Sandra Sebree

Of course it would not be in the commercial interests of the federal government to suspend shipments on Trans Mountain (TM.) But that’s not the point. The point is that in a worse case scenario, such as an Alberta unilateral declaration of independence (UDI,) Canada would have enormous leverage, including the ability to block Alberta energy exports. This is most obviously the case re: federally-owned TM. Apart from their ability to reduce or stop shipments, do you really think the federal or BC governments would continue to advance Trans Mountain optimization, which is currently the best bet that we have for increased egress? Do you really think the federal government would maintain its MOU commitment to support the construction of a de novo West Coast pipeline? Even if it wanted to, federal paramountcy over interprovincial pipelines, grounded in 92(10)(a) would cease to exist following secession, so BC governments could find ways to block operation or construction of pipelines going through their territory, with Alberta having no recourse to Ottawa. Currently all of our pipelines exports to the US pass through other Canadian provinces first. That includes the incomplete KXL route, which passes through Saskatchewan. Since the Republic of Alberta would be starting without an equivalent to the 1977 Canada-U.S. Transit Pipelines Treaty, Ottawa could also suspend the operation of those other pipelines, e.g. the Enbridge Mainline. Canada and BC could also extract further concessions (eg tolls or tariffs) in order to allow Alberta natural gas to feed into the growing number of West Coast LNG terminals. Separatists respond to these realities by saying “don’t worry - we’ll build pipelines to the US and export from there!” First of all, who is “we?” What companies are going to risk tens of $ billions to spend years building a new system of pipelines in the midst of such massive political and legal uncertainty, including the risk of a Biden style abrogation of pipeline permits by the US? Secondly, the separatists seem completely unaware that the left wing US West Coast governments have effectively blocked the export of carbon intensive fuels from their ports. That’s why US produced thermal coal is exported from the Port of Vancouver, BC. Strange but true: Canada’s West Coast ports are far friendlier to hydro carbon exports than West Coast US ports! All of this (and much more) effectively gives Ottawa the clear upper hand in prospective negotiations over everything, e.g.: -debt allocation; - valuation & sale of federal assets (such as military bases, RCMP facilities, federal lands, including airports, etc.;) - allocation of CPP assets; - continuation of OAS / GIS benefits; - termination of citizenship; - visa and work permit exemptions for Albertans travelling to Canada; - export access to the Canadian market; - partition of Alberta per the predictable demands of democratic majorities in Edmonton, Calgary, Indian Reserves & elsewhere;) - support for or blockage of Alberta’s accession to critical international bodies & treaties, like CUSMA, or IATA to allow for international flights, etc.; and - countless other issues. I agree that exercising its massive leverage in such a scenario would be damaging to Canada. But it would be far more damaging to Alberta. Whatever grievances Albertans have with Ottawa cannot be remedied by becoming a landlocked statelet. The vast majority of Albertans know this. It is beyond absurd that we are going to spend the next several months, and possibly years to come, arguing endlessly over this.

Shutting down TMX is a point I've heard before and it's a stretch. Give up the tolls? Abandon stock for BC refineries? Vancouver is the countries largest port and Prince Rupert is Canada's sixth largest port with goods that need to cross Alberta. And Manitoba and Saskatchewan have to get grain and potash out. BC would be isolated if a deal wasn't reached. That's a point that has never landed with me. The interests to make a deal would be reciprocal.

Iran says it will not toll ships in the Strait of Hormuz, instead charging fees for “environmental protection.” -IRNA