Skip to main content

New Brunswick Premier Brian Gallant is pictured in Fredericton, on Sept. 24, 2014.

James West/THE CANADIAN PRESS

TransCanada Corp.'s Energy East oil pipeline is shaping up to be a key issue in climate change discussions between Canada's premiers, as Ontario and Quebec seek to make its effect on global warming a major element in its approval.

And some of the project's proponents are willing to consider added measures to fight climate change in order to win Central Canada's support for the $12-billion project.

The premiers, who gather early next year in Prince Edward Island, have pledged to hammer out a Canadian energy strategy before next summer. That plan is expected to contain measures for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Story continues below advertisement

On Monday, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne met with her New Brunswick counterpart, Brian Gallant, a pipeline supporter. She made it clear afterward that the pipeline would be part of talks on the energy strategy.

"We look at the discussion of the Energy East pipeline in the context of the Canadian energy strategy," she said following the 40-minute meeting at her Queen's Park office. "We understand that we are connected, that Alberta needs to move its resource and Ontario and Quebec and New Brunswick are part of that endeavour. But there are some principles that we need to adhere to."

Ms. Wynne and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard last week unveiled a set of seven joint demands for the pipeline, including that its affect on global warming will be taken into account when the provinces decide whether to give the plan their blessing. The National Energy Board will ultimately decide whether Energy East goes ahead, but Ontario and Quebec can intervene at its hearings to try to persuade it to either allow or block the pipeline.

Mr. Gallant, whose province stands to benefit from the crude the line would feed to a refinery in Saint John, struck a conciliatory note. He said he believed Ontario and Quebec's conditions could be met.

"The principles are very fair, they're reasonable, they're also achievable," he said. "We'll certainly, as a province, continuously work to ensure that the whole country sees that we can achieve these principles, we can make sure that we do it in an environmentally sound way."

Over the weekend, Alberta Premier Jim Prentice told the Globe that he, too, is ready to discuss climate change standards as part of talks over the pipeline. He is planning to meet with Ms. Wynne and Mr. Couillard in early December to discuss Energy East.

A TransCanada spokesman said Monday the company had no further comment than what it had said Friday, that it is still studying the conditions laid out by Ontario and Quebec. "We are studying these principles and look forward to working with both governments in the appropriate manner to make the project successful," Tim Duboyce wrote in an email.

Story continues below advertisement

The proposed pipeline would stretch 4,600 kilometres from Hardisty, Alta. to Saint John, carrying 1.1 million barrels of crude per day to refineries in Quebec and New Brunswick. It would also connect with export terminals, allowing the oil to be shipped off the continent.

But the massive project is drawing opposition from environmentalists who argue it will accelerate climate change by driving up oil production.

Ms. Wynne and Mr. Couillard have now linked the pipeline with interprovincial talks on global warming mitigation.

Currently, different provinces employ different measures. Quebec runs a cap-and-trade system with California, in which the governments limit the amount of greenhouse gas that can be released into the air. British Columbia imposes a carbon tax on fossil fuels. Alberta, meanwhile, charges oil producers who produce above a certain amount of carbon. Ontario has spent several years vacillating over whether to join Quebec's cap-and-trade system or find some other way to put a price on emissions.

With a report from Shawn McCarthy

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

If your comment doesn't appear immediately it has been sent to a member of our moderation team for review

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.