By Ray Rivers
October 19th, 2023
BURLINGTON, ON
Last week Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that the Trudeau government had over reached its constitutional rights in implementing the 2019 federal Impact Assessment Act. Former Alberta premier Jason Kenny had appealed the implementation of this legislation, derisively titling it the ‘no more pipelines act’. In its five to two decision the court ruled with Kenny that, in fact, portions of the act intruded into provincial jurisdiction.
Danielle Smith, went rabid, trashing Trudeau and calling on anyone interested in investing in resource projects in her province to bring it on.
In barely a heartbeat following that decision, the current premier, Danielle Smith, went rabid, trashing Trudeau and calling on anyone interested in investing in resource projects in her province to bring it on. She warned Ottawa about her 2023 Alberta Sovereignty Act as she channeled her hatred of the current federal government, warning Trudeau to stay the hell out of Alberta. 1960’s era Quebec separatists in the FLQ couldn’t have held a candle to her.
But the message from the court wasn’t the slam dunk Smith was making it out to be. The feds say they’ll only need to fine tune the impact assessment act and they’ll be ready to keep rolling with those very climate friendly initiatives which Smith most objects to: clean electricity; oil and gas emission caps; and of course, no more oil or gas pipelines.
Ironically, this was the very same Supreme Court which took the Harper government to task for its own milk-toast attempt at Impact Act. Still, the feds know they have an important precedent in their back pocket with the Court’s earlier support of the federal right to tax carbon emissions to combat climate change. Besides the feds have other tricks in their bag like the Environmental Protection Act, the Fisheries Act and of course the Criminal Code.
Canada has been a leading international advocate for curbing climate change emissions but all of that seems like hypocritical preaching given that this country is also planning to undertake more fossil fuel development than just about anyone else in the world. And much of that growth will be in Alberta if Premier Smith has her way. While the dotted lines are a little blurry there is no doubt about Alberta’s legacy emissions and the role they have played contributing to the changes in our climate which we are seeing today.
Alberta is by far the largest source of carbon emissions in Canada having emitted over 256 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂e) in 2021 alone. And we know that the consequences of global heating/warming are not confined to the oil producing provinces but manifest their impacts – floods, drought, fires, dirty air – in every province and territory.
When people in one province are placed in jeopardy because of the actions of another they have a right and obligation to seek redress. That is, in large part, why we have a federal government – to deal with the cross border consequences of a province’s economic activity. And when it comes to carbon emissions and climate change the atmosphere has no provincial boundary.
Alberta has experienced forest fires that wiped out communities.
And that is perhaps what Premier Smith doesn’t get. She shouldn’t be allowed to get away with burying her head in the (oil) sands as she promotes expanded fossil fuel extraction activities which threaten the lives and livelihood of the rest of us in the rest of Canada – as well as those in Alberta itself. And if the Supreme Court won’t allow the federal government the necessary constitutional overreach to protect Canadians then other courts and legal processes will have to fill the void,
The state of California recently filed a lawsuit against some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP. In the suit the state contends these companies knew full well about the dangers of the poisons they were/are developing and selling. Their scientists and engineers had reportedly made amazingly accurate climatic predictions, going back to the 1950’s, which bear up well with what we are seeing in our climate today.
Those companies, possibly in cahoots with the auto companies and energy utilities, knowingly and deliberately misled and deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels for decades in order to protect their commercial interests. The state is suing them to establish a compensation fund to pay for future damages caused by climate-related disasters in California. This is not the first legal action taken against big oil, but coming from the largest state in the union, it is perhaps the most powerful to date – actually putting the ‘polluter pay’ principle into play.
Taking the culprits to court is a well-worn path, mimicking cases where compensation claims were awarded against the narcotic drug industry (OxyContin), and most significantly, big tobacco. Except that government is also up to its neck and complicit in the extraction of fossil fuels; issuing authorities/approvals for mining/drilling and then collecting energy royalties.
Some provinces, such as Alberta or even Ontario have adopted policies which promote the development and/or use of fossil fuels at a time when the climate experts are saying STOP. Moreover, in the case of those two provinces they have shut down clean energy alternative programs. So it’s a logical next step for concerned citizens to sue the very governments which are responsible for failing to protect the environment.
Seven young Ontario residents did just that, suing the Ford government for cancelling the previous (Liberal) climate program. And this time they were indeed given their day in court. Previous attempts at suing the government over environmental misdeeds, such as the law suit against the Harper government for pulling Canada out of the Kyoto climate accord, have generally been dismissed without a hearing. The courts generally prefer to rule on legislation rather than government policies.
For that reason, the judge in the Ontario suit also ruled against the plaintiffs but not before agreeing with the youth applicants on several key points, concluding that ….”By not taking steps to reduce GHG (greenhouse gases) in the province further, Ontario is contributing to an increase in the risk of death and in the risks faced by the Applicants and others”.
When Premier Smith gets her day in court.
Climate change is a serious concern and there will inevitably be even more law suits against governments as they continue to deliberately fail to protect their citizenry. And eventually one of these will succeed in forcing the hand of those governments led by climate deniers to do their job. So when Premier Smith gets her day in court, perhaps she’ll also end her campaign of hatred against our Prime Minister… and her ridiculous advocacy for an independent Alberta.
Ray Rivers, a Gazette Contributing Editor, writes regularly applying his more than 25 years as a federal bureaucrat to his thinking. Rivers was once a candidate for provincial office in Burlington. He was the founder of the Burlington citizen committee on sustainability at a time when climate warming was a hotly debated subject. Ray has a post graduate degree in economics that he earned at the University of Ottawa. Tweet @rayzrivers
Background links:
Legal case Hypocrisy? California Ontario
Ontario Decision Federal/Provincial cooperation
So, the question of the day is, why did the Trudeau government, not seek Supreme Court input before plowing ahead on the Impact Assessment Act (IAA)? The Act that was found by the SCC to be “largely unconstitutional.” If the Trudeau government had done the right thing, the right way they would have posed a “reference question” to the SCC before the bill was ever introduced. For those who are not aware, a reference question is a submission by the government to the Supreme Court asking for an advisory opinion, particularly in relation to the constitutionality of a piece of legislation. Other governments have done this.
Trudeau et-all chose to not do this. The IAA did come before the Senate, who held cross country hearings sending back 188 amendments, 62 were accepted as written,37 after alterations.
Earlier the Alberta court of appeal called the IAA, an “exits existential threat… pressing and consequential” and worse if you care about our country and form of democracy, “a clear and present danger… to the division of powers guaranteed by our constitution and thus, to Canada itself.”
According to Ray, “Danielle Smith, went rabid, trashing Trudeau and calling on anyone interested in investing in resource projects in her province to bring it on”.
Judge for yourself who is in fact rabid, Ray Rivers or Danielle Smith?
Mr. Rivers should publically retract his comparison of democratically elected Premier Smith to the Quebec murderous bomb placing terrorist group the FLQ. His words “the FLQ couldn’t have held a candle to her”
As a Quebecois who experienced the FLQ crisis the Gazette should request this retraction or consider new sources of opinions. This is aparticularly heinous, offensive comparison with events in the world today.