By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, October 9, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—The death of Energy East is a direct legacy of the Stephen Harper decade in office. Not only did the prime minister systematically refuse to bring premiers together, he had no interest in a new national project.

Harper was Canada’s energy superhero, and oil companies didn’t even have to leave Calgary to get support for their mega-projects.

With an oil patch superstar in the prime minister’s chair, National Energy Board approvals were a sure thing. There was talk that the existing weakened process would be limited in order to secure pipeline approval.

But that approach overlooked that fact that the pipeline crossed six provinces in the 4,500-kilometre journey from Alberta to New Brunswick. Each of those provinces might have something to contribute to the debate.

Energy East should have been a great national project. But if TransCanada Corporation wants someone to blame for last week’s cancellation, it need only look in the mirror. With billions of investment dollars at stake, the company should have started building broad pan-Canadian public support years ago.

It is not rocket science. It is straight politics.

Instead of believing the Harperites’ spin, the company should have been working the country, gaining political, labour and business support that crossed party and provincial boundaries. Instead, the company largely sat on its hands and its wallet, waiting for the federal government to move.

Quebec Inc. has its own homegrown energy behemoth in the shape of Hydro Quebec. Quebecers consider themselves to be purveyors of green, non-polluting hydroelectric power, which dovetails nicely with a world agenda to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

So why did the folks at TransCanada invest so little in building partnerships in Quebec long before a change in national government meant more regulatory scrutiny.

TransCanada still has a great story to tell. After all, in the world of oil transportation, there is no safer mode to transport oil than pipelines. The Lac Mégantic disaster proved that rail travel is risky business. The same elements of risk are attached to truck transport.

The pipeline safety story can be easily proven. In addition, a little bit of creative mathematics could have ensured that every province through which the pipeline travelled, would share in economic benefits and have a say about environmental and safety considerations.

Quebec Environment Minister David Heurtel, in defending his position against Energy East last week, made a very compelling case that any government has the responsibility to assess the environmental standards of pipelines traversing their territory.

When Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre and Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi took to Twitter to debate the project months ago, it was already game over.

The time to build a national energy vision, was long before each side had become intractable.

When TransCanada suspended the project last month, Saint John mayor Don Darling interrupted his vacation to meet with Nenshi in an emergency strategy session. But the jig was already up.

The Federation of Quebec Municipalities was doing its own strategizing, and unanimously resolved to oppose the project.

Coderre was effusive in the wake of the cancellation last week. He credited local mayors and the communities with the move.

In the end, the death of Energy East will not mean the oil will stay in the ground. When markets improve, and prices rise, there will be a new and improved plan, tweaked geographically, to achieve the same goal of getting western oil to lucrative eastern markets.

Meanwhile, the bellicose bombast of Conservatives like Pierre Polievre and Jason Kenney is not credible. By blaming the project cancellation on red tape, the Tories are killing any hope they have of pretending to care about the environment.

Do they really think that Canadian energy projects should be subject to the same weak labour and environmental standards that exist in Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Algeria?

Even the premier of Alberta supports the federal decision to include upstream assets and other factors when calculating the carbon footprint of a new energy project.

That is just what the National Energy Board did, and it didn’t sit well with TransCanada, which had already burnt precious political capital by misunderstanding the huge groundswell of opposition in Quebec.

Saint John Mayor Don Darling, whose city will lose $5-million in annual tax revenue as a result of the cancellation, pointed an accusatory finger at Quebec. He blamed his neighbour for sabotaging the opportunity for a pan-Canadian visionary project.

To be truly national, a dream must involve the support of more than two provinces.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

When one part of Canada is hurting, we all hurt. Parochial provincialism did not build this country in the first place. When the times come to move energy east, we need to figure out the best way to make it work.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on February 1, 2016.

OTTAWA—Any Canadian who drives a car should take an interest in the Energy East pipeline debates.

And we should all be hoping, for the good of the environment and the economy, that political leaders start working together on these key issues.

Energy security and a clean environment go hand and hand. Nobody wins when we simply throw rhetorical brickbats from one side of Canada to the other.

The hot buttons currently being pushed on both sides are proof positive that the federal government needs to play a leadership role on this issue.

That, of course, means working with provinces, but it also means convening meetings where various governments can hammer out their differences around the same table.

The absence of federal leadership on the environmental and energy agenda has meant that every province has stood alone. Each believes they can score political points and extract economic concessions on pipeline route choice from their geographic neighbours.

It sets up a very ugly scenario where each part of the country beats the drum in favour of its own energy advantage, without considering the rest of the country.

Local politicians jump into the mix, with consequences that quickly turn toxic.

The latest volleys over the Energy East pipeline debate have ignited controversy from East to West.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall’s suggestion that Quebec should return equalization payments as a penalty for non-support of the pipeline route was bound to play right into the hands of the separatists.

If the country cannot get its act together on something so crucial as national energy, what is the glue that binds us together?

Separatists argue that they would be better off defining energy policy on their terms, without any other government getting in the way.

Thoughtful leaders on all sides should understand the need for pipelines to carry product to market. There are certainly trade-offs in route placement and economic benefits. The location of a refinery, and value-added petroleum production, both play a role in the mix.

Properly planned, constructed and managed pipelines have served Canada in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

The foremost consideration of safe transport works in favour of pipelines. Whether by road or rail, the potential environmental damage and loss of life is much greater when factors like traffic load and human error are brought to bear.

One only has to reflect on the devastation of the whole Lac Mégantic community because of faulty train braking to realize that pipelines are a safer method of moving product.

Environmentalists will argue that we should be encouraging alternative energy sources. They are right. But in a world with a weakening economic picture, the investment in alternative energy innovation will take time.

Meanwhile, how are we going to gas up our cars?

Of course, an active federal-provincial dialogue will not solve all the challenges of the energy sector.

Quebec will continue to play the hydroelectric green card, because of its abundant access to electrical energy in its own north and that of neighbouring Newfoundland and Labrador.

Alberta is hurting, and needs support from the rest of Canada. But when an economy is suffering, politicians like to refocus the blame.

Only a national energy and environmental dialogue will ensure that all parties are working toward a common solution.

In his mandate letter to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asks for an early meeting “with provincial and territorial leaders to develop a pan-Canadian framework for addressing climate change.

Trudeau proposed the meeting occur with 90 days of the Paris climate change discussions.

The time frame is ambitious but it could provoke a sea change in debate tone and substance.

Canada has already committed to a trilateral North American energy pact. The government is in full preparation mode for the November climate change discussions in Morocco.

That doesn’t leave a lot of time for interprovincial squabbling.

We need to speak with one voice.

When one part of Canada is hurting, we all hurt. Parochial provincialism did not build this country in the first place.

When the times come to move energy east, we need to figure out the best way to make it work.

A national energy consensus benefits all provinces. Most importantly, it can tangibly demonstrate to Canadians that governments are prepared to come together for the common good.

When we work together, the whole of Canada is much bigger than the sum of its parts.

When politicians expend energy simply picking old scabs, we all lose.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.