Alberta's plan to curtail fuel shipments in order to jack up the B.C. pump price speaks for itself. But the debate that went into legislation setting the stage for that move gives the full flavour of the frustration and anger behind the threat.
It all led to brisk passage late Wednesday of the bill, with no dissent. Not only are the two main parties agreed, mainstream Alberta supports the idea. Even the industry surrendering a remarkable degree of control over its product is cautiously onside.
All this was before Attorney General David Eby warned the Notley government that B.C. would sue if Alberta tried to use the new powers. He refined that Thursday, saying legal actions could commence the moment it gets royal assent. Notley said it could kick in on 24 hours' notice, which gives an idea of how quickly the fight is escalating.
Here are some samples from the Alberta debate that show how degraded the relationship between the two provinces has become:
It was introduced with reference to B.C.'s "blatant hypocrisy" in approving a new aviation-fuel pipeline to Vancouver International Airport right through the city at the same it stalls the Trans Mountain expansion project. Energy Minister Margaret McQuaig-Boyd said B.C. was "profoundly, shockingly inconsistent."
The idea that opposing the pipeline means protecting the environment was repeatedly dismissed. The federal approval of the pipeline is the sop to Alberta to get the province onside in the national climate strategy.
"There is no meaningful progress on addressing climate change in Canada without Alberta's participation," said one MLA.
So the cap on oilsands emissions, cuts to methane emissions, phase-out of coal and participation in the carbon tax plan depend on getting the benefits of the pipeline.
Another member said the province's fight isn't with B.C. citizens, but with NDP mayors, Premier John Horgan, federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and the U.S. "sugar daddies" who are funding environmental opposition.
"It is unconscionable that a province would thumb its nose at the federal government and its neighbours over a matter which is exclusively federal jurisdiction."
An unintended side-effect of "turning off the taps" to B.C. also prompted some avid speculation.
It could also mean turning off the taps to U.S. refineries, which the existing pipeline also supplies. Washington state would become an "injured bystander," which could trigger action under NAFTA.
"When provinces cause NAFTA disputes, it's Ottawa who has to pay the bill... not the provinces. We are to make sure that the federal government pays that," said one Alberta MLA.
The prospect of Ottawa being forced to pay hundreds of millions in compensation because it refused to invoke its full powers to push the pipeline through was described as "poetic justice."
Opposition Leader Jason Kenney told the house that if B.C.'s NDP starts a trade war, Alberta must end it. He said the "peak oil" concept is nonsense, as more is being used than ever before, and the only question is where it will come from. Anti-pipeline people seem to think they can feel virtuous, he said, while Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, Venezuela and Russia "profit from our stupidity."
"There is no virtue in allowing the world's worst regimes to monopolize growing global demand. "
He said if B.C. violates the Constitution and upends the economic union of Canada, there will be consequences.
Another MLA made the strategy clear.
"Perhaps if we turned off the taps, it wouldn't be $1.70 a litre. It would be $2.50 or $3.50 a litre, and perhaps ordinary, hard-working British Columbians would call their NDP MLAs and say: 'What have you done to our economy... our standard of living?'"
Just So You Know: Much of the rhetoric came from Alberta NDP MLAs, which drives home the other point. The idea that the NDP is one unified party with provincial wings is becoming a hollow, bitter joke.
