Alberta
Trudeau gov’t pushing forward with net-zero regulations despite Supreme Court ruling
From LifeSiteNews
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault claimed that a Supreme Court ruling returning power to the provinces does not affect federal plans to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector, nor the Clean Electricity Regulations.
The Liberal government is moving ahead with net-zero emission regulations despite a Supreme Court ruling restricting the federal government’s “no more pipelines” legislation.
On October 16, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault declared that the Supreme Court ruling returning power to the provinces does not affect federal plans to cap emissions from the oil and gas sector, nor the Clean Electricity Regulations.
“The opinion of the court does not call into question other regulatory initiatives under development, and we are confident that they are within the purview of the federal government,” Guilbeault said in a statement to The Globe and Mail.
Guilbeault further claimed that the regulations are within Ottawa’s power to regulate as they are based on different federal authorities than the Impact Assessment Act.
The decision to press ahead with energy regulation comes on the heel of an October 13 ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court which found the Trudeau government’s 2019 Impact Assessment Act (IAA), dubbed the “no more pipelines” bill by critics, to be largely unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court declared that most of the IAA was unconstitutional with the exception of Sections 81 to 91, which refer to projects under federal authority on federal lands or outside Canada. Therefore, those projects would fall under federal jurisdiction and are not unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate.
However, the Court’s ruling did restore provincial autonomy over projects that don’t fall under federal jurisdiction, determining that the Trudeau government’s requirement that all provincial natural resource projects conform to the Liberals’ social and “climate change” policies is unconstitutional.
Guilbeault’s Monday statement comes as Canadians await the federal government’s amendment of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is designed to phase out natural gas plants by 2030. The act is expected to be the means to implement the emissions cap and electricity regulations across the country.
His position echoes that of legal experts who warned that the Supreme Court’s decision will likely have no impact on other federal moves such as the Clean Electricity Regulations or oil sands emissions caps.
However, Guilbeault seems to be backtracking from his initial statement following the Supreme Court ruling; on that day, Guilbeault declared that the federal government is willing to “collaborate” with the provinces.
“We accept the court’s opinion,” he said during a virtual media meeting last Friday. “It provides new guidance on the Impact Assessment Act, while explicitly affirming the right of the government of Canada to put in place impact assessment legislation and collaborate with provinces on environmental protection.”
“We will now take this back and work quickly to improve the legislation through Parliament,” Guilbeault announced, but failed to give a timeline for the new legislation.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, a staunch opposer of Trudeau’s net-zero regulations, celebrated the court decision as returning power to the provinces.
“Today’s decision significantly strengthens our legal position,” Smith told reporters. “If they’re [the federal government] trying to pretend that they somehow still have the right to proceed with those offensive pieces of legislation that are clearly in our jurisdiction, they’re fooling themselves.”
Beyond the IAA, Alberta has been consistent in its fight against Trudeau’s push for increased energy regulations, with Smith repeatedly refusing to submit to the Liberal government’s demands, warning that Canadians could freeze in the winter if new “clean” electricity and energy regulations are enforced.
Late last month, Smith announced that she is preparing to use her province’s Sovereignty Act to fight the electricity regulations if the Trudeau government does not relent.
The draft version of the federal government’s “Clean Electricity Regulations” (CER) states that there will be billions in higher costs associated with a so-called “green” power transition, especially in the resource-rich provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which use natural gas and coal to fuel power plants.
Business executives in Alberta’s energy sector have also warned that the Trudeau government’s fast-paced “green” transition could lead to unreliability in the power grid.
In addition to Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has likewise promised to fight back against Trudeau’s new regulations, saying recently that “Trudeau’s net-zero electricity regulations are unaffordable, unrealistic and unconstitutional.”
“They will drive electricity rates through the roof and leave Saskatchewan with an unreliable power supply. Our government will not let the federal government do that to the Saskatchewan people,” he charged.
The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.
The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.
Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.
But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.
And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.
Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.
Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.
And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.
Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.
The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.
But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”
It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.
Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.
Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:
“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”
Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”
As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.
The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.
Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.
Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry and New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu of the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security
Premier Danielle Smith has joined the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security to further support advocacy of Alberta’s energy and environmental interests with key U.S. states.
The coalition was established in September 2024 by U.S. State governors Jeff Landry (Louisiana) and Chris Sununu (New Hampshire) with the aim of ensuring energy security, lower energy costs, increased reliability, sustainable economic development and sensible management of energy resources and the environment. With 12 U.S. states already signatories to the coalition, Alberta is the first non-U.S. state to enter into this agreement.
By expanding energy ties with the U.S. and promoting cross-border energy trade and participation, Alberta is helping to build upon its North American Energy strategy. Alberta already accounts for 56 per cent of all oil imports to the U.S. – twice as much as Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iraq combined – which is helping to drive job creation and prosperity on both sides of the border. Natural gas also plays an important role in North America’s energy mix. Alberta is the largest producer of natural gas in Canada and remains positioned to support the U.S. in filling their domestic supply gaps.
“I am honoured to join the Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security and would like to extend my sincere thanks to governors Landry and Sununu for the invitation. Alberta plays a vital role in North American energy security, serving as the largest supplier of crude oil and natural gas to the United States. With 200 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 200 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, significant natural gas liquids and ample pore space for carbon capture, Alberta’s contribution is set to grow even further as we look to work with the Trump Administration and other U.S. partners to increase our pipeline capacity to our greatest friend and ally, the United States. We are proud to collaborate with this coalition of allied states in advancing energy security, reliability and affordability for Americans and Canadians.”
“Our mission as an organization has not changed but Alberta’s welcome arrival to our group sparked a conversation about what our core mission is, and that is ensuring energy security in all its forms. Our members all share the common goal of enhancing and protecting energy options for our people and businesses, which leads to lower energy costs, increased reliability, sustainable economic development and wise management of energy resources and the environment. I welcome Premier Smith and the insights she will bring as the leader from a fellow energy-producing province, that like my state, is under a federal system of government where national imperatives are not always aligned with state or provincial interests.”
Alberta is a global leader in emissions reduction technology and clean energy solutions. The province has captured about 14 million tonnes of carbon dioxide through carbon capture, utilization and storage technology, and has the ability to support the U.S. in developing new infrastructure and supply chains for future energy markets in the areas of hydrogen, renewables, small modular reactors and others.
Alberta is also unlocking its untapped geological potential to help meet the increasing demand for minerals – many of which are used worldwide to manufacture batteries, cell phones, energy storage cells and other products. This includes the province’s lithium sector where Alberta’s government is supporting several innovative projects to develop new ways to extract and concentrate lithium faster and with higher recovery rates that are less capital and energy intensive and have a smaller land-use footprint.
As part of this coalition, Alberta looks forward to sharing best practices with states that already have expertise in these areas.
Quick facts
- The U.S. is Alberta’s largest trading partner, with C$188 billion in bilateral trade in 2023.
- In 2023, energy products accounted for approximately C$133.6 billion, or more than 80 per cent of Alberta’s exports to the U.S.
- The Governors’ Coalition for Energy Security’s 12 signatory states include Louisiana, New Hampshire, Indiana (Governor Eric Holcomb), Alabama (Governor Kay Ivey), Georgia (Governor Brian Kemp), Tennessee (Governor Bill Lee), South Dakota (Governor Kristi Noem), Mississippi (Governor Tate Reeves), Arkansas (Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders), Oklahoma (Governor Kevin Stitt), Wyoming (Governor Mark Gordon) and Virginia (Governor Glenn Youngkin).
Canadian farm producing consumable crickets lays off two-thirds of its employees
Rand Paul vows to target COVID-19 cover-up, Fauci as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman
Kennedy Exposes the Swamp – Vivek and Musk Appointed to DOGE
Taxpayers spent $15 million on Fauci’s private security, chauffeur after he left government
-
COVID-192 days ago
Rand Paul vows to target COVID-19 cover-up, Fauci as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman
-
MAiD2 days agoOntario tracked 428 cases of potentially illegal euthanasia but never notified police: report
-
Brownstone Institute1 day agoThe Revolution of 2024: A Rare Victory for Anti-Establishment Fury
-
espionage2 days agoCommunist China interfered in BC election that saw far-left NDP re-elected by slim margin: report
-
National2 days agoTrudeau government to roll out another digital border crossing app by 2026
-
Economy23 hours agoCOP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
-
COVID-192 days agoPeer-reviewed study finds over 1,000% rise in cardiac deaths after COVID-19 shots
-
Education11 hours agoLowering Teacher Education Standards Will Harm Students