00:00:30.000Well, greetings, friends. It won't surprise you. Well, let me just welcome you to the
00:00:37.700Danielle Smith Show. I'm Danielle Smith. It won't surprise you that today I'm going to
00:00:42.540spend quite a bit of time going through this court decision that came down from the Court
00:00:47.580of Appeal yesterday on the issue of what has been called Bill C-69, the No More Pipelines
00:00:55.620Act. You know, I regret that we've been calling it that because that's not what it is. What it is
00:01:01.920is the no more building of anything in Alberta ever again act as it relates to natural resources
00:01:10.580or anything else the federal government decides. That is fundamentally why four to one judges in
00:01:17.060the Court of Appeal yesterday came down and said, let's cut the crap here. We're calling out what
00:01:22.900this actually is. It's gutting the constitution. And if it is allowed to stand, it constitutes an
00:01:30.360existential threat to the survival of the country. Let's be very frank about what has happened here.
00:01:36.420And the reason why I say we need to be looking at this broader than the issue of pipelines,
00:01:41.640because the interesting part about it, as the court acknowledges, is that no one is actually
00:01:47.400disputing the federal government's authority to make decisions on cross-border issues.
00:01:54.280We can fight, and we can be frustrated, and we can work to change government, and we can
00:02:00.800make our case, and we can lobby, but the Constitution's pretty darn clear.
00:02:04.740The Constitution says that if a pipeline goes across borders, whether it's between provinces
00:02:11.700or whether it's down to the United States, if a transmission line goes across borders,
00:02:17.580whether it's across provinces or down to the United States, regardless, the federal government
00:02:23.300has jurisdiction over that. And we accept that there is a federal regulatory process to that.
00:02:28.620What we do not accept is the fact that they are able to designate essentially any project that
00:02:35.060they choose for any criteria, for any reason that exists and would normally be approved through
00:02:42.000provincial processes, they're allowed to designate that a federal project. And that's the nature of
00:02:47.720the problem that we have. So I want to walk through some of the legal jargon that came
00:02:53.800through here. I haven't had a chance. It's a very long summary. It's 209 pages. I was reading through
00:02:59.440is like, oh my goodness, get to the point already. But it's a very long summary. And I went through
00:03:04.940to page 124, which is the affirming judges and what they had to say. It's still really important
00:03:11.420for us to read on the other side as well, what the dissenting judges have to say, because in
00:03:16.660the dissenting judges is where we're going to find the seeds of what the federal government
00:03:20.900is going to use to try to keep this law from standing. And it won't surprise you that what
00:03:25.900has happened is the federal government, Stephen Gobeau, has already said full steam ahead will
00:03:31.560be appealing this to the Supreme Court. And he made sure as well to say that we are not allowed
00:03:38.300to act on any of the judgment in this act because it was only advisory and doesn't have the force
00:03:45.220of law. Well, I've got a solution for that one too. But I want to go through this as well because
00:03:49.780I've been, as I've been contemplating and trying to figure out why the federal government seems
00:03:54.480have control over everything we do it occurs to me that this this incursion is just a regular
00:04:01.040feature of confederation that it took the 1930s resource transfer act for us to assert that we
00:04:09.680had the same right as other provinces were granted at confederation over our lands and our resources
00:04:16.320and our ability to develop them that was the natural resources transfer act it happened under
00:04:20.400premier brownlee and i thought that that was the end of the story then of course in the 1970s
00:04:26.000when we started developing our oil and gas resources and we started seeing international
00:04:31.120energy crises all of a sudden the federal government came in with their uh with their
00:04:35.440national energy program and decided that they were going to set the rate for oil and gas prices
00:04:40.320in the country as well as regulate how much we were able to export that was one of the fights
00:04:45.760that Peter Lougheed got into in 1982. That was also remedied in the constitution. There's a specific
00:04:52.480section of the constitution that was put in place to make sure this never happened again. Section
00:04:57.52092A that says that we have the exclusive jurisdiction to develop our resources as well
00:05:03.840as to develop our own electricity and transmission infrastructure within our province. It's right
00:05:09.360there in the constitution. So how in the world did the government come back and create a law
00:05:16.180in parliament that allows them to essentially have a veto? And yes, that's what the court says,
00:05:21.100a veto over any decision that we make within the province. So let's define some terms.
00:05:28.480The term intra-provincial means anything within our borders. And this is where I think I have
00:05:35.960maybe undersold just how intrusive and dangerous to national unity this bill is. Because true,
00:05:45.060I mean, we've been frustrated about the Northern Gateway pipeline being canceled. We were frustrated
00:05:51.280that Energy East pulled the plug after a billion dollars worth of investment. We were frustrated
00:05:56.400that the federal government didn't stand up for us. When it came down to Keystone XL, we were
00:06:00.560frustrated that Quebec also didn't allow for us to take our Western gas and export it off Port of
00:06:07.380Saguenay through an LNG project. So all of these things were frustrating, yes, but what is even
00:06:12.340more frustrating is when Environment Minister Stephen Gilbeau says, yeah, we're going to approve
00:06:17.640this project in Newfoundland and Labrador, but we think that the Suncor expansion of their oil
00:06:22.460sands project does not fall within our federal objectives, reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
00:06:28.920And so I guess that you sort of scratch your head and say, well, why do they have any decision to render on this at all? And it's because they are designating these projects within their area of jurisdiction. So let's talk about this. Interprovincial should mean anything within our borders we control.
00:06:45.280So if we decide that we want to establish a natural gas power generation plant, we have the ability to do that. If we want to have transmission lines that connect our various business centers within Alberta and do not go back cross border, we are supposed to have the power to do that.
00:06:59.800If we want to establish pipelines that take our natural gas from one part of the province to another part of the province without crossing provincial borders, we have the right to do that. But this is why Bill C-69 was so sinister, is it actually took all of that away from us.
00:07:14.520So let me go through, and I will, don't believe me, I'll have you believe the courts, because
00:07:20.200it is, to me, what I find really interesting about how they judge this is that if we do
00:07:26.180not remedy this problem, they call it an existential crisis.
00:07:30.720So it's worth it to read, if you will, just the introduction, if you can.
00:07:36.720I know it's hard going through all of this legislation and the legalese, but I think
00:07:41.120just even reading the introduction will give you a sense for how they're framing it. So first of
00:07:46.220all, we've got sustainable economic development cannot be achieved without a sustainable,
00:07:50.780healthy environment and society. Since we all want a healthy biosphere in which to live,
00:07:57.580we expect our governments to make informed decisions about proposed larger scale projects
00:08:02.500in this country in a careful and precautionary manner. The utility, therefore, of environmental
00:08:08.600impact assessments of such projects to determine their environmental social economic health impacts
00:08:13.720is undisputed this has been unanimously recognized by all four governments and all
00:08:19.000interveners who participated in this reference and so nobody is disputing the fact that this
00:08:24.520is an important issue we need to figure out how to develop our resources we need to do so
00:08:28.920ensuring that we're taking care of the environment and looking at social and making sure that we're
00:08:33.640respecting rights of first nations no one is disputing that but listen to how they continue
00:08:39.480times of great change often lead to pressures to centralize power popular thinking may consider a
00:08:46.760central government to be suited to manage whatever change dominates public discourse today that
00:08:54.120discourse most certainly um is uh includes climate change the increasing frequency of weather events
00:09:01.480related to climate change and their detrimental effects are evident. The need to act with urgency
00:09:06.640on this front is undeniable, but this cannot be confused with the issue at stake here. So yes,
00:09:12.820fair enough. Everybody wants to act on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. But the court goes
00:09:18.500on to say this reference is not about the legitimate concerns all government and citizens
00:09:22.920have today about climate change, nor how to address them, nor is it about the anxiety many
00:09:26.820rightly feel about the subject. Rather, the issue before the court is where the parliament has
00:09:30.980overstep the limits of its constitutional mandate under Canada's constitution. So there's a couple
00:09:36.420of questions that they have to deal with there. One is whether this, and it's called the Impact
00:09:41.700Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulation Act, and they're asking whether it is unconstitutional
00:09:49.380in whole or in part. That's question number one. Question two is whether it is unconstitutional
00:09:57.620in whole or in part by purporting to apply to certain activities that relate entirely in the
00:10:02.720authority of the provinces. That is the part that I want to get into because it's really
00:10:05.860important that we understand just how far the overreach actually goes. So continuing on,
00:10:12.180if you look at this, they say climate change constitutes, this is section six, climate change
00:10:18.560constitutes an existential threat to Canada. So I think it's important that that be stated there
00:10:23.700because it's not like the court is discounting the concerns that were put forward. It's not like
00:10:28.940anybody is arguing that they don't want to act on this. I think that's crucial. It says,
00:10:33.360but climate change is not the only existential threat facing the country. The Impact Assessment
00:10:40.400Act involves another existential threat, one also pressing and consequential, and that is the clear
00:10:48.100and present danger this legislative scheme presents to the division of powers guaranteed
00:10:54.020by our constitution and thus to Canada itself. This reference shines a spotlight on the crucial
00:11:00.760feature of federalism built into our constitutional framework. History teaches that governments by
00:11:06.500central command rarely works in a geographically large country with a diverse population and
00:11:12.660divergent regional priorities. In most major democratic countries in the world, federalism
00:11:17.340and its associated principles, subsidiarity, have been insisted upon by the government. That
00:11:23.300includes Canada, which by deliberate choice is a federation and not a unitary state.
00:11:31.260We have to understand that this country exists by choice. It exists by negotiation. It exists
00:11:41.220by the various foundational documents that we have that represent a compromise. We can put a
00:11:47.020little water in our wine on certain issues, but you've got to leave us jurisdiction to take care
00:11:51.560of our other areas of jurisdiction. That was the foundational premise of Canada when we came
00:11:58.540together in 1867, revised through the 1930 Resource Transfer Act, reaffirmed through the 1982
00:12:04.260Constitution Act. And what we're seeing is that the government is trying to throw that completely
00:12:08.520out the window. I think there's one more section that I want to show you here just before we move
00:12:12.580on. So under the constitution, the environment is not a head of power assigned to either parliament
00:12:19.020or provincial legislature. This is important because what they go on to say is when either
00:12:24.140government level legislates for purposes related to the environment, that legislation must be
00:12:30.080linked to a specific head of power within its jurisdiction. A meritorious motive, protection
00:12:35.660of the environment, does not by itself found constitutional jurisdiction for either level
00:12:41.980of government so the so the notion that they can say because the environment is so important
00:12:48.460and uh we declare that we have an interest in it therefore we can usurp your area provincial
00:12:53.980jurisdiction that does not stand so let me go on to this next section because i want you to see who
00:12:59.340the suspects are who who engaged as interveners in this case so what happens when the government
00:13:04.940puts forward a case they ask other parties to who have an interest in the outcome to intervene so
00:13:12.300that they can also submit briefs and make their case so in the case of the provincial government
00:13:17.660on their side were ontario and saskatchewan as well as the woodland cree first nation the indian
00:13:22.380resource council council the canadian taxpayers federation the canadian association of petroleum
00:13:27.260producers the canadian energy pipeline association explorers and producers association of canada
00:13:32.220the Independent Contractors and Business Association, and oh look, the Alberta Enterprise
00:13:36.680Group, all intervened in support of Alberta's position. You want to see who the usual suspects
00:13:42.300were on the other side? Well, this is going to surprise you at all. So these are the folks who
00:13:46.020intervened on behalf of the federal government supporting its position. Nature Canada. Oh,
00:13:51.920look at this too. Eco Justice Canada Society, Mining Watch Canada Inc., the Canadian Environmental
00:13:58.240Law Association, Environmental Defense Inc. I wonder where they got their money from. Gosh,
00:14:03.800if only someone would do a public inquiry to find out whether U.S. foreign foundations are sending
00:14:08.580hundreds of millions of dollars into Canada to stop our resource development. If only someone
00:14:12.580would do an inquiry into that. Also, the Athabasca, Chippewan, First Nation, and Mikasukri Nation
00:14:18.560intervened in support of Canada. There's a couple of interesting parts, I think, to that as well,
00:14:23.000is that what I think we should take away is that we had Indigenous groups intervening on both sides.
00:14:31.060And this to me is something that Stephen Buffalo has made me quite aware of, is that the United
00:14:38.880Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, it has been framed almost exclusively
00:14:46.080as a piece of governing legislation that would stop any kind of resource development. But do you
00:14:52.640know how the First Nations, like the Indian Resource Council and the National Coalition of
00:14:57.760Chiefs and other aligned groups look at it? They look at the UN Declaration on the Rights of
00:15:02.560Indigenous Persons as saying that the federal government has no right to interfere when they
00:15:07.180do want to develop it. And that's a piece that I think is gaining more traction, especially as
00:15:12.960First Nations leaders realize that the only way to address poverty in their communities is to take
00:15:18.060up an equity stake and own and buy some ownership in some of these projects, which increasingly
00:15:22.640they're being allowed to do. Now, here is the nut of why I think when we've been calling this the
00:15:28.400No More Pipelines Act, we kind of missed the point about why this is so offensive to provincial
00:15:33.620jurisdiction. So in this section, they talk about the activities included under the act. And again,
00:15:40.340I don't think anybody is going to be surprised that the federal government is going to claim
00:15:45.120jurisdiction on any development that takes place in a national park or a federally protected wildlife
00:15:52.080area. They're not going to be surprised that the federal government is going to assert its right
00:15:56.760to develop any specific matters related to military or defense. No problem there.
00:16:03.100Uranium or mills. That's another one. Pardon me. Uranium mines or mills. So Saskatchewan's
00:16:10.200resource on uranium, sure. That's something that the federal government has an interest in and is
00:16:15.020going to develop. And I don't know that anybody is seriously challenging that. Nuclear facilities.
00:16:19.000We might end up trying to get more of those developed as we go to small modular nuclear,
00:16:24.140and provinces are very keen on that. But I don't think anyone is seriously disputing that the
00:16:27.920federal government shouldn't be the one who makes the decision on that. Offshore oil and gas. That's
00:16:33.040obviously an issue for our friends on the East Coast, and they have their own frustrations there.
00:16:38.260But it is offshore. It's in international waters. It has multiple jurisdiction issues. I think we
00:16:44.260accept again, that the federal government should be allowed to make decisions on that. New
00:16:48.640international electrical transmission lines. If it goes cross border into the United States,
00:16:53.380fair enough. Offshore oil and gas pipelines, same thing. Interprovincial oil and gas pipelines. So
00:16:59.000if we cross border into Saskatchewan, obviously we can't impose anything on Saskatchewan. And that
00:17:05.080is why you need the federal jurisdiction. Once again, no one's surprised there. Offshore wind
00:17:10.140power again because it's offshore by definition it falls outside one particular jurisdiction falls
00:17:15.100in the realm of federal government fair enough aerodromes and runways international and
00:17:19.100interprovincial bridges and tunnels canals or causeways marine terminals okay so again those
00:17:24.940are the areas that you would fully expect the federal government to have an interest in
00:17:30.380determining whether there's going to be development or not and having the ultimate say on environmental
00:17:35.260impact. But look at this. Importantly, however, designated projects also include intra-provincial
00:17:43.500activities. Those are things that are within provincial jurisdiction, within provincial
00:17:50.060borders, such as renewable energy, transportation, oil and gas. The following activities designated
00:17:57.020in the regulations are matters primarily within exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So look at the
00:18:03.540kind of things that they want to have exclusive jurisdiction over. Any coal, diamond, metal,
00:18:10.580rare earth element, stone quarry, sand, gravel pit, exceeding a specified daily production capacity.
00:18:18.700So when the federal government deems anything gets to be large enough, they're going, and it's
00:18:23.740100% within our borders, they are going to declare that they have the jurisdiction to govern it.
00:18:30.540That's what this impact assessment statement does. This impact assessment act is it took over jurisdiction over everything that we have traditionally decided on ourselves once it reaches a certain size. Continuing on, certain activities with respect to existing new oil sands mines with a bitumen production capacity of 10,000 cubic meters per day or more.
00:18:53.940Sorry, guys, I didn't do the translation on that. But 10,000 cubic meters a day or more is a relatively small operation. So as soon as it reaches that size, federal government saying we get to decide. Construction, operation, decommissioning, abandonment or expansion of a fossil fuel fired power generating facility with a production capacity of 200 megawatts or more.
00:19:15.820So think about that. So if we wanted to rebuild, call it the Shepherd plant in Calgary, which is 800 megawatts, natural gas fired plant, we wouldn't be allowed to do that without federal permission.
00:19:30.500I was, you know, I knew that the federal government was overreaching when they said that they were going to ensure that we had no natural gas or fossil fuel production of electricity after 2035.
00:19:40.540This is the act that allows them to do it.
00:19:42.480Any plant that is over 200 megawatts or more, they're declaring a federal interest in and they give the final approval.
00:19:49.520It continues construction, operation, commissioning, abandonment, and expansion of an in-situ oil sand extraction facility when the bitumen production exceeds 2,000 cubic meters per day or more in a province that does not have provincial legislation limiting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced by oil sands or in the province or where such limits have been reached.
00:20:11.920So when Rachel Notley agreed to the cap on oil sands production, we thought that that gave us
00:20:19.840a lot of latitude to develop. And the way the government is interpreting this, it's questionable.
00:20:25.700They want to step in and be able to develop or to regulate and veto any of the SAGD operations
00:20:33.320that we have in the oil sands area. It continues construction operation decommissionary abandonment
00:20:40.580of new expansion of existing oil refineries, facilities to liquefy petroleum products from
00:20:46.400coal to natural gas, sour gas processing facilities, petroleum storage facilities,
00:20:50.820natural gas liquid storage facilities, above specified production or storage capacities.
00:20:55.940Any of those are going to be large operations. So that means that they're going to kibosh
00:20:59.640any second level value added production that we do within our own borders. Anything that's
00:21:05.580happening up in the Fort Saskatchewan, Sturgeon County, and Strathcona County area. All of that,
00:21:11.100by virtue of this, comes under the purview of the federal government, even though none of it
00:21:17.520crosses the border and there should be no reason why they would intervene. It continues the
00:21:23.280construction, operation, decommissioning, and abandonment of a new and expansion of an existing
00:21:28.300hydroelectric generating facility over a certain production capacity. So they're going to regulate
00:21:33.380as well, even if it's all within our own borders,
00:21:36.120any hydroelectric power on our river systems,
00:22:03.380federal approval to build the ring roads around Edmonton, a ring road around Calgary. We're not
00:22:08.140going to be allowed to do those things anymore without the federal government saying so.
00:22:12.080Construction, operation, decommission, and abandonment of a new facility or expansion
00:22:15.780of an existing facility for the treatment of hazardous waste that's within 500 meters of a
00:22:20.660natural water body. So presumably, I guess, I don't know, I'd have to look at the Swan Hills
00:22:28.380plant which we decided to to do years ago maybe any of these new plants that are designed to deal
00:22:34.220with uh with waste to energy maybe all of those are going to require federal approval and finally
00:22:40.900the construction operation decommissioning and abandonment of a new or expansion of an existing
00:22:45.980dam or uh dike or water diversion structure that exceeds certain limits so i don't know does that
00:22:53.960I mean, I guess that's the Springbank Dry Dam or any other infrastructure, if we wanted to develop
00:22:58.900out new irrigation infrastructure for our food producers, would we be allowed to do that? Not
00:23:03.860without federal permission. See what I mean? That is at the heart of what this is about. It's not
00:23:09.380really about the issue of pipelines. It's about the issue of everything else. And if you want me
00:23:15.080to make, if you think I'm over-interpreting this, the court is super clear about the invasion in
00:23:22.920every single aspect of our lives that this bill constitutes. Look at section 294.
00:23:29.160To bring this down to reality, there are several ways greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced.
00:23:36.440So this is what you're giving up. If you decide that the federal government is the one who gets
00:23:40.660to make all of the decisions on all of these factors, federal or provincial, for all of the
00:23:46.580different areas that they have outlined in law, that they believe that they have the ability to
00:23:51.720say no. There's 20 different areas, including an assessment of gender and sexual issues as well.
00:24:01.180They've got that enumerated in here, if you can imagine. But they have given themselves the
00:24:07.400latitude to say no on not only areas of their own jurisdiction, areas of provincial jurisdiction,
00:24:13.640and every social or environmental consideration that they want to, without limit. So here's what
00:24:20.440it comes down to, to bring this down to reality. Lots of ways greenhouse gas emissions could be
00:24:25.380reduced. So if the full effect of what they've given themselves is put into effect, here's what
00:24:30.020they say. A few examples, which admittedly are at the end of this extreme, but for illustrative
00:24:36.300purposes only, they could limit the number of children per family. This legislation allows them
00:24:42.080to do that. They could legislate that we have to stop eating beef and become vegetarian.
00:24:48.020We could they could legislate that we have to stop drinking dairy milk, stop living in single family homes, limit the square footage of a person, couple or family, limit what they can occupy, limit home heating above a certain prescribed temperature and stop cooling homes below a prescribed temperature.
00:25:05.660stop using gas appliances, stop driving vehicles that cannot achieve a stringent mileage level
00:25:12.260per liter, stop driving vehicles of any kind, stop taking holidays that involve leaving home
00:25:18.420by plane, car, or bus, stop eating as much, stop spending as much on consumer goods,
00:25:24.420shut down all cruise vessels and all plane travel for pleasure, shut down the dairy and cattle
00:25:30.960industry, shut down all cement plants, shut down the auto industry and aerospace industry,
00:25:36.240shut down all electrical power generation plants, shut down the production and export of coal,
00:25:42.280shut down the entire Canadian oil and gas industry. That is the consequence of what
00:25:47.340they've allowed them to do in this legislation. Do you see why they call this an existential
00:25:53.580threat to Canada? Because it's interesting to me that they do that list of enumerated
00:25:59.320areas that the federal government could decide are important areas of policy that they're now
00:26:03.780able to do. Because isn't this what some of the extreme environmentalists are suggesting that we
00:26:09.040should do? And so this becomes the mechanism for them to be able to do that. How long do you think
00:26:14.100we will have unity in this country if the government acts on these kinds of issues?
00:26:19.360So here's the other part that I think, so that's sort of the extreme end of what the government
00:26:23.440has given themselves the ability to do. But I think this is equally important when they talk
00:26:27.820about the practical effects of the Impact Assessment Act. One of the practical effects
00:26:34.420is the issue of delay. It's indisputable. One of the practical effects of the act is delay. Given
00:26:40.800the structure of this legislative scheme, this is not surprising. At every point that counts,
00:26:46.680when a step is to be taken or a decision is to be made by the minister or governor and council,
00:26:51.000that's the term for cabinet, there is no enforceable deadline by which that step or
00:26:56.720decision must be made. In particular, there is no requirement that the decisive decision-making
00:27:02.880step, the issuance of a decision statement, which includes the public interest determination,
00:27:07.820will be made by the minister or governor and council within a finite time frame, reasonable
00:27:15.040or not. Instead, the act permits an endless loop of delay. Endless loop of delay. And again,
00:27:21.140it's one thing when you're talking about pipeline projects, as I said, that is at least an area of
00:27:28.380jurisdiction. But every single area of provincial jurisdiction enumerated above, we could have
00:27:34.720endless loops of delay that ensures that we are never able to get to the finish line on any large
00:27:41.820project ever. So that's one practical effect. Practical effect number two, uncertainty. Another
00:27:48.460practical effect of this statutory regime is uncertainty. If there were one consideration
00:27:53.740above all other that militates strongly against investment in any country, it is uncertainty.
00:28:00.480Investors crave certainty. The investing in intra-provincial designated projects need to know
00:28:07.380and to be able to rely on the ground rules that apply to a proposed project. This is especially so
00:28:13.800where those investments would potentially be measured in billions of dollars. Further,
00:28:17.980Well, Canada remains an importer of foreign capital. Capital flows work both ways. Investors,
00:28:23.540both foreign and domestic, can vote with their feet if a country is not competitive on the
00:28:27.840investment front. Predictability and reliability of investing are essential to Canada's economic
00:28:34.260success in an integrated world. You know, the number of business leaders I have talked to
00:28:38.860who have told me, I just spoke with one last night, who told me that Canada used to be a green light
00:28:44.320when it came down to the issue of investment.
00:29:05.280Third practical effect is there's no practical remedy
00:29:08.320to federal action or more importantly, inaction.
00:29:11.200A third practical effect of this statutory scheme relates to judicial review. Canada and its
00:29:17.100supporters submit that should the federal government overshoot the proper boundaries of
00:29:21.200its powers under the act, there would be a remedy available in judicial review, but constitutionality
00:29:28.480does not turn on the availability or the efficacy of judicial review, and unconstitutional law is
00:29:34.120not made constitutional because the exercises of discretion thereunder are subject to judicial
00:29:39.720review. In any event, there isn't any practical way to hold the government to account when it
00:29:45.380comes right down to the issue of whether something is going to be approved or not. So this is where
00:29:49.920we find ourselves, my friends, is that we are in a position where anyone who proposes a project of
00:29:57.960any size can have Stephen Gilbo, who clearly hates our energy industry, swoop in and say,
00:30:05.240you're not allowed to do that. And they can have an endless cycle of delay with no end in sight,
00:30:10.720creating uncertainty with, why would anybody invest here? What would be the point of that?
00:30:17.420So I was pleased to see, yes, the provincial government issued a strong statement,
00:30:21.960said that they're going to continue to challenge this to the Supreme Court. But look what Stephen
00:30:27.560Gobo did. He made it clear that he expects that we're going to continue to fall under this regime
00:30:33.760until it is heard by the Supreme Court. Where are we at now? How many years has this been fought?
00:30:38.780Do you remember how this went down? This went down under Rachel Notley's regime. And I remember
00:30:43.940getting through the House of Commons with virtually no pushback whatsoever. Remember,
00:30:48.980we thought we were going to get social license because we were playing ball. We shut down
00:30:53.040the coal industry early. We're converting all those natural gas plants. We put in a carbon tax.
00:30:58.480We decided to put a cap on oil sands. And do you remember that was supposed to solve all of these
00:31:03.100problems. So what did the federal government do? They used that as license to say, if you want to
00:31:08.420give up your area of provincial jurisdiction, don't you worry, we'll take all of it. And we
00:31:14.300didn't hear anyone kicking up a fuss until Rick Peterson from Suits and Boots in the 11th hour,
00:31:21.120when it was going through the Senate, decided to try to get the senators to reject both that and
00:31:26.380the C-48 bill as well. Came pretty darn close to doing it. But there was no 911. There was no
00:31:32.920And even then, we were still talking about it in terms of pipelines only, not in terms of all of the things that are listed there, that we're not able to build an in-stream hydroelectric operation.
00:31:44.840We're not able to build a power plant that's larger than 200 megawatts.
00:31:49.200We're not able to have in-situ oil and gas development.
00:31:53.100We're not able to expand refining operations.
00:31:55.320We're not able to do anything that allows for us within our own jurisdiction to make our own decisions.
00:32:00.100No one really kicked up a fuss about that part of it.
00:32:02.120so it went through the court and here we are a couple years in and now what we're supposed to do
00:32:06.520we're just supposed to sit back for another couple of years and waiting for the supreme court to make
00:32:12.040their decision no rob anderson came up with a solution if you've looked at his free alberta
00:32:18.120strategy what did he say he he says that we need to immediately pass the alberta sovereignty act
00:32:24.280and what would that do the alberta sovereignty act would tell us that we are going to disregard
00:32:30.360any federal decision or any court decision that interferes in provincial jurisdiction. So now
00:32:35.720we have got a court of appeal ruling. Four out of five judges, only one dissenting said that this
00:32:41.840is outrageous, completely guts the constitution. We are not a unitary state. We are a confederation
00:32:46.980and this negates our confederation if it is allowed to stand. That seems to me to be pretty
00:32:51.740strong. That seems to me to be pretty clear that the end result is ultimately going to be that the
00:32:58.160Supreme Court has got to strike this down. So why should we wait? How many more billions of dollars
00:33:03.980are we going to see chased out of this province? Well, we wend our way through waiting for the
00:33:09.840Supreme Court, which incidentally has three out of nine judges appointed by Quebec. You'd think
00:33:15.500Quebec would be equally concerned about these interventions and the inability of them to
00:33:20.720develop their resources too. Or is this the problem? This is fundamentally the problem with
00:33:26.120our confederation, and they point this out too, is it causes the federal government to be allowed
00:33:31.980to pick winners and losers among provincial projects. And guess who has the political power
00:33:36.040right now? So if Quebec proposes that they want to have a new cement plant or a new aluminum plant,
00:33:43.940do you think the federal government will intervene and say, no, you can't do that? We want to
00:33:47.380designate that a project that we approve? I doubt it. If Newfoundland and Labrador want to have an
00:33:51.520offshore project, I guess they can get it approved. But you know what, Suncor, you're out of luck.
00:33:54.920the federal government is in grave grave danger we talk about existential crisis the court
00:34:02.620identified this right from the beginning we are in an existential crisis for the survival of the
00:34:09.020canadian federation and this is the saddest part i think about the response from the federal
00:34:15.060government yesterday it's they obviously didn't read the act or the read the judgment and if they
00:34:21.020did read the judgment, they just don't care. They just don't care. You know, you sometimes think
00:34:27.660that people have higher minded reasons for why they want to make decisions. But it's pretty clear
00:34:34.520that we've got an environment minister that simply wants to destroy Alberta's fossil fuel industry
00:34:42.520and destroy Alberta's autonomy over making its own decisions over its resources. There's no other
00:34:47.820interpretation that we can have other than that and so if that's going to be the case if that's
00:34:53.420the federal government's response to alberta giving an equalization referendum saying we
00:34:59.580want to eliminate equalization the very next day it seems they instituted the most hostile
00:35:05.820environment minister that we could possibly ever dream of at the federal level it's time for us to
00:35:10.620start asserting ourselves we can't we can't just simply wait and be passive on this that this is
00:35:16.140is the time for us to start the strategy. You pass the Alberta Sovereignty Act and say we are
00:35:22.080looking at the Court of Appeal decision. We are not abiding this act anymore. We're going to
00:35:27.860collect our own income taxes. We're going to let you know that we are opting out of Alberta pension.
00:35:31.720We're going to opt out of employment insurance. We're not going to be bought with your money
00:35:35.080for child care or dental care or long-term care or pharmaceutical care because we understand what
00:35:40.480the gig is here. The gig is that you are trying to create a unitary state where we have no decision
00:35:45.940making whatsoever. If we don't start pushing back on these things, look what they do.
00:35:50.460It's the whole classic argument of you give an inch, they take a mile, they have taken well
00:35:54.720more than a mile on this one. And I think that the Supreme Court, that's why I called it the
00:35:58.700cut the crap judgment, because they called it out. There's no denying it now, that this is very
00:36:05.080clearly offside with the principles of confederation, and it's dangerous to the country.
00:36:10.180With that in mind, I am going to read the other side of the argument, just so that we can see
00:36:14.420what kind of arguments they're going to raise. But I think this gives us full license now for
00:36:20.020us to be really putting Alberta first, charting our own course. Remember, I told you that one of
00:36:24.820my last sessions when I was on the air was with Gerard Belziel from the Montreal Economic
00:36:30.380Institute. And I did ask him the question of why it is Quebec was so hostile towards us.
00:36:36.260And his answer was, they're not hostile towards you. They just don't think about you at all.
00:36:40.580they're too busy thinking about themselves. And maybe it's time for Alberta to think about itself
00:36:45.400for a change. Couldn't agree more. All right, my friends, go have a look at the decision yourself.
00:36:50.300If there's anything you think I missed that we need to talk about next time around,
00:36:53.220you know what to do. Just send me a note, danielle at daniellesmith.ca,
00:36:56.600and we'll talk about it again on Friday. Thanks so much. It's been the Danielle Smith Show,