Connect with us

Opinion

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

Published

14 minute read

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?

Follow Author

Agriculture

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Dr. Sylvain Charlebois

Without reform, Canada risks losing nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030, according to experts

Few topics in Canadian agriculture generate as much debate as supply management in the dairy sector. The issue gained renewed attention when former U.S. President Donald Trump criticized Canada’s protectionist stance during NAFTA renegotiations, underscoring the need to reassess the system’s long-term viability.

While proponents argue that supply management ensures financial stability for farmers and shields them from global market volatility, critics contend that it inflates consumer prices, limits competition, and stifles innovation. A policy assessment titled Supply Management 2.0: A Policy Assessment and a Possible Roadmap for the Canadian Dairy Sector, conducted by researchers at Dalhousie University and the University of Guelph, sheds light on the system’s inefficiencies and presents a compelling case for reform.

Designed in the 1970s to regulate production and stabilize dairy prices, Canada’s supply management system operates through strict production quotas and high import tariffs. However, as successive trade agreements such as the USMCA, CETA, and CPTPP erode these protections, the system appears increasingly fragile. The federal government’s $3-billion compensation package to dairy farmers for hypothetical trade losses is a clear indication that the current structure is unsustainable.

Instead of fostering resilience, supply management has created an industry that is increasingly dependent on government payouts rather than market-driven efficiencies. If current trends persist, Canada could lose nearly half of its dairy farms by 2030 — regardless of who is in the White House.

Consumer sentiment is also shifting. Younger generations are questioning the sustainability and transparency of the dairy industry, particularly in light of scandals such as ButterGate, where palm oil supplements were used in cow feed to alter butterfat content, making butter harder at room temperature. Additionally, undisclosed milk dumping of anywhere between 600 million to 1 billion litres annually has further eroded public trust. These factors indicate that the industry is failing to align with evolving consumer expectations.

One of the most alarming findings in the policy assessment is the extent of overcapitalization in the dairy sector. Government compensation payments, coupled with rigid production quotas, have encouraged inefficiency rather than fostering innovation. Unlike their counterparts in Australia and the European Union — where deregulation has driven productivity gains — Canadian dairy farmers remain insulated from competitive pressures that could otherwise drive modernization.

The policy assessment also highlights a growing geographic imbalance in dairy production. Over 74% of Canada’s dairy farms are concentrated in Quebec and Ontario, despite only 61% of the national population residing in these provinces. This concentration exacerbates supply chain inefficiencies and increases price disparities. As a result, consumers in Atlantic Canada, the North, and Indigenous communities face disproportionately high dairy costs, raising serious food security concerns. Addressing these imbalances requires policies that promote regional diversification in dairy production.

A key element of modernization must involve a gradual reform of production quotas and tariffs. The existing quota system restricts farmers’ ability to respond dynamically to market signals. While quota allocation is managed provincially, harmonizing the system at the federal level would create a more cohesive market. Moving toward a flexible quota model, with expansion mechanisms based on demand, would increase competitiveness and efficiency.

Tariff policies also warrant reassessment. While tariffs provide necessary protection for domestic producers, they currently contribute to artificially inflated consumer prices. A phased reduction in tariffs, complemented by direct incentives for farmers investing in productivity-enhancing innovations and sustainability initiatives, could strike a balance between maintaining food sovereignty and fostering competitiveness.

Despite calls for reform, inertia persists due to entrenched interests within the sector. However, resistance is not a viable long-term strategy. Industrial milk prices in Canada are now the highest in the Western world, making the sector increasingly uncompetitive on a global scale. While supply management also governs poultry and eggs, these industries have adapted more effectively, remaining competitive through efficiency improvements and innovation. In contrast, the dairy sector continues to grapple with structural inefficiencies and a lack of modernization.

That said, abolishing supply management outright is neither desirable nor practical. A sudden removal of protections would expose Canadian dairy farmers to aggressive foreign competition, risking rural economic stability and jeopardizing domestic food security. Instead, a balanced approach is needed — one that preserves the core benefits of supply management while integrating market-driven reforms to ensure the industry remains competitive, innovative and sustainable.

Canada’s supply management system, once a pillar of stability, has become an impediment to progress. As global trade dynamics shift and consumer expectations evolve, policymakers have an opportunity to modernize the system in a way that balances fair pricing with market efficiency. The recommendations from Supply Management 2.0 suggest that regional diversification of dairy production, value-chain-based pricing models that align production with actual market demand, and a stronger emphasis on research and development could help modernize the industry. Performance-based government compensation, rather than blanket payouts that preserve inefficiencies, would also improve long-term sustainability.

The question is no longer whether reform is necessary, but whether the dairy industry and policymakers are prepared to embrace it. A smarter, more flexible supply management framework will be crucial in ensuring that Canadian dairy remains resilient, competitive, and sustainable for future generations.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the agri-food analytics lab and a professor in food distribution and policy at Dalhousie University.

Continue Reading

Business

Canada’s Aging Population Is Creating A Fiscal Crisis

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Rising OAS and GIS costs outpacing economic growth, straining the federal budget

Canada’s aging population is creating a financial crisis that policymakers cannot afford to ignore. The rising costs of Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) pose a growing risk to federal finances, yet no dedicated funding has been established to ensure their long-term viability.

The numbers are staggering. The 2024 Financial Accounts (Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I, p. 43) show that spending on elderly benefits rose at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.24 per cent between 2015 and 2024, climbing from $44.1 billion to $76.04 billion. Over the same period, total federal program spending increased at a CAGR of 7.24 per cent, from $248.7 billion to $466.7 billion.

Although elderly benefits made up 17.7 per cent of total program spending in 2015, they now account for 16.3 per cent. This decline is not due to reduced spending but rather a surge in pandemic-related government expenditures, which temporarily outpaced OAS-GIS growth. Nevertheless, the trajectory is clear: elderly benefits are now the federal government’s third-largest expense, behind only ‘Other Transfer Payments’ and ‘Operating Expenses.’

While these figures already indicate a growing fiscal challenge, government projections suggest the problem will only get worse. According to the federal Fall Economic Statement (Table A1.11, p. 211), economic growth is expected to average four per cent annually until 2029-30. Yet OAS-GIS costs are projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 6.5 per cent, outpacing both GDP growth and other program spending. By 2029-30, spending on elderly benefits is expected to reach $104.4 billion, or 18.3 per cent of all program expenditures.

Government projections highlight the rapid growth in elderly benefits over the next six years, as shown in the table below:

Fiscal Year                  Elderly Benefits ($B)                Total Program Expenses ($B)              Percentage of Total Program Expenses
2023-24                       76.0                                          466.7                                                   16.2 per cent
2024-25                       80.9                                          485.7                                                   16.7 per cent
2025-26                       85.5                                          500.3                                                   17.1 per cent
2026-27                       90.1                                          509.3                                                   17.7 per cent
2027-28                       94.6                                          529.7                                                   17.9 per cent
2028-29                       99.5                                          549.7                                                   18.1 per cent
2029-30                       104.4                                        570.3                                                   18.3 per cent

As the table shows, OAS-GIS spending is rising as a proportion of total government expenditures. This mirrors the original crisis in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), when benefits outpaced contributions as the population aged.

The CPP once faced a similar sustainability crisis, and its reform in 1997 offers a potential model for addressing the challenges of OAS-GIS today. The federal government overhauled the CPP by creating the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which now manages $570 billion in assets. At the time, CPP benefits were paid through general government revenues rather than dedicated investments.

The solution involved higher contribution rates and the creation of an independent investment board to manage the fund sustainably.

These changes secured the CPP’s future, but OAS-GIS remains entirely dependent on government revenue, with no financial backing of its own. That makes it even more vulnerable to economic downturns and demographic shifts.

Policymakers must take decisive action to secure its future. One option is to tighten eligibility criteria to curb uncontrolled spending. Cost-of-living adjustments should also be limited to official inflation measures, ensuring sustainability without unfairly burdening low-income seniors.

The federal government must acknowledge the problem before it becomes unmanageable. The next finance minister should seek input from actuaries, investment professionals, economists and the public to explore feasible long-term solutions. A dedicated OAS-GIS Investment Board, similar to the CPPIB, could help ensure the program’s sustainability. The government already expanded CPP in 2019—there is precedent for such an approach.

Since OAS-GIS has no existing assets, the government will need to inject capital into the program. This could be done through annual surpluses deemed excessive for current needs or through long-term debt financing. Issuing 30-, 40- or even 50-year bonds specifically designed to fund OAS-GIS could provide a market-friendly, fiscally responsible path to solvency. If properly structured, such a plan could improve Canada’s credit rating rather than weaken it, ultimately reducing borrowing costs.

Even today, OAS-GIS spending exceeds the annual federal deficit, a clear warning sign that this issue can no longer be ignored. If no action is taken, Canada will face soaring elderly benefits with no sustainable way to fund them.

The time to act is now. Delaying reform will only make the crisis worse, burdening future generations with an unsustainable system. Policymakers have a choice: build a sustainable future for OAS-GIS or allow it to become a fiscal disaster.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading

Trending

X