Skip to main content

If we started today, there's a good chance Canada would never get off the ground.

Our history is unique. Just like the United States, we started with great wide expanses. Different paths gave us the United Kingdom's parliamentary system, but then, given our vast geography, we integrated it with a unique version of a decentralized, federation – a unique solution to the challenges of creating, and then governing, a unique country.

By and large, it has worked pretty well.

Story continues below advertisement

Globe and Mail reporter Roy MacGregor, that superb observer of all things Canadian, likened Canada to a bumblebee. By all rights the creature, given its outsized body and tiny wings, shouldn't be able to fly – but it does. Canada is big, and spread out and, in the early years, the idea of all of the parts being one country seemed, if not impossible, awfully unlikely.

But it flew. It did so because people of courage were willing to compromise and invest – both politically and financially – for the greater good. They created our Constitution, which unites us politically, and built the railways that transported goods, products and people from one part of the country to other parts, often to go on to global markets. The original four provinces made the completion of the Intercolonial Railway by the federal government a condition – a requirement – of signing the deal. Grain, wood, fish, minerals, livestock – without the ability to transport the fruits of our natural resources across the country, we wouldn't be the success we are today.

This understanding of Canadian history and of the Constitution (or the political courage needed to uphold it) seems to be evaporating. We are forgetting not only how the Constitution works, but also a fundamental ingredient of Canada's success: the need, sometimes, for compromise on local or special interests for the greater national good. Rather than building our country, we are in the process of, dangerously, dividing it – and in doing so, losing altitude and hitting ground.

Imagine trying to build a national railway today. It wouldn't stand a chance. If mayors think that they can prevent a pipeline being built because it is "too risky," imagine what they would do with a railway. Imagine if politicians in Ontario refused to allow track to be laid crossing the province because transporting grain from the Prairies to Montreal or St. John for export was of "no benefit" to Ontario.

What about the Trans-Canada Highway? Imagine if the building of that national link, or any road for that matter, were contingent on proving that it did not contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions. Given that 20 per cent of Canada's GHGs come from driving cars and trucks, a national highway wouldn't stand a chance either.

The founding fathers drafted the Constitution the way they did because they understood the local pressures faced by politicians, and the temptation to succumb to them. Section 91 sets out the federal Parliament's powers; Section 92 sets out provincial powers – but specifically reserves to Parliament key jurisdiction over shipping lines, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works or undertakings (including, today, pipelines) that connect one province with any other province(s), or beyond. It also gives Parliament the right to declare any work, even though "wholly situate within" a province, to be for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more provinces – and thus under federal jurisdiction. This "declaratory power" has been invoked more than 400 times since 1867.

The system has worked well for Canada – but only because we have upheld it.

Story continues below advertisement

Despite declarations by some politicians, and headlines provided by various opinion polls, municipal and provincial governments do not, under the Constitution, have the power to block pipelines. Of course they have the right to raise local concerns, and other provinces, as well as the federal government, need to listen and understand and, yes, sometimes everyone needs to compromise.

But no development is risk-free. Whether it is a railway, a highway, or a pipeline, one must analyze and balance the costs and the benefits (including probabilities of any risk). Collectively, we need to ensure best practices in terms of safety and the environment, including prevention, mitigation and the like. But in the end, the federal government must decide.

The right things are being said. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources have acknowledged the need to get Canada's oil to tidewater. But action is needed, and soon.

Report an error
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.