Alberta
Just 8 active cases of COVID-19 in all of Central Alberta – Update May 19

Information from covid19stats.alberta.ca
Now that the province is beginning to open up the economy again it’s expected we’ll soon see a growth in COVID-19 cases throughout the province. At this point though the numbers are certainly at a low point. It’s been a full week since any new cases have been identified in the City of Red Deer. There has yet to be a single case of COVID-19 in Flagstaff and Starland Counties, as well as the Counties of Wetaskiwin and Paintearth. The Rural Municipality of Provost is also yet to see it’s first case.
Here’s the Central Alberta breakdown. Locations are listed by the number of ‘active’ cases in each region.
- Red Deer City – 37 cases – 2 active
- Red Deer County – 16 cases – 2 active
- Mountain View County – 9 cases – 2 active
- Kneehill County – 4 cases – 1 active
- Ponoka County – 3 cases – 1 active
- Wetaskiwin City – 8 cases – 0 active
- Vermilion River County – 6 cases – 0 active
- Stettler County – 3 cases – 0 active
- Lacombe County – 3 cases – 0 active
- Camrose City – 2 cases – 1 death – 0 active
- Lacombe City – 2 cases – 0 active
- Beaver County – 2 cases – 0 active
- Clearwater County – 2 cases – 0 active
- City of Lloydminster – 1 case – 0 active
- Camrose County – 1 case – 0 active
- Minburn County – 1 case – 0 active
- MD of Wainwright – 1 case – 0 active
The “day and case status” graph below shows just how quickly the situation is changing in Alberta. Back on May 3 there was an equal number of active and recovered cases. Just over 2 weeks later there are 5,584 recovered cases and 1,004 active cases. That’s the least number of active cases since April 16.
Central Alberta continues to be the least affected region in the province. Here are the numbers from each zone.
Country music star Paul Brandt to head human trafficking committee in Alberta
Alberta
Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

David Clinton
Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution
Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).
So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.
You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.
So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.
According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.
But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:
- Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
- Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?
The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?
For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?
And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?
To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:
![]() |
For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.
And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:
Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).
So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.
Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.
Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.
Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.
This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Alberta
Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:
“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.
“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.
“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.
“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.
“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.
“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”
-
Catherine Herridge1 day ago
FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report
-
International1 day ago
Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars
-
Crime1 day ago
First Good Battlefield News From Trump’s Global War on Fentanyl
-
Courageous Discourse13 hours ago
Europe Had 127,350 Cases of Measles in 2024
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Liberals Replace Candidate Embroiled in Election Interference Scandal with Board Member of School Flagged in Canada’s Election Interference Inquiry
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ Or $50 Oil — Trump Can’t Have Both
-
espionage1 day ago
U.S. Experts Warn Canada Is Losing the Fight Against PRC Criminal Networks—Washington Has Run Out of Patience