruling, but that was ignored.
Eby also confirmed that the B.C. government is working on contingency plans to cope with any reduction in the oil flow from Alberta. He refused to divulge them, possibly because that would involve using the R-word — rationing.
B.C.’s suit claims Alberta’s plan to restrict oil shipments — based on Alberta’s Preserving Canada’s Prosperity Act that was passed last week — is unconstitutional, mostly because its sole aim is to punish B.C.
It said that a significant disruption in the supply of gas, diesel and crude oil from Alberta to B.C. would cause B.C. “irreparable harm.” The suit is filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench, where a full trial would be required on the issue.
It brings to five the number of lawsuits in various courts that are hanging over the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion at the heart of the argument, even though that project has completed the approval process.
The NDP government is also in court in B.C. with a reference question about the validity of its plan to curtail future shipments while safety plans are studied. Two First Nations have cases outstanding and the National Energy Board approval may be subject to a municipal challenge.
There are several potential win-loss scenarios at the different legal venues. Eby was on safe ground in predicting that, one way or the other, some or all the arguments about the pipeline project are going to wind up at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Notley said B.C. is “playing legal rope-a-dope until the cows come home” over the pipeline expansion.
Eby repeatedly denied that B.C. is delaying the construction start, saying routine permits are being issued.
But it’s hard to square that with the NDP’s election platform, which included a pledge repeated incessantly by Leader John Horgan and numerous candidates: “We will use every tool in the toolbox to stop the project from going ahead.”
Upon swearing-in last summer, the NDP cabinet was advised by government lawyers that repeating such a promise would be inappropriate and unlawful, since the pipeline had federal approval. So the position was amended to promising to “defend the coast.”
In January, the government announced regulatory plans to restrict any incremental increases in oil shipments through B.C. while safety studies are done. That was widely viewed as a delay tactic and turned the already-heated pipeline argument into a full-fledged crisis.
The crisis has reached a surreal point. B.C. wants the power to restrict oil movements through B.C. and is going to court to ascertain it has that authority.
Meanwhile, Alberta is threatening to do exactly the same thing — restrict oil shipments through B.C., and B.C. is going to court to prevent it from happening.
If you take the NDP government at its word, it no longer stands for stopping the pipeline. Now it just wants a safety regime to guard against a catastrophic oil spill.
If so, it could drop the idea of restricting shipments and trust in process to see it happen. That would require a leap of faith. But faith and trust vanished from this argument months ago.
