Relations between the Prairie provinces and those of eastern Canada have been strained ever since the prairie lands were purchased by Great Britain from the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1869 and ceded to Canada in 1870. Initially relations were strained as the Government of Canada, supported by the eastern Provinces, refused to grant jurisdiction over natural resources to the new provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta until 1930¹

Jurisdiction notwithstanding,  there have continued to be strained relations almost continuously ever since. To quote Young and Berdahl, the authors of the Policy Options article: 

“While the Constitution was amended in 1930 to transfer control over natural resources to the three Prairie provinces, a powerful narrative of federal unfairness and economic exploitation was cemented in the Prairie public consciousness.

This narrative of exploitation was reinforced over the 20th century with a series of federal policies perceived to damage the Prairie provinces’ natural resource economies. From tariffs to freight rates to the highly contentious National Energy Program, Ottawa, Alberta and Saskatchewan battled over natural resources and other economic issues.”

In recent years the ‘narrative of exploitation’, alleged federal intrusion and anti-western discrimination has been increasingly stoked since the election of the United Conservative Party to power in Alberta and especially  with the recent ascendancy of Danielle Smith as Leader and Premier. In such an inherently charged political environment one would think that the federal government would take particular care to carefully explain the intent, nature and potential impact of policies and programmes generally and especially those that could be construed to be ‘anti – Western’ or ‘anti-Alberta’.   And one would think that, in the event of misrepresentation by the provincial governments, the feds would take pains to explain the true intent of and rationale for such a policy.

The recently announced process by the Government of Canada for implementing the so-called ‘just transition’ labour market adjustment legislation has been grossly misrepresented by the Premier of Alberta and the local press and such misrepresentation has been met, so far as one can determine, if not by  silence on the part of federal Ministers, at least by a response so muted as to be virtually undetectable to most Albertans.  Reaction in Alberta by UCP politicians and the press is illustrated by Don Braid’s column on the front page of January 15’s Calgary Herald :

“The federal plan to “transition jobs and regional economies in the fight against climate change is more vast and all-embracing than suspected by even the most suspicious sovereignty fan in Premier Danielle Smith’s office…. This document is national dynamite packaged as question-and-answer notes for Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson…

If nothing else, it should convince people across the country that the federal plan won’t just cause upheaval in oil and gas provinces, but nearly everywhere.”

As noted, the announcement that caused the uproar related to leaked briefing notes for the Minister of Natural Resources as he prepared for an appearance before a House of Commons Committee. The government is about to launch a series of consultations with the public preparatory to developing a new or revamped labour market adjustment policy to facilitate smooth adjustment to a greener economy. A robust policy will undoubtedly be needed as the economy and labour market adapt to related policies and programs. There will be industrial and geographic changes in the nature of economic activity with concomitant changes in the industrial and geographic location of employment. These changes will require both geographic and occupational mobility of workers in affected industries and areas. That there is a role for governments, federal and provincial in facilitating such transitions has long been recognized and is reflected in such programs as unemployment insurance, geographical mobility assistance and various federal and provincial training and educational programs.

And improving such transition policies and programs – the so called ‘Just Transition’ – is what the parliamentary committee meeting – and the related Ministerial Briefing Notes – were all about.

The briefing notes say nothing cataclysmic about the size of expected changes in industrial output and employment in the oil and gas industry though there are references to both the industrial sectors  and occupational groups likely to be most affected. It was the latter reference – which includes an unfortunate reference to ‘janitors’ ²