Alberta
Group behind the Alberta Sovereignty Act pleased with Province’s strategy
Submitted by Free Alberta Strategy
The Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act – the new full name for the Sovereignty Act – was introduced to the Alberta Legislature on Tuesday.
Now that we’ve had a short while to digest it, we’re confident in saying that when it comes to protecting the interests of Alberta on the national stage, the Act is right on the money.
The Sovereignty Act, in practicality, is just a procedural bill – more or less just a framework for a free vote in the Legislature. It allows for a Cabinet Minister to introduce a motion about a “federal initiative” that the Minister believes to be unconstitutional on the basis of intruding into an area of provincial constitutional jurisdiction, or is otherwise harmful to Albertans, such as by violating Albertans’ rights and freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The resolution would identify not only the “federal initiative” that is being addressed, but also specific “measures” that the government may use to push back.
The motion would then be debated on the floor of the Legislature, followed by a free vote of MLAs and – if the majority vote is in favour – the passage of the motion.
At this point, Cabinet is then tasked with implementing the specific “measures” identified in the motion.
The usual suspects have continued to claim that it’s unconstitutional for Alberta to insist that the federal government follow the constitution, and to refuse to help them enforce their laws when they don’t.
This was always a strange argument, but even more so now, given the bill explicitly says, right near the start:
Nothing in this Act is to be construed as (a) authorizing any order that would be contrary to the Constitution of Canada.
Some, however, have now finally come to understand the Strategy.
Take the National Post’s Carson Jerema, for example, who – just a few months ago – was attacking the Sovereignty Act.
Yesterday, he got behind it, in a piece entitled: “Surprise, Danielle Smith’s sovereignty act is very likely constitutional“…
This is hardly the Constitution-breaking plan, which Smith’s critics, myself included, warned about during her campaign for the UCP leadership. The characterization of the sovereignty act as a threat to the rule of law, which some critics are still expounding, is simply wrong. Jesse Hartery, a Toronto lawyer with expertise in federalism, says he has been frustrated by the debate around the sovereignty act because the proposal, as currently written “appears to be constitutional,” based on existing law.
“One government can seek assistance from the other, can co-operate with the other, but they can’t require the other to implement and enforce their laws,” he told me by phone Wednesday morning. “So the (Supreme) Court has never endorsed that, and in fact, there’s decisions where the court says: there’s no positive obligation on a province or the federal government to co-operate with the other.”
Of course, for those of you who’ve been following our work for a while, it’s not at all a surprise that the Sovereignty Act is constitutional!
It’s not a surprise to us, because this has been our argument for over a year – one that we’ve repeatedly explained in these emails, on social media, on traditional media, in virtual town halls, physical events, and more.
Provinces have always had the right to refuse to endorse federal laws, and to do so is not contrary to the Constitution of Canada.
The reality is that the attacks are nothing but political theatre from a group of politicians and critics that have been missing the mark on western alienation for years now.
We’ve seen how far the federal government is willing to go to impose their Laurentian views on the rest of the country. They’ve made a mockery of the political system over the past eight years, launching an all-out war on our energy industry that has landlocked our resources and destroyed our livelihoods. We all remember the dark days when unemployment was the highest in the country, debts were coming due, and suicide rates were high. None of us want to relive that.
The Sovereignty Act is absolutely necessary, and the fact that the Sovereignty Act is Bill 1 demonstrates that this new government has put standing up to federal overreach at the top of the priority list.
Its introduction has already caught the attention of the federal government, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau saying that he isn’t “looking for a fight,” over the Sovereignty Act.
In his comments, there appears to be some awareness that bringing the hammer down on Alberta over this legislation would create potential issues in Quebec and Saskatchewan, with both provincial governments undoubtedly monitoring the situation in Edmonton closely.
The Alberta Sovereignty Within A United Canada Act has a purpose – to give Alberta a tool to protect against federal intrusions into provincial affairs. In passing this Bill, it appears that Premier Danielle Smith and her team hit all the right notes.
*****
If you want us to keep fighting for a strong and free Alberta, please make a contribution now to fund our efforts:
| CLICK HERE TO HELP |
If you’re not in a position to contribute right now, we understand, but please consider signing up as a volunteer to help spread the word.
Alberta
Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).
The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.
Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.
As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.
Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).
The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.
Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.
Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.
Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.
The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.
Alberta
Alberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Will Gibson
Oil sands could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years
Investor interest in Canadian oil producers, primarily in the Alberta oil sands, has picked up, and not only because of expanded export capacity from the Trans Mountain pipeline.
Enverus Intelligence Research says the real draw — and a major factor behind oil sands equities outperforming U.S. peers by about 40 per cent since January 2024 — is the resource Trans Mountain helps unlock.
Alberta’s oil sands contain 167 billion barrels of reserves, nearly four times the volume in the United States.
Today’s oil sands operators hold more than twice the available high-quality resources compared to U.S. shale producers, Enverus reports.
“It’s a huge number — 167 billion barrels — when Alberta only produces about three million barrels a day right now,” said Mike Verney, executive vice-president at McDaniel & Associates, which earlier this year updated the province’s oil and gas reserves on behalf of the Alberta Energy Regulator.
Already fourth in the world, the assessment found Alberta’s oil reserves increased by seven billion barrels.
Verney said the rise in reserves despite record production is in part a result of improved processes and technology.
“Oil sands companies can produce for decades at the same economic threshold as they do today. That’s a great place to be,” said Michael Berger, a senior analyst with Enverus.
BMO Capital Markets estimates that Alberta’s oil sands reserves could maintain current production rates for more than 140 years.
The long-term picture looks different south of the border.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that American production will peak before 2030 and enter a long period of decline.
Having a lasting stable source of supply is important as world oil demand is expected to remain strong for decades to come.
This is particularly true in Asia, the target market for oil exports off Canada’s West Coast.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects oil demand in the Asia-Pacific region will go from 35 million barrels per day in 2024 to 41 million barrels per day in 2050.
The growing appeal of Alberta oil in Asian markets shows up not only in expanded Trans Mountain shipments, but also in Canadian crude being “re-exported” from U.S. Gulf Coast terminals.
According to RBN Energy, Asian buyers – primarily in China – are now the main non-U.S. buyers from Trans Mountain, while India dominates purchases of re-exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast. .
BMO said the oil sands offers advantages both in steady supply and lower overall environmental impacts.
“Not only is the resulting stability ideally suited to backfill anticipated declines in world oil supply, but the long-term physical footprint may also be meaningfully lower given large-scale concentrated emissions, high water recycling rates and low well declines,” BMO analysts said.
-
Alberta1 day agoAlberta’s huge oil sands reserves dwarf U.S. shale
-
Alberta1 day agoCanada’s New Green Deal
-
Energy1 day agoCanada’s sudden rediscovery of energy ambition has been greeted with a familiar charge: hypocrisy
-
Business1 day agoCOP30 finally admits what resource workers already knew: prosperity and lower emissions must go hand in hand
-
armed forces1 day agoOttawa’s Newly Released Defence Plan Crosses a Dangerous Line
-
Indigenous1 day agoResidential school burials controversy continues to fuel wave of church arsons, new data suggests
-
Business1 day agoOttawa Pretends To Pivot But Keeps Spending Like Trudeau
-
Daily Caller1 day agoParis Climate Deal Now Decade-Old Disaster


