Premier Daniel Smith says Alberta will use provincial sovereignty laws to allow energy companies to submit emissions data to the federal government to show how much the UCP government opposes Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions limits. It said it would prohibit submissions and allow federal employees to enter production sites.
These actions are, in the government’s own words, “bold.” It could also violate federal laws requiring data sharing, as well as companies’ own obligations to shareholders and investors.
But how many switches do we have to flip in certain directions to get to this sticky point where states and federally are at odds over data, and to get to a place where federal inspectors can literally stand? It’s worth considering.
Proposed Oil and Gas Emissions Caps – States and other critics This would force production cuts and would need to be enacted into law as early as this spring or (given the usual consultation period and pace of deliberation) next autumn.
The Liberals will have to make major policy reversals. Lack of popularity over the years To maintain this climate change policy, the Conservative Poièvre government will have to reverse its policies unless it wins re-election next year. I’m planning to throw it away If elected, cap on emissions.
The cap must survive a constitutional challenge promised by the state. Smith plainly declared it unconstitutional, but Some experts have doubts Will it survive in court?
Then, assuming all the other switches are turned on correctly, the first emissions data disclosure will not be required until June 2027, so you may have to wait.
There is one more condition:
5. That the Smith government is actually serious about these sovereign law measures.
It would certainly be very difficult for the province, under the guise of ownership of all natural resources, to declare that all producers’ greenhouse gas emissions are “proprietary information and data owned exclusively by the Government of Alberta.” This will be a significant action. (This is from the draft text of the Sovereignty Act motion set for consideration in Parliament next week.)
And that will have serious implications for companies caught in the crossfire of legalistic jurisdictions. The government’s declaration of this local battle over data sovereignty reportedly came as news to major industry bodies. was not consulted in advance.
Please consider this
While the text of the draft motion sets out these bold and significant actions, it also challenges the Cabinet to:consider Environment Minister Rebecca Schultz acknowledged to CBC News that the Sovereignty Act motion “sets out seven things that we need to do.” I like watching it.” (Italics in both sentences are ours).
After that, she explained, “we will work with constitutional experts, businesses and organizations to work out the details.” This requires understanding the following how To block federal rules on testing and data disclosure in case we actually reach that point after 2027.
Between the Smith team’s ambition to enact a strong sovereign law that would declare Alberta a no-go zone under objectionable federal laws, and the reality that federal law applies to areas called Alberta. There was always tension.
Rob Anderson envisioned the Sovereignty Act before Smith joined Downing Street and became chief adviser.
In early 2022, he imagined Alberta could use it to bypass the consumer carbon tax. “We’re going to go further than that. We won’t authorize any business that collects a carbon tax in the state,” he proposed. A very noteworthy interviewer.
When Smith and Anderson gained power, they suppressed the imagination that their actions could be used to rebel. Supreme Court Judgment (e.g. regarding consumer carbon tax) the law itself Nothing in it authorizes unconstitutional orders and declares that no person (other than a body of states) may be forced to violate federal law.
The first time the Prime Minister invoked the Sovereignty Act against clean electricity regulations; Motion passed last year She acknowledged that officials can’t violate federal law by not complying with federal enforcement, and that’s all there is to it. symbolic in nature.
The new invocation also states that local governments can act “only to the extent legally permissible.”
Watch | Daniel Smith threatened to use sovereign law over emissions caps:
Prime Minister Daniel Smith announced border security measures in response to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports unless steps are taken to secure the Canada-U.S. border. promised to strengthen the The Smith government also battled with the federal Liberal Party, threatening to use sovereign law to assert ownership over the state’s oil and gas emissions data. Political strategist Zane Verge and pollster Janet Brown reflect on a busy week in Alberta politics.
But blocking companies from reporting their carbon emissions directly to Ottawa – something they already do for general monitoring purposes – would put them in violation of the law, federal Environment Minister Stephen said. Guilbeault said. pointed out this week. Schultz dismissed that, saying everyone should know that the federal cap would be ruled unconstitutional.
Of course, it will be up to the courts to justify or reject the Smith government’s confident claims of constitutionality. And if that actually happens, the federal government and others could subject Alberta’s sovereignty laws to constitutional review.
Two years after it was enacted, Prime Minister Smith’s landmark bill has twice been invoked against the Trudeau government’s climate change regulations, but none of those regulations have actually become law, so Alberta authorities are There has yet to be any cooperation that has been asked for openness and withholding.
But it continues to make headlines as a provocative move, highlighting how dangerous the Smith government and its resource industries view these federal policies to the survival of the oil and gas sector and Alberta’s economy as a whole. I am doing it.
The Sovereignty Act also addresses the extent to which the Smith administration intends to go to make exclusive claims on corporate data and control the rights of non-employees to visit corporate facilities in the name of defiance of the federal government. It suggests that.
The UCP government’s response to allegations of federal overreach is itself a further step into state government corporate activities.
“Is this a Conservative government?” NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi asked in response. “Is this a government that believes in free enterprise?”
Smith has reiterated that these are just steps he feels compelled to take in response to aggressive federal proposals. After the headlines and highly publicized federal response to this provocation, the next desired outcome is an abandonment of the proposal by the Liberals or their successors.
Smith’s secondary proposal for the New Sovereignty Act envisions a different kind of state government empowerment. His new motion calls for the state to start selling oil and natural gas directly to foreign buyers by collecting more royalties in the form of physical oil products rather than cash, something it has done for decades. It would be a return to practices previously passed on by the state to private resource producers.
Smith mused about opportunities to secure long-term supply contracts and other orders that some foreign buyers have offered but no private companies have shown interest in ink.
She is referring to how countries such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran use national oil companies to sell their crude oil.
“Governments like to do business with other governments,” the prime minister said weeks after another monopolistic oil export giant visited the capital, Abu Dhabi.
When she invoked sovereign law in violation of federal grid rules, she proposed further expansion of state powers. In that case, Crown Co., Ltd. The operation of natural gas-fired power plants that the private sector may exit under the new green electricity levy.
Are these threatening actions meant to poke Ottawa in the nose, or are they a new kind of ambition by the premier to more directly guide Alberta’s resource development and markets?
Border impact
This announcement regarding the authority of sovereign law (real or hypothetical) comes as US President-elect Donald Trump announces that Canada will impose a 25% tariff on all ships heading south of Alberta. It comes in the same week that it proposed another potential existential threat to the state’s oil exports.
Debates swirled about how to understand his words. threat? Negotiation tactics? Real measures with real impacts worth seriously considering?
It will never happen that the United States will impose huge taxes on all Canadian imports, or that some bureaucrats in Edmonton will become the new clearinghouse for every fossil fuel company’s methane and carbon records. There’s a good chance it isn’t.
But whenever an elected leader announces a plan with significant action, they must figure out how to respond appropriately to it, or at least process it.
