On Trans Mountain, Jagmeet Singh tries to make himself matter

"He is irrelevant."

When Alberta Premier Rachel Notleyused that word todescribeJagmeet Singh last November, she was making a specific pointthat the federal NDP leader's opposition tothe Trans Mountain pipeline expansion wasn't a factorbecause the federal government had already approved the project.

But ifNotley's comment seemed tocut deeper than that, it did so fortwo reasons: because Singh's leadership got off to a less-than-sensational start, and because he's been a conflicted bystanderin a public brawl between two NDPpremiers.

So Singh's sudden appearance before the cameras Wednesday afternoon was at least an opportunity for him to make himself seem relevant.

"Today we are calling on the federal government to partner with B.C.and to submit a joint reference question to the Supreme Court," he said. "Let's use the institutionswe trust to move forward."

That, at least, is more than Andrew Scheer has put on the tableso far. The Conservative leader likes to demand thatPrime Minister Justin Trudeau do something to resolve the conflict betweenCanada's third- and fourth-largest provinces.He's said less about what that something ought to be.

The mere act of wading into this high-stakes conflict might flatter Singh more than any other headlines he's made since becoming leader of the NDP.

But the utility and likelihood of a Supreme Court reference in this case aredebatable.

"Overall we want more clarity and shorter timelines, not more confusion and longer timelines. That is the lens through which we would view any proposal," said a spokeswoman for Notleyon Wednesday when asked about Singh's proposal.

"A federal leader should not put into question what is clearly federal jurisdiction," added a spokesman for federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr. "Many courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have already confirmed that federal jurisdiction in this matter is clear."

The case for and against a reference

A joint reference, Singh suggested, would show Canadians that "politicians can actually work together for the national interest."

"My approach is to always find ways to unite Canadians from all walks of life," he said.

And nothing brings Canadians together quite like a Supreme Courtreference, right?But while expressing a desire to heal divisions, Singh still managed to blamethe Trudeau government for the current situation.

'The Prime Minister has been really acting like a bully'

6 years ago

Duration 7:08

NDP Environment Critic Alexandre Boulerice weighs in on the tensions between the federal government and B.C. over the future of Trans Mountain.

He suggested the pipeline should have been subjected to a new review process (though it's fair to ask whether the resulting delay would have scuttled the proposal).

And he alleged that the federal government has threatened to withhold health transfers or invoke the Emergencies Act to persuade B.C. to stand down. Neither claim is accurate.

Assume for a momentthe court ruled in the federal government's favour. Such a judgment could offer B.C. Premier John Horgan an honourable exit from the field a chance to declare that he had fought the good fight, but that there was nothing more he could do.

Butit would take months for the court to hear arguments and make a ruling. Kinder Morgan, the company behindthe Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project, has said that it needs to know if the project can go forward by the end of May. So the executives in Texas would have to be willing to wait and trust that federal authority would ultimately prevail.

And a ruling in Ottawa's favour likely wouldn't satisfy NDP MPs likeKennedy Stewart, who recentlywasarrested while protesting the project in B.C. or Alexandre Boulerice, who suggested on Wednesday he would worryabout the ramifications of such a judgment.

In the meantime, Singh might hope that his proposal allows him tosidestep the core question whether he believes federal authority prevails when an infrastructure project triggers aninter-provincial conflict.

"I absolutely see the fact that the government has a jurisdiction, but I also see that there are questions raised around that jurisdiction when it comes to the environment," Singh said Wednesday. "In this case there are some legitimate questions around the balance between protecting the environment and the clear federal jurisdiction of approving energy projects."

Nobody asked him whether he would support federal investment in the pipeline. It would be interesting to hear his answer.

Singh's difficult start

Since winning the leadership of the third party, Singh often hasappeared to be the inexperienced newcomer that he is stumbling overparty policy, struggling with reporters' questionsand caucus management, hemming and hawing over whether he will seek a seat in the House of Commons before next year's election.His biggest media splash involved inviting reporters to witness his marriage proposal.

Such things happen to new leaders.

But the dispute between B.C. Premier John Horganwho must satisfy his supporters who oppose pipeline developmentand Rachel Notley, who has a resource-based economy to protect, has added an extra degree of difficultyto Singh's job.

The federal NDP, meanwhile, is not categorically opposed to building pipelines. It's just never found one it could support. In the meantime, it argues over process.

So Singh's pitch can be read as an attempt to punt both a national conflictand aninternal party struggle a plea to a higher power to settlean existential crisis.

It's an imperfect idea.

But for a day, at least, there was a reason to ask a federal minister to comment on something JagmeetSingh said. Which is a step up from irrelevance.