25 Replies to “The BC hand-grenade”

  1. Foreign interests rejoice.
    LNG projects in BC has showed that Canada as a state is getting more and more dysfunctional. I am not sure it will last another 150 years.

  2. NO DOUBT IN MY MIND…
    If BC refuses to let the Pipelines to pass through their province, Alberta MUST respond in kind. NO NE BC gas or NGLs may flow through Alberta to market. This rush of BC Montney gas is killing Alberta, the loss of royalty revenue the people of Alberta face because all this BC gas is putting the Alberta gas lines to capacity is NO BUENO.
    Sadly, I don’t see Notley playing hardball like this 🙁

  3. Time for the pipeline to ( pick one)
    Churchill
    Valdez
    Dakotas
    Anywhere but BC or Quebec.
    When the greens are done YVR and YUL can be returned to mother Gaia. No planes for you!
    Canned cream o mushroom soup instead.

  4. This makes zero sense. You do understand that the companies in BC are virtually all headquartered in Calgary. Yeah, let’s punish Seven Generations and Tourmaline and make it even harder to do business in Western Canada. That will be great for Alberta…..

  5. This thing isn’t over yet folks. There’s a lot of precedent for not even allowing this coalition to form government. For one they don’t even call themselves a coalition. So it’s just “an agreement”. Ok so the NDP are outnumbered by the liberals by 2 seats and get to form government because the greens signed a pinky promise? I don’t think the crown will be swayed by that. If I were Christy Clark I’d phone the queen personally. No way the Queen of Canada would approve of this crap.

  6. I have said it before….VALDEZ has been previously (2014), floated, is viable and the Alaskans would love to see It happen…One wonders where and what the CEO’s of the big 4 were thinking that they could even negotiate or discuss energy policy with Eco Marxists (NDP, Green NGO’s & Gerald Butts).
    That group of Human Filth requires significant re-ducation as so famously spouted by one of their very own..

  7. Good point Xat. But in 2019 Kenney will be in power and hardball will happen. And not just pipelines. Imagine if Alberta set up customs booths at the Alberta/BC border and charged duties on people and goods travelling to or from BC? The justification could very well be the lost opportunity costs of BC not allowing tidewater access for Alberta product. BC needs Alberta to access the rest of Canada as much as Alberta needs to access BC’s tidewater. Holding Alberta’s source of prosperity hostage is an act of bad faith under the intent of confederation. If BC continues to do that then they should be treated the same way as a belligerent neighbouring country. Wars can be economic too.

  8. The most likely path would be Churchill, as it would go through Sask and MB (hopefully polls are wrong). The problem with Valdez is the path would be through the Yukon and NT, and I’m sure that whoever is funding the anti groups can make that into a giant mess. Dakotas could work, but then the problem is that we’re still just sending oil down to the US, and more diversification would be nice.

  9. “If I were Christy Clark I’d phone the queen personally.”
    The Queen’s authority basically extends to appointing the Governor General as recommended by the Prime Minister. The Governor General then appoints the Lieutenant Governor of B.C. as recommended by the Prime Minister.
    The Lieutenant Governor has no decision to make until the government is defeated in the legislature. Then her choice is give the NDP a try or call new elections. If the Premier asks for new elections, can she say no? She probably shouldn’t but it’s her call.
    The Liberals could get sneaky and delay meeting the Legislature as long as possible to select a new leader but Clark would have to resign and the Lieutenant Governor would have a real decision asto who to appoint as Premier.

  10. As a BC’er I would stand by Alberta shutting down access to the rest of Canada if Trans Mountain was nixed.
    At some point the dollars and cents of what this means to the country has to be explained in a way that all Canadians can understand. IMHO it is a national security issue.

  11. “The most likely path would be Churchill”
    What about the economics of a major line to Duluth, Minnesota or Thunder Bay, Ontario instead of a pipeline to New Brunswick? The tankers would have to fit through the locks and the greenies would go nuts. But the greenies are nuts. I wonder about the economics.

  12. I think they’ll delay the throne speech for starters. Let the greens and the ndp get antsy and start fighting. There will be cracks. The green caucus is 3 rank amateurs, one of which I know to be a complete goof from high school.

  13. That would be a good idea in principle, but the season in Duluth and Thunder Bay is very short as the ice on the lake gets to be a couple of meters thick in the winter. I worked on the grain elevators in Thunder Bay in the 70’s and all of the industry has been replaced with a huge park. Tearing that up for a pipeline would cause the eco-shriekers no end of angst. There is a large, vocal and powerful group of hippies and eco loons living in the city who would make life difficult.
    Duluth suffers from the same ice problem, and the last thing either port would want was an oil tanker getting a leak from the ice. Good idea though.

  14. How about a pipeline through Montana, Idaho, and Washington to Anacortes and every tanker load will go out to sea right in plan view of Victoria just like the 600,000 barrels per day that have gone into Anacortes from Valdez for the last 40 years. Then start cutting off the existing pipelines into BC from Alberta and watch the loonies go nuts. They might even dump their Tides Foundation Vancouver Mayor.

  15. “How about a pipeline through Montana, Idaho, and Washington to Anacortes”
    Washington is full of dirty Commies just like BC. Their morals only let them consume large quantities of oil without actually transporting it. Not sure how that works.
    From my reading, I think the only requirement is for the BC legislature to meet once a year. The federal government seems to set a date for the return of Parliament when the election is called but I couldn’t find anything on BC.

  16. CN was shipping oil by rail thru Proctor, just west of Duluth. Superior next door has a refinery.
    JT will either elbow or drop kick Horgan to get Kinder surprise.
    That or nice guy Scheer is the next PM.

  17. Except that the jurisdiction over pipelines would fall in the final analysis to the federal government vis a vis approval/denial
    From the BNA Act:
    92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say,

    10 Local Works and Undertakings OTHER THAN such as are of the following Classes,–
    A. Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and
    Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or
    extending beyond the Limits of the Province:
    B. Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country:
    C. Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their
    Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada
    or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces.
    Thus for all the constitutionally illiterate, Victoria can become as bellicose and blowhard as it wants, they won’t be able to stop the approved pipelines as they are constitutionally proscribed from having any final say on the matter.
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

  18. Could someone comment on the possibility of legal action wrt unreasonable restrictions on interprovincial barriers. Could Alberta sue for loss of revenue? any one knowledgeable on the constitution.

  19. Correct me if I’m wrong, but even if this “coaliton” is allowed to govern, wouldn’t it have to provide a speaker for the house who would then be bound by tradition to not simply vote like a partisan hack in the case of a tied vote? Sounds like a bloody nightmare. Probably the end of the BC Greens too, really. So myopic.

  20. Ha ha. Looks good on the socialists. Red Rachael suggested today that there is no way the pipeline will not be built. Sure bongo could force BC’s hand but that would be the move of a political fool (he qualifies). I think we should sit back and watch the dippers duke it out. Nothing like a bit of in fighting to help destroy themselves…..
    Christy Crook is probably done. No loss there.

  21. “Could someone comment on the possibility of legal action wrt unreasonable restrictions on interprovincial barriers. Could Alberta sue for loss of revenue? any one knowledgeable on the constitution.”
    There’s very little Alberta can do for the simple reason that, as a province, I only has jurisdiction over itself. And also, it could call into question any restrictions Alberta places on interprovincial trade itself.
    The FEDERAL government could easily do something since, as Hans Rupprecht notes above, it has the Constitutional POWER to level any such provincial obstructions.
    But don’t expect much tough love from our Dear Leader and the Children’s Crusade running Canada in this Age of Social Licence.

  22. Yes I am aware of that. ARC and Progressive are big up there too.
    But those are the risks you take when you drill in hostile Socialist territory.
    At some point Alberta needs to let BC know what the score is. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  23. Yeah it’s been fun to watch here. I mean the greens have basically ensured they will be destroyed next election. There were a bunch of fools who voted green to hold the liberals at a minority that won’t be making the same mistake again. The dipper voters that voted green will also jump off the unicorn fart train. Bottom line is I don’t expect this madness to last. In fact, I don’t even think this madness will start.

  24. Actually, provinces have no levers in regard to the federal jurisdiction of interprovincial and international pipelines. There is something called the doctrine of paramountcy which would essentially quash provincial attempts to do so. Furthermore, there is a little something called the tort of misfeasance in public office (which is sometimes also called the “abuse of power or abuse of authority”). The law says that the defendant must be shown to have one of two states of mind:
    (i) malice – conduct specifically intended to injure someone. This includes “bad faith” in the sense of exercising public powers for an improper
    or ulterior motive; or
    (ii) acting with subjective knowledge that he has no power to do the act complained of and subjective knowledge that the act will probably injure the plaintiff; or acting with subjective reckless indifference with respect to the illegality of the act and subjective reckless indifference to the outcome.
    It is absolutely CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Greens and the NDP have said it is their stated goal to stop the pipeline….so they have already set themselves up as HUGE targets.
    More can be found by looking up Roncarelli v. Duplessis

Navigation