Connect with us

Alberta

Alberta taking feds to court to challenge legality of heating oil carbon tax exemption

Published

5 minute read

Accountability for Ottawa’s carbon tax double standard

Alberta’s government has filed an application at the federal court challenging the constitutionality and legality of Canada’s heating oil carbon tax exemption.

Alberta’s government is standing up against the federal government’s carbon tax exemption for heating oil to protect Albertans from the double standard Ottawa has created with the carbon tax, which means Albertans continue to pay carbon taxes to stay warm in winter.

Last fall, after years of insisting that the carbon tax is applied equally across Canada, the federal government exempted the carbon tax for heating oils, which are used predominantly in Atlantic Canada and Quebec. Over the last year, the federal government has refused multiple requests to grant a similar carve-out on other heating methods from Alberta and others across the country who are also facing rising costs of living.

Alberta’s government will now take this fight to the courts. Alberta filed an application seeking judicial review of the exemption with the Federal Court on Oct. 29, asking the court to declare that the exemption is both unconstitutional and unlawful. The application argues that Ottawa’s carbon tax exemption for heating oil is unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Government of Canada’s stated purpose for enacting the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act.

“Last year, Ottawa decided Canadians in the East deserved a three-year break from paying the carbon tax on their home heating costs. While we’re happy for these Canadians, Alberta, Saskatchewan and other provinces who heat their homes with natural gas have been deliberately excluded from these savings. Albertans simply cannot stand by for another winter while the federal government picks and chooses who their carbon tax applies to. Since they won’t play fair, we’re going to take the federal government back to court.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

While the Supreme Court of Canada previously found the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act was constitutional, it found that Canada’s jurisdiction to regulate greenhouse gas emissions was limited to the ability to create minimum national standards for carbon pricing for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Alberta strongly opposes the federal carbon tax exemption on heating oil, as the federal government is no longer creating minimum national standards that apply evenly across the country, and is instead creating a regime that favours one region and fuel type over others.

 “This exemption is not only unfair to the vast majority of Canadians, but it is also unlawful as the federal government does not have the authority to make special exemptions for certain parts of the country under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. The federal government isn’t even following its own laws now. Someone needs to hold them accountable, and Alberta is stepping up to do just that.”

Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice and Attorney General

The federal carbon tax adds to the rising cost of living for all Canadians. By 2030, it will cost Canadians $25 billion every year, in addition to lowering the gross domestic product (GDP) by $9 billion. In addition, the Bank of Canada has estimated that the federal carbon tax increases inflation by 0.15 per cent year over year.

Quick facts

  • Since Apr. 1, 2024, Albertans have been paying around 35 cents in federal taxes on every litre of fuel – along with the carbon tax, that also includes the federal excise tax and the GST.
  • The following percentage of households use home heating oil by province:
    • Forty per cent in Prince Edward Island
    • Thirty-two per cent in Nova Scotia
    • Eighteen per cent in Newfoundland and Labrador
    • Seven per cent in New Brunswick
    • Four per cent in Quebec
    • Two per cent in Ontario
    • One per cent in British Columbia
    • Less than one per cent in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba

Alberta

Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

 

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.  

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.  

 

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal. 

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.  

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.  

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.   

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.  

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form. 

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.    

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.   

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.  

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children. 

A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.” 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.

The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.

For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).

And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.

In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.

This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.

Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.

Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.

Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.

When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.

According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.

Continue Reading

Trending

X