Opinion
Red Deer holds the dubious title of having the poorest ambient air quality. The province has some ideas on that.

Our air quality in Red Deer has been very poor for years and I always felt that every level of government left it for the other levels of government to find a cure.
Our provincial government has taken steps since forming government in 2015. Some were expensive yet effective like reducing our dependency on coal. Some steps were eye ball rolling steps like doing more studies.
Our municipal government is taking steps and are talking about taking more steps. Let us hope that it finds the planning department and we can make the appropriate changes that I believe is necessary. For starters do we need all 5 high schools built and planned for, along 30 avenue and no high schools north of the river where 30% of the population resides? Would it mean a lot less commuting for 30% of the students if did not have to commute across the city to go to school and participate in extra-curricular activities? Just asking.
Studies are influenced by interpreters and interpretations, adding to or subtracting from parameters and by time lines. Different elements like SO2 or NOX if added or removed from comparables will affect the interpretations. In any interpretation we still have poor air. Possibly the worst air in Canada on average. Of course downtown Calgary, Toronto, or Edmonton may peak during rush hour traffic but overall we hold the title of worst ambient air quality.
So to recap. Let us go back to a story on CBC News.
Alberta is hoping to relieve Red Deer of a less than prestigious title. The central Alberta city, for years, has had the worst ambient air quality in the province. (CBC NEWS September 2015)
A report in September confirmed what many in the region already believed.
Industrial activity and vehicle emissions had pushed Red Deer’s ozone and fine particulate matter levels above national standards going back to 2009.
The province’s action plan, heavily based on its previously-announced plan to eliminate coal pollution by 2030, was introduced Thursday.
In a statement, Noah Farber of the Asthma Society of Canada said a reduction in coal pollution is a step in the right direction.
“The Alberta government’s commitment to the elimination of coal fired electricity generation is a positive step to improving air quality for all Albertans. This is particularly true for those with asthma and other respiratory diseases, who will now be able to breathe well and live healthy active lives,” Farber said.
The province is giving the Parkland Airshed Management Zone a grant of $250,000 to identify and monitor sources of pollution.
Another $560,000 will help a new air monitoring station in Red Deer provide more detailed identification of pollution sources for the region.
The Alberta Motor Association will continue driver education with an aim of reducing practices like idling, that increase emissions.
Red Deer outlined a series of actions the city was taking to address the issue following the September report, including buying 30 per cent of its energy from green sources and expanded public transit options, among others.
(CBC NEWS)
Alberta Environment Minister Shannon Phillips says the province is on track to have the worst air quality in Canada, and vows the government will put measures in place to reduce emissions from industry and vehicles.
“The time to act is long overdue,” Phillips said.
“We have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect the health of Albertans.”
Phillips made the remarks after seeing the results of the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards report, which show the Red Deer region has exceeded national standards. Four other regions — Lower Athabasca, Upper Athabasca, North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan — are close to exceeding national standards.
Phillips said there is no immediate health risk for people living in central Alberta.
“These results are concerning,” Phillips said in a news release. “We can’t keep going down the same path and expecting a different result. Our government has a responsibility to protect the health of Albertans by ensuring air pollution from all sources is addressed.”
The province will initiate an “action plan” to deal with poor air quality in the Red Deer area, a move she said is required under the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The government said a scientific study looking into the cause of the air pollutants is currently underway, and people living in the Red Deer area, industry stakeholders and the provincial energy regulator will be consulted. That plan is expected to be complete by the end of September and will take Red Deer’s geography and air patterns into consideration.
As part of the plan, Phillips said the government will:
Review technology that could be used to reduce emissions.
Review whether polluters in Alberta are meeting national standards.
Look at other ways to reduce emissions, for example, ways to curb vehicle emissions.
The Pembina Institute, non-profit think tank focused on clean energy, was quick to follow up with its own statement about the air quality results, saying the report shows the need for a provincewide pollution reduction strategy.
“This new report adds to the mounting evidence that Alberta needs to reduce air pollution across the province. Measures that will produce more rapid results are also needed in the numerous regional hot spots identified by the report,” said Chris Severson-Baker, Alberta’s regional director at the Pembina Institute.
“The report shows that, unless emissions are cut, most of the province risks exceeding the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter. This places an unacceptable burden on people’s health and on the environment,” he said.
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has also weighed in on the report, saying it is “dismayed, but not surprised” by the findings.
“This calls into question the pervasive belief that the clear blue skies of Alberta foster clean air, safe from the pollutants better known from smoggier climes,” said Dr. Joe Vipond, an emergency room doctor and member of the association.
Phillips blamed the previous Tory government for contributing to the rising pollution levels, saying the PCs resisted meaningful action on climate change.
Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards are national standards for particulate matter and ozone exposure.
I received this e-mail this past week from the Director of Air Policy for the Government of Alberta. The Premier did not toss my concerns into the wastebasket but forwarded it to someone who can actually answer some questions. Spoiler alert, there will be some eye-ball rolling.
My name is Hamid Namsechi and I am the director of Air Policy for the Government of Alberta. Premier Notley forwarded a copy of your letter regarding your concerns about air quality and the need for action to reduce air pollution in Red Deer.
The Government of Alberta takes the health of Albertans very seriously. There are many agencies both inside and outside government that look after protecting the quality of our environment. For example, while the Departments of Health and Environment and Parks are responsible for human and environmental health policies and outcomes, agencies such as Alberta Energy Regulator, Clean Air Strategic Alliance, Alberta’s ten airshed organizations, Alberta municipalities, etc. all work collaboratively to ensure the quality of air in Alberta meets all provincial and national standards.
As for action on emissions, you will be happy to know that significant progress has been made since the 2011-2013 Red Deer air quality assessment report was released in September 2015. For starters, part of taking action on reducing fine particulate matter in Red Deer is improving the state of knowledge. Until 2014, Red Deer Riverside was the only monitoring station in the Red Deer area. The Red Deer Lancaster monitoring station was added as a second air quality monitoring station in late 2014. This station will help us to understand if fine particulate matter concentrations vary in different parts of the City of Red Deer.
In April 2016, the Government announced funding for two significant studies to take place in Red Deer. One study involved air quality modelling to determine the relative impact of various sectors on the air quality in Central Alberta. The other is a long-term monitoring study which has commenced sampling and will continue to sample fine particulate matter at three locations in and around the City of Red Deer. These studies will provide valuable information regarding likely sources of emissions that are contributing to the issue of high fine particulate matter concentrations in the City of Red Deer.
Direct action has been taken to reduce emissions from the coal-fired electricity generation at the Battle River site – the biggest source of air pollution in the Red Deer region. As you are aware, coal plants produce a number of air pollutants when they burn coal to make steam to generate electricity. During combustion in air, the sulphur dioxide (SO2), various nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg), primary particulate matter (PM) and a number of other emissions such as heavy metals are produced as by-products. The operating permit of the Battle River units has now been revised and recent records show that emissions are down by over eighty percent from pre-2015 levels.
Similarly, all industrial approvals for other facilities in the Red Deer region are currently being systematically looked at for opportunities to reduce emissions. After Minister Phillips news conference in 2015, industrial approvals staff in both Alberta Environment and Parks as well as the Alberta Energy Regulator have stepped up the stringency of the emissions standards for facilities operating in stressed airsheds.
As for reducing the volume of non-industrial emissions, there has also been a lot of progress since 2015. Alberta Government has been working with the Clean Air Strategic Alliance, federal Government, Alberta municipalities, agricultural sector, industry and environmental non-governmental organizations to develop strategies to reduce the cumulative impacts of emissions from the many small sources (such as transportation).
The good news in all of these from the ambient air quality perspective is that Red Deer’s latest fine particulate matter readings have substantially improved since the Minister’s news conference. Our preliminary assessment of the 2016 annual average for PM2.5 at Riverside Station shows a forty six percent reduction compared to the historical high levels, which puts the current air quality in Red Deer in the yellow range.
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with the Government of Alberta.
Sincerely,
Hamid Namsechi, P.Eng.
Air Policy Director
Policy & Planning Division
Environment and Parks
So we have seen some improvements, will it be enough? Is it just another interpretation?
2025 Federal Election
Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos

Dan Knight
Conservative leader unveils aggressive plan to slash bureaucracy, repeal anti-energy laws, and put “Canada First” after a decade of Liberal stagnation and American dependence.
There was a moment in Osoyoos, British Columbia, this week when you could feel the tectonic plates of Canadian politics shift. Pierre Poilievre didn’t just give a campaign speech—he delivered a declaration of war. Not against a rival party, not against a foreign power, but against the bloated, self-sustaining bureaucracy that has buried this country in red tape, crushed small business, and handed our economic sovereignty to Washington.
And he did it with names, numbers, and fire.
Standing beside Conservative candidates Helena Konanz and Dan Albas—real people with skin in the game—Poilievre laid out the most aggressive anti-regulation, pro-prosperity plan Canada has seen in a generation. This wasn’t “efficiency.” It wasn’t “modernization.” It was a full-scale rollback of the federal state.
A 25% cut to red tape within two years.
A “two-for-one” regulation kill rule: for every new rule, two must die.
A dollar-value offset: $1 of new administrative cost must be matched by $2 in cuts.
And for once, someone’s watching the swamp: the Auditor General will audit compliance.
No tricks. No loopholes. No gluing rulebooks together to fake progress like the Liberals did. Real cuts, enforced in public, with consequences.
Now compare that to what the Liberals have done. Under Justin Trudeau and now Mark Carney, the number of federal rules has exploded—149,000 and counting. That’s 20,000 more than a decade ago, with $51 billion in annual compliance costs for small businesses. It’s not just inefficiency. It’s economic sabotage.
And who benefits from that sabotage? The United States. Poilievre didn’t dance around it—he hit it head-on. President Trump has said he prefers the Liberals in power. Why? Because they’re weak. Because they keep Canadian oil in the ground and Canadian dollars flowing south.
“Trump supports the Liberals because he wants Canada to stay weak,” Poilievre said. “I want the opposite. I want to bring it home.”
The press tried to corner him—tried to paint him as “too Trump-like.” The irony, of course, is that Trump has openly rejected him, because unlike Trudeau and Carney, Poilievre is not for sale.
And then came the attacks on Aaron Gunn. The media paraded misinformation accusations that Gunn denied the impact of residential schools. Poilievre didn’t flinch. He called it out for what it was: misinformation. He defended his candidate. He stood for truth, not Twitter mobs. And he flipped the narrative: if you want prosperity and dignity for First Nations, give them control over resources, revenue, and jobs—not slogans.
Then came the issue of interprovincial trade, where Poilievre again showed he’s living in the real world. Local wineries in the Okanagan are shipping their product to the U.S. because it’s easier than selling across provincial lines. Under the Liberals, it’s harder to trade within Canada than with foreign nations. That’s not a federation—that’s a farce. Poilievre promised to tear down the internal barriers the Laurentian elite have protected for decades.
The CBC? He torched it. Not with culture war talking points, but with precision. It’s become an overfunded, Toronto-centric mouthpiece for the Liberal Party, sucking up $1.5 billion a year to produce less local coverage than ever. Mark Carney just promised another $150 million with no plan to pay for it. Poilievre called it what it is: “a morbidly obese Liberal government—on steroids.”
And he’s right. Carney hasn’t named a single Liberal expenditure he’d reverse. Not one. He’s offering the same broken promises, wrapped in fancier language, from the same corrupt team.
Poilievre, on the other hand, laid out a detailed plan to:
- Eliminate the GST on new homes and Canadian-made cars.
- Cut income taxes by 15%.
- Abolish the capital gains tax on money reinvested in Canada.
- Fast-track LNG projects on the West Coast.
- Repeal every anti-energy, anti-growth law passed by Trudeau’s swamp.
He didn’t ask for permission. He promised results. He’s not trying to manage the decline. He’s here to stop it.
Final Thoughts
I’ve been watching these press conferences like a normal person, which means with my jaw somewhere on the floor. On one side, you’ve got Pierre Poilievre, actually talking about numbers, policies, things that, you know—exist in the real world. On the other side? You’ve got Mark Carney, Trudeau’s old economic braintrust, grinning like a Bond villain, promising to “invest” another $150 million into the CBC—because apparently, $1.5 billion a year isn’t enough to produce wall-to-wall Liberal talking points and a half-hour panel on white fragility.
Carney calls it “public broadcasting.”
Let’s call it what it is: state propaganda—funded by you, weaponized against you.
And this is the guy who’s being sold to Canadians as the adult in the room? The savior? Mark Carney—the guy who’s spent the last decade not in Canada, but lecturing Canadians from London, New York, and climate finance panels in Geneva? He’s not some neutral economist. He’s a gold-plated Davos swamp rat who literally helped engineer the economic disaster we’re now living through—and now he wants to be rewarded with the keys to the kingdom?
This man flew in from Glasgow—no joke—where he was pushing his net-zero snake oil to a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who couldn’t find Fort McMurray on a map if their Tesla battery depended on it. And what’s he proposing now? Keep Bill C-69, the law that strangled Canadian energy, killed pipeline after pipeline, and handed America control over our oil wealth. Keep the law that says: If you want to build anything in this country, you better ask permission from 14 departments and Greta Thunberg’s cousin first.
Oh, and while he’s at it, don’t expect a single dollar of waste to be cut. Not one. Carney hasn’t named a single Liberal program he’d reduce. Not the CBC. Not the bloated bureaucracy. Not even the social engineering schemes buried deep in your child’s classroom.
So let’s spell it out: Mark Carney is Trudeau without the TikTok. Same worldview. Same smugness. Same ideology. Except now he’s dressed it up in Oxford accents and finance jargon and thinks you’re too dumb to notice.
He talks about “fighting climate change,” but never mentions the carbon imports from China. He talks about “building the future,” while propping up the same agencies that couldn’t build a bus stop on time. He talks about “standing up to Trump,” while literally keeping in place the laws that give Trump control over our energy, our jobs, our investment.
And we’re supposed to believe he’s the serious one?
No. What he is—is the avatar of managed decline. The velvet glove of the same iron fist that’s been throttling Canadian prosperity for ten years. Poilievre sees it, and he’s naming it. That’s why the media hate him. That’s why the Liberals fear him. And that’s why Donald Trump doesn’t want him elected—because he won’t roll over like Carney will.
So again—this is not a normal election. It’s not Liberal vs. Conservative. It’s not progressive vs. populist. It’s elite decay vs. national revival.
Poilievre doesn’t want to “manage” this slow-motion collapse. He wants to rip the duct tape off the pipes, shut down the bureaucracy, and start building again. He didn’t ask for permission. He didn’t host a panel. He promised results.
And when he says “Canada First,” it’s not some borrowed slogan. It’s a warning to the swamp: Your time is up.
Carney is decline dressed as competence.
Poilievre is the first sign of life this country has had in a decade.
So yeah, Pierre Poilievre chose defiance.
Now it’s your turn.
Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
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.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Mark Carney refuses to clarify 2022 remarks accusing the Freedom Convoy of ‘sedition’
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day ago
Are the Jays Signing Or Declining? Only Vladdy & Bo Know For Sure
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Fixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority
-
Catherine Herridge9 hours ago
FBI imposed Hunter Biden laptop ‘gag order’ after employee accidentally confirmed authenticity: report
-
International12 hours ago
Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ defense shield must be built now, Lt. Gen. warns
-
2025 Federal Election10 hours ago
Don’t let the Liberals fool you on electric cars
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
Biden Administration Was Secretly More Involved In Ukraine Than It Let On, Investigation Reveals