Premiers focus on pipelines at annual meeting | Power & Politics
Premiers focus on pipelines at annual meeting | Power & Politics Premiers focus on pipelines at annual meeting | Power & PoliticsIt’S a wrap of Canada’s Premier before the federal election over the past two days of provincial and territorial leaders tackled issues that are expected to dominate the fall campaign, including climate change pipelines and issues that have created some friction between the provinces and the fed and Leadership. From the federal government, of course, we all know there will be a federal election. This fall Les premiers. We decided to seek Clarity on the issues from from the federal party. Leaders on behalf of Canadians will be sending a letter to all federal leaders asking if we sent a letter to all federal leaders asking a number of questions and we will make the responses Publix. All Canadians can know where the federal Party stand and can make an informed choice. Good to see you in the stands are calling the federal government to support in Mission. Credit trading across International borders in this is all that carbon emissions for Missions credit-rating to occur. For example, essay Canada’s exporting LNG to China, the two countries that have to go and agree to that. How would you convince her? How would you advise the federal government to make sure that China actually does that pickle six, which creates a framework for credit to be given to countries that export technology to reduce carbon emissions? So, for example, scotch one produces agricultural equipment that helps with z, Village Pharmacy? That creates carbon sequestration and agricultural practices, or perhaps you export carbon capture and storage technology or other kinds of technology, so we would require bilateral agreements at that would give Canadians directions. Sun credit against the terrorist targets for sharing that technology. Do you have any confidence, or how would you advise the countries that are on the receiving end of these products right now, like China, for example, how do you, how do you get to convince them that but clarify that we don’t want that article 6 in the Paris treaty to be a dead letter, it’s there for a reason, not to recognize that we can help the developing world, for example, to reduce their carbon emissions by, but we should get some credit for when we do so. So I’m not a technical expert on this, but there is a belief that the article is there. Let’S use it, look at credit for get off to something else will know it. In fact, the whole International System around a greenhouse gas emissions isn’t predicated on on a transfer of credits. You know the Russians, my goodness Euro 1997. They got massive credit in terms of their International targets for the retrospective for the deindustrialization of the Soviet Union that occurred 30 years ago. So surely we could and should get at least some credit for the. If we do now that actually helps reduce emissions. One way I’ve always pointed out that we could actually have a meaningful impact on global emissions would be jerks Portmore by liquefied natural gas to help markets like China and India to convert their power production from high-carbon cult, carbon output, Natural Gas I’m going through that promise. I eat you talk about the Constitutional Authority, the federal government and where infrastructure projects that cross provincial borders is concerned. I just want to make sure that we’re clear and unequivocal here do you want the next government, whoever forms at to force pipeline through Quebec, using under their own constitutional Authority black on white Lawson, 1567. Section 92 of the Constitution makes it very clear that interprovincial infrastructure projects are matters of exclusive natural national federal jurisdiction, and that was confirmed very strongly Andre in a unanimous decision by the British Columbia Peele Court in the reference brought by Premier Horgan. That’S the he’s appealing that together, which is supported by Quebec, of the Supreme Court of Canada, but the locker was not really in doubt now. There is no current private sector proponent of a energy star pipeline, but we believe there might be if we could provide regulatory certainty that the lack of which certainty cause TransCanada to walk away after spending a billion dollars in 6 years and energy. If I don’t make it absolutely clear that no one problems, including Capac, has some imagined video over a national infrastructure project of that nature. Now, if you were, if there was a, would you want the next government, whoever forms it, because we don’t know what this point? Who else would you want them to use that Authority, because, having and using it are two different things was made by whoever the federal government is with Justin Trudeau on this, when your kids ask for the federal government to talk about Reviving something like energy East, so We handed to back a unilateral veto over National infrastructure project. That is the federal jurisdiction. That’S our concern. We think he needs to hear any Federal leader needs to walk that back, reassert clear, Federal, paramountcy on a national infrastructure projects. Ultimately, the regulator decides that ratified by the federal cabinet. So it’s not an imposition, if not like this. Unilateral decision by the federal government. There is a clear process, but at the end of the day, Furniture share on that, because I’ve asked him the same question around using that Authority. Where Quebec is concerned, he has not being explicit either that he is willing to use it. If Quebec is against a project that could come forward, clearly supported the energy East process, and I would expect him to do the same now. The federal government has to wait for an application to be made to go through the regulatory process before it can make. A final decision, but not a mister Shearer enormous protrude out, can amend the Canadian Constitution and start handing out Vito’s to some provinces on a national infrastructure project. This country was built because of interprovincial infrastructure project. The st. Lawrence Seaway that hydroelectricity has helped to fuel. Much of that province is modern. Prosperity is interprovincial infrastructure. So that’s how we built this country set. Let’S stop balkanizing ourselves reassert that that that idea, being partners and prosperity are communicate around the idea of economic corridors, and thank you for attending really appreciate your time. This afternoon has failed this country when it comes to standing up for by America and Lead this nation, the prosperity coast to coast to coast. At the closing press conference of the Council of the Federation in Saskatoon Premier, Ford, Moe and Lego all raised the issue of America Provisions in the wake of Bombardier 10 to lay off hundreds of workers in Thunder Bay. The company says by America. Provisions were one of the factors that contributed to the layoffs, but, as a printer is call in the feds to do more. What town Auto out really do, and is there anything the province’s could also be doing on their own joining me now, premier of Saskatchewan, to see you again thanks for your time today, consideration on the part of your Province being given to the idea of some kind Of retaliatory photo fold by Canada measure taken on your own, how to do things like that which are totally against the nature of the majority, if not all, of the people sitting around the table, we do want to have. You know open that open market access not only across our provinces and working very hard towards that through this meeting and and this meeting, but also across North America and around the world, Canada and exporting Nation, always does better when we have that free and open a Fair market access, so what we would be able to do with to this, we have the request of the federal government to engage on an exemption for Canada, but we can continue to Advocate with our Governors, are counterparts in the Senate and the house in the in The United States President Trump’s cabinet Amazon. We are a down there as premiers from time to time and we’re going to continue to engage. Individually, but also jointly, as we did. Last year, Council, the Federation delegation attended the national Governors association meeting in in the in Washington last year, and we intend on just out again this year. To me that you view the role of premiers attitude of his advocacy and you don’t. You are not considering, or you will not make a move to invoke something like a bike. Haneda provision for the company are the products in your promise by Canada position at 1 and goes the wrong way with respect to trade, to be in violation of other trade agreements that we have, such as the sea to deal of which we also want to. I have have European Union states ratify as well, so this is a nation-to-nation conversation that needs to happen between the United States of America and and our nation of Canada, and the role of the premier of the sub-national governments is to Advocate at level whether that be At the governors or the senate, or the house in in the United States were going to do just that jointly, as well as individually with states of importance to specific provinces. But this, what we see here this week is consequences of of just what impact does policy? Can have getting rid of a lot of exemptions under that trade agreement, that’s being a big part of the problem that why hasn’t really been implemented to the degree that many say that it should be. You said you committed to a review of those exemptions. Why didn’t you oh and we may we may be in in short order? The fact of the matter is through the newest with new West partnership. Those exemptions are gone already for the four members of provinces of that through the cfda. What we’ve identified is there is actually a a slight challenge in the in the trade agreement where, in order to remove exemptions, you would need the approval of all of the partners at the table. What we move forward here through these meeting, but that you can unilaterally any Province, can remove their own exemptions or exceptions that they have a day of foot forward. We made change Premiere Kenny was the first start to move, removing, I think, about half of the exceptions that that the province of Alberta had. We also had a commitment from all provinces and territories to review their the exceptions that they have put forward with an eye to reducing and removing. When is possible and that’s the process that we’re going through as we speak, when we may move, we may move in much the same way that the premier Kenny has. We have been looking at these and we’re going to continue to look at them over the short-term, and you may very well see you in the next number of days or weeks that at Saskatchewan to do something a very similar you made we’ll see other provinces. That me also remove some of the exceptions of the day have other than the fact of the matter is. We also are called on the federal government. Is they are a partner in the in the cfda agreement to to review the exceptions of the Dead brought two table as well brought to the agreement? If you will, because the entity with the largest number of exceptions in the cfpa was the federal government, and so will all provinces are committing to a review of their exceptions with an eye to reducing those Saskatchewan is moving very quickly on that Alberta is all, and We’Ve asked the federal government to to move on just such a review and remove some of the exceptions they put forward as well a few days and I’m asking about the timeline for specific reason, because this promise of reducing barriers has been going on for a long Time, it’s come from many provinces, come from the federal government and there has been a huge struggle in this country to actually accomplish that. So, are you being unequivocal that you will be getting rid of those that could go on for months and maybe years we have a year in Saskatchewan? I believe there’s nine of them. If I remember correctly, will be doing that review and where we can move. Will we will be moving as quickly as possible? The fact of the matter is is in western Canada. We we enjoy actually the the trade relationship from Manitoba West through the the new West partnership, the new West partnership, which does not have exceptions, and so with about half of the nation, not quite four provinces. We actually trade without exceptions already, so that that is a pause and I think In fairness, we’re looking at. Talking to other problems as well it in it with an I actually getting to that type of an environment where we don’t have exceptions up between our problem. So you may see not the growth of that that I appreciate, but the growth of the parameters of that agreement for sale around the possibility of an East-West pipeline, specifically around the the idea of federal jurisdiction and what kind of jurisdiction the federal government has under the Constitution to push through a potential pipeline if it had to go through Quebec, do you want the next government to exercise that nutritional Authority should a pipeline be proposed that would go through Quebec? Do you want them to impose if I plan on Quebec cushioned, and so whoever is the leader of our nation after this Fall’s election does have the responsibility of actually making the decision with respect to you know whether a pipeline is approved or not, it is not In the provincial jurisdiction, we’re seeing that exact our conversation playing out on our West Coast as it was, as it works its way through the the Provincial Court System, ultimately heading for the the Supreme Court. We saw a unanimous decision in the in the first court case. There that said, this actually is, in fact, is in the federal jurisdiction. That’S what we have said all along in saying that we did have good discussions around the table over the course of the past three days here with respect, but with respect to how we can continue to work together to grow our economy. There was some very positive, a discussions, discussions that didn’t include the conversation around economic corridors, if you will for electricity for for your mine products, but also for LNG and, ultimately, oil products as well, not just Easton Westwood, also, the potential for North and South in to Unlock some of the access into the northern resources that we have in this nation – I did not press conference say there is no social acceptability for oil or for oil pipelines through Quebec. Realistically, do you envision a federal government of any stripe? That will say sorry, you may feel that way, but we’re doing it anyway. Hi. I respect the Premier League winner. I respect his comments about end and I’ve. I’Ve heard them up before we had a good discussion. So, with respect to this, I disagree with the the comments that he had made. The fact of the matter is is this: is this is in the federal jurisdiction? The con I says, as much as I. Conversation as I said, is playing its way, making its way out through the courts, with the first decision being a unanimous decision that, if that is in fact the case, so whoever is the the leader of This Nation app Is Falls Federal Election, the they will have the responsibility of a proponent comes forward to a worker this through the system that we have. It was no discussion at all on a threat to National Unity. There is more that is actually binding us together. Then there is US dividing us. Yes, we might disagree in the room, but we come out United 13. Premiers want to focus on one thing: creating well-paid jobs for Canadians at the level of frustration and alienation that exists in Alberta right now to work and the Federation is, I believe, it its highest level, certainly in our country’s modern history degree on the state of the Country support for an energy or an economic Corridor, but they did agree on the need for provincial control over climate change plants. What can we read into the premier stands: Melissa, landsman of Hill & Knowlton strategies alongside former Saskatchewan Finance Minister Andrew Thompson, now, chief of government relations, University of Toronto and Montreal Quebec immigration. Minister, David eyelash, a disclosure Melissa, have to ask you about a statement put out by democracy watch today. They sent a letter to Ontario’s Integrity. Commissioner David Pinterest, because you previously work with the 4 campaign. You know at times Lobby the Ford government. What’S your reaction, I sought advice from the commissioner. I have complied with all of that advice and in complete compliance with the rules. Let’S talk about the premiers and rail start with you a lot of talking at closing press conference not too long ago about whether or not the federal government should be put in a pipeline right through Quebec Premier logo about his opposition in and how he says. Fresno social acceptability for oil. He did not seem to move. What do you make of that portion of the discussion? Have more Canadian control over how the refining process of Canadian crude? I think it makes a lot of sense, but certainly the politics are difficult, and it’s interesting how the Western provinces are not pushing harder for this, because oriflamme are frankly, the Atlantic provinces are pushing harder for this, because it’s amazing Canada solution. I get to politics in terms of Quebec and I understand the of the general anti-pipeline politics are. There is one that really could create jobs for Canadians and make sure that we had more control over the use of that resource since he took power last October because before the holidays, he was talking. Quebecers don’t want of this dirty oil and now he’s talking about social acceptability and during the press conference he said something that were made during the time. The Energy’s project was a lie, so the last polls that were taken in 2016 support in Quebec for energy use was actually close to 50 % and since then, obviously, since the project was like, oh I by TransCanada pipelines, there hasn’t been really any Pollux, but possibly Go here it is more about playing politics here and he even said it. He said: there’s a big political angle here. First of all, his campaign last October was selling more hydropower to the the rest of Canada and duct. For just said, no – and there doesn’t seem to be anything moving on that front, so he’s trying to position himself in trying to sell more hydropower, but at the same time he has approved to project to pipeline projects in comeback. There’S one there’s a gas pipeline project. That’S moving forward, it’s not completely approved but he’s for it and to there’s another there’s a terminal in Montreal which is kluddes a 7 km pipeline. That’S been formally approved by the Lego government. So there’s a lot of move there, plus on top of that federally speaking, you have now the star candidate for the Liberals for the next election in Quebec, Stephen guilbault who’s. The leading environmental issue was against energies, who’s now going to be a candidate for the Trudeau liberals and now trying to try to find a way to explain why he’s joining the liberals, who are for so there’s a lot of evolution and come back right now going On and possibly go is opening the door because he’s saying, if quebecers supported by a poles while then the social licenses there her various references to it there at that press conference from various premiers. But the idea that if Quebec does vocalize opposition to this, they have the authority to you know put a pipeline through there, but will any of them. Actually I agree with you in and whether they say they’re not going to and then and then do so. Is it is a completely different question, be at the liberals or Aurora or the conservatives? This raises a a bigger question around National unity. In the conversations that I think you got a little bit when going from York NE did the front door depressor with you afterwards interview with you after the presser, where he was he was. He was a bit exaggerated by to Exposition, and I do agree with David that I think it’s shifted a little bit where now he’s pointing and he’s using the Quebec public as that as a scapegoat to his position cuz. Maybe it is time for him to change his mind, but if those like David said Andrew, if those poles were to change, does this provide he’s, probably in the best interest of the country, it’s good to see the printers be able to to compromise on this. I think they are setting up for a longer game and a bit more discussion about to know what the quid pro quo is of obvious type of a trade-off. We should be expecting from the fingers. We should be expecting to figure out the creative ways to work together to make sure French literature recognized. National interest is also protected you’re in there in Quebec, and I always wonder we I think he was saying was already said that he won’t go against. Are you willing to use that constitutional? His answer is either. What kind of considerations do all the leaders have when their ass? That kind of a question when ship going on here, because I want to go last week, decided to join the president? The provinces that are contesting the carbon tax and dangerous point, I think, there’s there’s a lot of negotiations behind the scenes going on federally speaking. I think right now the election is very tight. A lot of Swing ridings are going to be in Quebec right now. 4-Way races are going to be happening, and so I right now in Quebec, there is a lot of debate on on the national Unity front actually in Quebec right now. I think it’s less about National Unity than the fact that, environmentally speaking, it’s a shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the province’s. So it’s not about imposing it’s about in courts of recognize this, not only in Quebec but NBC and other cases where, where you talk about environmental evaluations, even if it’s a federal infrastructure project, provincial environment laws apply for the evaluation. So as long as province’s can evaluate the project within their own jurisdiction, it’s not about him. It’S about making sure that provincial laws respected. The challenge we have is with the way that the the council, the Federation, is set up. It is set up really a exacerbate that Dynamic where we end up with this polarization of approaches between the province in the federal government. I’Ve always had a concern that this is really. What is working against kind of a broader National interest is that we don’t have all 14 government sitting down together. We have the group of the provinces, the 13 of them and then separately acting the federal government until we get what players at the table. At the same time, to talk about some of these issues as we used to on environment issues on major issues around energy, we’re not going to really see these kind Solutions, in fact, but the politicians are doing is really punching it off to the courts. How to make rulings that really should be sorted up political Melissa? I think it in terms of how the Council of federation worksite, I agree with Andrew. I think the meetings are always the same. The communique is the same. It could have been written before the meeting started they make if they move the yardstick a little bit on some of the interprovincial trade issues. I think that’s a win for them because For the First Time they’re talking about it, but in terms of pipelines, the carbon tax Things Are pharmacare monks promised promises. I I think this is more about a federal election looming rather than getting any work done. Thanks for watching Canada’s premiers met in Saskatoon for their annual gathering, where they discussed pipelines, among several other hot-button issues. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe weighed in on whether provinces or the federal government should have the final say on pipelines.
To read more: https://www.cbc.ca/1.5208244
»»» Subscribe to CBC News to watch more videos: http://bit.ly/1RreYWS
Connect with CBC News Online:
For breaking news, video, audio and in-depth coverage: http://bit.ly/1Z0m6iX
Find CBC News on Facebook: http://bit.ly/1WjG36m
Follow CBC News on Twitter: http://bit.ly/1sA5P9H
For breaking news on Twitter: http://bit.ly/1WjDyks
Follow CBC News on Instagram: http://bit.ly/1Z0iE7O
Download the CBC News app for iOS: http://apple.co/25mpsUz
Download the CBC News app for Android: http://bit.ly/1XxuozZ
For more than 75 years, CBC News has been the source Canadians turn to, to keep them informed about their communities, their country and their world. Through regional and national programming on multiple platforms, including CBC Television, CBC News Network, CBC Radio, CBCNews.ca, mobile and on-demand, CBC News and its internationally recognized team of award-winning journalists deliver the breaking stories, the issues, the analyses and the personalities that matter to Canadians.