Turn off the taps


Mowich
Conservative
+1
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by Decapoda View Post

There actually are no taps to turn off. What the legislation does is essentially gives Alberta the authority to control what's flowing through the pipeline and in what volume. The pipelines are multi-use, they can ship crude, dilbit, or refined product depending on current need.

If someone wants to ship product through the pipe, the new legislation would require them to apply for a licence which Alberta Government would then decide if they will allow it. This would give them the ability to control the ratio and amounts of each product to be shipped. They could then decide it is in Alberta's best interest to ship more crude through the pipe, which would proportionally affect how much refined fuel could be shipped. This is exaggerated by the fact that when refined product is sent through the pipe, it must be "cleaned" on the other end before it can be used, due to the presence of other products being sent previously. The more crude is sent down the line, the more any refined product that follows must be cleaned, and therefore the more expensive it becomes at the pump.


Agreed, Dec. However, it will be challenged in the courts as it raises constitutional questions regarding provincial rights which is why I doubt that Kenney will actually enforce the bill.



"Does that mean Kenney could run into legal trouble?

Yes. There has already been one court case, from when the NDP was in power. In May 2018, the B.C. government filed a suit against the bill. But since it hadnít yet been proclaimed into law, a Calgary judge tossed it out in February 2019.

The minute the billís proclaimed, this could kick off again.

There are a few main legal issues the Alberta government will have to sort out if it wants to win in court.

First, Bill 12 relies on Section 92A(2) of the constitution. This is the part where provinces get the ability to regulate natural resources.

But itís not clear that this section gives Alberta the constitutional power to restrict shipments of refined fuels, according to an analysis by University of Calgary law professor Nigel Bankes that was published on the facultyís law blog. Crude oil, for example, is fine, but gasoline may not be.

Those fuels could fall under regulation of trade and commerce ó a federal power.

The second is another legal twist wherein a province isnít supposed to discriminate against specific provinces. The New Democrats say they were careful on this point, not to single out B.C. The United Conservatives have had no such qualms, which could weaken their legal position."


"At the end of the day, though, asking whether it would work or what the effect would be is missing the point of whether or not the whole thing is legal.

ďWeíre having a conversation about whether or not our horse trailers can get enough unicorns to Montana without addressing the fact that there arenít unicorns,Ē Leach said."

nationalpost.com/news/politics/so-this-turn-off-the-taps-thing-would-it-work
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Agreed, Dec. However, it will be challenged in the courts as it raises constitutional questions regarding provincial rights which is why I doubt that Kenney will actually enforce the bill.



"Does that mean Kenney could run into legal trouble?

Yes. There has already been one court case, from when the NDP was in power. In May 2018, the B.C. government filed a suit against the bill. But since it hadnít yet been proclaimed into law, a Calgary judge tossed it out in February 2019.

The minute the billís proclaimed, this could kick off again.

There are a few main legal issues the Alberta government will have to sort out if it wants to win in court.

First, Bill 12 relies on Section 92A(2) of the constitution. This is the part where provinces get the ability to regulate natural resources.

But itís not clear that this section gives Alberta the constitutional power to restrict shipments of refined fuels, according to an analysis by University of Calgary law professor Nigel Bankes that was published on the facultyís law blog. Crude oil, for example, is fine, but gasoline may not be.

Those fuels could fall under regulation of trade and commerce ó a federal power.

The second is another legal twist wherein a province isnít supposed to discriminate against specific provinces. The New Democrats say they were careful on this point, not to single out B.C. The United Conservatives have had no such qualms, which could weaken their legal position."


"At the end of the day, though, asking whether it would work or what the effect would be is missing the point of whether or not the whole thing is legal.

ďWeíre having a conversation about whether or not our horse trailers can get enough unicorns to Montana without addressing the fact that there arenít unicorns,Ē Leach said."

nationalpost.com/news/politics/so-this-turn-off-the-taps-thing-would-it-work

Same Act, but 92(10)C, could make both AB's Bill 12 & BC's also obstructing Inter Provincial Transport losing propositions, but that would mean that the Fed's would have to to their job "for the general Advantage of Canada" or "for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces" but these being Western Provinces it wouldn't be to the advantage of the Liberal Party of Canada. Trudeau would have had to find his balls and do his freak'n job but he might offend some minority or something, and a strong united Western Canada isn't to their advantage.
 
Durry
#33
Iím not sure that any province can be forced to supply another province with goods or services against its will ??
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#34
This is huge it just catapulted CNRL to Canada's largest Oil producer

Oilsands giant Canadian Natural inks $3.8 billion deal for Devon assets
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#35
NWT is open for all business, Wants Oil companies to start drilling bigtime contrary to PMJT and Climate Barbie

The N.W.T. premier has a sweeping vision for Canada’s North. Is he dreaming?