Alberta's 'Green' Talk: A Serious Plan to Combat Greenhouse Gases, or Gambit to Secure U.S. Keystone XL Approval?

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Alberta, Canada's oil production heavyweight, is pushing for increased carbon production taxes and seeking to slash GHG emissions.  Apparently, Ottawa is surprised.  Yeah, I thought I was reading an exceedingly dry Onion article.  Oh, wait...it's a plan offered by Alberta's Environment Minister...that is not endorsed by Alberta's Conservative government.  OK, the sky's not falling.  So the real question:  Are Alberta's Conservatives looking green to win Keystone, and then offer up a dead-on-arrival plan?

Is McQueen's  carbon plan for real?

The Globe and Mail reports (or hypes up?) a recent carbon tax and reduction plan offered by Alberta's Environment Minster:

The Alberta government has quietly presented a proposal to sharply increase levies on carbon production and force large oil-industry producers to slash greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 40 per cent on each barrel of production, a long-term plan that has surprised Ottawa and industry executives with its ambition.

Alberta Environment Minister Diana McQueen stunned a recent meeting in Calgary attended by senior oil executives and her federal counterpart, Peter Kent, with the proposal, which goes well beyond anything Ottawa or the companies contemplated, industry and government sources said Wednesday. The three sides are engaged in intense negotiations, with the industry warning that regulations that are too onerous could undermine the competitiveness of the oil sands sector as it seeks international investment. to drive production growth.

...

[Alberta Premier Alison Redford/Diana McQueen's boss] and Prime Minister Stephen Harper are under considerable pressure to introduce regulations for the oil industry to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

The Cynical Read:  Looking Green Key to U.S. Keystone Approval.  My guess is that this plan has one main audience:  the United States.  If Alberta looks 'super' green, it makes it easier for Keystone to get approved.  The catch:  the plan will be so long-term that the 'carbon pain' won't be felt until Alberta's Progressive Conservatives or either out of office or filled with new leaders.

Cynical Read 2.0:  What 'Great' Timing!  Oh, and this is a pretty well-timed leak, given that Alberta oilsands environmental data is about to be released. 

Yeah, yeah...but maybe the plan's for realies?  Ha.  This March 2013 Globe and Mail article shows just how blistering the Alberta's environmental hot potato is.  

The main takeaway:  Alberta Premier Redford will take heat for any real carbon tax increase, let alone steep reductions, unless (1) they come online way into the future and (2) secure Keystone XL in the short-term.  

And Redford's opponents, Alberta's Liberal Party and the strong provincial party Wildrose, are happy to exploit Redford's tough spot whatever way they can. 

Something tells me that Redford's Alberta critics and Keystone critics are going to react to news of Redford's Green Plan 2.0 with some help The Who:

But it might just get Alberta Keystone.

From the Globe & Mail ,March 2013 article on Alberta Conservative's environment-Keystone XL headache:

The Alberta government’s climate-change plan was under scrutiny Tuesday, a day after comments Ms. Redford made in Ottawa were interpreted as a call on the federal government to follow Alberta’s lead in putting a price on carbon.

...

The Premier quickly backed away from those remarks, saying that’s not what she meant, but was grilled in Question Period by the opposition. At one point, she scolded the provincial Liberals – a party that last year proposed what would ultimately be a $1.8-billion-per-year provincial carbon levy – for “saying that our environmental record in Alberta isn’t good enough. That’s not good for Alberta, and it’s not good for Canada.”

Liberal Leader Raj Sherman said a higher carbon price would help pave the way for pipelines. “If we actually dealt with the environmental issues that we face, we could get our pipelines to the U.S. and the West Coast. It’s hurting us not to do this right,” he said.

...

The Premier was said to have called on the federal government to follow Alberta’s lead and introduce a price on carbon. Her office later said she was misunderstood, issuing a clarification and then making Ms. Redford available to speak to reporters in Edmonton on Tuesday. “I am in no way advocating any sort of national carbon tax. That’s for other governments to decide,” she said.

Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith nonetheless accused the Premier of advancing a plan that “would see Alberta’s vast resource wealth sucked out of this province and pumped into Ontario and Quebec.” Ms. Redford later fired back. “The suggestion that that’s what the conversation was about [in Ottawa Monday] is absolutely absurd, but I don’t expect anything more from the opposition,” the Premier said, later noting that Ms. Smith said just last year that the “science isn’t settled” on climate change.

Alberta Court: Right to Counsel Means Access to Internet and Google

An Alberta court ruled that police violated an individual's right "to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right" by not allowing the arrestee access to internet to find a lawyer.

From thestar.com:

Christopher McKay, who faced a driving while under the influence charge, told police that he wanted to exercise his right to legal counsel. McKay’s cellphone and other personal belongings were placed in a police locker when he arrived at the station. McKay was told there was a toll-free number available to contact a lawyer as well as White and Yellow pages that could be consulted. He called the toll-free number but was unable to find assistance.

...

Judge Lamoureux of the Provincial Court of Alberta considered “whether Internet access should form part of police resources provided to detainees in order to facilitate a reasonable opportunity to exercise the constitutional right to counsel.” After acknowledging that many teenagers view their smartphone, iPad and other devices as essential parts of their daily lives, he noted that Google is the primary source of information for everything from maps to medical care to access to lawyers.

In fact, the judge conducted a Google search for “Calgary criminal defence lawyer” and found that within seconds there was provided a long list of potential local lawyers. Moreover, the judge noted that police routinely use the Internet for investigations and evidence gathering.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms grants anyone arrested or detained the right “to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right.” For this judge, the failure to provide Internet access meant that the Charter rights had been violated, concluding:

“In the year 2013 it is the Court’s view that all police stations must be equipped with Internet access and detainees must have the same opportunities to access the Internet to find a lawyer as they do to access the telephone book to find a lawyer.”

Morning News Wrap: "Cyber-NORAD," CAN-U.S. Border and Generic Drugs, Toronto’s Mayor Wins Stay, U.S. Loses Out at WTO, Canada’s Provinces Steal the Show, and More

By Keith Edmund White, Editor-in-Chief

Woodrow Wilson Center’s Canada Institute Talks NORAD and Cyber-Security @ 1 PM.  Cyber-security and protecting critical infrastructure are big (and irksome) issues facing both Canada and the United States.  You can watch the event here.

From WWC: 

Experts expect that cyber attacks from hostile nations and rogue actors will represent one of the most dangerous threats to Canada and the United States in the coming decades. The perils are numerous and the consequences are severe for such an attack. However, there are many measures that both nations can take, individually and collectively, to ensure peace and prosperity, free from the threat of a "cyber Pearl Harbor" disaster. The Canada Institute is pleased to host a distinguished panel to discuss these threats as well as the most effective measures and best practices that the private and public sector actors can use to make both countries more secure. The panel will discuss many issues including: the vulnerability of our linked supply chain system, the role of the private sector in enhancing the national security of the United States and Canada, policy options for creating a better information sharing process while respecting privacy rights, threats to energy production in Canada, and the possibility of creating a “cyber-NORAD” to help deal with our shared threats in the most efficient way possible.

Provincial Politics Take Center Stage.  The Globe and Mail offers an excellent province-by-province political round-up piece.  (Note to self:  copy G&M.).  In short:  Alberta—character politics are beating out attempts for Alberta’s Conservatives to push a national energy policy; British Columbia—the NDP seems on course to capture to provincial parliament; Quebec—between the Charbonneau corruption commission and the PQ’s PR blunders (they tired to remove the Maple Leaf from Quebec’s parliamentary building!), the great fear a of a resurgent PQ and separation anxiety has been allayed.    

Generic Drugs Crashes Canada-U.S. Border Policy Competing Economic, Security, and Public Health Demands.   Prescription Drugs + Border Security + Generics + Health Advocates = Border Policy Nightmare.  From WSJ: 

The White House has alerted police and border agents to prepare for a possible influx of addictive pain drugs from Canada, where cheaper, generic versions of OxyContin will soon become available. U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske also called Canada's health minister last week to discuss the issue and offer assistance to address the wave of prescription-drug abuse sweeping both countries, Mr. Kerlikowske's office said. In an alert to law-enforcement agencies sent Tuesday, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy warned law enforcement to be on the lookout for cheap copies of OxyContin, which it said could hit the market as soon as next month.

Will Toronto’s Mayor Be Out Next Week, Or Live to Appeal in Office?  Globe and Mail offers real-time court updates.  Update:  Rob Ford won a temporary stay, and will stay in office while his conflict-of-interest case is appealed.

America Given Deadline to Comply With WTO Country-of-Origin Meat-Labeling Rules.  The ever-fast wheels of international trade justice!  Having lost on an meat-labeling case to Canada and Mexico in June, the United States has been given a May 2013 compliance deadline.  The Kansas City Star reports on progressive unease with the WTO tinkering with U.S. labeling requirements: 

“Consumers in the U.S. have been clear: They want dolphin-safe tuna, and if we’re not able to label tuna in the way we want to label it, I think U.S. consumers are going to be pretty angry,” said Democratic Rep. Rick Larsen of Washington state, who likened the situation to having replacement referees decide the outcome of games in the National Football League.In the most recent development, Larsen and 21 other members of Congress sent a letter last month to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, complaining that the WTO is threatening to turn back the clock to the days when tens of thousands of dolphins were killed each year "in a tuna fishing free-for-all." Critics say the WTO is running roughshod over U.S. laws that govern everything from the environment to food safety and public health.

Joan Crockatt Gets the Hill Times Treatment.  And in a nice ‘slice of life’ piece at The Hill Times, Bea Vongdouangchanh writes on one of Parliament's newest members:  Joan Crockatt.

From The Hill Times: 

Prior to getting elected, Ms. Crockatt was an outspoken pundit who appeared on several political TV panels. Mr. Martin said he hopes the PMO, known for its tight message control, will allow her to continue to be a spokesperson on several issue.  “She’ll be as scripted as any of them [Conservative MPs], I’m sure, but Joan sometimes does freelance a little bit in her commentaries and that’s always a good thing. I hope they make her into a bit of a media presence because she does do good television. But if she takes one misstep, they’ll take her off the tube and never put her back on,” he said, adding that Ms. Crockatt does give a good first impression as an MP. “She’s always walked to her own beat type of thing and suddenly becoming shoe-horned into a borg-like group think is something that’s going to be a new experience for her.” Meanwhile, both the Liberal and Green parties increased their vote share in the byelection in Calgary Centre. The Liberals increased by 15.4 percentage points and Green candidate, Chris Turner, by 14.7 percentage points from 2011 election results. That increase came at the NDP’s expense, with Dan Meades losing 11 percentages points from 2011.

The Toronto Star tells Canada to look to the United States on climate policy.  From the op-ed: 

In other words, nearly three-quarters of U.S. gains will come from tougher regulation to curb emissions, “green” government procurement, grants and loans to promote renewable electricity, and fuel conservation in vehicles and buildings. Pollution taxes, higher oil pricing and emission trading systems will also have an impact. The implications for Canada, and Ontario, are obvious. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives has called for a coherent federal climate policy, including “a clear, nationally consistent carbon price” across the economy. And the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy has urged more investment in low-carbon innovation, a major growth sector.
Until now the Harper government has adopted a wait-and-see-what-the-U.S.-does attitude, repudiated the Kyoto Protocol as too costly, and failed to come up with a credible plan to make the painful adjustments that will be necessary to develop the oil and gas sector in a more balanced and sustainable fashion, mitigating emissions. As things stand there’s no federal constraint on oilsands pollution, Pembina argues. Now Ontario, too, is falling short. The Americans don’t have all the answers. They remain huge polluters. But they are bending the curve in a better direction. We should aim to do no less.

Alberta Conservative Party Soul-Searching

By Keith Edmund White
Editor-in-Chief

A quick news-blurb and short primer on the fascinating party politics of Canada, which should stir the interests of U.S. political watchers--not to mention political comparativists.

The National Post reports on a Alberta Conservative Party motion to strip federal MPs of automatic voting privileges at provincial party meetings.

Why the intra-party tension? Well, in Alberta, while the Progressive Conservatives still run the Legislative Assembly, the official opposition is the Wildrose Alliance Party. And what does the charismatic leader of the Wildrose Party have to say about the Progressive Conservative Party:

[Danielle] Smith said the motion on federal Tory voting privileges is “reflecting the reality that there a lot of federal Conservative MPs who are conflicted about which party is the true voice of conservatism (in Alberta).”  [Source:  The National Post]

Mount Royal University professor Duane Bratt explains the distance between the federal Progressive Conservative Party, which now leads Canada's national government under Prime Minister Harper, and the provincial Progressive Conservative Progress of Alberta, which still leads the right-leaning province, but with some significant heartburn:

"So my sense is that a majority of Albertans, perhaps even a larger majority of Albertans, don't like the policies that Wildrose is promising, but it doesn't matter, because they want to throw the Conservatives out of office and they have a nice, likable, smart woman leading their party." [Source:  CBC News]

Alberta Pushes Toward Single Energy Regulator: Proposal Overview and Concerns

By Keith Edmund White

Editor-in-Chief

Single regulator: Smart, efficient government or sly accountability circumvention?  Short answer:  Time will tell.

Alberta Proposed a Single Regulator:  Mondaq Overview

Bennett Jones LLP offers a fantastic overview of the proposed October legislation to create single Alberta legislator.  From Shawn M. Munro and Bradley S. Gilmour’s Mondaq article:

Key aspects of the current regulatory regime will remain in place, with the primary change being the oversight and administration by a single body of most regulatory aspects associated with the life-cycle of energy resource activities. For example, existing authorization and approvals processes will be similar but will in many cases require only one application; hearings will still be used in the case of objections to energy resources activities; and such activities requiring approval prior to the establishment of the Regulator will continue to require approval under the new regime.4 There are, however, numerous other important changes proposed in REDA. The specific circumstances under which hearings will be held, timing and processes involved, cost awards, and other procedural matters will be dictated by rules and regulations yet to be released. At this time, however, there are a number of important proposed changes evident in REDA in addition to the inclusion of specified enactments like EPEA, the PLA and the WA in relation to energy resources and energy resource activities.

…

Changes to Enforcement

Under various consequential amendments to other legislation by REDA, enforcement penalties are substantially increased.

Corporations found guilty of an offence can be fined up to $500,000 and individuals may be subject to fines of up to $50,000, per day. This is a significant increase from penalty amounts currently levied by the ERCB under various legislation regulating energy activities. Furthermore, any person who, in the opinion of the Regulator, has received proceeds derived directly or indirectly from breaches of an ALSA regional plan,REDA or any enactment prescribed in the regulations, or non-compliance with other terms, orders, etc., may have to provide an accounting of the proceeds and pay a penalty in that amount.

Criticism of the Proposal: Calgary Sun on penalties; Environmental Law Centre’s Concerns

But, as would be expected, this proposed legislation still leaves a lot of dots to be connected by a single energy regulator.  A critical issue: how fines are assessed and where those funds go.  Check out this October 25th Calgary Sun article by Bill Kaufman:

But after reading the legislation, Wildrose utilities critic Joe Anglin said he’s concerned about the possibility landowners or industry could be arbitrarily penalized under the plan.

“There’s a possible lack of due process ... when you have an official able to issue a penalty like Court of Queen’s Bench,” said Anglin, MLA for Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre.

…

A spokesman for the environmental activist Pembina Institute said the new regulator could be a positive step, though not enough is known about the process to be certain.

The best plain reading overview of the bill, albeit from a critical eye, must go to the Environmental Law Centre’s November 1st posting by Cindy Chiasson.  Beyond making clear why the proposed legislation omits many details, Chiasson makes clear four concerns: narrower standing test to challenge regulatory actions, cutting out one aspect of judicial review, increased political control of the regulatory process, and unclear accountability standards.  From her post:

While this initiative has been touted as addressing energy and environment as two sides of the same coin, it seems the coin is loaded in favor of energy. Existing environmental regulatory processes would be curtailed and limited:

-the current standing test of “directly affected” under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA)and Water Act would be changed to the narrower “directly and adversely affected” test for energy developments; and

-appeals under EPEA and the Water Act to the Environmental Appeals Board, an independent quasi-judicial body, would be eliminated for energy developments and replaced with self-reviews by the Regulator of its own decisions.

The Bill would also give Cabinet the ability to modify how environmental legislation applies to the Regulator.

…

We also have concerns regarding the potential transparency and accountability of the Regulator. Bill 2 specifically states that the Regulator is not a Crown agent. There is no clear accountability of the Regulator directly to the public.

Other Resources

Blakes November 2, 2012 backgrounder on the proposed legislation.

Huffington Post October 24, 2012 article by Bill Graveland.

Excellent October 26 article that highlights property-owner and political viewpoints on creating a single Alberta regulator by the Calgary Herald’s Tamara Gignac.

CBC’s Jennifer Lee has an excellent news report trumpeting the energy sector’s support for a single Alberta regulator, while also highlighting some of the accountability issues with creating a single regulator.  Two quotes worth particular mention if you have trouble loading up the 2 minute report:

Brad Herald, Cdn Assoc. of Petroleum Producers: “It’s a once-in-a generation opportunity to really calibrate, recalibrate a major system for Alberta.”

Keith Wilson: “They’re essentially going to make this super energy regulator the appeal body of its own decisions. So you’re going to have to go back to that body and say, ‘Well, we don’t think you went fair enough.’ And they’re going to say, ‘Well we’re happy with or decision, get out of here.’ And I think that’s wrong.”