The premiers of Ontario and Quebec have thrown down the gauntlet. Before a proposed pipeline from Alberta to the Maritimes wins their approval, they insist, certain conditions must be met.
And their list is a long one. The effect on global warming must be studied. Greenhouse-gas emissions must be weighed. Transsa国际传媒, the company building the pipeline must consult with First Nations and communities along the route. The economic benefits to Ontario and Quebec must be demonstrated.
It鈥檚 hard to know how to take this. As a matter of law, provincial governments have neither the authority to grant nor to withhold permission in such circumstances.
The power to approve energy projects that cross provincial boundaries rests initially with the National Energy Board, and ultimately, with the federal cabinet. Like any other interested party, the provinces can appear before the NEB and offer their views. But that is as far as it goes.
Of course, it would be wise of Transsa国际传媒 to meet the premiers鈥� concerns, if that can be done. The company has promised to try.
However, there are matters of principle here that go far beyond the construction of a pipeline.
Ontario鈥檚 Kathleen Wynne and Quebec鈥檚 Philippe Couillard are behaving as if sa国际传媒 were a federation of near-sovereign principalities.
They鈥檙e not alone. sa国际传媒鈥檚 Christy Clark took a similar stance on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert. She threatened to block the project unless her demands were conceded.
These are dangerous ambitions. At a minimum, they invite reprisal. What would Couillard say if Alberta threatened to withhold its share of the $8 billion Quebec receives in equalization payments each year? Unconstitutional? Yes. But no more than Couillard鈥檚 attempted power-grab.
How would Wynne react if Alberta halted the sale of Ontario wines within its borders? Spiteful? Yes, but what complaint could she make?
And beyond the dangers of high-stakes brinkmanship, there is the day-to-day running of the country to consider. sa国际传媒 relies heavily on a vast network of collaborative agreements involving the various regions.
Suppose a resident of sa国际传媒 breaks his leg in Toronto. Ontario can send the hospital bill to Victoria and the bill will be paid, no questions asked.
Reciprocal arrangements like this 鈥� and there are hundreds, if not thousands of them 鈥� are part of our nation鈥檚 fabric.
But reciprocity is a two-way street. It depends upon compromise and good will. How much of that will remain if premiers start digging moats around their borders?
Precisely this danger was foreseen at the founding of our country. During the Quebec conference of 1864, which shaped our system of government, two competing visions were debated.
The prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, preferred a unitary approach, in which one central government would rule. He feared that over-strengthening the provinces would result in a U.S.-style scheme, in which each state is sovereign. Macdonald blamed that arrangement for the American Civil War.
In contrast, the representatives from Quebec and the Maritimes wanted the the provinces to have most of the power.
The compromise that emerged remains the law of our land. The federal government holds authority over matters that are national or interprovincial in scope. The provinces have responsibility for program delivery within their local jurisdictions.
Premiers who are inclined to unravel this fabric should cast their eyes southward. Across numerous measures of well-being, such as household income, life expectancy and literacy rates, there are much wider regional disparities in the U.S. than sa国际传媒. That is not an accident.
Our federation, for all its problems, has overcome the challenge of geography and climate to produce a generally equitable and decent society. Wynne, Couillard and Clark would do well to remember that.
