Danielle Smith wants a fight over climate policy — whether we need it or not
Federal-provincial conflict over climate policy isn't inevitable
One Tuesday afternoon last month — when nearly everyone was focused on the Middle East — Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson stood beside New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs and Nova Scotia Premier Tim Houston at a news conference in Ottawa to announce the signing of a "joint policy statement on developing and transmitting clean, reliable and affordable power."
The 716-word statement commits all sides to the goal of "decarbonizing Canada's electricity system," phasing out coal-fired electricity by 2030 and getting to net-zero electricity by 2035. In the case of New Brunswick, there will be a focus on the development of small modular reactors. For Nova Scotia, special attention will be paid to offshore wind.
All parties agreed to be "mindful that this work will need to take into consideration the impact of the Clean Electricity Regulations" and to "collaborate on pathways to achieve an affordable, reliable and clean electricity system within this context."
That's easier said than done, of course. But the mere fact of the agreement's existence at least offers indisputable evidence that federal-provincial relationships — particularly on climate change and energy — don't have to be defined by hand-waving disagreement and predictions of doom.
"I often say that I truly believe that Canada works best when Canadians work together," Wilkinson said at the time. "What we are announcing today is, I think, a great example of how we can indeed accelerate and realize significant progress when we commit to working together."
Wilkinson didn't mention the Alberta government. He hardly had to.
On Monday, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith announced her intention to challenge the federal government's proposed clean electricity regulations under the Alberta Sovereignty Act, the potentially unconstitutional law Smith made her top priority after becoming premier a year ago.
"These measures are not something that we want to do," Smith said in Edmonton while laying out a motion to be debated under the Sovereignty Act. "They are a plan to counteract the absurd, illogical, unscientific and unconstitutional interference in Alberta's electrical grid by a federal government that simply doesn't care what happens to our province so long as they have a good virtue-signalling story to tell their leftist friends and special interests."
The clean electricity regulations still only exist in draft form and are subject to revision; the federal government has invited feedback from provincial governments and other stakeholders. Strictly speaking, the proposed rules won't be enforced until 2035.
But this latest move by Smith is not entirely surprising. The premier had mused already that she might try to wield the Sovereignty Act. Her government also went to extraordinary lengths to push back against the federal regulations by launching a semi-national advertising campaign.
That $8-million ad campaign, which includes television ads that have run in four provinces, warns of exorbitant bills and blackouts. Smith's government also paid for a truck that drove around downtown Ottawa displaying a billboard bearing the message, "No one wants to freeze in the dark."
To be clear, no one has yet come out in favour of anyone freezing in the dark. But Smith, buoyed by projections from Alberta's electricity regulator, has warned the federal regulations could have dire consequences — up to and including imagined prison sentences for power company executives who can't or won't comply.
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault has objected, taking issue with Smith's incarceration theory in particular. But Sarah Hastings-Simon and Jason Dion, two climate policy researchers, have described the Alberta campaign as "fearmongering" and argue that three of Alberta's central claims "don't stand up to scrutiny."
While also lamenting Smith's "grandstanding," Blake Shaffer and Andrew Leach, two Alberta-based academics, have acknowledged that Alberta has "credible concerns" about the "pace and prescriptive nature of the regulations" proposed by the federal government.
To that end, Shaffer and Leach have identified four changes that could be made to the draft regulations to provide flexibility to provinces like Alberta. (Shaffer and Leach also note that while the federal regulations were originally touted as "net-zero" regulations, they don't actually require electricity systems in Canada to be net-zero by 2035.)
The Smith and Trudeau governments actually agreed this summer to form a federal-provincial working group, composed of senior civil servants from both sides, to collaborate on "joint policy priorities," including clean electricity regulations.
That working group still seems to exist — on Monday, Smith said she expects it to continue meeting, despite her invocation of the Sovereignty Act. (Guilbeault told reporters on Monday that the Sovereignty Act did not come up at any of the working group's meetings.)
But unless those discussions come to an impasse, or the federal government completely forecloses on the possibility of amending the draft regulations, the television ads and the use of the Sovereignty Act seem, at the very least, premature.
The time for fighting is running out
When Alberta officials say their priority is to build an "affordable" and "reliable" electricity grid, they are using adjectives that also feature prominently in the federal government's own statements. Smith says she also supports the goal of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.
But for as long as anyone has been proposing action to combat climate change, there have been people arguing that the proposed action is too rash, too dramatic or too risky — with the burden of proof borne almost entirely by those proposing the action. For even longer, Alberta premiers have been seizing every opportunity to show themselves campaigning against the policies and decisions of the federal government.
But the time to fight about climate policy is rapidly running out — and the need to move as fast as possible is only becoming more apparent.
In May, oil and gas extraction in Canada fell by 3.6 per cent — the biggest decline in that sector since April 2020, when the global economy was waylaid by a pandemic. That drop in May wasn't the result of any policy dreamed up by an apparently uncaring government in Ottawa. It was caused by wildfires in Alberta.
The laws of the political-media ecosystem dictate that vastly more attention will be paid to a dramatic fight between two levels of government over climate policy than to a quiet agreement on the same topic. But there is something to be said for getting on with the work of building a clean economy — and when political leaders pick fights over climate policy, it's fair to ask whether the fight is particularly useful or necessary.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
