There is an ongoing disagreement between the federal government and the provincial government (British Columbia) over the proposed expansion of the Trans Mountainpipeline through British Columbia. The purpose of the project is to increase the volume of oil that can be transported from Alberta to the BC coast, mainly for that oil to be exported overseas. The federal governmentfavoursthe expansion and it has passed a statute (theTrans Mountain Pipeline Act) authorizing the project.The provincial government is opposed.

The federal governmentfavoursthis project for a number of reasons, most importantly it believes expansion of the pipeline is critical to the economic future of Canada. The BC government is opposed to the project because it believes expansion of the pipeline poses too great an environmental risk (in terms of a ruptured pipeline, or even oil spills once the oil is loaded onto tanker ships on the coast).

Both governments believe they have jurisdiction over this issue under the division of powers in theConstitution Act, 1867.

The issue has already gone to the BC Supreme Court, which ruled infavourof the federal government and upheld the constitutionality of theTrans Mountain Pipeline Act. The BC government has appealed that decision to the BC Court of Appeal.

Both governments are quite anxious to win at the BC Court of Appeal - so anxious that the Prime Minister has asked the federal Minister of Justice to contact one of the Court of Appeal justices outside the court proceedings just to emphasize how important the federal government thinks the pipeline is to the economic future of Canada. As it happens, the Minister of Justice knows one justice on the Court of Appeal since they used to go golfing together years ago when they were both just lawyers. The Minister of Justice is thinking he should ask the Court of Appeal justice to go golfing very soon.

In a somewhat strange twist, during the BC Supreme Court hearing the justice presiding at the hearing at several points made highly critical comments about environmentalists and environmental concerns about the pipeline project. At one point she referred to environmentalists generally as "eco-terrorists holding the Canadian economy hostage", and referred to the Premier of BC as "so green he may as well be from Mars".

1If someone made a complaint about the comments the BC Supreme Court justice made in court (about environmentalists generally and the Premier specifically), do you think the justice might lose her position as a justice?

2In making a decision in this case, a court will have to rely upon some part of the constitution to grant a remedy. If the provincial government wins, what remedy will the court provide (what will it say or do regarding theTrans Mountain Pipeline Act) and under what section of the constitution? If the federal government loses, will it be able to use section 33 of theCharterto pass theTrans Mountain Pipeline Actagain and protect it against constitutional challenges?