What powers does a Premier have to get a pipeline built?

[sns2]

Another thread got me wondering what powers a premier actually has that could be used to bring pressure to bear in hopes of getting a pipeline built? This is an honest question about our gov't structure, as opposed to politics. By all means chime in, but do not mention names or parties. I am not interested in individual politicians, but I am interested in learning strategies a provincial premier has at their disposal.

[Twisted Canuck]

Short answer...none. At best they could bring a constitutional challenge if they feel interprovincial trade is being blocked, or tariffs applied. But they can't do much about a regulatory approval process that legally involves first nations consultation, and environmental assessments. Anything they say for the press, is posturing and pandering for votes. That's my take on it.

Sad but true. It's one big game of Head, Butt, & Tail, and Alberta is the Butt...

[Don Andersen]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Short answer...none. At best they could bring a constitutional challenge if they feel interprovincial trade is being blocked, or tariffs applied. But they can't do much about a regulatory approval process that legally involves first nations consultation, and environmental assessments. Anything they say for the press, is posturing and pandering for votes. That's my take on it.

Sad but true. It's one big game of Head, Butt, & Tail, and Alberta is the Butt...

Thank you for the truth. I understand the frustration but realize the law is the only solution.

Don

[elkhunter11]

To get a pipeline built, very little, but to stop or delay a pipeline, they have a great deal of influence, as we have witnessed first hand. And we have also seen how easy it is to pretend to support a pipeline, while actually doing your best to make sure it doesn't get built.

[ReconWilly]

Syria was destroyed over a pipeline...

Canadian Provincial Premiere's are nobodies, simple lackeys towing the line.

[sns2]

Originally Posted by ReconWilly

Syria was destroyed over a pipeline...

Canadian Provincial Premiere's are nobodies, simple lackeys towing the line.

Please explain in full.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Short answer...none. At best they could bring a constitutional challenge if they feel interprovincial trade is being blocked, or tariffs applied. But they can't do much about a regulatory approval process that legally involves first nations consultation, and environmental assessments. Anything they say for the press, is posturing and pandering for votes. That's my take on it.

Sad but true. It's one big game of Head, Butt, & Tail, and Alberta is the Butt...

Pretty much sums it up for a Preimer.

A Prime Minister however has the authority to push a pipeline through no matter what. But he would have to want to exercise this power.

BW

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

Pretty much sums it up for a Preimer.

A Prime Minister however has the authority to push a pipeline through no matter what. But he would have to want to exercise this power.

BW

He really wanted to, but he got distracted trying to get SNC off the hook for actually being 'dirty'....

[roper1]

Too young to remember exactly, but I believe we had a premier take on the NEP, he did not blink, stuck to his principles, sued the feds, stood up for AB & had an amicable resolution before it ever went to court?

The current edition had their chance, and didn't follow through.

[amosfella]

The only power legally to force would be through the federal courts. Although they could possibly use the notwithstanding clause on federal programs such as equalization till it was pushed through. But that's more of a standoff situation.

The only other power would be to start pushing separation. In our case, I think that would be the only thing that would catch the attention of those in power that are able to move the projects ahead.

However, that convoy going to Rottawa would possibly get a lot more done by parking every exit road to Rottawa full of big rigs till the city grinds to a halt for a week. Show them what a world without fossil fuels looks like.

[CaberTosser]

Isn't there that option about shutting off the valves on the pipeline currently delivering their oil? See how much they really don't like pipelines after that.

A lot of BC is quite oblivious to why they need a second pipeline, much of it is for their own benefit and energy security rather than purely for export, although there would be a significant export capacity too of course. Its always nice to have some redundancy in critical supply chains, currently they have none whatsoever. The current pipeline is running at capacity and the same could be said for oil capacity by rail with the current rail fleet and experienced staff. With the current backlog of shipping grain I've heard of this isn't a new thing. At any rate, with the current pipeline being such a lifeline to the lower mainland and beyond, it would be a massive deal if it were to be throttled back.

The link below have some excellent information and links to their sources:


https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/0...ipeline-myths/

https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/0...project-fails/

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by roper1

Too young to remember exactly, but I believe we had a premier take on the NEP, he did not blink, stuck to his principles, sued the feds, stood up for AB & had an amicable resolution before it ever went to court?

The current edition had their chance, and didn't follow through.

Here you go

https://www.cbc.ca/alberta/features/tories40/nep.html

BW

[roper1]

Originally Posted by Bigwoodsman

Here you go

https://www.cbc.ca/alberta/features/tories40/nep.html

BW

Ahh, thanks! Wine, lumber, oil, nat gas, access, etc., no one took her seriously. Referenced premier took a chance that the courts would back him, the current edition paid lip service. I believe a lot of Albertans would be comfortable with the threat of fines & legal action from another province to force a compromise.

[3blade]

The notwithstanding clause is pretty much the only “legal” option within the current framework. But it could be used to cut a wide swath through a lot of important issues. The thing is, once you start down that road you have to be absolutly committed and things might get a whole lot worse before they get better. There would be severe retaliation and our economy relies on trade. No doubt there would be unintended consequences as well.

The other options are all begun by punting the Royal Jackboots and banning them from our territory, and then the sky’s the limit because “legal” is no longer enforced by Ottawa.

We are very much in the midst of an interesting time, given recent election results, ongoing fights between different levels of government, and a significant and growing tax burden. If I was to guess, the string pullers might allow for a changing of the guard this fall to keep the gravy train flowing east.

[Sashi]

They can admit the pipelines may be a hazard. Then shut them down till they are tested and proven safe. This could take months or years depending on how the opposition is.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by 3blade

The notwithstanding clause is pretty much the only “legal” option within the current framework. But it could be used to cut a wide swath through a lot of important issues. The thing is, once you start down that road you have to be absolutly committed and things might get a whole lot worse before they get better. There would be severe retaliation and our economy relies on trade. No doubt there would be unintended consequences as well.

The other options are all begun by punting the Royal Jackboots and banning them from our territory, and then the sky’s the limit because “legal” is no longer enforced by Ottawa.

We are very much in the midst of an interesting time, given recent election results, ongoing fights between different levels of government, and a significant and growing tax burden. If I was to guess, the string pullers might allow for a changing of the guard this fall to keep the gravy train flowing east.

And then you get a PM that thinks they’re above the law.

BW

[rmatei]

Until the Canadian constitution is rewritten to give back to the people the right for the majority to control this country's future our provincial premiers have less control that the 1.3 million indigenous people consisting of 600 bands that live on 3100 reserves on 3.5 million hectares of land. The majority must speak up and demand that Canada comes first. Short term we can play the games but in the end to eliminate constitutional challenges, the constitution must be dealt with.

[The Cook]

I believe if a premier can curtail production they can turn the tap down in this cold weather. Was it Peter Lougheed or King Ralph that coined the phrase " Let the Eastern B____rds freeze in the dark". More action as more words don't seem to be working. IMO

[ehrgeiz]

I think what’s really at stake is investor confidence. As Premier I would instruct the Alberta Energy Regulator to issue a pipeline license from origin right to the BC border on the basis of the National Energy Board participant involvement program. I assume that TMP already has PLA dispositions and ROW agreements for private land in AB.

An act of defiance to show that the economic prosperity of Canada won’t be held hostage by the vocal minority in a never ending regulatory labyrinth.

[Scott h]

Pretty much the only power she would have is to slow down product flowing through the current pipeline. As I understand it the pipeline carries different batches of product so maybe allow more bitumen through and less refined or locally usable product. Make it be known that the cause of it is the current BC government. The current political climate in BC is essentially 50:50 and raising gas prices or possible shortages would be very inconvenient for the governing party and would put a lot of local pressure on them if prices were to spike again.

[calgarychef]

Where does Vancouver airport get its jet fuel? Aren’t they building a pipeline from the coast to the airport so they can import jet fuel from somewhere else?
Now is the time to quit sending that stuff..not when their pipeline is built.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by calgarychef

Where does Vancouver airport get its jet fuel? Aren’t they building a pipeline from the coast to the airport so they can import jet fuel from somewhere else?
Now is the time to quit sending that stuff..not when their pipeline is built.

This entry is very good, I also like how the author issued a correction when he got better information, and he left in his error but crossed it out. This to me indicates a person whose motivation is facts and truth. He also waves the whole issue together in a fashion that is comprehensible and provides his sources. I'd hate to have to debate against this gent if we held differing perspectives on an issue:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/0...use-to-answer/

More goodness:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2015/0...o-is-to-blame/

[srs123]

Originally Posted by rmatei

Until the Canadian constitution is rewritten to give back to the people the right for the majority to control this country's future our provincial premiers have less control that the 1.3 million indigenous people consisting of 600 bands that live on 3100 reserves on 3.5 million hectares of land. The majority must speak up and demand that Canada comes first. Short term we can play the games but in the end to eliminate constitutional challenges, the constitution must be dealt with.

I wish I could share things I have seen and contracts I have heard about. Greed on all sides and lack of laws to enforce things without a clear frame of work. Watch as more companies pull out over this consultation thing.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by rmatei

Until the Canadian constitution is rewritten to give back to the people the right for the majority to control this country's future our provincial premiers have less control that the 1.3 million indigenous people consisting of 600 bands that live on 3100 reserves on 3.5 million hectares of land. The majority must speak up and demand that Canada comes first. Short term we can play the games but in the end to eliminate constitutional challenges, the constitution must be dealt with.

Canada doesn't have a constitution. It has an act of an imperial British Parliament that is used in place of a constitution.

There's a few interviews with Doug Force on youtube under the title 'the Myth Is Canada". Well worth a watch.

Here is one of Canada's SEC filings where they admit that Canada doesn't have a constitution. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...08476e18vk.htm

So, either we require an actual constitution with actual articles of confederation, or we require a separate countries.

[rmatei]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Canada doesn't have a constitution. It has an act of an imperial British Parliament that is used in place of a constitution.

There's a few interviews with Doug Force on youtube under the title 'the Myth Is Canada". Well worth a watch.

Here is one of Canada's SEC filings where they admit that Canada doesn't have a constitution. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...08476e18vk.htm

So, either we require an actual constitution with actual articles of confederation, or we require a separate countries.

In 1982 the Canada Act eliminated British authority over Canadian legislation. If we do not have one, by definition, then we need to create one. This is why we are constantly in argument with provinces, indigenous peoples, special interest groups and the legal system. Time to get the rules of law and this country's governance in order. Democracy requires that the majority rules.

[amosfella]

Originally Posted by rmatei

In 1982 the Canada Act eliminated British authority over Canadian legislation. If we do not have one, by definition, then we need to create one. This is why we are constantly in argument with provinces, indigenous peoples, special interest groups and the legal system. Time to get the rules of law and this country's governance in order. Democracy requires that the majority rules.

I'm well aware of the history of the Canada Act. A little bit of time reading up on what a Charter is might actually be of some use to you.

In reality, the Government of Canada is only a Chartered Corporation acting as a government.

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

This entry is very good, I also like how the author issued a correction when he got better information, and he left in his error but crossed it out. This to me indicates a person whose motivation is facts and truth. He also waves the whole issue together in a fashion that is comprehensible and provides his sources. I'd hate to have to debate against this gent if we held differing perspectives on an issue:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2018/0...use-to-answer/

More goodness:

https://achemistinlangley.net/2015/0...o-is-to-blame/

Thanks for pointing out this guys blog, it seems very well done and credible.

[Map Maker]

What if we all sent in our income tax with an I.O.U saying we promise to send in our money when he fulfills his promise of the tmx pipeline?

[chasingtail]

Immediately start collecting and withholding all Federal taxes (like Quebec does), use that extra 10-15 billion to build up a Military or Militia to prevent any Federal retaliation.

[dmac]

Originally Posted by chasingtail

Immediately start collecting and withholding all Federal taxes (like Quebec does), use that extra 10-15 billion to build up a Military or Militia to prevent any Federal retaliation.

bahahahahahahah! Thats a good one.