Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Tim Hodgson in Montreal on Oct. 3.Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press
Someone should really take Tim Hodgson aside for a moment and fill him in on the existence of something called “the federal government.” Mr. Hodgson, the Energy and Natural Resources Minister, was questioned in the Senate last week about Alberta’s push for a pipeline to the west coast of Canada.
In his response, Mr. Hodgson essentially said – that’s an Alberta problem.
“What we have said is to build you need support of the jurisdiction you build through, and you need the support of First Nations. The proponent, in this case the province of Alberta, needs to attract that if they want to build,” he said. “That’s something between the province of Alberta and the province of British Columbia. We’ve said we will be a constructive participant in that three-way discussion. The province of Alberta has some work to do.”
Mr. Hodgson’s verbal amblings may simply be the freelance effort of a novice minister. But he has (perhaps inadvertently) brushed aside the studied ambiguity of the Carney government on who will have the last word on the question of another pipeline to the Pacific Coast.
True, Prime Minister Mark Carney did say, on the same day as Mr. Hodgson’s Senate appearance, that a new pipeline to the West Coast could meet Ottawa’s definition of a “nation-building project.” And Mr. Carney has said that he can “help to create a consensus” for projects such as a pipeline.
But what happens in the absence of such a consensus? Will the federal Liberals allow the matter to be decided by British Columbia Premier David Eby, or the leaders of any number of Indigenous communities along the path of a potential pipeline and tanker-shipping route?
The constitution is clear, as Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre pointed out: the federal government has the “sole power” to decide whether an interprovincial pipeline should proceed. Mr. Poilievre is being a tad simplistic (there is, for instance, a constitutional obligation to consult and accommodate Indigenous communities) but his basic point is sound, namely that Ottawa has all the authority it needs.
With that authority comes responsibility, a point that appears to elude Mr. Hodgson. The federal government is not merely a “constructive participant,” a stakeholder or a bystander in the matter of a pipeline. It is the decision maker.
The Carney government has recognized, or at least says it has recognized, that lessening Canada’s economic dependence on the United States is an overarching imperative in a world in which the U.S. President is willing to use tariffs as a political cudgel.
It will not be easy to build up other export markets to reduce that vulnerability; there is a natural gravitational pull exerted by the enormous market of the United States. But oil shipments are an exception: the Trans Mountain pipeline has already generated billions of dollars in added value by giving Alberta producers the ability to sell at prevailing global prices, rather than at a steep discount to U.S. refiners.
The Decibel: How a new pipeline could test Canadian unity
A second pipeline, though years distant, would have a similar marked impact.
Instead, the Liberals appear to be contemplating increasing Canadian dependence on the United States by giving a green light to a resurrected Keystone pipeline southward. Mr. Hodgson tried to justify such a move in his comments to the Senate by saying Canadian producers might be able to ship from the U.S. Gulf Coast through a revived Keystone. If it were that easy, there would be no price differential today for Alberta’s oil patch to worry about.
Consensus is an important goal in building new export capacity for Canadian oil. In an ideal world, Mr. Eby would recognize that Alberta’s prosperity is Canada’s prosperity, and is therefore in B.C.’s interest. In an ideal world, Indigenous communities will have their concerns heard and deals will be reached that reasonably accommodate those concerns, particularly by sharing in the fruits of economic expansion.
We do not, as yet, live in that world. Mr. Carney has said he is willing to put the muscle of the Prime Minister’s Office into achieving that consensus. That is a welcome sentiment (and one that perhaps should be made clear to his natural resources minister.)
But if that consensus cannot be achieved, then it falls to the federal government, not the province of Alberta, to safeguard the national interest. Ottawa has some work to do.