geezaz! Although it doesn't pertain to your initial statement I'm replying to, I purposely left in your "complete moron" comment... it's quite germane to your own statement! Pipelines don't get built in a matter of weeks - ya think! At the moment U.S. imports (based on shale oil extraction) have displaced some of the traditional foreign import sources - the long(er) term viability of shale reserves suggests the time is ripe for that pipeline (notwithstanding the level of existing foreign (non U.S.) imports):
(thanks for further cementing your acceptance of Canadian subservience )
Energy East was dropped because there just wasn't a strong business case for it. Ultimately the subservience here is to economics.
But, suppose there were some national body that said "you know what? We want to build this anyway. It will reduce use of Middle East oil, reduce tanker traffic, and prepare us for some point in the future where foreign oil becomes unreliable."
That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Ms Notley raised the prospect of going into the pipeline business if Kinder-Morgan pulls the pin. Mr Trudeau seemed interested as well. Perhaps some consortium of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and/or the Federal Government could work together to build needed pipelines even if industry isn't interested. Alberta did this once before-- the Alberta Energy Company was founded by the Alberta government to develop natural gas resources in the province. Half the shares were sold to the public, it was very popular at the time-- a province-building venture that people were apparently very excited about. I recall that dad was the proud owner of some small number of AEC shares (allegedly bought with beer money.) That turned out to be a pretty big success-- later on the government sold its remaining stake in AEC to the public, and a few years and a few mergers later AEC had turned into Encana. Maybe the pipeline difficulties could be addressed in a similar manner.
But supposing the plan to build Energy East were put forward by a federal government-led group, rather than a private company. Would that make it any more popular? I suggest it wouldn't. Hundreds of First Nations groups between Alberta and Quebec hate the project. Dozens of Quebec mayors, including the mayor of Montreal, had pledged to go to war against the project. Quebec voters hate the project, so politicians opposed it as well (as they should in a representative democracy.)
I don't think the federal government would have the guts to push for a pipeline if it was Quebec, rather than BC, standing in the way. If it were Quebec rather than BC, the attempt to assert federal authority would just be fuel for Quebec sovereigntists and I don't think that's a bear that any federal politician wants to poke.
-k