Support strong Canadian climate journalism for 2025
The federal government’s climate policies represent an “existential” threat to Alberta, according to Premier Danielle Smith, who told fellow conservatives Thursday she is on a collision course with Ottawa.
Speaking to a friendly audience gathered in the Westin Hotel in Ottawa for the annual Canada Strong and Free Networking conference, where conservatives discuss strategy and key issues, Smith said “the biggest threat” facing Alberta “is this NDP-Liberal coalition in Ottawa.”
She called Justin Trudeau an “ideological prime minister” and took issue with the federal government imposing policies to curb greenhouse gas emissions. In Smith’s view, the way jurisdiction is carved up between federal and provincial governments makes it clear that provinces control natural resource production, and that proposed policies like clean electricity regulations or capping oil and gas sector emissions are a way for the federal government to encroach on Alberta’s jurisdiction.
“It would be absurd for a provincial premier to dare to think she could step in and take over federal powers; equally absurd for a federal government to think it can come in and tell our province how to manage our resources and how to manage our electricity,” Smith told the crowd.
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that combating greenhouse gas emissions is within the federal government’s purview.
“We're a natural gas basin in Alberta, it makes sense for us to heat our homes with natural gas, it makes sense for us to have gas stoves, it makes sense for us to have electricity that is powered by natural gas,” she said. “The federal government wants to stop us from doing that.”
While Ottawa plans to achieve a net-zero electricity supply by 2035, there is no indication the federal government has set out to abolish natural gas production in Alberta or anywhere else in Canada. Just last week, the federal government and British Columbia greenlit the proposed $3-billion Cedar LNG export facility project in Kitimat, B.C.
“We want to work with all orders of government to slow climate change and adapt to its impacts, prepare for changes in global markets and position ourselves to take advantage of all the opportunities in a cleaner economy,” said a spokesperson for Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault.
“We stand ready to work with Albertans on our common goal of providing energy security and a healthy environment and healthy economy to all Canadians.”
Natural gas is a fossil fuel that, when burned, contributes to global warming. Gas stoves are also increasingly linked to higher asthma rates in children. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has repeatedly warned planetary greenhouse gas emissions must be cut approximately in half by 2030 to avoid crossing dangerous temperature thresholds that lock in major, irreversible damage.
Despite Ottawa’s support of oil and gas projects, Smith alleges the federal government is infringing on her province’s right to develop its natural resources. Her government is currently arguing before the Supreme Court of Canada that the federal government’s Impact Assessment Act (IAA) — which evaluates whether the benefits of major projects like pipelines outweigh negative effects on the environment, human health and more — is unconstitutional.
University of Alberta political science professor Laurie Adkin told Canada’s National Observer the “only thing standing between Alberta’s citizens and the destruction of their watersheds by coal mining, widespread hardship during the COVID pandemic, unemployment linked to the shrinking workforce in the oil and gas sector, wholly privatized and unaffordable child care, and a privatized health-care system is federal legislation like the IAA and the Canada Health Act.”
Smith told the audience she considers clean electricity regulations and capping production emissions from the oil and gas sector threats Alberta needs to take seriously. The federal government has no plans to limit how much oil and gas Alberta, or any province, can produce. The cap will only apply to emissions created during extraction and production — not the emissions that occur when fuel is burned to operate cars or heat homes, for example.
“For whom, exactly, are ‘clean energy regulations’ or emission caps on the oil and gas sector an ‘existential’ threat? Not for Albertans, and not for First Nations,” Adkin said. “The threat of worsening unemployment and income security isn’t coming from federal environmental regulation; it’s coming from Alberta governments that continue to obstruct a planned, managed, just transition.”
When it comes to the prospect of a just transition — that is, ensuring workers won’t be hung out to dry as the world economy undergoes a low-carbon transition — few have been more vocally opposed than Smith.
Smith has repeatedly attacked Justin Trudeau’s government for proposing a just transition plan that she says signals the end of Alberta’s oil and gas industry. This assertion contrasts starkly with the contents of the plan and comments made by federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who assured MPs in November: “This global shift to a low-carbon future can be accomplished without phasing out Canada’s oil and gas sector.”
John Woodside and Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer
Comments
"The federal government’s climate policies represent an 'existential' threat to Alberta, according to Premier Danielle Smith."
Smith is the voice of Alberta's O&G industry.
Climate action — halting global warming — and an ever-expanding O&G sector are incompatible.
If the O&G industry praised federal climate policies, that would be bad news.
(The converse is not necessarily true. O&G opposition does not necessarily make federal policy sufficient.)
Of course, if the AB Govt managed its own house properly, the federal govt would have no reason to intervene. The AB Govt does not have a credible plan to reduce emissions, so Ottawa must step in. (Whether Ottawa's climate plan will meet Canada's targets is another question.)
Smith: "equally absurd for a federal government to think it can … tell our province how to manage our resources"
Count on Smith to misframe the issue.
The federal and provincial governments have shared jurisdiction over the environment.
The federal govt has specific jurisdiction over activities/projects that affect fish and fish habitat, and migratory birds; cross provincial boundaries; or concern indigenous peoples.
Thus, Ottawa has authority over trans-provincial pipelines; tailings pond leakage into the Athabasca River; and greenhouse gas emissions, which know no borders.
Smith: “We're a natural gas basin in Alberta, it makes sense for us to heat our homes with natural gas"
Following Smith's impeccable logic, Quebec should continue to mine asbestos; Maritimers should light their lamps with whale oil; Canada should continue to burn coal; and we should all be wearing beaver and sealskin hats.
What about Alberta sunshine and wind, Premier Smith?
Smith's slavish devotion to the O&G industry blinds her to Alberta's other resources.
Smith's willful blindness of the potential of the Crowsnest Corridor renewable power revolution in her own province indicates she is stuck in a time warp from 1970. Under this current way of thinking, which is shared by the NDP, the unpreparedness of Alberta to manage the insidious erosion of demand for bitumen and gas in their export and domestic markets will be a phenomenon to behold.
"When it comes to the prospect of a just transition — that is, ensuring workers won’t be hung out to dry as the world economy undergoes a low-carbon transition — few have been more vocally opposed than Smith."
AB NDP leader and climate leader Rachel Notley is running a close second:
"Alberta NDP leader Rachel Notley wants the federal government to drop the so-called 'just transition' legislation it plans to introduce in the House of Commons this spring.
"…Notley also blamed Ottawa for not consulting with Albertans and releasing the proposed legislation a few months before the provincial election.
"'Just take it ... and basically get rid of it.'"
"Alberta NDP leader wants Ottawa to drop 'just transition' bill" (CBC, Jan 11, 2023)
Notley: "We are in what I would describe as a crisis right now, in that we have a federal government about to move forward on legislation that has wide-ranging consequences, particularly to the people of Alberta. My view is that the federal government has to put the brakes completely on its legislative plans for this spring with respect to the sustainable jobs legislation, as well as plans for the emissions cap."
Federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson: “This global shift to a low-carbon future can be accomplished without phasing out Canada’s oil and gas sector.”
Wilkinson still dreams of carbon capture and SMRs in the oilsands, and blue hydrogen. Which would reduce upstream (production) emissions only marginally — and do nothing to address downstream emissions.
The IEA projects non-combustion fossil-fuel demand near 15 MMbpd in 2050 (down from today's 100+ MMbpd), for things such as lubricants, waxes and asphalt. Which foretells a vastly reduced oilsands industry.
I waa going to highlight the same quote.
There is no shortage of such "have our cake and eat it, too" thinking from politicians/commentators of all stripes which, in my view, further hampers effective action on climate, of course, but also all the other ecological crises, starting with biodiversity, currently pounding on our door.
These techno "solutions" (read: gargantuan subsidies for sunset industries) will likely fail not on climate policy, but on cold economics. If industry wants CCUS and SMRs to store carbon while pumping more oil & gas, and to melt the tar from the sand, then let them pay for it.
While they're at it, they should help taxpayers offset the grossly bloated cost of TMX, which too will fail on pure economics, especially when international jurisdictions get through with suing Canada for damages over the first major TMX-related spill in the Salish Sea.
Yes. I completely agree. Fossil fools are facing a double whammy going forward. The climate can't take much more of them, but what's also true is that their schemes to keep on keepin on, although now with mostly unconventional fossils fuels (bitumen/fracked gas) grow increasingly expensive.
In a world without massive subsidies going their way, they are barrelling at full speed into a wall.
Which is why its so important that we divest from the big banks that continue to throw good money after bad/ that we do everything we can to get off the fossil fuel addiction wagon, and that we amplify the messages of those organizations that are transitioning. I'm wondering how long it will be before there is a tax revolt....telling us how much to withhold from our governments until they stop investing in the death of the planet?? I'm ready to sign on.
Also, it seems to me that most middle class people could forego a vacation or three and solarize....take up back country camping and put their name in for an EV. It might seem like small potatoes...but the day is fast approaching where not to have bought that heat pump or ditched that gas cooking stove is going to make us look like troglodytes....having done so will win the love and admiration of our grandchildren...
I wonder if the people of Alberta have ever dreamed about a province liberated from the stranglehold of O & G, wealth and self serving manipulations.
Have they ever longed for the erasure of Oil rigs? Have they ever worried about all their fresh water fouled by toxic tailings? Will they miss the stench of sour gas?
Can they imagine an Alberta without Petro pollution and politics?
Great questions.
Having grown up sniffing the pungent sour gas wafting into the suburbs of Calgary in the 60s, I can be reassured that the brain cells it fried only affected the sense that the Alberta conservative way of thinking is true. Accordingly, I left in the late 70s.
An "ideological" prime minister?! That statement is so idiotic you have to do serious unpacking to expose just how idiotic it is!
So, first, Danielle Smith is very, very, very "ideological", so if she means "ideological" to be a criticism that's insane.
Second, politicians SHOULD BE ideological. An "ideology" is a concept of how the human, political/economic world works and should work, a framework of beliefs that inform your positions on policy, allowing you to potentially back policies that would actually lead to outcomes you desire. People who don't have explicit ideologies have tacit ones, generally unexamined and because of that likely to be contradictory. What we want in politicians is explicit ideologies that they advocate for honestly and follow through on when in office. So, saying a politician is "ideological" and imagining that to be an insult is wrong (and often, as in this case, deeply disingenuous). The question is whether their ideology is any good (Danielle Smith's, for instance, is malevolent, incoherent, and in large part arrived at based on personal profit).
Third, Justin Trudeau is, unfortunately, one of the LEAST "ideological" politicians I've ever seen. His "ideology" seems to be a sort of vague benevolence combined with partial and largely unexamined acceptance of whatever the mainstream news says about economics, leavened with a big chunk of "Whatever pressures are leaning on him most at the moment". Calling him "ideological" is stupid on the face of it.
Of course, in a weird "lying like a rug, including possibly to herself" kind of way, it's not entirely stupid. What she's claiming is:
--"Ideology" is a concept that does not apply to the dominant ideology. It's like whiteness; if you're the group in charge you become the neutral base, and only differences from that are "colour" or "ideology".
--Alt-right, semi-fascist, racist, climate-and-various-other-science-denying Conservatism is that dominant ideology; therefore it is not "really" an ideology, only things different from it are ideology.
--Justin Trudeau is NOT a semi-fascist etc. etc.
--Therefore, he is "ideological".
Of course the first two premises there are totally wrong and fucked up, making the conclusion nonsense. But she would prefer everyone to BELIEVE those first two premises, because that would put her people in charge. So the statement, like most of her statements really, is not so much an attempt to describe reality as an attempt to define a new reality that normalizes fascism.
It's very obvious that Danielle Smith doesn't understand the difference between being premier of Alberta and being a publicity person for Exxon.
Dear Danille,
On the other hand ... “We're a place with a lot of sunshine and wind here in Alberta, it makes sense for us to heat our homes with renewable clean energy, it makes sense for us to have electric stoves, it makes sense for us to have electricity from solar, wind and geothermal power,” she [might have] said. “The federal government wants to help us to do that.”
And such action will truly address what is existential.
This article is more than a little too accommodating in it's uncritical references to the climate policies of the federal gov't.
For instance: "This assertion contrasts starkly with the contents of the plan and comments made by federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, who assured MPs in November: “This global shift to a low-carbon future can be accomplished without phasing out Canada’s oil and gas sector.”"
This quote from Minister Wilkinson is repeated at face value, which is bollocks, and doesn't speak well of CNO. The notion that Canadian generated climate forcings, similarly for every other producer, can be sufficiently reduced without phasing out the majority of oil and gas production of the world's fourth largest oil producer seems to me to be living in cloud cuckoo land.
As for Danielle Smith, well, maybe she can hire Jack Ryan to address such a clear and present danger.
An interesting scenario seems to be evolving. Renewable power, EVs, transit, heat pumps, induction stoves, beefed up energy conservation specs in building codes, and municipal planning and development policies against gas, are all mounting a powerful counteroffensive of new demand against existing fossil fuel demand, which I believe has plateaued. These elements have economics behind them, and some (but not nearly enough) political underpinning in the form of grants and tax credits.
What's more, the biased political support for the corporate interests that lobby and donate to political parties does now seem to have consequences. Look at SNC Lavelin so vigorously defended by Trudeau and the Libs during the fiasco of unfairly trashing Jody Wilson Raybould for upholding her legal principles. SNC has now diminished into an entity that is rumoured to be applying for bankruptcy protection, and the intelligent technical and professional economic criticism of TMX, CCUC and other nakedly flawed fossil enterprises is increasingly heard and published widely.
The compact Chevy Bolt EV and a subsidized air-to-air heat pump are looking a little bit more viable with every quote from Danielle Smith.
"Renewable power, EVs, transit, heat pumps, induction stoves, beefed up energy conservation specs in building codes, and municipal planning and development policies against gas, are all mounting a powerful counteroffensive..."
I hope that's the case but I've not heard of any pending legislation with those objectives which are, in my opinion, the low-hanging fruit; they could be enacted, essentially, tomorrow.
Are you aware of specific examples where legislation has, minimally, been tabled?