The western premiers of the nation met in Yellowknife this week and discussed a number of issues, knowing one would be at the top of the list.

 

TRANSMOUNTAIN PIPELINE

"The divisive issue is the one that will always get the attention," says Pallister. "The divisive issue is clearly Transmountain. We knew that when we came to the meeting. That became the issue, obviously, of concern to Alberta. They had to make their point, and they made their point by not signing onto the communique. That being said, I don't have any doubt whatsoever that Alberta cares deeply about the other points that we discussed, most of which we had total consensus on."

"Clearly with Alberta and BC at loggerheads on the issue was going to be one that was raised," he continues. "And we did have good discussion on it. Actually it went into camera for a number of further detailed discussions without staff in the room, and we had some really good exchanges in terms of a variety of aspects on this. I think everyone's in agreement that it would have been better had we had a process in place some years ago that could have been respected, and its outcomes respected, by all provinces. But such is not the case. So now B.C. is put in a situation where they are questioning a variety of aspects, certainly in their court cases, of the approval process. And that has to be done now in hindsight, obviously. It would have been better had this been prevented, but the fact remains it was not. So, now going forward, B.C. is now trying to exercise its right through a court mechanism to oppose the pipeline out of concerns, legitimate or not -- and Alberta would say they're legitimate, others would say they are -- for environmental protection, indigenous rights, and so on. With a better process in place, this might not have gotten to this point, and obviously this would have even better for the Canadian economy. "

Pallister explains his role in all of this is endeavouring to bring everyone together to reach resolutions to any conflicts, adding he is the premier of the Keystone Province.

"We actually have a number of issues we agree to," Pallister says. "Alberta wanted to make the point, by not sighing the communique, that the issue that mattered the most to them was the Transmountain pipeline. We knew that before they got to the meeting."

 

CANNABIS LEGALIZATION

Pallister also noted cannabis was also a heavily discussed topic.

"We discussed the need for us to deal quickly -- the federal government in particular -- with ongoing problems in terms of the federal timetable on cannabis legalization," he continues. "There are serious concerns there about their backsliding in respect of the seed-to-sale tracking system. They have yet to approve saliva screening devices, as just one example of how we're going to be put into an untenable situation here in a few weeks' time with our police not able to to do driver testing on potentially impaired driving. Public education issues haven't been dealt with. There's a lot to go on that file."

He says the nation can't move ahead with legislation while in the midst of what he calls a "bizarre situation" of not being able to actually have the police equipped to measure someone who's obviously intoxicated or impaired in their driving. Pallister notes they need answers for these questions from the federal government.

"We've spoken clearly to our concerns for the last number of months, now over a year, about the timeframes they're imposing," Pallister continues. "And this is what many premiers shared with me at this meeting, and have in the past shared with me in other discussions: This timeframe puts us in the dangerous position that we're going to be legalizing a substance for consumption without having, for example, a tracking system set up for seed-to-sale tracking. This actually has as a risk. It's the danger of empowering the underground economy. Not that it's taking business away from the underground economy, but rather strengthening their position in the marketplace. This is so because, if a police officer determined someone was in possession of cannabis, you wouldn't be able to effectively track whether it was legally or illegally produced. So, the federal government has to get its act together. And it has to get a system established that allows the provinces, where the lion's share of the work is being done, to effectively protect their distribution system for cannabis against illegal competition. That hasn't happened to date. And that was part of the purpose of going to the senate and giving testimony before the senate committee. But certainly, as we go forward, we'll continue to advocate for the safety of Manitobans. And, through our efforts, we will encourage other premiers to do the same for other Canadians. It's not just those who choose to use the products that will be legal in a matter of a few weeks' time, if you believe the federal government's present timeline. But it's also for those who choose not to use the products, who may come to harm as the result, for example, of an impaired driver. These are important safety issues, again, for both who choose to use the product and those who choose not to."

We asked Pallister if there is a consensus among the premiers on a preferred date for legalization, knowing the federal government's date is going to be what it's going to be.

"What is that date going to be? We don't know because the federal government continues to be non-declarative on what the date's going to be," he explains. "The B.C. premier has said in discussion that he needs approximately three or four months to get his province ready. Other provinces might say similar amounts of time are required. The federal government was saying it was going to be July 1st. Now they've slipped off that date, but they aren't being clear and unequivocal about when it is the substance is going to be legal. This is just one of several related problems that the federal government's embarked upon around the whole rush to legalize. So, we're continuing to work with, not just the western Canadian premiers as is the case this week, but with the leaders across the country to get answers to questions such as the ones I've just raised, in terms of things like saliva screening devices. We don't even know which devices would be used. Public advertising, awareness, public education about dangers of abuse, and dangers of driving stoned. These are things the federal government should be coordinating , and frankly these are things that are not yet happening. So, that's a long answer to the question. I'm hoping over the next few weeks that the federal government steps up and does its job, that we get answers, and we get clarity. Our position in terms of timing and our concerns may change as a result of that cooperation by the federal government. But in the absence of that cooperation, clearly I'm going to go to New Brunswick and say, 'This is dangerous for Canadians. We can't proceed without clarity.' "

 

TRADE BARRIERS BETWEEN PROVINCES

He notes the barriers against internal trade were also noted, and progress was made last year. Pallister says that must continue.

"We have a number of really good opportunities to do a better job of trading with one another within the confederation, not limited to things like registration of corporations within our country, financial services, alcohol trade, how we've got worker protection devices, and things like that that are licensed differently in each province," adds Pallister.

He says, if first aid companies were to be established in each province, they'd have to facilitate ten different kits due to the lack of consistent regulations between provinces. Pallister explains these things should have been addressed years ago, but progress has been made. He notes aligning the provinces together on this, "Could push our GDP up."

Pallister explains, "And in the face of reduced possibilities in terms of external trade, we have to understand that this is billions of dollars that we should be doing in trade with each other."

 

CARBON TAX

Recently the Saskatchewan government launched a constitutional reference in a challenge to the federal government's authority to impose a carbon tax in that province. Pallister was asked what his take was on the position Saskatchewan's taking.

"I would say that Premier Scott Moe impressed everyone here," he explains. "I think he did a tremendous job of presenting Saskatchewan's point of view. And I would say, personally, I've had the chance to meet the new premier in the past and enjoyed our exchanges. I think he did more than a capable job of presenting his arguments. Obviously, with the federal government's backstop and threatens to involve the carbon tax in each of our provinces, unless we come up with our own plan -- some provinces have done so, most have now -- Saskatchewan has chosen not to, and is fighting in the courts. That is their right. In Manitoba we pursued constitutional legal advice. That advice was that, on the jurisdictional issue, the federal government does have the authority to invoke. But we'll be watching carefully to see if they also have the right to tell us what kind of plans specifically we want to have. In Manitoba we decided we want a flat levy. We don't want a carbon levy going up year after year after year. We want it flat like our prairie horizon, and I think Scott Moe might know what a flat prairie horizon looks like in Saskatchewan. But he'll know better where he stands in terms of overall strategies after his court case is dealt with provincially. Both of us are people who understand the importance of conservation strategies that work. We're both people who understand the need for us to strategize around reduced emissions. That's not an issue here. The issue here is how the provincial governments of our country develop their own plans. Premier Moe is asking the question, fundamentally, 'To what degree does the federal government have the right to tell us what to do in Saskatchewan?' "

Pallister adds the national premiers meetings take place in New Brunswick in a few weeks. He says he knows our officials and other officials across the country will be working with the federal officials to encourage answers to important questions which to this point in time have not yet been answered.