SCHEER MAKES HIS CASE
Tory leader tells the StarPhoenix how he would do things differently on pipelines, the environment and deferred prosecution deals
Q Your last event in the province was on New Year’s Day, when you spoke out against the carbon tax in Regina. When can we expect to see an environmental policy from your party and what will it contain?
A We’ve already started to unveil some details of our environmental policy. We’ve talked about some of the things our greenhouse gas reduction plan would be based on — incentivizing investment in energy efficiencies, taking credit for what Canada does well here, recognizing that we can reduce global emissions by taking advantage of our clean technology, our clean energy. There’s no benefit to global emissions, there’s no benefit to the planet if we chase away jobs and investment and see factories popping up in other countries.
Q So you are looking at Canada as part of the global whole, rather than considering its emissions in relative isolation?
A I think it’s a blend. But we could artificially lower emissions here and punish sectors of economies, lead to job losses and higher costs for consumers, just to see that production move to other countries where emissions would actually be higher. Global emissions could actually go up if we did that. Our full environmental plan will be released with plenty of time for Canadians to make their own evaluations before the election.
Q You’re going to Moosomin Saturday for a pro-energy rally. If you form government later this year, what would you do to streamline the pipeline approval and construction process?
A Things like scrapping the carbon tax would make projects in Canada more competitive; getting rid of, repealing, Bill C-69 — which is being called the anti-pipeline bill; streamlining the approvals process so that the goalposts don’t keep changing; a more dynamic role for the federal government in Indigenous consultations; getting rid of foreign funding in the approval process. I believe those conversations, those decisions, should be made by Canadians.
Q How do you accomplish that while at the same time being aware of and respecting the views of Indigenous groups across the country, many of which are against new pipelines?
A The balance is struck in a robust and transparent approvals process, where concerns can be addressed. And where concerns are found to be legitimate … that obligation is put on the proponent. We don’t live in a country where different people, different groups, different provincial governments get vetoes. People can have their say, people can have their input, but a robust, transparent, rigorous approvals process that people can have confidence in on the front end has to be able to deliver the project on the other end.
Q Last month, a couple of Saskatchewan cabinet ministers were criticized for appearing at yellow vest protests. What’s your view on the yellow vest movement, and the extreme views that have been attached to it?
A The rallies that I’ve seen … these are people who just want to work. Anytime you have public events, people with other views, with other agendas, may come and participate but I don’t think that should be allowed to distract from the overall crisis that is happening in our energy sector, and the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have been impacted by that. I also think it’s frustrating sometimes because there are groups that protest for things on the left wing of the spectrum that attract just odious characters who have very extreme positions … I don’t know that Liberal MPs and NDP MLAs are asked the same type of questions.
Q If you form government, would you repeal the legislation that has been in the news this week and forbid deferred prosecution agreements for corporations that are accused of crimes?
A We can have those conversations, we can have debates, we can have studies down the road (on) if this is an appropriate tool for Canada or not. But right now the issue is not about which law the government tried to politically interfere with, it’s the fact that they were politically interfering in the first place with an ongoing criminal prosecution.