RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Alberta Wins “Turn Off Oil Taps” Court BattleWell that’s the problem with political posturing. Turning off the taps sounds all well and good, but as the courts rightly asks, what the hell does it actually mean?
It’s not like even Alberta had any concrete measures in mind…
If they actually came out with a detailed plan explaining what "turning off the taps" meant, and by what means they would do it, it gives the courts aleast something to review and weigh in on.
As for the murder analogy, that makes zero sense. Obviously murder has been around for a long time...sure as hell longer than Canada as a country has been around. Obviously, somewhere in time, someone had to get murdered for there to have been laws prohibiting murder…If murder never existed anywhere at anytime in history, than there probably would be no laws regarding it.
Maxmoe wrote: Looks more to me like typical government pass the buck, hide under the bed strategy to anything remotely controversial. Quebec has put up a blockade of oil crossing the province to New Brunswick and nothing happened. It's completely illogical and chicken sheet to not rule because there hasn't been an incident yet. Using Sheldon cooper's reductio ad absurdum argument, that would be like the court not ruling on the legality of say laws prohibiting murder, until there was an incident. Imagine Ontario passed a law giving it authority to block oil or nat gas from leaving Ontario to Quebec. OMG the shrieking from Ottawa would be deafening. Now, for great big fun, imagine Canada decided to shut the taps going to the USA until they stop ripping us off on lumber? Or for any reason. Would we see tanks rolling north or bus loads of lawyers?
Chris007 wrote: Its a pretty logical ruling, makes sense that the court isn't going to weigh in on something that hasn't actually happened...
Backinblack1000 wrote: Makes you wonder about the applicability towards other pipelines around north america....imo....thanks for posting..
Chris007 wrote: LOL...kind of funny that the oilprice.com article cites an article from the Calgary Herald, but somehow manys to skip over the most important point, as to why the injunction was thrown out...
The court says without regulations and a licensing scheme from Alberta, the court should not assess the constitutional validity of the law on the basis that it allows discrimination in the supply of fuels to B.C.
kijiji wrote: Canada’s oil-producing province of Alberta scored a win in court this week after the Federal Court of Appeal said that the province had the right to enact its “turn-off-the-taps” legislation and to control the volume and the destination of oil flowing through its pipelines to other provinces.
During the height of the dispute between Alberta and neighboring British Columbia over the Trans Mountain Expansion project to twin the existing pipeline and expand the terminal in Burnaby, B.C., Alberta’s government approved in early 2018 the so-called Bill 12, which would give it the powers to reduce the flow of crude oil to British Columbia in retaliation for B.C.’s relentless efforts to put a permanent end to the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Immediately after Alberta adopted the legislation, British Columbia’s Premier John Horgan threatened to take Alberta to court to prevent the neighboring province from enacting the legislation.
“If the Alberta government chooses to proclaim their legislation, we will move quickly to strike it down,” Horgan said at the time.
The court battle that ensued resulted in 2019 in a court granting British Columbia a temporary injunction against the bill on the grounds that the “turn-off-the-taps” legislation, if acted upon, would cause harm to its residents. Alberta’s argument in the case was that this harm was speculative.
The Federal Court of Appeal, however, ruled on Tuesday that the injunction granted to British Columbia by the lower court should be overturned. The province of British Columbia was also ordered to pay the costs of the litigation, the three justices said.
“We are pleased with yesterday’s decision by the Federal Court of Appeal. We remain committed to standing up for Alberta, including protecting the value of our natural resources,” Alberta Energy Minister Sonya Savage said in a statement on Wednesday carried by The Canadian Press.