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.
2025 Federal Election
Next federal government should recognize Alberta’s important role in the federation
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
With the tariff war continuing and the federal election underway, Canadians should understand what the last federal government seemingly did not—a strong Alberta makes for a stronger Canada.
And yet, current federal policies disproportionately and negatively impact the province. The list includes Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off British Columbia’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.
Meanwhile, Albertans contribute significantly more to federal revenues and national programs than they receive back in spending on transfers and programs including the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) because Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population.
For instance, since 1976 Alberta’s employment rate (the number of employed people as a share of the population 15 years of age and over) has averaged 67.4 per cent compared to 59.7 per cent in the rest of Canada, and annual market income (including employment and investment income) has exceeded that in the other provinces by $10,918 (on average).
As a result, Alberta’s total net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes and payments paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion from 2007 to 2022—more than five times as much as the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians. That’s a massive outsized contribution given Alberta’s population, which is smaller than B.C. and much smaller than Ontario.
Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP is particularly significant. From 1981 to 2022, Alberta workers contributed 14.4 per cent (on average) of total CPP payments paid to retirees in Canada while retirees in the province received only 10.0 per cent of the payments. Albertans made a cumulative net contribution to the CPP (the difference between total CPP contributions made by Albertans and CPP benefits paid to retirees in Alberta) of $53.6 billion over the period—approximately six times greater than the net contribution of B.C., the only other net contributing province to the CPP. Indeed, only two of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP contribute more in payroll taxes to the program than their residents receive back in benefits.
So what would happen if Alberta withdrew from the CPP?
For starters, the basic CPP contribution rate of 9.9 per cent (typically deducted from our paycheques) for Canadians outside Alberta (excluding Quebec) would have to increase for the program to remain sustainable. For a new standalone plan in Alberta, the rate would likely be lower, with estimates ranging from 5.85 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In other words, based on these estimates, if Alberta withdrew from the CPP, Alberta workers could receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower payroll tax) than other Canadians while the payroll tax would have to increase for the rest of the country while the benefits remained the same.
Finally, despite any claims to the contrary, according to Statistics Canada, Alberta’s demographic advantage, which fuels its outsized contribution to the CPP, will only widen in the years ahead. Alberta will likely maintain relatively high employment rates and continue to welcome workers from across Canada and around the world. And considering Alberta recorded the highest average inflation-adjusted economic growth in Canada since 1981, with Albertans’ inflation-adjusted market income exceeding the average of the other provinces every year since 1971, Albertans will likely continue to pay an outsized portion for the CPP. Of course, the idea for Alberta to withdraw from the CPP and create its own provincial plan isn’t new. In 2001, several notable public figures, including Stephen Harper, wrote the famous Alberta “firewall” letter suggesting the province should take control of its future after being marginalized by the federal government.
The next federal government—whoever that may be—should understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation. For a stronger Canada, especially during uncertain times, Ottawa should support a strong Alberta including its energy industry.
Alberta
Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
Expanding urgent care across Alberta
If passed, Budget 2025 includes $17 million in planning funds to support the development of urgent care facilities across the province.
As Alberta’s population grows, so does the demand for health care. In response, the government is making significant investments to ensure every Albertan has access to high-quality care close to home. Currently, more than 35 per cent of emergency department visits are for non-life-threatening conditions that could be treated at urgent care centres. By expanding these centres, Alberta’s government is enhancing the health care system and improving access to timely care.
If passed, Budget 2025 includes $15 million to support plans for eight new urgent care centres and an additional $2 million in planning funds for an integrated primary and urgent care facility in Airdrie. These investments will help redirect up to 200,000 lower-acuity emergency department visits annually, freeing up capacity for life-threatening cases, reducing wait times and improving access to care for Albertans.
“More people are choosing to call Alberta home, which is why we are taking action to build capacity across the health care system. Urgent care centres help bridge the gap between primary care and emergency departments, providing timely care for non-life-threatening conditions.”
“Our team at Infrastructure is fully committed to leading the important task of planning these eight new urgent care facilities across the province. Investments into facilities like these help strengthen our communities by alleviating strains on emergency departments and enhance access to care. I am looking forward to the important work ahead.”
The locations for the eight new urgent care centres were selected based on current and projected increases in demand for lower-acuity care at emergency departments. The new facilities will be in west Edmonton, south Edmonton, Westview (Stony Plain/Spruce Grove), east Calgary, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Cold Lake and Fort McMurray.
“Too many Albertans, especially those living in rural communities, are travelling significant distances to receive care. Advancing plans for new urgent care centres will build capacity across the health care system.”
“Additional urgent care centres across Alberta will give Albertans more options for accessing the right level of care when it’s needed. This is a necessary and substantial investment that will eventually ease some of the pressures on our emergency departments.”
The remaining $2 million will support planning for One Health Airdrie’s integrated primary and urgent care facility. The operating model, approved last fall, will see One Health Airdrie as the primary care operator, while urgent care services will be publicly funded and operated by a provider selected through a competitive process.
“Our new Airdrie facility, offering integrated primary and urgent care, will provide same-day access to approximately 30,000 primary care patients and increase urgent care capacity by around 200 per cent, benefiting the entire community and surrounding areas. We are very excited.”
Alberta’s government will continue to make smart, strategic investments in health facilities to support the delivery of publicly funded health programs and services to ensure Albertans have access to the care they need, when and where they need it.
Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.
Quick facts
- The $2 million in planning funds for One Health Airdrie are part of a total $24-million investment to advance planning on several health capital initiatives across the province through Budget 2025.
- Alberta’s population is growing, and visits to emergency departments are projected to increase by 27 per cent by 2038.
- Last year, Alberta’s government provided $8.4 million for renovations to the existing Airdrie Community Health Centre.
Related information
Feds Spent Roughly $1 Billion To Conduct Survey That Could’ve Been Done For $10,000, Musk Says
Federal emissions plan will cost Albertans dearly
17-year-old died after taking COVID shot, but Ontario judge denies his family’s liability claim
Canadian construction worker goes viral for saying he refused to shake Mark Carney’s hand
-
Business1 day ago
Feds Spent Roughly $1 Billion To Conduct Survey That Could’ve Been Done For $10,000, Musk Says
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoChinese Gangs Dominate Canada: Why Will Voters Give Liberals Another Term?
-
Alberta17 hours agoPhoto radar to be restricted to School, Playground, and Construction Zones as Alberta ends photo radar era
-
Health19 hours agoRFK Jr. Drops Stunning Vaccine Announcement
-
Alberta11 hours ago
Province announces plans for nine new ‘urgent care centres’ – redirecting 200,000 hospital visits
-
Business8 hours agoElon Musk, DOGE officials reveal ‘astonishing’ government waste, fraud in viral interview
-
Energy2 days agoEnergy, climate, and economics — A smarter path for Canada
-
2025 Federal Election2 days agoFool Me Once: The Cost of Carney–Trudeau Tax Games