Alberta legislation unconstitutional?

[Cactusflower]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4622482
Looks like Rachel's threats are going to come back and bite her in the .

[hobbyguy]

Actually, it has more likelihood of being constitutional than anything the village idiot George Heyman has flapped his yap about.

However, Pierre Trudeau did try out forcing oil producing provinces to provide oil to other provinces with NEP. That didn't work out so well, and I am not sure what the end legal result was, but it was a heck of mess, and sincerely doubt any federal government would be dumb enough to wade into that territory again. Pierre did it through price controls and limiting export permits, and was a disaster.

Regardless, if it came up, BC would have no standing.

If Alberta chooses to "leave it in the ground" (after all, isn't that what the green anarchist LEAPer Heyman wants?), BC has no right to force Alberta not to. Plus Saskatchewan has said they will lock step support Alberta.

Perhaps, the feds could intervene and try to force Alberta to supply BC, but I am sure that would happen only after a long court battle, and it would be a constitutional crisis in its own right. Meanwhile, BC would be without supply for up to two years... if the feds were dumb enough to try it. The political capital expended could be a decades doom for whatever federal party tried it. It also becomes problematic in that the tool of limiting exports would run smack into NAFTA... and that's not going to fly. Without that tool, Pierre's strategy would not work at all. So the odds of successful action by the feds would be about 1 in 50.

In context, with the BC NDP/LEAP taking unconstitutional and illegal action to have started the whole mess, challenging what is clearly federal authority in the first place, and really annoying both the Liberals and the Conservatives, there is absolutely no motivation to do anything at all that would help the village idiot Hyman and his LEAPing fools out. No chance whatsoever that federal NDP party with LEAPers on board is ever a significant political force again. The village idiot George Heyman has put the BC NDP/LEAP out at the end of branch, and has been sawing through it.

I'm afraid Alberta holds all the cards, and it looks like a royal flush in this case. Meanwhile the village idiot George Heyman has dealt Horgan a losing hand with a deuce of clubs, the 4,5,6 of hearts, and the 8 of diamonds.

[TreeGuy]

Saskatchewan is ganging up on us now too.

Western Provinces are battling it out and our PM is in Europe showing off his socks.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4148460/saskatchewan-premier-says-legislation-is-coming-to-block-energy-exports-to-b-c/

[The Green Barbarian]

Saskatchewan is ganging up on us now too.

I wouldn't call it "us". Most BC people are firmly on the side of Alberta and Sask. What these provinces are ganging up on a small minority of insanely stupid people who somehow found a way to usurp power in this province. If the BC Conservatives hadn't run a candidate in Comox this pipeline wouldn't even be news, other than a few nutbags being hauled off for trespassing.

[Jack DeBear]

Saskatchewan is ganging up on us now too.

Western Provinces are battling it out and our PM is in Europe showing off his socks.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4148460/saskatchewan-premier-says-legislation-is-coming-to-block-energy-exports-to-b-c/[/quote

As bad as Harper 'showing off' what he intended to do with the CPP while he was in Davos.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.1217398

As bad as Harper 'showing off' what he intended to do with the CPP while he was in Davos.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper- ... -1.1217398

And heeeers Jagmeet on using the courts (earlier):

[LordEd]

David Eby says it's unconstitutional for one province to use energy policy to punish another province, and B.C. is prepared to take legal action against Alberta.

It's illegal for a province to prevent export of a product? And what is bc trying to do again by stopping the pipeline?

[The Green Barbarian]

Looks like Rachel's threats are going to come back and bite her in the .

What it actually looks like is a ton of hypocrisy from the lunatic LEAP'ers and the brain-dead NDP.

[erinmore3775]

Just because the current BC Attorney General announces that "it's unconstitutional for one province to use energy policy to punish another province, and B.C. is prepared to take legal action against Alberta..." does not make it true. "The Alberta government introduced legislation that would allow for the restriction of oil, gasoline and natural gas leaving that province...The legislation does not mention B.C., but Alberta Premier Rachel Notley says it could be used to put pressure on the province if the B.C. government doesn't change its stance on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion."

Saskatchewan is also in the process of preparing similar "leave in in the ground" legislation. The Saskatchewan..." government said on Monday, in 2017 lack of access to international markets cost Saskatchewan's oil producers $2.6 billion. In addition, the province would have received another $210 million in taxes, royalties and other revenue.

As for lost revenue to Saskatchewan if it restricted exports to B.C., the latest numbers from Statistics Canada shows Saskatchewan traded more than $350 million of refined petroleum products to B.C."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/legislation-limiting-sask-energy-exports-bc-days-1.4622557

I wish to point out that over 30 years ago, "leave it in the ground legislation" crafted by Alberta lead to the development of our current NEP. At the time, saner heads produced a compromise that did not satisfy everyone. It is time for sanity to return. Its is time for discussions on a revised NEP. The federal government has jurisdiction over inter-provincial pipelines and transportation networks. However, it is now time to listen to the provinces and their desire to improve national environmental and transportation requirements and regulations.

It is BC that is making the unconstitutional moves. Yet that does not mean that their concerns lack merit. They just have to promote their environmental and safety concerns through the proper channels. Last Sunday's emergency summit was the ideal opportunity to negotiate these concerns. The leader of our current government failed to realize that opportunity. Instead he chose to play to his political base and ignore the wishes and desires of the majority of BC citizens. A second opportunity is just a phone call away. I hope the Premier and his government have the courage and the leadership to make that call.

[delSol97]

Don't know how it all works, but it's private companies that "own" the oil, not Alberta.

Her legislation makes it illegal for private companies to sell to BC retailers if she tells them not to.

Sounds like it falls under free commerce, anti-competitive type stuff that I am not knowledgeble about.

But sounds illegal to me in a free-market society.

[erinmore3775]

Just a small point of correction. In Canada, natural resources belong to the provincial and federal governments depending upon where they are located. Companies pay the total costs for their extraction and/or use. They pay a royality and taxes for that privilege.

You can begin your search for this legal arrangement with the following article.

http://www.history.alberta.ca/energyheritage/sands/underground-developments/energy-wars/resource-ownership.aspx
"...Prairie provinces came to an understanding that resulted in the transfer of ownership to the provinces. Charles Stewart, former premier of Alberta, participated in the process after joining the federal cabinet of William Lyon Mackenzie King as Minister of the Interior and Mines. In this capacity, on December 14, 1929, Stewart was present alongside King and Alberta premier J. E. Brownlee at the signing of the agreement whereby the federal government transferred control of Alberta’s natural resources to the provincial government.

(Bold for emphasis)

Therefore the provinces have control over the resources under the surface of their ground and they can control the amount extracted each day. They also had the power to control how much of a petroleum product passed through their borders each day.

[Cactusflower]

David Eby says it's unconstitutional for one province to use energy policy to punish another province, and B.C. is prepared to take legal action against Alberta.

It's illegal for a province to prevent export of a product? And what is bc trying to do again by stopping the pipeline?

Did you just drop in from the South Pole, or some other remote part of the globe where there is little to no media coverage?

[The Green Barbarian]

Did you just drop in from the South Pole, or some other remote part of the globe where there is little to no media coverage?

that's an insanely stupid and condescending answer to two extremely relevant questions.

[Cactusflower]

Just a small point of correction. In Canada, natural resources belong to the provincial and federal governments depending upon where they are located. Companies pay the total costs for their extraction and/or use. They pay a royality and taxes for that privilege.

You can begin your search for this legal arrangement with the following article.

http://www.history.alberta.ca/energyheritage/sands/underground-developments/energy-wars/resource-ownership.aspx
"...Prairie provinces came to an understanding that resulted in the transfer of ownership to the provinces. Charles Stewart, former premier of Alberta, participated in the process after joining the federal cabinet of William Lyon Mackenzie King as Minister of the Interior and Mines. In this capacity, on December 14, 1929, Stewart was present alongside King and Alberta premier J. E. Brownlee at the signing of the agreement whereby the federal government transferred control of Alberta’s natural resources to the provincial government.

(Bold for emphasis)

Therefore the provinces have control over the resources under the surface of their ground and they can control the amount extracted each day. They also had the power to control how much of a petroleum product passed through their borders each day.

All the more reason for multi-national oil corporations to pull out of AB and SK, and move to more profitable oil-producing countries.

[hobbyguy]

Just a small point of correction. In Canada, natural resources belong to the provincial and federal governments depending upon where they are located. Companies pay the total costs for their extraction and/or use. They pay a royality and taxes for that privilege.

You can begin your search for this legal arrangement with the following article.

http://www.history.alberta.ca/energyheritage/sands/underground-developments/energy-wars/resource-ownership.aspx
"...Prairie provinces came to an understanding that resulted in the transfer of ownership to the provinces. Charles Stewart, former premier of Alberta, participated in the process after joining the federal cabinet of William Lyon Mackenzie King as Minister of the Interior and Mines. In this capacity, on December 14, 1929, Stewart was present alongside King and Alberta premier J. E. Brownlee at the signing of the agreement whereby the federal government transferred control of Alberta’s natural resources to the provincial government.

(Bold for emphasis)

Therefore the provinces have control over the resources under the surface of their ground and they can control the amount extracted each day. They also had the power to control how much of a petroleum product passed through their borders each day.

Yup, just as you see that drilling/fracking for tight oil and gas in Georgia Straight won't happen, because the province owns the seabed, and the resource - but not the waterways as per SCOC decision.

[erinmore3775]

It's illegal for a province to prevent export of a product? And what is bc trying to do again by stopping the pipeline?

The The Natural Resources Transfer Agreement probably best answers the first question. It clearly indicates that resource ownership and the control or resource extraction and transport is under provincial control.

The second questions is probably best answered by the following:

The [BC] demands include:

-Ensuring enough emergency tow vessels in response to increased tanker traffic off the B.C. coast
-Specific plans to respond in the event of an environmental incident related to the pipeline
-Improvements to make the pipeline itself safer
-A compensation plan in the event of a spill causing the loss of public use of a marine environment
-Improved research into the behaviour and cleanup of spilled diluted bitumen
-Weaning marine coastal communities off diesel-fuelled electricity.
[Note: these communities are largely First Nation communities. Improverments to their electrical power grids would involve federal/provincial co-operation.]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/transmountain-evironmental-protections-1.4622913

All of these "demands" are reasonable and can easily be accomplished with federal/provincial discussions. The reason these demands were not publicly announced by the present provincial government is that they would lose political support. These "demands" indicate a reasoned approach to compromise. They fly in the face of the TMPLX protesters and the extreme supporters of the parties that form the current government. It will be interesting how the "leaking" of this information will affect the position, of the current, government on the pipeline.