Connect with us

Alberta

Danielle Smith slams Trudeau’s methane emissions rules as ‘unrealistic,’ ‘unconstitutional’

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

‘Instead of building on Alberta’s award-winning approach, Ottawa wants to replace it with costly, dangerous and unconstitutional new federal regulations that won’t benefit anyone beyond Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault’s post-office career,’ a joint statement read

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith condemned the Trudeau government’s methane emissions cap as “unrealistic” and “unconstitutional.”

On December 4, Smith and Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Rebecca Schulz issued a joint statement blasting Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault’s new draft methane regulations.

“The federal government has unilaterally established new methane emissions rules and targets to help win international headlines,” the joint statement read.

“Instead of building on Alberta’s award-winning approach, Ottawa wants to replace it with costly, dangerous and unconstitutional new federal regulations that won’t benefit anyone beyond Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault’s post-office career,” it continued.

The proposed regulations, drafted December 4 after the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai, restrict oil and gas methane emissions to allegedly reduce “climate change.”

“The proposed methane regulations are consistent with Canada’s commitment to cap and cut oil and gas emissions and with calls from the International Energy Agency for all oil- and gas-producing countries to reduce methane emissions from the sector by 75 percent by 2030,” the news release read.

Under the proposed plan, methane regulations must reduce by 217 megatonnes (carbon dioxide equivalent) from 2027 to 2040.

“Canada is on track to meet its 2025 methane reduction target of 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels,” the statement asserted. “The draft regulations published today are amendments to the 2018 methane regulations.”

In response to the regulations, Smith pointed out that Alberta has the autonomy to determine its own climate regulations without the direction of the Liberal government under the leadership of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

“Meanwhile, not only is it illegal for Ottawa to attempt to regulate our industries in this manner, Ottawa also hasn’t even hit one of its past arbitrary and unscientific emissions targets,” she revealed.

“Once again, the federal government is setting unrealistic targets and timelines,” Smith added. “Infrastructure can only be updated as quickly as technology allows. For example, Alberta will not accept nor impose a total ban on flaring at this time, as it is a critical health and safety practice during production.”

“Given the unconstitutional nature of this latest federal intrusion into our provincial jurisdiction, our government will use every tool at our disposal to ensure these absurd federal regulations are never implemented in our province,” Smith concluded.

This is hardly the first time Smith has defended Alberta from Trudeau’s climate regulations. Smith has repeatedly asserted Alberta’s right to control power grid, promising the province will not be “transitioning away” from oil and natural gas.

Smith has warned that Canadians could freeze in the winter if the new “clean emissions” regulations are enforced, an assertion supported by Alberta’s electric grid operator, Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), which warned that Trudeau’s 2035 net-zero power grid goal will mean instability for the western province and are “not feasible.”

Two recent court rulings dealt a serious blow to the Trudeau government’s environmental activism via legislation. The most recent was in November when the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favor of Alberta and Saskatchewan and overturned the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”

The second victory for Alberta and Saskatchewan concerns a Supreme Court ruling that stated that Trudeau’s law, C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” The decision returned authority over the pipelines to provincial governments, meaning oil and gas projects headed up by the provinces should be allowed to proceed without federal intrusion.

In May, Guilbeault declared that violating environmental regulations banning the use of coal and gas-fired power after 2035 may even result in criminal sanctions, a statement that only increased the tension between the federal government and the provinces opposed to the proposed policies.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X