Perhaps the line Saskatchewan governments should draw is that they should not participate in any threats to withhold oil – or any other commodity – from a fellow province.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has legitimate reasons to be more than a little unhappy with the politics the B.C. NDP government is playing in trying to block Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline.
But are his threats now followed by threatened legislation that would make it illegal to sell oil and petroleum products to B.C. really the best course of action?
[emember_protected for=”2″ custom_msg=’For more on this story, please see the Apr. 20 print edition of The Cross Roads.’]
Again, this is not to suggest the Moe/Saskatchewan frustrations aren’t real.
Sure it will be Alberta bitumen – not Saskatchewan oil – flowing through this pipeline.
And, yes, Moe’s opposition does sound suspiciously similar to his government’s criticism of the federal carbon tax. Bashing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals always makes good politics for Western politicians.
But that doesn’t mean criticism isn’t merited.
While the federal Liberals have approved the Trans Mountain pipeline, its wishy-washy dithering has caused Kinder Morgan to seriously consider abandoning the project.
The feds needed to send a forceful message to B.C. NDP Premier John Horgan and the Trans Mountain protestors. So far, Ottawa really hasn’t done that.
That said, those that argue this is politics or isn’t Saskatchewan’s fight are really missing things.
In landlocked Saskatchewan, getting commodities to tidewater is always an issue.
And the consistent position of the Sask. Party government is that when it comes to moving oil or gas, pipelines are clearly the best option.
This is why Moe and Brad Wall before him advocated for the Keystone XL that would move Saskatchewan oil to refineries in Louisiana and Texas. This is why Wall and government lobbied hard for the now-shuttered Energy East pipeline that would have moved western Canadian oil to refineries in Eastern Canada.
Energy East had the added elements of addressing issues of national unity and nation oil self-sufficiency. Really, is it better for Canadians east of the lake head to live off dirty oil imported from Saudi Arabia? And for environmentalists who urge us to look at the bigger picture of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to manmade global warming, what about the GHGs from Middle East oil that we cannot control?
Provinces must have a say over environmental considerations in their own jurisdiction. But if we truly to be a country from sea to sea to sea, it requires all Canadians must have the right to move their product to tidewater.
That’s why railways and pipelines are a federal jurisdiction and why the Moe and the Sask. Party needs to push the Trudeau government for resolution.
This feeds into a long-standing frustration of moving grain by rail. Having the tracks jammed up by oil tanker cars makes this situation worse … and are also a potential environmental disaster.
And then there is the ever-looming disasters like Lac-Megantic.
Also, the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) price (the price we get when our oil makes it to the Gulf Coast) is now about $5 US a barrel less than the Brent world price (which Saskatchewan could get if we moved oil west or east) this pipeline is a big issue.
But is cutting off B.C. people the answer?
Is it even legal? Is it practical, given that it’s all predicated on Alberta cutting off B.C. and Saskatchewan not back filling?
And is it ever philosophically appropriate for a conservative government that believes in commerce to say: We won’t trade with another province?
Herein lies Moe’s problem.
The sabre rattling sounds good. It may even come from a place of real frustration.
But it’s hard to argue that trade boycotts are ever the right or proper thing to do.
[/emember_protected] 
