OTTAWA - Ed Stelmach's pitch for more federal cash has received a less than friendly response from Ottawa.

Earlier this week, the Alberta Premier came out swinging against the federal government’s plan to allocate $1.5-bilion to the provinces for climate-change programs - arguing that the per capita distribution of funding won’t be enough to compensate for the revenue his province stands to lose from aggressive emissions-reduction measures. In a speech before Calgary business leaders, Stelmach claimed that the new federal "EcoTrust" fund focuses too heavily on Alberta's relatively small population and doesn't take into account the $4,500 per person it contributes to federal coffers.

Almost 40% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions come from Alberta, according to 2005 figures from Environment Canada - ahead of Ontario at 28% and Saskatchewan at roughly 8%. Yet according to CBC News, Quebec will receive roughly a quarter of the total funding, while Alberta will get less than one-eighth. So Stelmach has called for "capital investment" - funding for research and development into emissions-reduction programs as well as renewable energy projects - if Alberta is to be targeted as a major polluter.

"I'm just making the comparison that although Alberta is small in terms of its population, the job we have to do - the task ahead of us - is immense and we'd like to sit down and discuss this with the federal government," he said.

If that happens, Stelmach may not find it a very pleasant conversation. When asked about the Premier's comments during Question Period on Wednesday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper reiterated that the funds would indeed be distrubuted using a per capita formula. And fellow Alberta Conservative Bob Mills, who chairs the House environment committee, suggested to Macleans.ca that Stelmach's hard -ine stance may have more to do with the next provincial election than his environmental policy.

"For Albertans, there is a very strong feeeling that the contribution to equalization payments has been one-sided for a long time," Mills said. "Premiers Manning, Lougheed, Geddy - certainly Ralph - would all get on the white horse at election time, riding across the province, blaming the feds for everything, and I can't imagine that he wouldn't get on the same horse. It sells well in Alberta."

Although Mills said that Stelmach's concerns over the per capital formula seem reasonable, he suggested there will always have to be compromises.

"All Canadians will have to be part of it and it will have to be fair," he said. "The tar sands produce 30 megatonnes of CO2, and the four coal plants in Ontario produce just over 24 megatonnes. But the 30 megatonnes from Alberta generate a huge amount of tax for the federal government, and a huge number of jobs in steel mills in Ontario and across the country. Those four power plants might not be in the same category."  

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen was less generous toward Stelnach's complaints. "He's doing an apples and oranges comparison that's not going to pass muster," he told Macleans.ca.  "Alberta's emissions have gone up 39% since 1990, the most of any province. He can claim whatever intensity-based games he likes; that's a business as usual scenario.

"As if Alberta needed more money from the federal government. If this is how he's treating the Alberta environment, and the health of Albertans, there's much to be feared from this premier. It's an intellectually dishonest argument."

Cullen suggested that Stelmach is facing opposition even in Alberta. "How can you have the Mayor and City Council in Fort MacMurray calling for a slowdown in operations and a premier who wants to go hog wild and cut deals with [US Vice President Dick] Cheney for the quintupling of oil sands production?" he asked rhetorically. "What they're proposing is dangerous and deeply disturbing."

Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia suggested Stelmach's demands may be more of an opening gambit than a hard-line demand. "Whatever the issue, whether it be fiscal imbalance or environment, there's always bargaining positions and posturing to try to get the most for one province or region, and I suppose that's normal," he told Macleans.ca.

"But I think that the idea that Alberta should get more money because it produces more emissions uses a kind of unacceptable logic. That the pollutor gets the money - that sends the wrong message."

Stelmach's pitch has not fallen on entirely deaf ears. His concerns were echoed by Climate Change Central, an Alberta group that describes itself as a "public-private partnership" in support of "creative solutions to climate change." A spokesman told the CBC that distributing the $1.5-billion on a per-capita basis would only make sense if it was to encourage individuals - as opposed to governments and corporations - to reduce their emissions.

"It's not as simple as just kind of looking at per capita. It's looking at what are some of the big strategic opportunities," Simon Knight said.
Marlo Raynolds of the Pembina Institute, an environmental policy think tank, added that the per-capita distribution ignored "the big strategic opportunities."

Still, early indications were that the Premier will be hard-pressed to win federal politicians over. Stelmach has characterized the climate-change debate as a “runaway train,” with every political party desperately trying to one-up each other. On Wednesday, at least, the parties seemed determined to one-up each other in taking aim at him.devastating."

Meanwhile, CanWest reports that BC Premier Gordon Campbell has announced ambitious new goals for greenhouse gas emissions. "The science is clear," said the Throne Speech delivered by Lieutenant Fovernor Iola Campagnolo in Victoria on Tuesday. "It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real."

Campbell has vowed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2020, to cut automobile emissions and to have "net zero" emissions from electricity production by 2016. British Columbia is responsible for nearly 5% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. On a per-capita basis, it would stand to receive nearly $200-million of the $1.5-billion in federal funding.

Print Article    Send to a Friend    Write a letter to the editor

Digg this Stumble It!   Post to del.icio.us Seed Newsvine   Share on Facebook Technorati links