Premier Danielle Smith says federal EV mandate doesn’t work for Albertans

Federal electric vehicle mandate: Premier Smith

Premier Danielle Smith issued this response to the federal zero-emission vehicle mandate:

“Alberta’s government supports reducing emissions from the transportation sector and supporting Albertans who wish to drive lower-emissions vehicles. However, these efforts must be led by and support consumers and businesses, and the federal government has no legal or moral authority to tell Albertans what vehicles they can and cannot buy.

“Alberta has already purchased and is working with municipalities and industry to explore the use of hydrogen-powered vehicles in our provincial transportation fleet and evaluating options to increase hydrogen fuelling stations across Alberta. We’re funding pilots that are testing long-range hydrogen trucks for industry and buses in major cities. We’re working with the same partners to improve access to EV charging stations. The federal government should rein back its failed command economy tactics and work with us on a consumer-based market approach that is achievable and doesn’t hurt people.

“And yet, in another show of total disregard for the well-being of Canadians, the federal government has unilaterally imposed an unconstitutional edict with a bizarrely impossible timeline that will result in massive increases in the cost of vehicles and utility bills, vehicle rationing and wait lists, increased costs to businesses and elevated difficulty and safety risk for hundreds of thousands of Albertans and Canadians just trying to get to work and family activities in our unpredictable, and often cold, climate.

“The sheer hypocrisy of this announcement is astounding. To date, the federal government’s EV approach has been a disaster. The independent federal commissioner of the environment and sustainable development found Ottawa is failing to meet its current target of making 80 per cent of the federal government’s fleet vehicles net zero by 2030. The federal commissioner found that if progress continues at the current rate, the federal government will reach only one per cent of its target by 2030. Not only are there not enough electric vehicle chargers, Ottawa doesn’t even know where EV chargers are needed. The federal government will fail to hit its target even where it has complete discretion, and yet it plans to mandate similar targets on consumers throughout all of Canada.

“Although it seems rather obvious to say, emissions targets and regulations must be realistic, achievable, and cannot result in multiple severe harms to millions of Canadians. A federal government that can’t transition its own fleet to EVs should not be telling Albertans and Canadians to do what even it is unable to do.

“It’s also deeply concerning that Ottawa is trying to force increased demands on the electricity grid while simultaneously weakening Alberta’s and other provinces’ grids through their federal electricity regulations. Our electric grids are not equipped to handle the massive demand surge that a forced full-scale transition to EVs would need to accommodate the delusional timelines in Ottawa’s regulations, and the federal government has not provided remotely enough financial assistance to assist provincial grids to meet this mandated electricity demand.

“Further, these new regulations will result in a shortage and rationing of traditional vehicles starting in 2026 and even earlier, as millions of consumers in need of combustion engine vehicles, especially those living in smaller municipalities that commute long distances, will be unable to power or afford an EV but also won’t be able to find an appropriate vehicle to drive in their circumstances. Apparently, the federal government doesn’t understand that freezing with their families in -30 C on the side of a rural road is not an option for Albertans.

“There is a way to encourage Canadians to drive more EVs, hydrogen-powered cars and other low-emission vehicles. Instead of telling Canadians how to spend their money and lining up for the right to purchase what they need, the federal government should focus on helping provinces develop infrastructure and advance technologies that are more suitable to Canada’s long distances and cold weather.

“Canadians deserve more than destructive virtue-signalling regulations and unachievable targets. Unfortunately, this federal government continues to show that it is all rhetoric and no substance. This approach does not serve Canadians and it won’t protect the environment.

“The Government of Alberta will do everything within its legal jurisdiction to thwart implementation of these unconstitutional regulations in our province.”

Related Topics:#EVChargingStations #EVMandate #FederalElectricVehicleMandate #HydrogenVehicles #PremierDanielleSmith feature

Up Next

RCMP charges Calgary resident for importing nearly $3 million in cocaine

Don't Miss

Calgary Ring Road opens 10 months early

Government of Alberta

This is a news release from the Government of Alberta.

Follow Author

Alberta’s methane emissions fall 52 per cent

Agriculture / 2 days ago

2024 harvest wrap-up: Minister Sigurdson

Alberta / 2 days ago

39 percent increase in funding for RCMP instigates discussion about future policing for rural Alberta

Alberta

Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop

Published on November 8, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.

The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.

According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.

For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.

Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.

Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.

Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)

And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?

In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.

Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Edmonton public school board takes action in defiance of Alberta’s proposed pro-family policies

Published on November 7, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

An Edmonton school board submitted a motion to defy Alberta’s policy requiring parental knowledge if a child goes by different pronouns at school.

On November 5, the Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new pro-family policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.

“The Division’s current policy on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is part of our mandate to provide a safe, welcoming and healthy school environment for students, staff and families,” the board claimed in the motion sent to the Board of Trustees.

“The policy changes being proposed by Premier Smith will contradict what our Board, and previous Boards of Trustees, have worked hard to ensure: the safety and well being of all children in Edmonton Public schools,” it continued.

The new policies, introduced last week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith under Bill 27, will mean that sex-education classes will not be included in a child’s education, and teachers or school staff will no longer be allowed to conceal whether a student begins to use different pronouns or names.

Once Bill 27 becomes law, schools must notify parents of what is being taught at least “30 days in advance and be given the opportunity to opt in rather than opt out of this instruction.”

However, while Alberta is working to keep parents informed and children safe from the radical LGBT agenda, the Edmonton board has argued parents must be kept in the dark to prevent them from stopping their children from accepting the falsehoods of the LGBT agenda.

“For transgender youth who choose a name different from the one given at birth, use of their chosen name in multiple contexts affirms their gender identity and reduces mental health risks, which are known to be high in this group,” the board claimed.

However, significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.

Additionally, as LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.

Furthermore, many teachers struggle to keep secret from parents. A Saskatchewan teacher who wished to remain anonymous previously told LifeSiteNews that she feels guilty about keeping secrets from parents and supports the decision to keep parents informed.

“I fear that we are not supporting students or parents when we keep secrets,” she explained. “We have many students using alternate names, which sometimes changes frequently during the year, and then are asked by parents if we were aware of the changes after the fact. I feel responsible for keeping the secret and I don’t think it’s fair. I think schools are already taking on too many ‘parent roles’ and it’s important that parents play the ‘parent role’ not teachers!”