Canada’s Premiers beginning to back Canadian energy

News release from Project Confederation

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith was on a mission last week and had three things on her mind: energy, energy, energy.

The interesting thing is, many of the other provinces now seem to be on the same page too.

Energy is a policy area that has always been a flashpoint for trouble for the federal government and we’ve seen an ever-increasing number of disputes developing in recent years, deteriorating interprovincial relations and creating constitutional struggles.

The most recent argument started last Friday when Premier Smith met with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in Calgary to talk about – you guessed it! – energy policy.

Trudeau has announced several ambitious climate policies that will drive energy costs up.

These include aggressive net-zero emissions electricity targets that are going to make power at least 40% more expensive, cost $52 billion for infrastructure alone, and another $35 billion in economic activity.

They’ve also announced an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector in western Canada – which is effectively a production cap, limiting the ability of producers to up their production in order to meet rising global demand.

Smith isn’t going along with these destructive policies.

Natural resource development is the sole jurisdiction of the provinces, not the federal government, and Smith says that Alberta will not be a doormat for federal climate policies that are going to decimate its economy.

She made it clear she will do whatever is necessary to protect Alberta’s interests.

After this bout with Trudeau, she headed out to Winnipeg for the 2023 Summer Meeting of Canada’s Premiers.

Once again, Smith hammered on Ottawa’s aggressive targets and the impact they will have on the economies of the federation – not just Alberta.

Next, she headed to the LNG2023 Conference in Vancouver, looking to establish new export markets for Alberta’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) – a major source of tension between the federal government and the provinces.

Smith pointed out that Western Canada wants the ability to export LNG to fulfill rising global demand, a resource that Canada has in abundance:

“With the right infrastructure in place, Western Canada would become a sought-after supplier for both Asia and Europe.”

Notably, federal Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson didn’t even show up to the conference, instead sending Tourism Minister Randy Boissonnault.

Perhaps most importantly though, Alberta no longer stands alone.

The federal government has intruded so much into provincial jurisdiction on so many issues, that more and more provinces are pushing back.

At the start of her trip, Smith predicted that she would have a few allies.

“I can tell you the thing that has surprised me the most is that it doesn’t matter what political stripe the premiers have, every single one of them is frustrated with federal interference into their business,” she said.

She was right.

The Council of Premiers made it clear that they weren’t happy being force-fed aggressive deadlines that were going to decimate the Canadian economy.

Scott Moe, Premier of Saskatchewan, publicly called out the Prime Minister and Steven Guilbeault, federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change, tweeting:

“If it wasn’t clear before, it is now. The Trudeau government doesn’t want to just reduce emissions in our energy sector, they want to completely shut down our energy sector.”

Blaine Higgs, the Premier of New Brunswick added:

“It just seems to be a pile-on of additional costs, Let’s get some recognition for the impact this is having on everyday lives.”

Even David Eby’s NDP government in British Columbia is joining in and are looking at ways to grow LNG exports with the recent establishment of a task force with a mandate to explore export expansion opportunities.

If there is one thing that this past week and a half did demonstrate is that when it comes to energy, the provinces have never been more united against a federal government that continues to overstep its jurisdictional boundaries.

This level of agreement amongst premiers is a major step forward, and it demonstrates that common ground can be found between provinces when it comes to federal overreach.

It is also important because it demonstrates that the rest of the country is getting fed up with the never-ending climate brigade taking shot after shot after shot at the energy industry without addressing the impact energy has on affordability.

Some time ago, we launched a campaign to Stand Up for Alberta Energy.

If you agree with our work in this area, and want to get more involved with the campaign, please join the campaign here:

JOIN THE CAMPAIGN

Related Topics:#AlbertaEnergy #EmissionsCap #FederalClimatePolicies #NetZero #PremierDanielleSmith #PremierScottMoe #ProjectConfederation feature

Up Next

Hydroponic greenhouses becoming more popular in the North, but have limitations

Don't Miss

Health Minister Adriana LaGrange charged with extensive to do list

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 9 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.