Analyse der Symbole, Signale und Ernsthaftigkeit des neuen Sovereignty Act-Vorstoßes in Alberta | Wird Danielle Smith im Kampf gegen Ottawas CO2-Obergrenze wirklich die Kontrolle über die Emissionsdaten der Ölkonzerne übernehmen?

>While the draft motion text lays out these bold/serious actions, it tasks cabinet to “consider the following responses to the federal initiative.” Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz confirmed to CBC News that the Sovereignty Act motion “sets forward seven things we would like to look at” (italics ours, in both passages).
>
>What would follow, she explained, would be to “come up with the fine-tuned details with constitutional experts, and with companies and organizations.” This would entail figuring out how to thwart federal rules on inspection and data disclosure, should it ever actually come to that point in 2027 and beyond.
>
>There has always been this tension between the Smith team’s ambition of a mighty Sovereignty Act to declare Alberta a no-go zone for disagreeable federal laws, and the reality that federal laws apply in the zone called Alberta.
>
>…
>
>When Smith and Anderson obtained power, they reined in their imaginings that the act could be used to defy Supreme Court rulings (on the consumer carbon tax, say), while the legislation itself declares nothing in it would authorize an order contrary to the Constitution, and could compel no person (“other than a provincial entity”) to violate federal law.
>
>The first time the premier invoked the Sovereignty Act, against the Clean Electricity Regulations, the motion passed last year said any officials’ non-compliance with federal enforcement could not break federal laws and she admitted it was all essentially symbolic.
>
>…
>
>Two years into its existence, that flagship bill of Smith’s premiership has been invoked twice against the Trudeau government’s climate regulations, though neither regulation has actually become law so there is no co-operation yet requested of Alberta officials to defiantly withhold.
>
>But it continues to draw headlines as a provocative measure, and underlines the extent to which the Smith government and its resource industry see these federal policies as dangerous to the viability of the oil and gas sectors and the broader Alberta economy.
>
>The Sovereignty Act also signals how far the Smith government would go in the name of federal defiance, making proprietary demands of corporate data and controlling the rights of non-employees to visit company facilities.
>
>The UCP government’s response to alleged federal overreach is to itself reach farther into business activities as a provincial government.
>
>”Is this a conservative government?” NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi asked in response. “Is this a government that believes in free enterprise?”
>
>Smith has stated repeatedly these are only measures she feels forced to take in response to heavy-handed federal proposals. Having garnered headlines and federal responses to the provocations, the next desired effect is the abandonment of the proposals, either by the Liberals or their successors.
>
>…
>
>When she wielded the Sovereignty Act against the federal power grid rules, she proposed another expansion of provincial power — in that case to create a Crown corporation to operate natural gas-fired power plants that the private sector might walk away from under new green-power impositions.
>
>Are these threatened actions to thumb the provincial nose at Ottawa, or are these new kinds of ambitions from a premier who wants a more direct hand in guiding Alberta’s resource development and markets?

At this point, these actions appear to be purely performative. However, this is also likely an indication of the direction that these politicians would like to go in, were they allowed to. What the consequences of these actions, should these go ahead as envisioned, will remain to be seen.