Skip to main content

British Columbia Premier Christy Clark pauses during a news conference in Vancouver on Sept. 24, 2012.

JONATHAN HAYWARD/THE CANADIAN PRESS

The frosty deadlock between B.C. and Alberta's premiers over the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline could be broken next week. In an exchange that was both tentative and awkward, B.C.'s Christy Clark has proposed a meeting with Alberta's Alison Redford in Calgary, and Ms. Redford is now prepared to sit down.

The two premiers have not discussed the pipeline since Ms. Clark's attention-grabbing announcement of B.C.'s demands concerning Northern Gateway. She walked out of a premiers meeting in Halifax in July to lay out the province's five conditions for supporting the project. Alberta has flatly rejected B.C.'s demands.

The quarrel kept the two leaders, who otherwise have much in common, from broaching the topic throughout an Asian trade mission where they travelled together earlier this month.

Story continues below advertisement

In a letter to Ms. Redford, released to the media Wednesday, Ms. Clark suggested it is time to talk.

"I look forward to continuing a dialogue with you about opportunities to address British Columbia's five conditions," she wrote. "I recognize that there are significant increased benefits available to Alberta from the export of heavy oil to Asia, and that this is something your government no doubt wishes to pursue."

She then informally suggested that they meet, noting that she will be in Calgary early next week "should you wish to discuss this further."

In the three-page letter released Wednesday, Ms. Clark repeated her five demands, including the requirement that British Columbia receive its "fair share" of fiscal and economic benefits flowing from the $6-billion project. However, she said she is open to discussing what that might look like.

"While others may have characterized this conversation as somehow sharing Alberta's royalty payments, we have been careful to avoid discussing the source of any benefit-sharing, or indeed the very nature of any increased benefits to British Columbia."

Ms. Clark said that is a matter best discussed between the two provinces, along with the federal government.

Ms. Redford's office initially balked – there was no formal meeting request to be found in the letter and there was confusion about Ms. Clark's terms. But by the end of Wednesday, officials representing both premiers were comparing schedules to see if a mutual meeting time could be arranged.

Story continues below advertisement

"We're open to a meeting if Premier Clark wants to," said Jay O'Neill, a spokesman for the Alberta Premier. But, he added: "Our position on this has not changed. The pipeline is a commercial venture led by Calgary-based Enbridge. It is not Alberta's pipeline. And any discussion around our resource revenues are not up for discussion."

The B.C. government has been under pressure at home over its handling of the file. The pipeline would see Alberta oil sent to Kitimat, B.C., and loaded onto tankers bound for Asia. It has garnered strong opposition in British Columbia and Ms. Clark is facing a tough election campaign next May.

For months, Ms. Clark maintained that she would not take a stand until after a federal environmental review was complete. Her government signed away control of the review to Ottawa and did not apply for intervenor status in the hearings.

Now, Ms. Clark says she is "deeply concerned" about the project's risks and is threatening to smother the pipeline with red tape if her concerns are not allayed. "As you may know, there are a significant number of permits required for any pipeline project to proceed in British Columbia," she reminded Ms. Redford on Wednesday.

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
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.

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.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter
To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies