In 1977, when the United States wanted to ship natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48, a deal was struck with Canada. It included a treaty that promised the free flow of hydrocarbons by pipeline from the U.S. to the U.S. – by way of Canada.
“It is clearly evident that by working together on this gigantic undertaking, both nations can derive benefits far outweighing those that either country could obtain by proceeding on its own,” said Allan MacEachen, then the deputy prime minister.
That gas pipeline was never built. The treaty was forgotten. But it may be about to come in handy, because 44 years later, Canada-U.S. pipeline politics have grown a lot less co-operative.
Americans burn the most oil of any country. They are laggards on climate policy. Yet it has become politically useful – and easy – for Democrats to burnish their green credentials by engaging in performative opposition to a few high-profile Canadian pipelines, even as they allow the U.S. oil industry and its pipeline network to expand.
First there was president Barack Obama, who vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline in 2015. President Joe Biden reaffirmed that on his first day in office. For Canada, these American moves are a big, costly problem even though, as climate policy, they are empty gestures. The U.S. this summer used as much petroleum as it ever has.
Enbridge’s Line 5, which helps move Alberta and Saskatchewan oil to Ontario and Quebec – by way of Michigan – is the latest Canadian pipe in political crosshairs. It includes a seven-kilometre section on the lakebed at the Straits of Mackinac. Line 5 found itself turned into a political issue after an oil spill in 2010 from another Enbridge pipeline in southern Michigan. Shutting Line 5 was among Gretchen Whitmer’s promises when she became Governor in 2018. It was an obvious target, since most of what it carries is simply moving from Canada to Canada.
The fight between Michigan and Enbridge ended up in court and, after mediation failed last month, Ottawa invoked the Transit Pipelines treaty – the one drawn up to ship Alaskan natural gas south. The treaty’s wording calls for “uninterrupted transmission” of oil or gas starting in one country and going to that same country while passing through the other.
The first step is diplomatic negotiation. Binding arbitration could follow. A win is not assured.
Canada’s national interest is once again snarled in the web of American politics. Blocking a planned pipeline such as Keystone XL was bad enough. Threatening to close a decades-old link that delivers a key supply of oil to Ontario and Quebec is much more hostile.
The Biden administration would prefer to ignore Ms. Whitmer’s gambit; a close ally of the President, she seeks re-election next year. For her, opposing Line 5 delivers political returns, with costs borne by Canada.
It’s true that the world is entering an energy transition to lower carbon emissions. But it’s called a transition for a reason: Neither Canada nor the U.S. is in a position to go cold turkey on fossil fuels. This month, the price for a barrel of oil has spiked toward US$80, as a recovering global economy meets constrained supply. Natural gas prices have had an even more rapid run-up. Both stoke inflation.
The fuels in Line 5, and in scores of other pipelines criss-crossing North America, will some day be a lot less important. But that day is in the future. Right now, Line 5 matters to the lives of millions of people, and to Canada’s economy.
If the pipeline were to be blocked, oil would still move from Western Canada, though by more circuitous routes, such as rail. Canada might also end up importing more oil from abroad – possibly from the U.S.
In Michigan, Ms. Whitmer has made her political calculation. She’s not trying to shut down her state’s only oil refinery, in Detroit. She’s not against the building of gas-guzzling F-150s at Ford’s Dearborn Truck Plant, nor is she aiming to raise the price Michiganders pay for gasoline. She’s simply making as much noise as possible about a pipeline whose closing would mostly affect people who are not her constituents.
All of which leaves Canada in a difficult place – having to rely on an old, dusty and never-used treaty to get Washington’s attention.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.
OTTAWA – Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the NDP is caving to political pressure from Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre when it comes to their stance on the consumer carbon price.
Trudeau says he believes Jagmeet Singh and the NDP care about the environment, but it’s “increasingly obvious” that they have “no idea” what to do about climate change.
On Thursday, Singh said the NDP is working on a plan that wouldn’t put the burden of fighting climate change on the backs of workers, but wouldn’t say if that plan would include a consumer carbon price.
Singh’s noncommittal position comes as the NDP tries to frame itself as a credible alternative to the Conservatives in the next federal election.
Poilievre responded to that by releasing a video, pointing out that the NDP has voted time and again in favour of the Liberals’ carbon price.
British Columbia Premier David Eby also changed his tune on Thursday, promising that a re-elected NDP government would scrap the long-standing carbon tax and shift the burden to “big polluters,” if the federal government dropped its requirements.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 13, 2024.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, minister responsible for consumer protection, has tabled a bill to force merchants to calculate tips based on the price before tax.
That means on a restaurant bill of $100, suggested tips would be calculated based on $100, not on $114.98 after provincial and federal sales taxes are added.
The bill would also increase the rebate offered to consumers when the price of an item at the cash register is higher than the shelf price, to $15 from $10.
And it would force grocery stores offering a discounted price for several items to clearly list the unit price as well.
Businesses would also have to indicate whether taxes will be added to the price of food products.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
Quebec legislature member Youri Chassin has announced he’s leaving the Coalition Avenir Québec government to sit as an Independent.
He announced the decision shortly after writing an open letter criticizing Premier François Legault’s government for abandoning its principles of smaller government.
In the letter published in Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec, Chassin accused the party of falling back on what he called the old formula of throwing money at problems instead of looking to do things differently.
Chassin says public services are more fragile than ever, despite rising spending that pushed the province to a record $11-billion deficit projected in the last budget.
He is the second CAQ member to leave the party in a little more than one week, after economy and energy minister Pierre Fitzgibbon announced Sept. 4 he would leave because he lost motivation to do his job.
Chassin says he has no intention of joining another party and will instead sit as an Independent until the end of his term.
He has represented the Saint-Jérôme riding since the CAQ rose to power in 2018, but has not served in cabinet.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 12, 2024.
