Minister of Justice David Lametti prepares to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in Ottawa, on March 6.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Ottawa must know by now the power it has to move Alberta politics. But just when you thought there couldn’t possibly be more thorny energy or provincial autonomy questions to pop up before a May 29 provincial election day, the federal government has allowed another one to sneak through.
This time it was federal Justice Minister David Lametti navigating a question-and-answer session last week at the Assembly of First Nations’ Special Chiefs Assembly. He was asked by Prince Albert Grand Chief Brian Hardlotte whether Ottawa would consider rescinding the 93-year-old Natural Resources Transfer Acts, which gave the three Prairie provinces control over their natural resources.
The chief from the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte followed, with Don Maracle not mentioning the acts by name but telling Mr. Lametti the provinces earn trillions of dollars in revenue from the country’s resources that were “given to the provinces without ever asking one Indian if it was okay to do that.”
The Justice Minister’s response acknowledged both speakers but spoke directly to the question of voiding the long-standing power to the provinces. “I obviously can’t pronounce on that right now. But I do commit to looking at that.”
This answer can be viewed as simply a willingness to listen, notably during a session focused on providing an update on aligning Canadian laws with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Mr. Lametti released a statement on Monday saying, “to be clear, at no point did I commit our government to reviewing areas of provincial jurisdiction, including that over natural resources.”
But in these fraught times – and especially days before an official Alberta election campaign call – every federal word on energy policy is significant, for a long list of reasons. It’s also an opening, however small, to challenging the long-established jurisdictional order of exploiting and exporting the country’s natural resources.
In that, Mr. Lametti’s words were a big deal, no matter your opinion on the matter. He acknowledged this himself as he spoke to the Indigenous leaders, noting “it won’t be uncontroversial.”
The Prairie premiers certainly took note. Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe seized upon it first, saying the Prime Minister needs to tell Mr. Lametti he has no business even speculating on the subject. He was quickly joined by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and then Manitoba Premier Heather Stephanson (and about the same time, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre) with the three premiers releasing a statement on Tuesday demanding that Justin Trudeau clarify Mr. Lametti’s remarks.
“The federal government cannot unilaterally change the constitution,” they wrote. “The Prime Minister needs to immediately retract these dangerous and divisive comments by his justice minister.”
The outrage over the comments from Mr. Lametti is deeply political – especially in election-primed Alberta. Every time the federal government speaks about energy or autonomy, a cohort of westerners are reminded why they feel so disconnected from Ottawa. There is a cumulative weariness to the roll out of energy and environmental policies that will place more economic pressure on Alberta and Saskatchewan than other parts of the country. These policies include the cap on oil and natural gas emissions, and a plan to hit a net-zero target in electricity production by 2035.
The United Conservative Party believes that its bellicose rhetoric with Ottawa is better than anything the Alberta NDP is able to articulate. And it believes if the election is focused on anger at Ottawa, they win. The words from the federal Justice Minister are also a welcome distraction for the governing party from Ms. Smith’s series of explanations as to why she conducted a sympathetic phone call with Artur Pawlowski, the Calgary street preacher facing criminal charges connected to the Coutts border blockade. Alberta’s ethics commissioner is now investigating Mr. Smith in the question of whether she interfered with the administration of justice related to a COVID-19 prosecution.
But there’s a less-political reason for sensitivity in regard to Natural Resources Transfer Acts. In 1930, the decision to give Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta full control over their resources was an important act in recognizing the equality of all provinces.
In 1930, the Prairie provinces were also aggrieved by a history of being thought of mainly as a source of new markets, land and raw resources for the benefit of Central Canada. On the day the Alberta transfer act was brought home, there were parties in the streets of Edmonton. Writing about the move to give the provinces more control, a prescient 1930 Globe and Mail editorial said, “Few Eastern Canadians realize the significance of transfer of the Western natural resources to the various provincial authorities.” Former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed rated it “in the top one or two events” in Alberta’s history.
“It would have been dramatically different if it had remained that the oil and gas resources were controlled by the federal government,” Mr. Lougheed told the Calgary Herald in 2005.
Ms. Smith made that point on Tuesday when she noted the 1930 acts “simply gave the Western provinces the same right to develop and control their resources that other provinces in the country already had.”
With all of that history noted, there is no doubt that the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan played a role in spurring this line of inquiry from Indigenous leaders. They did this with their respective sovereignty or autonomy acts, which are largely about challenging federal actions the provinces believe intrude into their jurisdiction – especially in regards to natural resource development.
But the prospect of these self-defined provincial rights treading on treaty rights has Indigenous leaders in both provinces worried and decrying the laws. Those laws continue to be completely unacceptable to most Indigenous communities – even the most pro-development chiefs want no part of Prairie autonomy movements.
Last December, the AFN voted in favour of an emergency resolution to challenge the acts. The resolution also called for the commissioning of a legal analysis on issues surrounding territorial and provincial legislative encroachment on First Nations’ sovereignty, rights and title, including the Natural Resource Transfer Acts passed in 1930.
Ms. Smith and Mr. Moe have long said they were fine with the political storms their respective acts would create. They should then accept that Mr. Lametti was answering a question prompted at least in part by the blowback to their own laws.