Home Page Election 2019 News Opinion Foreign Policy Politics Policy Legislation Lobbying Hill Life & People Hill Climbers Heard On The Hill Calendar Archives Classifieds
Hill Times Events Inside Ottawa Directory Hill Times Store Hill Times Careers The Wire Report The Lobby Monitor Parliament Now
Subscribe Free Trial Reuse & Permissions Advertising FAQ
Log In
Global

The myths about Energy East, just to clear the air

By Susan Riley      

We shouldn’t let the issue fade without hacking away the false claims and apocalyptic predictions surrounding the massive, now doomed, infrastructure project.

There are conflicting guesses about how long the oilsands will be viable. Suncor’s CEO suggests 100 years, Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, pictured, says 30 to 40. But once decarbonization takes hold (as it is, in Europe and China and California) the change could come quickly. Energy East will be remembered, if it is remembered at all, as the last twitch of a declining industry.  The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade
GATINEAU, QUE.—The decision by TransCanada to mothball its proposed Energy East pipeline some days ago risks becoming flotsam in the all-consuming whirl of daily news—from Harvey Weinstein, to Donald Trump’s threats to dump NAFTA, to second-hand Australian jets. But we shouldn’t let the issue fade without hacking away the false claims and apocalyptic predictions surrounding the massive, now doomed, infrastructure project.
1. False claim No. 1: the cancellation is entirely Justin Trudeau’s fault. 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The argument would have more salience if Trudeau hadn’t—as he points out—approved two major energy pipelines in his two years in office, compared to zero for the Harper government. The Hill Times photograph by Andrew Meade

This interpretation has been most stridently embraced, unsurprisingly, by Andrew Scheer’s federal Conservatives and Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall. They accuse Trudeau, in so many words, of being hostile to Western Canada and the oil industry, and draw lazy comparisons to his father’s National Energy Policy of the 1980s (different world, different ambitions).
The argument would have more salience if Trudeau hadn’t—as he points out—approved two major energy pipelines in his two years in office, compared to zero for the Harper government. It also runs counter to the prime minister’s, and Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr’s, frequently stated enthusiasm for getting Alberta’s oil to China and beyond—in an environmentally responsible way, of course, as if there was an environmentally responsible way to crank up, or extend, production in the oilsands.
That said, many Liberals are probably relieved that Energy East didn’t proceed, given the opposition it aroused in Quebec where the party holds 40 seats. But to suggest they undermined the project by imposing more rigorous emissions requirements, at the last minute, disregards the awesome fury of Montreal mayor Denis Coderre and many other municipal leaders. Not to mention TransCanada’s arrogance when it first tried to sell the project to a skeptical province. (Providing English-only documents is never a good idea.) Energy East was never going to be accepted by Quebecers.
2. TransCanada and its champions have also suggested those extra conditions, imposed by the National Energy Board—allegedly acting as puppets, for anti-oil Trudeau—sabotaged the project as much, if not more, than market conditions. 
No, the NEB was finally doing what it is supposed to be doing: acting in the Canadian interest, instead of running interference for the oil industry, which has long been its role. It has never once turned down a major pipeline/fossil fuel project. It attaches conditions, but its main concern has been protecting the industry from mounting protests from environmentalists, Indigenous people and local politicians.
That started to change under Trudeau’s watch, with the appointment of new board members with new responsibilities, including assessing the broader environmental consequences of major projects—not just emissions resulting from construction, but emissions generated by future consumption of all that oil.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer accuses Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in so many words, of being hostile to Western Canada and the oil industry, and draws lazy comparisons to his father’s National Energy Policy of the 1980s (different world, different ambitions). The Hill Times file photograph

Rising emissions are the inescapable consequence of burning oil—a fact TransCanada would rather not focus on. And, if Canada is remotely serious about meeting its Paris targets, we have to start measuring more rigorously, and curtailing the growth, of emissions. As to TransCanada’s complaint that other recent projects have not been subjected to the same demanding standard, the unintended question is—why not? How much more greenhouse gas will the controversial Kinder Morgan project, intended to transport Alberta bitumen to China via Vancouver harbour, add to global totals?

3. The claim that TransCanada was the victim of an industry-hating, Quebec-dominated government downplays the reality that this was a doomed business proposition almost from the start. 

Politics This Morning

Get the latest news from The Hill Times

Politics This Morning


Your email has been added. An email has been sent to your address, please click the link inside of it to confirm your subscription.

No consensus on adoption of remote House voting, but parties agree legislative scrutiny necessary, says Samara report

News|By Beatrice Paez
As parties attempt to hash out a workable sitting plan, House administration has been working behind the scenes to test the voting app for potential glitches. 

PM should create permanent emergency preparedness cabinet committee, say experts, political players: be ‘prepared for the next natural disaster, terrorist act or health crisis is the objective’

News|By Mike Lapointe
A former national security adviser to the prime minister says 'if this country wants the national security agencies to worry about a pandemic, then they need to raise it on the list of priorities set by cabinet.'

‘These jobs are not coming back’: economists pour cold water on O’Toole‘s Canada First policy

‘Some people are going to win from a Canada-first policy. Most people are going to lose,’ says Queen’s professor Ian Keay.

Liberal tilt to the left could have electoral consequences for NDP, say pollsters

News|By Abbas Rana
The Liberals should be careful about the ‘recoil effect’ as some of their supporters could back away if they vacate the political centre, says pollster Nik Nanos.

Old and new priorities compete for space in Liberals’ fall agenda

Talk of pharmacare, childcare and clean energy is nothing new, but a re-surging pandemic could sideline everything else.

‘Ping-pong’ gun politics continue to divide voters, as O’Toole courts GTA seats

'I think it’s going to help some of the Conservative candidates in some of those swing ridings,' says Ontario Tory MP Alex Ruff of the Liberal ban on 'assault weapons.'

Recovery measures for ‘national safety net’ should be in place before any talk of election, says Singh

News|By Palak Mangat
Bloc Québécois Leader tested positive for the virus and is in isolation until Sept. 26, which means he will be missing the Throne Speech.

‘Disheartening’ report on child well-being places urgency on creation of commissioner, say experts

News|By Palak Mangat
'We know this generation will be paying the debt that's incurred in the pandemic for a long time, so Canada needs to look at things we’ve been calling for for a long time now,' says Lisa Wolff of UNICEF.

‘Like a criminal’: Canada-U.S. asylum agreement has a human cost, refugee says

The U.S. 'is not a safe country for refugees,’ says a woman who Canada turned away because she entered the U.S. first. Her case helped convince a Federal Court judge the SCTA should end, a ruling the feds are appealing.
Your group subscription includes premium access to Politics This Morning briefing.