Prime Minister Danielle Smith was not doing anything politically revolutionary when she demanded the repeal of the OTTAWA Environmental Evaluation Law during the federal electoral campaign. Then she demanded it again, many timesWhen the conservatives who promised to do so lost and Mark Carney liberals won.
It was a long-standing cry of Alberta leaders, from the moment the bill C-69 of the Trudeau era, what former Prime Minister Jason Kenney called the “law of no more pipes”, was approved for the first time in 2019 (and became repealable).
Then, a few weeks ago, Smith’s melody began to change about the legislation that energy companies have been strongly disputed.
His rhetoric was softened when he urge the guillotine to a blade with more precision in the law now known as the Impact Evaluation Law (IAA).
Some reviews
Since June, it has launched alternative recommendations.
They include: “revision“In a comment on June 17”;substantially reviewed“In a response from July 2 to a journalist; and”repeal or amendment“At a joint press conference on July 7 with the Prime Minister of Ontario, and the same double option In Tuesday’s announcement at the top of the Prime Minister.
Smith put a little justification behind his refined position in a Interview in mid -June In Rosemary Barton Live, when he expressed his support for the main draft Bodye’s Law to accelerate project approvals, but reiterated his hopes that he was still addressed to the IAA.
“Let’s be practical: the federal government has jurisdiction for linear projects that are transmitted … whether pipes or if they are transmission lines but … there are measures that have put in the bill that are not technical, which are ideological and that really do not have any measurable around them and create confusion,” said Smith.
“So that is part of the reason why C-69 needs to be substantially reviewed.”
But Smith did not explain his change in the tone that day, or otherwise.
It was a quiet pivot after years of a provincial struggle for the direct disappearance of the legislation that became so notorious that the protesters made in the style of Quentin Tarantino posters demanding “Kill Bill C-69”.
When asked about the moderate message, Prime Minister’s office did not say that there has been a change in his past language.
But the revised tone that observers have noticed could be Alberta’s principal who offers a spirit of greater commitment, in line with the different direction of Carney that his liberal predecessor Justin Trudeau.
It could also be a reflection that petroleum and gas companies do not really want the impact assessment law outside of books.
When the Energy CEO coalition issued an open letter “Build Canada now” during the electoral campaign, in his place he requested The IAA be “reviewed and simplified.”
As much as the oil sector does not like federal law, the opposition of companies to complete repeal is reduced to this: discarding the IAA means that there is no environmental evaluation law, and Parliament must begin again.
And if there is something that the oil industry does not like, it is uncertainty, said Heather Exner-Pirot, the main member of the group of experts from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
“From the perspective of the industry, that could be a nightmare that is a soft path towards clarity about regulation,” he said.
“Everyone hates the idea of coming and going with a completely new federal environment evaluation process after each election or after each government.”
The industry would prefer amendments that maintain the basic system in place, but would alter the “list of projects” to eliminate the federal scrutiny of the proposed mines and the developments of resources located entirely within the provincial jurisdiction, said Exner-Pyrot, who is also a special advisor to the Canadian Business Council.
She believes that the toughest position of the Smith government was “for obviously political reasons”, but that can also recently relieve it. “I think they believe [Energy Minister Tim] Hodgson and Carney and are giving them an extra strap. “
Although the new law of construction of the Carney government, the federal government, the federal government would avoid some review processes for the projects that are considered “construction of the nation”, which has not relieved the pressure it faces to further neutralize the IAA.
The liberal government already did it last year, amending the bill to comply with it with a ruling of the Supreme Court that considered that the bill was not constitutional, a judicial victory for Alberta after the province challenged the bill.
Smith filed several demands for additional amendments to the IAA in a Last October To Trudeau, and a month later, Alberta brought Another challenge of the court To tear down the updated law.
In an email to CBC News, Smith’s spokesman Sam Blacktt, referred to Prime Minister’s letter the past fall and said that “he has constantly asked for repeal or a significant review of [the] The bad laws of the Federal Liberal Government “, including C-69.
Apart from the IAA, Alberta Prime Minister has continued to demand a straight repeal of other federal laws or policies, including the prohibition of tank trucks on the west coast and the limit of carbon emissions in the oil and gas sector.
Smith has said that he expects such changes when the Parliament returns this autumn of the summer break, and that he could help cool the persistent frustrations with Ottawa, as well as the separatist feeling.
A brighter evaluation
The Carney government has not indicated that it is about to significantly weaken existing climatic and energy policies.
When asked about possible reforms of the IAA, a federal spokesman said that draft C-5 approved recently will accelerate “projects of national importance”, and that Ottawa wants to reach agreements to recognize the provincial evaluations or led by indigenous people as substitutes for the federals.
“Canadians know that we do not have to choose between rigorous impact evaluations and construction projects in our national interest: we can do both,” said Keean Nembhard, press secretary of the Minister of Environment, Julie Dabrusin, in an email.
If there were additional reviews in the Federal Evaluation Law, which could cause a greater setback and indigenous groups that the IAA was initially designed to attend, with its improvements to the review and consulting processes.
There could be some concessions for Alberta, said Martin Olszynski, a law professor at the University of Calgary who was co-abogenous of WWF Canada as a controller in the challenge of the IAA of Alberta’s court. And that could help explain Smith’s call for amendments instead of repeal.
“Apparently, the symbolic please to its base has limits when there are potentially concrete policies on the table,” Olszynski told CBC News.
Discarding the IAA remained part of the electoral platform of the federal conservative leader Pierre Poilievre this spring, and is still in its rhetorical repertoire. Earl this month, he told CBC Radio The house He wants “the complete repeal of C-69, the anti-pipe and anti-energy law.”
The former oil executive Richard Masson believes that current law is a failure to help build anything. According to a Recent analysis For the Torys law firm, the important project has not yet been approved, although the IAA process other than the Cedar LNG project, whose review was mainly carried out through the Provincial Evaluation process of British Columbia, replacing the work of the Canadian Impact Evaluation Agency.
A federal agency spokesman told CBC News that the 2024 amendments have reduced the scope of the law, and that the agency has been “doing things differently to ensure that all projects can be evaluated in two years in the future”, in line with a liberal campaign promise.
Despite his criticisms, Masson agrees that eliminating the IAA goes against the industry wishes to guarantee predictability and avoid interruption. He accredits Smith for finding a more nuanced position before.
“It is an example of discovering what is possible, which has a possibility of success,” says Masson, executive member of the Faculty of Public Policies of the University of Calgary. “Otherwise, we are going to disappoint many people by pressing something that cannot be achieved.”
However, it is not clear that there is a substantial review in the letters, since the bill has been disdained by Alberta’s political and business leaders equally. But now, at least, oil executives and the pro -petroleo prime minister who defend them are singing the same melody.
