Alberta has invoked the Sovereignty Act to set limits on the exercise of federal power. But the federal government claims there is no legal basis for their actions.
Alberta invokes Sovereignty Act over federal clean electricity regulations
Premier Danielle Smith believes net-zero electricity grid by 2035 is risky and costly
Michelle Bellefontaine · CBC News · Posted: Nov 27, 2023 5:22 PM EST
Alberta’s United Conservative government has invoked its controversial Sovereignty Act for the first time by introducing a resolution to push back against the federal government’s proposed Clean Electricity Regulations.
The resolution, tabled in the Alberta legislature Monday, instructs governments and provincial entities such as the Alberta Electric System Operator and the Alberta Utilities Commission to ignore the regulations when they come into force “to the extent legally permissable.”
The resolution also raises the possibility of Alberta setting up a Crown corporation to protect the private sector companies that provide electricity in the province. If passed, the resolution would direct AESO, AUC and the Market Surveillance Administrator to consult with stakeholders on the feasibility of such a corporation.
…
Steven Guilbeault, the federal minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada, said the potential use of the Sovereignty Act never came up in months of meetings between federal and provincial officials as part of a working group on the CER and the oil and gas emissions cap.
…
“There is no legal basis for what Alberta is doing ,” Guilbeault told reporters on Parliament Hill.
…
Read more: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sovereingty-act-clean-electricity-regulations-1.7041533
A video of the Premier announcing the invocation of the Sovereignty Act, and her reasons for doing so. Well worth watching – Alberta is lucky to have a straight speaking premier like Danielle Smith.
Even if the Alberta Sovereignty Act is defeated in the end, just delaying the green menace with a tangle of lawsuits is a win, a chance for more people to wake up and start pushing back. It is especially delicious that Premier Smith timed this act of defiance against green insanity almost on the eve of the international COP28 climate conference.
Good stuff, eh.
Very good stuff
Boy, she sure told off those hosers, eh?
I wonder what Premier Danielle Smith will do about C4 Cities? Edmonton is in Alberta and slated to become a ’15 minute city’.
https://rumble.com/v3y7itr-net-zer-is-communism-15-minute-cities.html
-starts after a brief introduction
Concise and well said. The people need more of this.
This is how federalism is supposed to work. In the US, powers not Constitutionally granted to the federal government are reserved for the states (the Tenth Amendment). Would that more US states follow Alberta and the courts enforce this division of power.
That approach only works with honest, originalist courts, and the U.S. Courts all the way to and including SCOTUS are gutless and corrupt.
Not true – that’s nonsense.
100% true. Texas filed to stop Pennsylvania from violating the constitution by the governor changing “the means” of holding an election, power given ONLY to the legislature, and the courts declared only the US Attorney General could bring such a suit.
The USAG is a position created by congress, not a Constitutional office. The States are ALL SIGNATORY to the constitution. Explain how requirements of a contractual agreement cannot be enforced by those party to the agreement due to “having no standing”?
Corruption of the Federalist system is why.
Nonsense on steroids.
The courts including SCOTUS ruled against the election deniers and Trump repeatedly – in every case, actually, brought before SCOTUS, and let stand lower court rulings that also rejected the silly baseless arguments.
One state cannot sue another state over how it holds Federal elections. If that were allowed to stand every red state would sue every blue state and vice versa if their preferred candidates lost. That would in fact destroy our Federalist government.
Of course you cannot show one case that was actually tried in a court.
In ALL cases judges repeatedly declared NO STANDING and never allowed for subpoenas or actual depositions to take place.
Your red herring, of “sue other states over how it holds Federal elections” is intentionally not to the point and truly shows your @ss. To repeat, the Texas case was about a governor making wholesale changes to the methods of the election, authority given ONLY to the legislature by the US constitution. It was about following simple rules, which leftists, such as yourself, never feel responsible to do. That governor using an emergency declaration, a declaration made by the governor himself, to make wholesale changes to the method of holding an election, was unconstitutional outright, and you actually know this, thus your attempt to confuse the issue.
Doesn’t mean what you think
Since 1992, the Supreme Court has ruled the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from forcing states to pass or not pass certain legislation, or to enforce federal law.
so local sheriff’s can’t be made to enforce say immigration law or federal laws on gun background checks
However Federal law is still law of the land as long as they have their own enforcement.
So, if I understand you correctly, who has the gun is on the right side of the law. The Gun is the Law.
And the SCOTUS in 1992 was how liberal and activist.
Like Roe vs Wade, all SCOTUS rulings can be reversed.
The SCOTUS has, like all “power controlling” organizations, worked continuously to expand THEIR power.
Still doesnt make the 10th some sort of carve out where federal laws dont apply within states.
Roe V wade was a novel case at the time, but I dont think the 10th amendment cases were a single one off but likely a century or more of decisions. Plus it doesnt have a religious aspect like abortion does
1992 wasnt a new precedent , it goes back to 1792 Calder Vs Bull. Its extremely obscure the types of cases.
Every state has at least one federal courthouse and a US attorney to prosecute federal laws. if you think thats some sort of ‘liberal’ aberration, its just delusional
In any dictatorial systems Big Brother will not accept other opinions. Doesn’t matter what the constitution or other laws say. Remember they are above the law.
States push back all the time by filing lawsuits in Federal courts, some successful and some not. But it is the Supreme Court that is the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says. SCOTUS does not always side with the states or with the Federal government. I am not familiar with the Canadian constitution, such as it may be .. but in the United States according to the supremacy clause, powers exercised by the Federal government are superior to those of the States in any area that Congress has the power to make law. In general, the interstate commerce clause of the US Constitution grants more or less unlimited powers to Congress over the states, since just about everything in life affects interstate commerce. The Federal government often delegates some of its powers to the states as long as the state laws do not conflict with Federal law – environmental regulation is one of those areas of Federal delegation to the States.
Actually the Interstate Commerce Clause does not grant the powers you imply.
A SCOTUS ruling in the 30s greatly expanded what that clause meant, well beyond the “framers'” meaning.
That ruling MUST be reversed. Then all legislation based on that ruling MUST be revoked.
Then the federal government will be returned to its LIMITED authority.
Again, the SCOTUS works only, in general, to expand their power and thus, the power of the STATE, not the states.
Yes it does, according to repeated SCOTUS rulings going back 237 years. All states are prohibited from restraining interstate commerce. The framers always intended that the clause be read and interpreted just as it is, because they were reacting to the failed Articles of Confederation which prevented any federal government from exercising any powers at all – it was just a club, not a real central government. Only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, therefore states cannot … and that has always been true from the moment the US Constitution was ratified.
BUT per the insane 1930s ruling, congress has the power to regulate ALL commerce even if ONLY within a states boarders, or more specifically even if only within ONE CITIZEN’S property!
How can congress require a citizen to BUY a product. Where is that written in the US constitution?
Think about that before you spout your statist totalitarian opinion.
In the minds of many, PM Trudeau is the root of the trouble here and would appear to be setting himself up for defeat in the next election cycle. So when are Canada’s next parliamentary elections due?
On or before October 20th, 2025; so slightly less than a year now.
Two years. Well I can’t blame that one on a mistype – just a brain fart.
You subconsciously didn’t want to believe we have to bare with FuddleDuddle Jr. for 2 more years! At least the Americans will be rid of Biden by Jan 2025.
We hope. Do not underestimate our stupidity and ignorance.
It’s up to two years. But the Liberal government is wholly dependent on coalition support from the NDP. As public support stands right now, both the Liberals and the Dips are looking at suffering a complete bloodbath, the public hates them both so much.
As punishment for deserting their supposed principles, the Dips are under increasing pressure. Justatwit (Justin Trudeau) lured them into this coalition by promising the Dips a national pharmacare program. But the Libs never seem to get around to doing it, probably because of the huge cost.
The degree of public animosity for the government cannot be understated. Justatwit tried to make a public appearance in Belleville last July, and he had to flee to his autocade covered by his security detail. Insults were the least of what was thrown. None of the federal cabinent ministers have been making public appearances of any kind for at least 6 months.
PM Trudeau is not the root of the trouble. He like Biden are just puppets of those who try to keep their imploding centrally controlled economic system alive.
The Laurentian Elitists think long term….they told Turdeau to “spend Canada into extreme debt”….next step “lose the upcoming election”, …”whoever wins will have to majorly increase taxes”…”then our opposition will be wiped out in the next election”…”and over a decade with our control of the press and now the internet, we will make you a national hero” and your dream job of taking over Claus’s position at WEF or SG of the UN can come true.
I’d like to know what Guilbeault and his other dream-world environmental compatriots are ingesting if they actually believe that a net zero electricity grid is possible in the next decade. Sure, provinces like Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec derive most of their electricity from hydro, but those contain only one-third of the country’s population, and the rest not only lacks the infrastructure to attain net zero but also doesn’t consider it particularly important in the first place and never did. That’s the reason Canada has never met any of its climate goals during the past 35 years, and that’s why the most recent assessments by its own auditors claim it’s highly unlikely it will reach its latest one. And if surveys were taken of the Canadian population, it’s a guarantee, as it has been in the past, that the majority of the population firmly rejects any new taxes, laws and restrictions that would supposedly lead to a net zero grid.
They don’t care about reality – they have to be seen pushing for these useless and damaging policies and the actual voters be damned. It’s all about appeasing special interests and the one-sided media.
And getting invited to the next WEF so they can become part of the ‘in-crowd’.
Interesting situation. I did some quick research before commenting. The Canada situation is less clear than in the US, where the 10th Amendment makes things quite clear (the basis for overturning Roe v Wade).
Canada is a constitutional monarchy. It is also a federation of sovereign provinces, and the boundaries between the provinces and Ottawa is not anywhere clearly defined that I could find.
Let’s hope monarch King Charles 3 does not get to weigh in.
The Alberta Head campaigned and was elected on the promise of passing the Sovereignty Act. Trudeau said nothing at the time. She has kept her word to her electorate.
Rud,
The division of powers between Ottawa and the provinces is well laid out but the Federal government has long (especially under liberal governments) had a superiority complex that justified interference with provincial matters. For instance, health care is provincial jurisdiction but the federal government essentially controls health by doling out money to provinces doing its bidding. Same for energy with Federal government the adding supreme court to essentially rule that the “emergency” of climate change supersedes provincial rights. To top it off, the West and Alberta in particular seem to have been the whipping boys of easterners, specifically the “Laurentian Elite”.
The 10th Amendment is routinely ignored by the US Federal government. In fact, prospective law students taking the LSAT can improve their scores by considering that said amendment is usually the ‘wrong answer’ when guessing on multiple choice questions.
What Alberta is attempting seems analogous to the ‘Principles of ‘98’, the US political position after 1798 that individual states could both judge the constitutionality of federal laws and decrees and refuse to enforce those that were deemed unconstitutional.
Aka ‘nullification’, the ‘rightful remedy’ to Federal overreach.
No – the 10th amendment is not “routinely” ignored by the courts. It’s meaning is not what a lot of conservatives and libertarians thinks that it means – i.e., that states rights supersede Federal powers. It means only that if Congress has not made law on any particular matter under its Constitutional powers, then States are free to make their own law. Various clauses and amendments to the Constitution, such as the Supremacy Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the “civil war amendments” (13th, 14th, and 15th) place the Federal government over state governments in specific areas of law.
‘It means only that if Congress has not made law on any particular matter under its Constitutional powers, then States are free to make their own law.‘
Unbelievable. In saying that the States can only make laws in the absence of Federal legislation, you’ve actually reversed its meaning. Try reading the 10th again, it’s not hard:
‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’
Electricity and the grid is clearly a provincial responsibility, but so is resource extraction and the Liberals got their judges to go along with the carbon tax nonsense, most Canadian’s judges being liberal donors.
So we’ll see how this goes. Smith isn’t stupid and Trudeau well and truly is so we’ll see how this one goes.
Charlie should take a leaf out of his mother’s book and not interfere in politics.
He won’t though, he’s already sprouting his nonsense over climate change, the bloody dipstick
Uhh, no. Dobbs was not decided on the basis of the 10th amendment at all. Rather, it was decided per Justice Alito’s opinion, which the court agreed with, that it was the prior court’s interpretation of various amendments, (1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th) that was faulty. States have no right under the 10th amendment to nullify any other rights spelled out in any other amendments to the Constitution.
‘States have no right under the 10th amendment to nullify any other rights spelled out in any other amendments to the Constitution.‘
Classic straw man argument. Nullification only applies to Federal laws that are NOT pursuant to the Constitution, i.e., within the scope of its delegated powers.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Federal legislation and regulation falls into this category.
“Let’s hope monarch King Charles 3 does not get to weigh in.”
Just the opposite, I would be delighted if he would. It could be an entertaining circus to watch.
There are important differences between Canada and the US constitutionally. However much of the discussion here focuses on non-constitutional forces that play an important role in how the constitutions of either nation are interpreted and enforced. In a sense, Alberta’s government is doing nothing new in Canada that hasn’t happened in the past. For many decades Quebec has acted as a truly independent nation within Canada and essentially blackmailed or coerced federal governments to give in on issues critical to Quebecers.
This may be the first time Alberta has had a government that really understands this dynamic and is willing to spend political capital to bring the federal government into line with what is best for Alberta within the confederation of Canada. I hope and expect that other provincial leaders will follow by example. A key component of the success (or failure) of Canada will be the ability of provinces to balance the power of the federal government against the interests of the diverse and more grounded provincial populations.
Danielle has one big factor on her side which is the massive resource and financial power Alberta wields in Canada. We are a disproportionate contributor to the federal tax base, equalization payments and the federal pension plan. The latter issue arose when Danielle raised the prospect, already permitted in law, that Alberta remove itself from the federal pension plan and run its own. Alberta’s disproportionate contributions to the federal plan over many decades mean that, were it to withdraw its fair share of money, the federal plan would be left a shambles. As events unfold in the Canadian political landscape it is starting to look like a David and Goliath intellectual battle where the Prime Minister and his closest Ministers play the role of David without the slingshot.
Story tip – New Canadian study suggests that women who scream the loudest about ‘climate change’ don’t actually care all that much – American Thinker
… been my experience that ‘climate change’, in that sentence, can be switched out with a whole lot of other things and the sentence is still accurate. Or just remove ‘about climate change’, and it is still accurate:)
(you could probably switch ‘women’ to ‘people’, and it would still be a reasonable statement.)
Good on Alberta, centered on the great city of Calgary, for standing up for reality (it’s a beauty way to go, eh?). Now let’s see what the Trudeau side counters with.
Not clear that Trudeau has a good counter. Each Canadian province is sovereign under Charles 3, and Canada (Ottawa) is just a federation of them plus sovereign Native American grants. So Ottawa boundaries are fuzzy, while provincial boundaries are arguably not. Gonna be interesting.
As noted above, Trudy will probably withhold or decrease transfers of federal tax money. In Canada, the bulk of tax money is under the control of the federal government.
“bulk of tax money is under the control of the federal govt”
The interesting part of that is Alberta and its people provide a vastly disproportionate chunk of that “federal” tax money. The evil of fossil fuel extraction is magically cleansed as it wafts into federal coffers to be re-distributed to Left-ist Eastern Canada. In reward, Alberta and those fuels are vilified.
I’m a proud Albertan with bitumen in my blood. Danielle is doing a superb job and watching the green loon Steven Guilbeault our (ex-Green Piss executive) turned environment minister, or should that be dictator, losing his mind over recent events makes me very very happy, he will be consigned to file 13 at the next federal election.
I think Canada has reached and is moving past peak green stupidity. The Canadian supreme court recently ruled other federal government environment targeted regulations as unconstitutional. Without fossil fuels or nuclear energy Canada would not be a viable country.
Too soon to talk about offering Statehood?
Alberta and Saskatchewan and Yukon, yes. Ontario, Quebec, and BC no. Maritimes, let’s let Maine decide.
Absolulment! Quebec would hasten US balkanization. The Maritimes however would be a prize. Maine used to be Massachusetts so they’d be all for allowing new States.
All the national government of Canada needs to do to right the ship is to expel Quebec and that mass of leftists votes.
Same for the UK and Scotland.
It’s pretty cold at times in much of Canada. Energy failure is not an option.
And why would Canada even be opposed to global warming. A few degrees warmer would do nicely up there.
That’s what I could never understand..
Why would Canadians be concerned if it became a degree or two warmer. ???
I would have thought they would be cheering it on !!
I most certainly am, am loving the nice climate emergency this fall although the (likely El Niño influenced) bad fire season wasn’t great.
I’ve often suggested to politicians and reporters come here and go tell people in the street we have to try to make it colder, then I will take them to the hospital to get patched up after, just good manners after all.
Don’t confuse the opinions and wants of the Canadian public with what our current government says or does. Most would welcome a warmer Canada but some are convinced by warnings of dire consequences. Warnings without basis in real scientific data. The rest pay little attention and just spend part or all of the winter in Arizona and Florida
Guilbeault is a felon eco terrorist. Not sure why anyone would take his legal advice
don’t fall in love with Danielle, she all on board with net zero by 2050, just announced multi billion subsidies for carbon capture, claims Alberta will be the green hydrogen capital of the world. She is drinking the cool aid, just asking for a few ice cubes to go with it.
She is just saying that to appease some people. She is far too smart to think that net zero is possible.
Exactly
2050 pushes it way out, the hydrogen thing is dying as it was always going to.
Patience to all.
Otherwise, yes, I would very much prefer that politicians strived to consistently speak truth rather than use diversion tactics.
Sergeant Preston of the RCMP and his faithful dog King work hard in the Yukon and would not tolerate Tru-duh and his followers.
Danielle Smith seems to have her head firmly anchored in reality, while playing the greens like a fiddle. She is offering a 15% subsidy for CCS, which is surely not enough to get anyone to invest their own money in the 85%. Then there’s the publicity about how methane emissions by the gas industry have been cut by 40% – does any green understand how absurd that is? It’s a 40% reduction in the little dribble of methane that escapes while massive amounts of methane are produced and sold into the market. Alberta appears to be in very good hands.
You are 100% correct. She is way smarter than all her critics.
Wow. Someone in Canada (Canada!) has a set! And it’s the Premier of Alberta! Hat tip and fist pumping for this true LEADER who is looking out for her constituents, and not cronys!
This is a big step in the right direction. We must speak the truth to the average guy. He must be informed that he has been lied to, cheated and his money has been wasted on programs that are not up to the task, are expensive and put the population at risk for no good reason. She spoke clearly in language we can all understand and she spoke the truth. How refreshing is that?
She seems to have the constitution and the court on her side. I hope she breaks the greenies and fractures the federal government.
One loophole in the constitution you can drive an eco bus through…..it’s partly unwritten and it’s the judges who decide when they want to go into ‘unwritten’ area. Given the way judges think I think we can guess how they are going to rule when it comes to conflicts between written and unwritten parts
You seem unaware of the Constitution Act 1982 which superceded the Constitution Act of 1867 and which does not refer to unwritten principles but does allow judges to determine the meaning of the text.
The province of Saskatchewan is tag teaming with Alberta to hopefully kill the regulations, but at least cause at lot of problems for the federal government – mischief is important. I am hopeful that with the next federal election looming the government Liberals with bite the dust.
Clean Electricity Regulations, pipelines, new nuclear – small dead animals
Saskatchewan should have invested in nuclear a long time ago – we have some of the world’s largest deposits of uranium – we have mined it safely for decades, shipped it all over the world. Aside from the occasional tornado, Saskatchewan has none of the geological problems that cripple nuclear plants such as earthquakes, tsunamis etc.
Premier Danielle Smith, my province’s leader, is one of the most rational of Canadian politicians and I am proud she has added her voice to those few leaders willing to speak the truth and push hard against the society-destroying policies of the “liberal progressive elite”. Whether this battle with the imbecilic Trudeau government is won or lost, the truth of Danielle’s words will not alter and the realities of energy, environment and economy will not stop being government by the natural order of things.
No political party or leader, no matter how fervent their belief in magic, can overcome nature.
So Canada wants to expand the pipeline for exporting oil to Asian markets while also pushing green electricity nonsense on the oil producing province. That sounds more like a perception check off list, except they will continue to push it because Alberta is so far away from liberal neighborhoods back east.
It’s worth noting that Guilbeault, the Minister of the Environment and Climate change of Canada (now leading the Canadian delegation at the COP28 Bacchanalia) recently returned from China where he participated actively, as one of two Executive Vice Chairpersons, at the AGM of the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development (http://en.cciced.net).
Guilbeault’s participation in the CCICED, described by the Environment Department as “attendance,” deliberately ignored the fact that as one of the two Executive Vice Chairpersons of the CCICED he is actively participating as an executive officer in a Government of China entity set up for the purpose of serving the people of China (as it should), rather than of Canada which HE should.
A man (or in “correct Trudeau-speak” a person) cannot serve two masters, and Canadians may have reason to question whose agenda Guilbeault is following and promoting – that of the Government of China, one for the people of Canada or just his own. He is a rabid radical who seems think it is his God-given right to operate on his own agenda to intimidate Provincial Premiers and Canadian citizens alike. A serious threat to the country’s economy! Premier Smith of Alberta and Premier Moe of Saskatchewan are fed up with the current “Liberal” government’s posturing and hubris that only its policies can “save the world”. So are a rapidly increasing number of Canadians.
Unfortunately, too many Canadians have been brain-washed by the promoters of the green agenda – starting in kindergarten and on up through the school systems. However, there are a few (too few) signs of hope that a more rational, scientific way of looking at this “existential” threat is starting to take hold as more Canadians become aware that they have been and continue to be scammed by the grifters of climate deceit. The real existential threats are actions of the anti-human zealots who have been elected by gullible voters. Canadians can only pray that enough electors will continue to recognize how badly they are being scammed by the fanatical activists. The main media are heavily invested in doing their utmost to thwart that!
Nonetheless, no longer are the extremists getting away with calling everybody that disagrees with them “climate deniers” without kick-back, and more and more Canadians are recognizing that the much hated “Carbon Tax” is doing nothing to tackle “climate change” but is wrecking the economy. Polls indicate that if an election were called today, voters would “clean out the Augean stables” but, thanks to a rigged agreement with the Socialist NDP, the Trudeau government won’t have to call that election for another couple years. Unless voters succumb to the high level of bribery the Liberals have started dishing out nearly every day, the Conservative Opposition led by Pierre Poilievre will breathe new life into the country.
All the Trudeau government has achieved is to drive an economy that could and should be bolstered by careful extraction of the country’s natural resources into the toilet. It has built an enormous debt, the annual interest of which will soon be greater than expenditures on health care. The Government of China must be laughing, as its “useful idiots” destroy the viability of living in the “Great White North.”
” Alberta has invoked the Sovereignty Act to set limits on the exercise of federal power ”
If men can give birth and breast (“chest”?) feed is something that needs to be demonstrated.
But this decision certainly demonstrates that women can have balls.