Alberta
Danielle Smith blasts Trudeau gov’t as ‘lawless’ for pushing climate policies despite court rulings

From LifeSiteNews
‘We’re getting pretty frustrated, they’ve had a Supreme Court loss now that says that they cannot use their federal power as a pretext to invade provincial jurisdiction. And they’re acting like that Supreme Court case didn’t happen’
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith tore a page off Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by saying he runs a “lawless federal government” for pushing ahead with his 2035 net zero energy law, despite the fact Canada’s constitution allows provinces full jurisdiction over their natural resources.
“We’re getting pretty frustrated, they’ve had a Supreme Court loss now that says that they cannot use their federal power as a pretext to invade provincial jurisdiction,” said Smith yesterday to reporters after being asked about Trudeau’s looming new energy regulations.
“And they’re acting like that Supreme Court case didn’t happen.”
Smith then lambasted the Trudeau’s federal government for appearing to ignore another court ruling which ruled against its single-use plastics ban.
“They had another loss on the issue of plastics, which was also an unconstitutional overreach and unreasonable. And instead of accepting the court’s judgment, they’re going to drag it out again,” Smith said.
“So, we’ve got a lawless federal government. And when you have a lawless federal government, then you’ve got to assert that the Constitution matters. We’ve got the Supreme Court behind us. We’re continuing to press that matter, they haven’t dropped it yet, but I can tell you, we are, just like [Saskatchewan] Premier [Scott] Moe, are getting increasingly frustrated.”
Smith’s comments come considering two recent court rulings, the most recent being the Federal Court of Canada on November 16 overturning the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”
The Federal Court ruled in favor of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan by stating that Trudeau’s government had overstepped its authority by classifying plastic as “toxic” as well as banning all single-use plastic items, like straws, bags, and eating utensils.
Smith celebrated the court’s decision by saying it was a big “win” yet again for Alberta.
“Like Bill C-69, the federal government’s decision to unilaterally label perfectly safe plastic consumer products as ‘toxic’ has had wide-ranging consequences for Alberta’s economic interests and has put thousands of jobs and billions of investments at risk,” Smith said after the court ruling.
The second victory for Alberta and Saskatchewan concerns a Supreme Court ruling that stated that Trudeau’s law, C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” The decision returned authority over the pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.
The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the recent rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.
Smith did not take kindly to this. “Like Bill C-69, the federal government’s decision to unilaterally label perfectly safe plastic consumer products as ‘toxic’ has had wide-ranging consequences for Alberta’s economic interests and has put thousands of jobs and billions of investments at risk,” Smith said.
“It’s time for the federal government to listen to the courts and to Canadians,” she added. “We urge them to not appeal this decision, and to immediately delete ‘plastic manufactured items’ from Schedule 1 of the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act to avoid further need of legal action by Alberta and other provinces.”
Despite Smith urging them to not appeal, the Trudeau government has moved to create and back an United Nations treaty to ban “plastic pollution” by 2024.
Trudeau’s ‘Clean Electricity Regulations’ could cause power bills to skyrocket
Smith’s comments against Trudeau also come as a draft version of the federal government’s “Clean Electricity Regulations” (CER) project 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 sounded the alarm over the Trudeau government’s “green” transition, saying it 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, recently saying that “Trudeau’s net-zero electricity regulations are unaffordable, unrealistic and unconstitutional.”
In September, Smith announced she is preparing to use her province’s Sovereignty Act to fight the electricity regulations if the Trudeau government does not back down.
Smith earlier this week vowed that Alberta would not be phasing out oil and gas, despite the regulations proposed by Trudeau’s government.
The Trudeau government is trying to force net zero regulations on all Canadian provinces, notably on electricity generation, as early as 2035. His government has also refused to extend a carbon tax exemption on heating fuels to all provinces, allowing only Atlantic provinces this benefit.
Alberta has repeatedly promised to place the interests of their people above the Trudeau government’s “unconstitutional” demands while consistently reminding the federal government that their infrastructures and economies depend upon oil, gas, and coal.
Smith even recently tore a page off a heckler’s fantasy suggestion of a solar and wind battery-powered future after she stepped into the lion’s den to advocate for oil and gas at a conference hosted by a pro-climate change think-tank.
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 in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.
Alberta
Low oil prices could have big consequences for Alberta’s finances

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
Amid the tariff war, the price of West Texas Intermediate oil—a common benchmark—recently dropped below US$60 per barrel. Given every $1 drop in oil prices is an estimated $750 million hit to provincial revenues, if oil prices remain low for long, there could be big implications for Alberta’s budget.
The Smith government already projects a $5.2 billion budget deficit in 2025/26 with continued deficits over the following two years. This year’s deficit is based on oil prices averaging US$68.00 per barrel. While the budget does include a $4 billion “contingency” for unforeseen events, given the economic and fiscal impact of Trump’s tariffs, it could quickly be eaten up.
Budget deficits come with costs for Albertans, who will already pay a projected $600 each in provincial government debt interest in 2025/26. That’s money that could have gone towards health care and education, or even tax relief.
Unfortunately, this is all part of the resource revenue rollercoaster that’s are all too familiar to Albertans.
Resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is inherently volatile. In the last 10 years alone, it has been as high as $25.2 billion in 2022/23 and as low as $2.8 billion in 2015/16. The provincial government typically enjoys budget surpluses—and increases government spending—when oil prices and resource revenue is relatively high, but is thrown into deficits when resource revenues inevitably fall.
Fortunately, the Smith government can mitigate this volatility.
The key is limiting the level of resource revenue included in the budget to a set stable amount. Any resource revenue above that stable amount is automatically saved in a rainy-day fund to be withdrawn to maintain that stable amount in the budget during years of relatively low resource revenue. The logic is simple: save during the good times so you can weather the storm during bad times.
Indeed, if the Smith government had created a rainy-day account in 2023, for example, it could have already built up a sizeable fund to help stabilize the budget when resource revenue declines. While the Smith government has deposited some money in the Heritage Fund in recent years, it has not created a dedicated rainy-day account or introduced a similar mechanism to help stabilize provincial finances.
Limiting the amount of resource revenue in the budget, particularly during times of relatively high resource revenue, also tempers demand for higher spending, which is only fiscally sustainable with permanently high resource revenues. In other words, if the government creates a rainy-day account, spending would become more closely align with stable ongoing levels of revenue.
And it’s not too late. To end the boom-bust cycle and finally help stabilize provincial finances, the Smith government should create a rainy-day account.
Alberta
Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson
In 2024, construction started on 47,827 housing units—the most since 48,336 units in 2007 when population growth was less than half of what it was in 2024.
Alberta has long been viewed as an oasis in Canada’s overheated housing market—a refuge for Canadians priced out of high-cost centres such as Vancouver and Toronto. But the oasis is starting to dry up. House prices and rents in the province have spiked by about one-third since the start of the pandemic. According to a recent Maru poll, more than 70 per cent of Calgarians and Edmontonians doubt they will ever be able to afford a home in their city. Which raises the question: how much longer can this go on?
Alberta’s housing affordability problem reflects a simple reality—not enough homes have been built to accommodate the province’s growing population. The result? More Albertans competing for the same homes and rental units, pushing prices higher.
Population growth has always been volatile in Alberta, but the recent surge, fuelled by record levels of immigration, is unprecedented. Alberta has set new population growth records every year since 2022, culminating in the largest-ever increase of 186,704 new residents in 2024—nearly 70 per cent more than the largest pre-pandemic increase in 2013.
Homebuilding has increased, but not enough to keep pace with the rise in population. In 2024, construction started on 47,827 housing units—the most since 48,336 units in 2007 when population growth was less than half of what it was in 2024.
Moreover, from 1972 to 2019, Alberta added 2.1 new residents (on average) for every housing unit started compared to 3.9 new residents for every housing unit started in 2024. Put differently, today nearly twice as many new residents are potentially competing for each new home compared to historical norms.
While Alberta attracts more Canadians from other provinces than any other province, federal immigration and residency policies drive Alberta’s population growth. So while the provincial government has little control over its population growth, provincial and municipal governments can affect the pace of homebuilding.
For example, recent provincial amendments to the city charters in Calgary and Edmonton have helped standardize building codes, which should minimize cost and complexity for builders who operate across different jurisdictions. Municipal zoning reforms in Calgary, Edmonton and Red Deer have made it easier to build higher-density housing, and Lethbridge and Medicine Hat may soon follow suit. These changes should make it easier and faster to build homes, helping Alberta maintain some of the least restrictive building rules and quickest approval timelines in Canada.
There is, however, room for improvement. Policymakers at both the provincial and municipal level should streamline rules for building, reduce regulatory uncertainty and development costs, and shorten timelines for permit approvals. Calgary, for instance, imposes fees on developers to fund a wide array of public infrastructure—including roads, sewers, libraries, even buses—while Edmonton currently only imposes fees to fund the construction of new firehalls.
It’s difficult to say how long Alberta’s housing affordability woes will endure, but the situation is unlikely to improve unless homebuilding increases, spurred by government policies that facilitate more development.
-
conflict2 days ago
Trump tells Zelensky: Accept peace or risk ‘losing the whole country’
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre Campaigning To Build A Canadian Economic Fortress
-
Automotive1 day ago
Canadians’ Interest in Buying an EV Falls for Third Year in a Row
-
Entertainment2 days ago
Pedro Pascal launches attack on J.K. Rowling over biological sex views
-
International8 hours ago
History in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral
-
Automotive2 days ago
Hyundai moves SUV production to U.S.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
As PM Poilievre would cancel summer holidays for MP’s so Ottawa can finally get back to work
-
armed forces19 hours ago
Yet another struggling soldier says Veteran Affairs Canada offered him euthanasia