Alberta fighting federal “unconstitutional intrusion” into provincial jurisdiction

Alberta to fight federal plastics ban once more

Alberta’s government will continue defending the province’s constitutional jurisdiction and economy by intervening in Ottawa’s appeal of the Federal Court’s ruling on plastics.

On Nov. 16, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the federal order-in-council classifying plastics as toxic is not only unreasonable but unconstitutional. The federal government has chosen to appeal this decision, ignoring calls from Alberta and others to accept the court’s decision.

As a result, Alberta’s government will participate in the appeal and will argue that the federal government’s decision to label plastic as a “toxic substance” is an unconstitutional intrusion into provincial jurisdiction.

“It is past time for Ottawa to listen. We have told them they are overreaching their jurisdiction, the private sector has told them so, and so have both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court. Ottawa cannot assume regulatory authority over any substance simply by designating it as toxic. We will continue to push back against Ottawa’s unconstitutional actions, including through this legal action, until they listen.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

The toxic designation and bans have also had a detrimental impact on Alberta’s economy. Alberta’s Industrial Heartland Association estimates the designation will potentially jeopardize more than $30 billion in capital investment in the petrochemical sector by 2030. Those risks would also put Albertan and Canadian workers at risk of losing their jobs.

“The Federal Court clearly ruled that the federal government’s plastics ban policies were unconstitutional. The federal government’s environmental policies and constitutional overreach have been heavily criticized and this ruling further confirms the indisputable nature of provincial jurisdiction in these matters. We are intervening in this appeal and will continue to participate wherever and whenever necessary to protect Alberta’s interests.”

Mickey Amery, Minister of Justice

In addition to intervening in the appeal, Alberta will monitor any further legal action taken to remove plastic manufactured items from the current Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Several Calgary-based companies producing compostable plastic bags are now caught in the ban and will be barred from supplying Calgarians with low-emissions alternatives to traditional plastic shopping bags.

“Instead of listening to the courts and to Canadians, the federal government has chosen overreach once again. We will continue standing up for our constitutional jurisdiction while focusing on more effective ways to reduce plastic waste and keep it out of landfills.”

Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas

Alberta is committed to reducing plastic waste through initiatives like extended producer responsibility, which encourages businesses to find new ways to recycle materials and reduce waste. The province also advocates for strategies that create economies of scale, promote recycled content and develop local markets for transformed plastic waste.

Quick facts

On April 23, 2021, the administrator in council issued an order-in-council directing that “plastic manufactured items” be added to Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA).
The category of plastic manufactured items includes every piece of plastic that enters Alberta.
Once a substance is designated as toxic under CEPA, CEPA allows the federal government to make regulations regulating every aspect of that substance’s life, from manufacture to sale to use and to disposal.
Canada subsequently enacted the Single-use Plastics Prohibition Regulations (SUPPR) prohibiting the manufacture, import and sale of six single-use plastics. SUPPR is only valid if “plastic manufactured items” is listed as toxic on Schedule 1 of CEPA.
The Responsible Plastic Use Coalition, Dow, Imperial Oil and Nova applied for a judicial review of the order. They challenged it as unreasonable on administrative law grounds and as unconstitutional on division of powers grounds.
On Sept. 7, 2022, Alberta intervened in the application to address the constitutional questions. Saskatchewan intervened on Oct. 24, 2022.
The application was heard March 7-9, 2023, and the court reserved its decision.
On Nov. 16, the federal Court of Canada issued its decision. Justice Angela Furlanetto concluded that the order adding “plastic manufactured items” to the Schedule 1 was both unreasonable from an administrative law perspective, and unconstitutional.

Related Topics:#AlbertaVSOttawa #DanielleSmith #FederalPlasticsBan #PetrochemicalSector #PlasticBan Alberta feature

Up Next

CBC television ad revenue dropped 16% in first half of 2023 as mainstream media flounders

Don't Miss

Reading and math scores plummet across Canada after COVID school closures

Government of Alberta

This is a news release from the Government of Alberta.

Follow Author

Alberta’s methane emissions fall 52 per cent

Agriculture / 2 days ago

2024 harvest wrap-up: Minister Sigurdson

Alberta / 2 days ago

39 percent increase in funding for RCMP instigates discussion about future policing for rural Alberta

Alberta

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Published on November 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.

The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.

According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.

Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)

And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?

In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Edmonton public school board takes action in defiance of Alberta’s proposed pro-family policies

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

An Edmonton school board submitted a motion to defy Alberta’s policy requiring parental knowledge if a child goes by different pronouns at school.

On November 5, the Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new pro-family policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

“The Division’s current policy on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is part of our mandate to provide a safe, welcoming and healthy school environment for students, staff and families,” the board claimed in the motion sent to the Board of Trustees.

“The policy changes being proposed by Premier Smith will contradict what our Board, and previous Boards of Trustees, have worked hard to ensure: the safety and well being of all children in Edmonton Public schools,” it continued.

The new policies, introduced last week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith under Bill 27, will mean that sex-education classes will not be included in a child’s education, and teachers or school staff will no longer be allowed to conceal whether a student begins to use different pronouns or names.

Once Bill 27 becomes law, schools must notify parents of what is being taught at least “30 days in advance and be given the opportunity to opt in rather than opt out of this instruction.”

However, while Alberta is working to keep parents informed and children safe from the radical LGBT agenda, the Edmonton board has argued parents must be kept in the dark to prevent them from stopping their children from accepting the falsehoods of the LGBT agenda.

“For transgender youth who choose a name different from the one given at birth, use of their chosen name in multiple contexts affirms their gender identity and reduces mental health risks, which are known to be high in this group,” the board claimed.

However, significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Additionally, as LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.

Furthermore, many teachers struggle to keep secret from parents. A Saskatchewan teacher who wished to remain anonymous previously told LifeSiteNews that she feels guilty about keeping secrets from parents and supports the decision to keep parents informed.

“I fear that we are not supporting students or parents when we keep secrets,” she explained. “We have many students using alternate names, which sometimes changes frequently during the year, and then are asked by parents if we were aware of the changes after the fact. I feel responsible for keeping the secret and I don’t think it’s fair. I think schools are already taking on too many ‘parent roles’ and it’s important that parents play the ‘parent role’ not teachers!”