Was surprised to find, on my Facebook feed this morning, a very favourable
take on Canada's Mark Carney:
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19xCHKcwXw/
* * *
Looked back on my interactions with AI in the last while for anything pertinent.
I'm in a homy phase, how to cook with silicon, that kind of thing. Did find the following
from last Thursday:
Copilot:
Canada Ottawa Alberta pipeline deal; why does BC need to be consulted?
BC needs to be consulted because the proposed Alberta–Ottawa pipeline would terminate on the British Columbia coast, directly affecting BC’s environment, Indigenous rights, and federal tanker regulations. Even though the deal was struck between Ottawa and Alberta, BC’s territory, laws, and communities are central to the project’s feasibility.
🔑 Why BC’s Role Matters
Pipeline Route & Terminus The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith envisions a new bitumen pipeline to the Pacific coast. Since the pipeline would cross BC and end at a port there, the province’s land, waters, and communities are directly impacted.
Oil Tanker Ban Adjustment Ottawa has already acknowledged that to make the project viable, it may need to “adjust” the federal oil tanker ban off BC’s northern coast. That ban was designed to protect sensitive marine ecosystems, so any change requires BC’s involvement.
Environmental & Indigenous Consultation BC hosts numerous Indigenous nations whose rights and title are constitutionally protected. Courts have repeatedly ruled that governments must consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples on projects that affect their lands. Ignoring BC would invite legal challenges that could stall or block the pipeline.
Provincial Jurisdiction While pipelines are federally regulated, BC has jurisdiction over environmental assessments, land use, and coastal management. Past conflicts (like with the Trans Mountain expansion) showed that BC can impose conditions or challenge federal approvals, making consultation politically and legally necessary.
Political & Social Legitimacy Alberta and Ottawa may frame the project as a “national interest” initiative, but BC’s government and public opinion are crucial. Without BC’s buy-in, the project risks protests, lawsuits, and reputational damage that could undermine investor confidence.
⚖️ The Bigger Picture
The Alberta–Ottawa deal is designed to fast-track pipelines by granting them a national interest designation, potentially bypassing some regulatory hurdles. However, BC’s consultation is unavoidable because:
The pipeline physically ends in BC.
Federal law (tanker ban, environmental regulations) directly applies to BC’s coast.
Indigenous rights in BC are non-negotiable under Canadian constitutional law.
Political legitimacy requires provincial cooperation, not unilateral imposition.
✅ In short: BC must be consulted because the pipeline cannot function without BC’s territory, ports, and legal frameworks. Skipping BC would trigger constitutional challenges, environmental disputes, and political backlash that could derail the entire project.
Would you like me to map out the specific legal obligations Ottawa has to consult BC and Indigenous nations (e.g., Supreme Court precedents), or focus more on the political dynamics between Alberta, Ottawa, and BC?
What was the Trans Mountain proposal about?
The Trans Mountain proposal was about expanding Canada’s existing oil pipeline system to increase capacity and secure access to global markets. It involved twinning the original pipeline from Edmonton, Alberta, to Burnaby, British Columbia, nearly tripling its capacity and enabling more crude oil exports to Asia and other overseas destinations.
📌 Key Details of the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX)
Route: Runs from Edmonton, Alberta, to the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, BC.
Expansion: Added a second pipeline alongside the original, boosting capacity from ~300,000 barrels/day to 890,000 barrels/day.
Purpose:
Diversify Canada’s oil export markets beyond the United States.
Provide direct access to tidewater ports for overseas shipping.
Increase revenues for producers and governments by reducing reliance on U.S. refineries.
Ownership:
Originally owned by Kinder Morgan.
Purchased by the Government of Canada in 2018 to ensure completion after investor uncertainty.
Operations: Began commercial service in May 2024, now averaging ~82% utilization.
Economic Impact:
Increased western Canadian crude export capacity by 13%.
Expanded tidewater export capacity by ~700% compared to pre-expansion levels.
Seen as a “strategic Canadian asset” for trade diversification.
⚖️ Political & Environmental Context
Controversy: The project faced strong opposition from environmental groups, Indigenous communities, and the BC government (at least initially). Concerns centered on oil spills, tanker traffic, and climate change.
Support: Advocates argued it was essential for Canada’s economic resilience, especially given U.S. trade tensions and tariffs.
BC’s Position: Recently, BC reversed its opposition and now supports optimizing Trans Mountain capacity rather than building entirely new pipelines.
✅ In short: The Trans Mountain proposal was about twinning the existing pipeline to dramatically expand Canada’s oil export capacity, reduce dependence on the U.S., and strengthen Canada’s position in global energy markets, despite years of political and environmental battles.
Would you like me to compare Trans Mountain’s expansion with the new Alberta–Ottawa pipeline proposal you were reading about, so you can see how they differ in scope, politics, and economics?
Yes...
The Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) and the new Alberta–Ottawa pipeline proposal are similar in ambition but differ in scope, politics, and timing. TMX was about twinning an existing line to triple capacity, while the Alberta–Ottawa deal envisions an entirely new pipeline designated as a “national interest project” with broader political trade‑offs.
🛢️ Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX)
Route & Capacity: Edmonton, Alberta → Burnaby, BC. Expanded from ~300,000 barrels/day to 890,000 barrels/day.
Ownership: Bought by the federal government in 2018 after Kinder Morgan withdrew. Ottawa funded completion, but intends to divest eventually.
Operations: Began service in May 2024, now running at ~80% utilization.
Purpose:
Diversify exports beyond the U.S.
Provide tidewater access for overseas markets.
Ease bottlenecks in Western Canadian crude transport.
Politics:
Fierce opposition from BC and Indigenous groups during construction.
Ottawa justified purchase as “in the national interest.”
BC has recently shifted, now supporting optimization of TMX capacity rather than building new pipelines.
⚖️ Alberta–Ottawa Pipeline Deal (2025)
Scope: A new bitumen pipeline carrying up to one million barrels/day to the BC coast.
Designation: Declared a “project of national interest” under the Building Canada Act, allowing expedited review.
Trade‑offs:
Ottawa drops the proposed oil & gas emissions cap and exempts Alberta from clean electricity rules.
Alberta agrees to stricter industrial carbon pricing with long‑term enforcement.
Contingencies: Pipeline tied to the Pathways carbon capture project — both must advance together.
BC’s Role:
Consultation required because the pipeline terminates on BC’s coast.
May involve adjusting the federal tanker ban.
Indigenous equity participation and accommodation are central to legitimacy.
Politics:
Seen as Carney’s bid to capture centrist ground in Canadian politics.
Sparked controversy, including the resignation of Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.
✅ In short: TMX was about expanding an existing pipeline to secure market access, while the Alberta–Ottawa deal is a sweeping political bargain to build a new pipeline, reshape climate policy, and reposition Canada as a “global energy superpower.” BC’s consultation is unavoidable in both cases, but in the new deal it’s even more central because of tanker bans, Indigenous rights, and provincial jurisdiction.
Would you like me to map out BC’s negotiation leverage in this new deal — e.g., what Ottawa or Alberta might offer to bring BC onside?
* * *
* * *
My local MP - from the Bloc - sent out a scathing take-down of the project. Seems to me
this might be a good time for Quebec politicians to take it easy and... let the man cook!
No comments:
Post a Comment