Alberta’s Bill 12, that would give its energy minister the power to declare what can go in the pipelines that leaves the province, is almost certainly unconstitutional (and I think they’re being too cute by half in saying that it’s not because it doesn’t target BC specifically). It’s way overbroad in terms of the powers it gives the minister, and even if it somehow manages to pass constitutional muster, you can imagine that it would certainly be struck down by the courts for the sheer scope of how arbitrary it is. And in case you think that the pressure tactics of raising gas prices in BC are sound, it’ll likely do more damage to their own producers and refineries, whose supplies and production they are curtailing. So bravo for thinking that cutting off your nose to spite your face is good public policy, guys.
I'm pretty sure the only things this bill would do are 1) set a dangerous precedent 2) fail to pass any challenge before the NEB 3) cause chaos for Alberta shippers, refiners, traders, etc. in the interim https://t.co/PlWq7U8Vij
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) April 16, 2018
And, there are also some things which have always been under provincial jurisdiction: provinces can restrict total exports for provincial purposes (see, Hydro Quebec Heritage Pool), but they can't restrict destinations under any interpretation of that law which I've seen.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) April 16, 2018
If you're arguing that a prov can't/should not be able to introduce arbitrary legislation which violates fed jurisdiction over interprov trade and infrastructure, maybe don't do it yourself and put yourself in the position of arguing that a prov can and should be able to do so.
— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) April 16, 2018
Fun Trade Fact: in general, export restrictions will lower the price received by producers in the exporting region. That's bad.
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 16, 2018
So this is… broad. Any lawyers out there want to weigh in on the legality of using this in a way that targets a specific destination market? https://t.co/8xiKmLUtP2 pic.twitter.com/jBYJ26Nk0q
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 16, 2018
While arbitrary and potentially illegal export restrictions is concerning, it's a policy the opposition wants too. Industry is also oddly silent on the issue. I'm puzzled how we got here.
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 16, 2018
Whoops. pic.twitter.com/BPpvsV42Jf
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 16, 2018
Or products that only go to BC. Interesting question what would or wouldn't be a violation of the constitutional requirements here. https://t.co/tfce2hjwPi
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 17, 2018
Export restrictions will be required whenever the Minister says so. And can be withheld for any reason the Minister wants. That is… concerning.
— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) April 16, 2018
The premier of Saskatchewan, Scott Moe, says that he’s going to pass his own version to back up Alberta in their fight. Because that’s helpful. BC, meanwhile, says that because the bill is blatantly unconstitutional, it’s likely just a political bluff – but if it’s not, they’ll sue Alberta for it, as well they should. Alberta’s minister insists that it’s no bluff. So here we are, with few grown-ups in the room apparently, because they’re lighting their hair on fire to do something, anything, now, now, nowrather than coming up with a measured and reasoned response to the situation. And then there’s Michelle Rempel’s take. Oi.
NDP Bill 12 is the same type of policy that Hugo Chavez uses to control natural resources in Venezuela. We do not want a socialist having consolidated power to control Alberta’s natural resources. She’s doing it because of Trudeau. Think about that for a second.
— Michelle Rempel Garner (@MichelleRempel) April 17, 2018