The Globe and Mail reports that “Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is mulling seizing ownership of information oil and gas companies collect about greenhouse gases in her province and banning the release of such intelligence without her government’s approval, as she escalates her fight with Ottawa over its proposed emissions cap.”
Whenever someone brings up the Sovereignty Act and Alberta separation with me, I enjoy yanking their chain by suggesting that the Federal Government might simply respond by repealing the Alberta Act (equally unconstitutionally), thereby causing the province to cease to exist and re-establishing direct rule of its former territory from Ottawa.
Seriously, though, this is just more theatrics from Danielle Smith designed to keep the UCP base in line. I’m confident that the Alberta government knows the limits of its own power.
To say nothing of the stone cold stupid part of Alberta’s ‘strategy’ She’s fighting last years war. Like the War Room. Which arrived after the war. And started an unnecessary one. Alberta’s political gene pool should get out more often. They haven’t had a policy/issue win for a couple of decades.
When the corps do collect the information on emissions does not ensure the data provided to the government would necessarily be accurate. Living in limbo land here in Alberta how low will the limbo stick go?? Corporations may also have more than one set of records. The music of the oil barrel drums is far more attractive than the emissions going into the fresh air at the top. The layers of black clouds hanging in the air early in the morning leaves far more clear evidence.
Your short piece here proceeds on the assumption that the federal exercise of powers in this instance *is* consistent with the existing constitutional division of powers.
You don't make the case for it just as in your earlier arguments you don't really demonstrate how the Sovereignty Act is unconstitutional or even anti-constitutional. You just assert that your point is correct.
If this is so and is so obviously so as you assert then there is absolutely nothing to worry about since - on the face of it - the provincial action is unenforceable. Yet you are agitated to the point where there evidently *is* something to be very worried about. These two notions cannot live in the same space yet here we are.
If this Sovereignty Act and anything flowing from it is actually unconstitutional, then the courts will sort it out just as they did with the IAA and may well do again with the IAA version 2.
What seems to be more potentially problematic is the notion that information owned by private corporations is in fact public information.
My goodness man, no, it doesn't proceed on that assumption. In fact, you're gonna want to re-read it. Try keeping an eye out for the little paragraph that starts "On the other hand,..."
Whenever someone brings up the Sovereignty Act and Alberta separation with me, I enjoy yanking their chain by suggesting that the Federal Government might simply respond by repealing the Alberta Act (equally unconstitutionally), thereby causing the province to cease to exist and re-establishing direct rule of its former territory from Ottawa.
Seriously, though, this is just more theatrics from Danielle Smith designed to keep the UCP base in line. I’m confident that the Alberta government knows the limits of its own power.
Thanks for the update.
The Government of Alberta does not play well in the sandbox of Confederation.
To say nothing of the stone cold stupid part of Alberta’s ‘strategy’ She’s fighting last years war. Like the War Room. Which arrived after the war. And started an unnecessary one. Alberta’s political gene pool should get out more often. They haven’t had a policy/issue win for a couple of decades.
Par for the course for this nutcase Premier.
When the corps do collect the information on emissions does not ensure the data provided to the government would necessarily be accurate. Living in limbo land here in Alberta how low will the limbo stick go?? Corporations may also have more than one set of records. The music of the oil barrel drums is far more attractive than the emissions going into the fresh air at the top. The layers of black clouds hanging in the air early in the morning leaves far more clear evidence.
Your short piece here proceeds on the assumption that the federal exercise of powers in this instance *is* consistent with the existing constitutional division of powers.
You don't make the case for it just as in your earlier arguments you don't really demonstrate how the Sovereignty Act is unconstitutional or even anti-constitutional. You just assert that your point is correct.
If this is so and is so obviously so as you assert then there is absolutely nothing to worry about since - on the face of it - the provincial action is unenforceable. Yet you are agitated to the point where there evidently *is* something to be very worried about. These two notions cannot live in the same space yet here we are.
If this Sovereignty Act and anything flowing from it is actually unconstitutional, then the courts will sort it out just as they did with the IAA and may well do again with the IAA version 2.
What seems to be more potentially problematic is the notion that information owned by private corporations is in fact public information.
My goodness man, no, it doesn't proceed on that assumption. In fact, you're gonna want to re-read it. Try keeping an eye out for the little paragraph that starts "On the other hand,..."