June 2010 marked the sixth consecutive year of minority government rule in Canada, the second longest run of consecutive minority governments in Canadian history (second only to an nine year stretch in the 1920s). While the past six years have produced an ample serving of political drama, the legislative and policy output during this period, from an electricity sector perspective, has been decidedly mixed.
While the early years of the current minority era were defined by a weak Liberal minority, scrambling under constant threat of defeat in the Commons, recent years have been defined by the increasing dominance of the Harper Conservatives. The opposition parties, with lukewarm public support, see little prospect of replacing the Conservatives, and have employed various methods to ensure the government survives confidence votes. However, not far from the spotlight of mandatory confidence votes on Budget legislation in the House of Commons, in the Committee meetings rooms and, until recently, the Senate, the Opposition majority have continually halted or delayed much of the government’s legislative agenda.
The Conservative government is adapting to this reality. Buried deep in the last two Budget implementation bills were measures that traditionally would not be included in Budget legislation. These include changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and notably in the most recent Budget Bill, C-9, changes to AECL and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. This “all or nothing” approach forces the Opposition’s hand with the threat of an election. It has been estimated that C-9 contained half of all legislation passed by Parliament in the past year.
This current minority government era has coincided with an increased global focus on the environment and energy. The electricity sector, while eager to face these complex challenges head on, has suffered from whiplash in recent years as the federal parties have proposed and announced a series of statements, intentions, plans and frameworks to address these concerns. From Project Green to The Clean Air Act to Turning the Corner to The Green Shift, Canadians have been presented with a smorgasbord of potential energy/environmental strategies and proposed solutions at the federal level, with none having yet to see implementation.
The November 2008 Speech from the Throne announced a new government’s objective: that “90 percent of Canada’s electricity needs be provided by non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power by 2020”. However, other than a handful of mentions in subsequent speeches by Environment Minster Jim Prentice, this objective has yet to backed up with any cohesive strategy, framework or legislative backdrop. In June of this year, Prentice announced that the Federal Government will “move forward” with regulations to “address” GHG emissions from coal-fired electricity generation. The broad strokes of the proposed regulations (scheduled to come into effect on July 1, 2015) will likely require coal-fired electricity generation to meet more stringent emissions standards at the end of their economic life. With stakeholder consultations expected to begin later this year leading to Gazette notice early in 2011, the proposed regulation has only received tertiary mention since being announced, and again is not part of a larger, cohesive vision for an energy strategy for Canada. Furthermore, critical buy-in from provincial governments, who under the Canadian Constitution have exclusive jurisdiction for electricity, has not yet been secured.
In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, the government pledged to “introduce new legislation to reform Canada’s outdated system of fisheries management.” The Fisheries Act is in dire need of modernization, and represents one of the key areas where federal jurisdiction intersects with the electricity sector on an almost daily basis. CEA members have developed an extensive set of recommendations that would modernize the Act and enable more effective operation and expansion of clean hydro electricity generation. Legislation has yet to be tabled, and with the clock ticking late in the current minority Parliament, the likelihood of a Bill passing before the next election is slim.
In the early spring there had been speculation in Ottawa that legislation would be introduced to amend several federal statutes with the goal of improving regulatory processes; specifically duplicative environmental assessments that delay the development of new energy projects, and that for years have failed to provide any additional positive environmental outcomes. Finally, it appeared that a cohesive legislative initiative that would address electricity sector concerns was imminent.
In late April, the oil spill in the Gulf had a shrapnel-like effect on any proposals that could even remotely be construed to weaken environmental protection. In the minority government era, as expected, these initiatives were seemingly shelved. Back to square one.
Where do we go from here? While various announcements from Environment Ministers and statements found in recent Throne Speeches are encouraging, and attempt to address key electricity sector concerns, all have been made in patchwork fashion, removed from any cohesive national plan or strategy to address larger energy issues. And in almost all cases, abandoned in the early stages. While the unfocused, short-term political mindset inherent to minority Parliaments, and outside events such as the Gulf spill, are partly to blame, the development of a cohesive energy vision for Canada with clear national objectives for a sustainable energy future would go a long way in cutting through the political noise of the current minority era.
President and CEO
Canadian Electricity Association
A Nature editorial condemned Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his “manifest disregard for science” in Feb 2009. The Prime Minister was criticized for eliminating the office of national science advisor, for the way he treated Canada’s IPCC Nobel winners, for formally backing out of Canada’s Kyoto commitments, and for “committing Canada to a fossil fuel economy” by setting policy to turn Canada into a what he touted internationally as a “global energy powerhouse” by ramping up production of the Alberta Tar Sands. In the 2008 Canadian federal election, the opposition Liberals, the party that has held power in Canada for more years in the 20th Century than any party in any other developed country, presented a clear choice on climate to the voters, making its plan for a “Green Shift” the centerpiece of its campaign. Climate had never been made the centerpiece of a federal political campaign before by any political party. The “Green shift” concept was to shift taxes from activities generally regarded as beneficial to society such as earning income, to activities generally regarded as harmful, i.e. those emitting greenhouse gases. The Liberals were led by Stephane Dion, a former Environment Minister who had chaired COP11, the climate conference held in Montreal. Dion had entered a party leadership convention in fourth place, emerging as the leader because the party was deeply divided over the front runners and he was everyone’s second choice, and because his campaign focus on climate action appealed to younger Liberal delegates. The choice before Canadian voters, from a climate perspective, could not have been more clear. The Conservatives, led by the current Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacked the “Green Shift” as a “tax on everything”. Dion and his Liberals suffered their worst electoral defeat ever in popular vote terms. The result is today’s government of Canada.The new Liberal leader, Ignatieff, in an extensive interview conducted by the CBC to introduce him to Canadians after he was picked as the new Opposition leader, mentioned the failed climate policy once, saying that Canadians had sent a message by voting that they thought the policy was a “stupid idea”, and he wasn’t going to argue with them. Canada kept as low a profile at Copenhagen as it could. Andrew Weaver, a Canadian lead IPCC author, recently summed up his view of this Canadian government: “Their actions make it clear they don’t care about climate change. This administration is a very different form of government. It is top-down, and run by a small group who are anti-science.” Canadian climate scientists who work for the federal government have been muzzled, i.e. restricted as to what they can say to the media, see here, and here, which is more than what Bush was able to do to US federally employed scientists. Remember, the Bush Administration made the news as they attempted to muzzle Hansen because they failed. Where now? British Columbia has the most aggressive climate policy enacted into law of any jurisdiction in North America. The provincial leader, Gordon Campbell, became personally concerned about climate and had enough clout to force his party to adopt this policy, and enough intelligence to avoid making the policy the centerpiece of an election campaign, although his supposedly “progressive” NDP opponents did their best to defeat him with their “axe the tax” campaign. As the NDP made an issue out of opposing the carbon tax and gained political ground especially in rural areas among voters who love their big trucks, Campbell stood firm against a budding party revolt. He told his party if they wanted to get rid of the climate policy he would resign. They backed down, and they happened to win the election. The climate policy was an issue but it wasn’t the biggest issue. Memories lingered in voters minds of what it was like when the Opposition was last in power. On a peripheral issue, such as climate is at present, something like this is the best that can be done, and it was done in at least this place in Canada. Mark Jaccard is a world class policy voice who studies what policies can succeed in this political climate. Canada is not so different from the US on climate: there is support for climate policy among voters, but not enough to force the issue to the top of the political agenda for action. Its too bad something like the Russian heatwave or hurricane Katrina didn’t hit Canada around the time of the last election, and, it seems, the best we can hope for in the way of action on climate is for something in the way of a Canadian climate catastrophe before the next election. Its possible. see: Hansen’s latest (GISS) July 2010 Surface Temperature Anomaly chart Page 2 shows the power center of Canada and the US as hot. Not roasting as in the Russian heatwave, or as alarming as the Antarctic Peninsula, but waiting in the wings. Schnieder used to say look at weather as if it was what happens on a pin ball machine, and climate change as if you permanently tilted the table. The table is tilting more every day. The next big anomaly event could well hit where the power elites of North America live, and we can hope for it.
“The next big anomaly event could well hit where the power elites of North America live, and we can hope for it.”Be careful what you wish for, because you might just get it.