Article content continued

B.C. had signed an equivalency agreement with the NEB that essentially let that body’s environmental review double as B.C.’s own.

In doing so, the court ruled, B.C. failed to consult affected First Nations (even though the NEB certainly did so). By handing its power to decide on the environmental process to the federal regulator, the court ruled, the provincial government “breached the honour of the Crown.” Many have inferred from this ruling that B.C., therefore, now has some veto over the pipeline itself. But it doesn’t. The federal approval still stands.

In fact, the Supreme Court tried to circle both sides of the drain, here; it ruled that B.C. had a right to regulate its own environment — but that the province would be constitutionally incapable of demanding concessions that would shut Northern Gateway down. In other words, B.C. has the right to create its own environmental laws — but those laws don’t supersede the federal government’s ability to approve the pipeline.

If one needs an example of how this mess actually works, consider this: B.C. did intervene against Northern Gateway during the NEB process. It demanded five conditions by which its approval could be secured. The NEB ignored all but one of B.C.’s proposed conditions and approved the line anyway.

The west doesn’t fear strict pipeline standards — it fears arbitrary, unfair standards that are built around optics, politics and ideology

The B.C. Supreme Court ruling thus raises interesting questions. What kinds of conditions are constitutional for a provincial government to impose? Could a province make demands that have been explicitly rejected by the NEB? And if B.C. doesn’t have the ability to stop a project from going forward, how, exactly, would any of these friendly conditions be enforced? More importantly: Could any of this possibly hold up to a federal appeal?