I'm getting to that now, because I have it right here. I'll even read it into the record, if you interrupt me again. As for the reference regarding the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, it was a 6-3 decision, Chair, as you know. It was a 6-3 decision. Those are the best kinds: 5-4 and 6-3.
You know the best laws are made in dissenting opinions. That's what a lot of lawyers have always told me. I am not burdened with a legal education, thankfully, but that's what they've always told me. In those decisions, the three dissenting judges, with different opinions, explained why. It was because they thought it would be a Trojan Horse and that, in the future, the government would again make the claim that the environment is a shared jurisdiction and, therefore, because it is, you can then get into the business of the provinces through that back door. This is the back door now.
Now utilities will be legislated by the federal government making a claim that, because carbon travels in the atmosphere across provincial jurisdictions.... Of course, I agree with that. That makes absolute, common sense. However, in this one that we're talking about, the original intent of this motion, I think, was to call a specific CEO for his public statements.
I'm all for it. Go and do it. In fact, you should call more of them, which is why the natural resources committee's motion adding the words, I believe, “to call other energy executives” was a smart idea. You should call as many of them as you wish to before this committee. Call all of them if you want to, one after another. That's totally up to you.
However, on this particular point—provincial jurisdiction—again, my amendment is very simple. I'm just trying to make the motion make sense grammatically, I hope. English is a third language, so I'm trying here. I'm trying to make it grammatically correct.
The Minister of Energy and Minerals is wrong. The minister doesn't own any companies. He's not the one responsible for the moratorium that has been called. There are good technical reasons for doing it. If you want, I actually have the technical report for it, which I could read into the record. That will all depend on how the rest of this debate goes before we proceed to a vote.
I will mention that the AUC, the Alberta Utilities Commission, said only 13 projects have been put on hold. That's the totality of projects that are affected by the temporary pause. It's not a stop; it's a pause. There is no disagreement between the OIC—the cabinet order that was issued—and the legislation. The OIC was issued so that the government can fulfill its legislative obligations, which the legislature passed and the legislation forces them to do.
The OIC was made under the Alberta Utilities Commission Act, and it is a direction. It's a directive now to the regulator to proceed with an inquiry so that, especially in these rural communities.... I have the statement from the Rural Municipalities of Alberta on exactly what their issues are with how the regulations are spelled out right now.
That's what I'm trying to address in my amendment. That's what I'm trying to fix here. It's so that we can proceed with something whereby they could come in and explain the environmental targets and their plans. You can't talk about environmental plans without talking about the targets. They go hand in hand together.
The last thing I was going to mention here, because even the AUC and the government recognize in the public statements they made.... I'm going to read this part. It reads:
While Alberta has already reduced electricity emissions by 53% from 2005 to 2021, our province does not have enough non-emitting base load electricity, like hydro or nuclear. Wind and solar are intermittent sources that do not provide consistent power to keep our grid reliable during our cold winter months.
It goes on to mention that Alberta has, based on regulations, a target “to have a net-zero grid by 2035”, and then they have legislative targets for carbon neutrality by 2050. Those have not changed. Those are all still there, which is why you should have them come in and talk about the targets and the plan, so that it's all consistent as an entire image and an entire profile that you get. We're far ahead.
Alberta has been very clear. It considers the federal attempts to get involved in our provincial jurisdictions unconstitutional. We should all be trying to defend our provinces.