André Pratte: Guilbeault has it wrong, the MOU with Alberta is the right approach

According to a recent Abacus survey, only 42 per cent of Quebecers are in favour of building a new Alberta-BC oil pipeline as outlined by the MOU signed two weeks ago by the governments of Canada and Alberta. This is 13 points below the national average. Even in British Columbia, where one might expect the lowest support, 53 per cent of the respondents are favourable to the project. Why are Quebecers so unenthusiastic about this nation-building initiative? And why is opposition nearly as high in Quebec as is in BC (26 per cent vs 30 per cent), even though Quebec’s territory will not be affected in the slightest?

Reactions from Quebec politicians and commentators have been overwhelmingly negative. “Mark Carney has just made it clear that, whatever the cost, he will push through an unprecedented oil agenda,” said Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet, promising to “fight relentlessly against” the pipeline project.

“Mark Carney gives everything to Alberta while ignoring Quebec,” said Québecor columnist Philippe Léger, reminding his readers that “without Quebec, Mark Carney would never have realized his greatest ambition: becoming prime minister of Canada.”

This is essentially how the Ottawa-Edmonton deal was perceived in Quebec: that the prime minister capitulated to all of Alberta’s demands, chief among them a pipeline to the West Coast. Steven Guilbeault’s resignation from cabinet, and the many interviews he has given since, have only reinforced this impression. “A significant step backward in the fight against climate change, he wrote in La Presse. A fire sale rather than a grand bargain.”

I understand Guilbeault’s concerns, and I have much respect for what he tried to accomplish as a member of cabinet. Contrary to what many Canadians believe, he is a pragmatic idealist, not a radical environmentalist. However, I disagree with him on this issue. In a federation like Canada, the national government cannot simply impose its will on provinces in areas of shared or provincial jurisdiction. That is not how the country should function. Laurier’s “sunny ways” are always preferable, although sometimes too naïve.

Guilbeault’s approach would have imposed on Alberta an oil and gas emissions cap and clean electricity regulations. The goals are laudable; Alberta must indeed make a significant effort if Canada is to do its part in the global fight against climate change. But dictating policies to the province is the recipe for confrontation, not progress.

This is why seeking an agreement with Premier Danielle Smith was the right approach. A careful reading of the MOU shows that, contrary to the prevailing view in Quebec, the federal government did not abandon all its climate objectives. Yes, Ottawa commits to supporting a pipeline to Asian markets. But it also attaches conditions to the project:

•It must be approved under the Building Canada Act;
•It must provide opportunities for Indigenous co-ownership;
•It requires the construction of a major carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project, that would capture CO2 emissions from the oil sands and pump them 400 kilometres south to Cold Lake for deep underground storage.

It is also true that Canada has agreed not to implement the emissions cap and to “suspend” the clean electricity regulations. But in exchange, Alberta will ramp up the minimum effective price of carbon, from a market price of roughly $20 to $130 per tonne under its TIER emissions management system. This is a major shift that should push oil and gas and electricity producers to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Currently, 85 per cent of Alberta’s electricity is generated by coal and natural gas. The MOU encourages Alberta to develop nuclear capacity and to “significantly increase” transmission-line capacity among the western provinces, allowing Alberta to buy clean electricity from its neighbours.

Final agreements must be negotiated over the coming months on many aspects of the six-page text. These discussions will test the good faith of both parties. Is Canada really committed to allowing the construction of a new pipeline to the B.C. coast? Is Alberta truly prepared to significantly raise its carbon price within a reasonable period of time?

Guilbeault argues that, when it comes to fighting climate change, Premier Smith “is not a reliable partner.” He sees the recent weakening of the TIER program, adopted by the Government of Alberta a week after signing the MOU, as proof that his mistrust is justified. I prefer to place my confidence in both governments’ understanding that Canada’s sustainable prosperity requires that we at once develop our natural resources, honour our obligations towards the global climate effort and deliver on our commitments to Indigenous nations.

One thing is clear: in securing this agreement with Alberta, the prime minister has spent a significant part of his political capital in Quebec. “We did not vote for this,” many voters here are saying. While Steven Guilbeault has been everywhere explaining his side of the story, federal representatives have been largely absent. As the Montreal Canadiens are learning the hard way these days, you can’t win a hockey game if you surrender the ice to the other team.

National Post

A former journalist and senator, André Pratte now works for the strategic advisory firm Catalyze4.