Danielle Smith blasts Trudeau gov’t as ‘lawless’ for pushing climate policies despite court rulings

‘We’re getting pretty frustrated, they’ve had a Supreme Court loss now that says that they cannot use their federal power as a pretext to invade provincial jurisdiction. And they’re acting like that Supreme Court case didn’t happen’

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith tore a page off Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by saying he runs a “lawless federal government” for pushing ahead with his 2035 net zero energy law, despite the fact Canada’s constitution allows provinces full jurisdiction over their natural resources.

“We’re getting pretty frustrated, they’ve had a Supreme Court loss now that says that they cannot use their federal power as a pretext to invade provincial jurisdiction,” said Smith yesterday to reporters after being asked about Trudeau’s looming new energy regulations.

“And they’re acting like that Supreme Court case didn’t happen.”

Smith then lambasted the Trudeau’s federal government for appearing to ignore another court ruling which ruled against its single-use plastics ban.

“They had another loss on the issue of plastics, which was also an unconstitutional overreach and unreasonable. And instead of accepting the court’s judgment, they’re going to drag it out again,” Smith said.

“So, we’ve got a lawless federal government. And when you have a lawless federal government, then you’ve got to assert that the Constitution matters. We’ve got the Supreme Court behind us. We’re continuing to press that matter, they haven’t dropped it yet, but I can tell you, we are, just like [Saskatchewan] Premier [Scott] Moe, are getting increasingly frustrated.”

Smith’s comments come considering two recent court rulings, the most recent being the Federal Court of Canada on November 16 overturning the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.” 

The Federal Court ruled in favor of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan by stating that Trudeau’s government had overstepped its authority by classifying plastic as “toxic” as well as banning all single-use plastic items, like straws, bags, and eating utensils.

“Like Bill C-69, the federal government’s decision to unilaterally label perfectly safe plastic consumer products as ‘toxic’ has had wide-ranging consequences for Alberta’s economic interests and has put thousands of jobs and billions of investments at risk,” Smith said after the court ruling.

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.

The Trudeau government, however, seems insistent on defying the recent rulings by pushing forward with its various regulations.

Smith did not take kindly to this. “Like Bill C-69, the federal government’s decision to unilaterally label perfectly safe plastic consumer products as ‘toxic’ has had wide-ranging consequences for Alberta’s economic interests and has put thousands of jobs and billions of investments at risk,” Smith said.

“It’s time for the federal government to listen to the courts and to Canadians,” she added. “We urge them to not appeal this decision, and to immediately delete ‘plastic manufactured items’ from Schedule 1 of the current Canadian Environmental Protection Act to avoid further need of legal action by Alberta and other provinces.” 

Despite Smith urging them to not appeal, the Trudeau government has moved to create and back an United Nations treaty to ban “plastic pollution” by 2024.

Trudeau’s ‘Clean Electricity Regulations’ could cause power bills to skyrocket

Smith’s comments against Trudeau also come as a draft version of the federal government’s “Clean Electricity Regulations” (CER) project billions in higher costs associated with a so-called “green” power transition, especially in the resource-rich provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, which use natural gas and coal to fuel power plants.         

Business executives in Alberta’s energy sector have also sounded the alarm over the Trudeau government’s “green” transition, saying it could lead to unreliability in the power grid.

In addition to Smith, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has likewise promised to fight back against Trudeau’s new regulations, recently saying that “Trudeau’s net-zero electricity regulations are unaffordable, unrealistic and unconstitutional.”   

In September, Smith announced she is preparing to use her province’s Sovereignty Act to fight the electricity regulations if the Trudeau government does not back down.

Smith earlier this week vowed that Alberta would not be phasing out oil and gas, despite the regulations proposed by Trudeau’s government.

The Trudeau government is trying to force net zero regulations on all Canadian provinces, notably on electricity generation, as early as 2035. His government has also refused to extend a carbon tax exemption on heating fuels to all provinces, allowing only Atlantic provinces this benefit.

Alberta has repeatedly promised to place the interests of their people above the Trudeau government’s “unconstitutional” demands while consistently reminding the federal government that their infrastructures and economies depend upon oil, gas, and coal.

Smith even recently tore a page off a heckler’s fantasy suggestion of a solar and wind battery-powered future after she stepped into the lion’s den to advocate for oil and gas at a conference hosted by a pro-climate change think-tank.

The Trudeau government’s current environmental goals – in lockstep with the United Nations’ “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” – include phasing out coal-fired power plants, reducing fertilizer usage, and curbing natural gas use over the coming decades.

The reduction and eventual elimination of the use of so-called “fossil fuels” and a transition to unreliable “green” energy has also been pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) – the globalist group behind the socialist “Great Reset” agenda – an organization in which Trudeau and some of his cabinet are involved.

Up Next

Indigenous trade mission to China highlights opportunity for B.C. LNG

Don't Miss

New Photo Radar rules will move radar sites from freeways to school zones

Todayville

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

Carney Admits Deficit Will Top $61.9 Billion, Unveils New Housing Bureaucracy

Daily Caller / 9 hours ago

Trump Admin To Push UN Overhaul Of ‘Haphazard And Chaotic’ Refugee Policy

Artificial Intelligence / 9 hours ago

What are data centers and why do they matter?

Alberta

Equalization program disincentivizes provinces from improving their economies

Published on September 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

As the Alberta Next Panel continues discussions on how to assert the province’s role in the federation, equalization remains a key issue. Among separatists in the province, a striking 88 per cent support ending equalization despite it being a constitutional requirement. But all Canadians should demand equalization reform. The program conceptually and practically creates real disincentives for economic growth, which is key to improving living standards.

First, a bit of background.

The goal of equalization is to ensure that each province can deliver reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. To determine which provinces receive equalization payments, the equalization formula applies a hypothetical national average tax rate to different sources of revenue (e.g. personal income and business income) to calculate how much revenue a province could generate. In theory, provinces that would raise less revenue than the national average (on a per-person basis) receive equalization, while province’s that would raise more than the national average do not. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country then redistributes money to these “have not” provinces through equalization.

This year, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and all of Atlantic Canada will receive a share of the $26.2 billion in equalization spending. Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan—calculated to have a higher-than-average ability to raise revenue—will not receive payments.

Of course, equalization has long been a contentious issue for contributing provinces including Alberta. But the program also causes problems for recipient or “have not” provinces that may fall into a welfare trap. Again, according to the principle of equalization, as a province’s economic fortunes improve and its ability to raise revenues increases, its equalization payments should decline or even end.

Consequently, the program may disincentivize provinces from improving their economies. Take, for example, natural resource development. In addition to applying a hypothetical national average tax rate to different sources of provincial revenue, the equalization formula measures actual real-world natural resource revenues. That means that what any provincial government receives in natural resource revenue (e.g. oil and hydro royalties) directly affects whether or not it will receive equalization—and how much it will receive.

According to a 2020 study, if a province receiving equalization chose to increase its natural resource revenues by 10 per cent, up to 97 per cent of that new revenue could be offset by reductions in equalization.

This has real implications. In 2018, for instance, the Quebec government banned shale gas fracking and tightened rules for oil and gas drilling, despite the existence of up to 36 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas in the Saint Lawrence Valley, with an estimated worth of between $68 billion and $186 billion. Then in 2022, the Quebec government banned new oil and gas development. While many factors likely played into this decision, equalization “claw-backs” create a disincentive for resource development in recipient provinces. At the same time, provinces that generally develop their resources—including Alberta—are effectively punished and do not receive equalization.

The current formula also encourages recipient provinces to raise tax rates. Recall, the formula calculates how much money each province could hypothetically generate if they all applied a national average tax structure. Raising personal or business tax rates would raise the national average used in the formula, that “have not” provinces are topped up to, which can lead to a higher equalization payment. At the same time, higher tax rates can cause a decline in a province’s tax base (i.e. the amount of income subject to taxes) as some taxpayers work or invest less within that jurisdiction, or engage in more tax planning to reduce their tax bills. A lower tax base reduces the amount of revenue that provincial governments can raise, which can again lead to higher equalization payments. This incentive problem is economically damaging for provinces as high tax rates reduce incentives for work, savings, investment and entrepreneurship.

It’s conceivable that a province may be no better off with equalization because of the program’s negative economic incentives. Put simply, equalization creates problems for provinces across the country—even recipient provinces—and it’s time Canadians demand reform.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Provincial pension plan could boost retirement savings for Albertans

Published on September 11, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

In 2026, Albertans may vote on whether or not to leave the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) for a provincial pension plan. While they should weigh the cost and benefits, one thing is clear—Albertans could boost their retirement savings under a provincial pension plan.

Compared to the rest of Canada, Alberta has relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and a younger population. Subsequently, Albertans collectively contribute more to the CPP than retirees in the province receive in total CPP payments.

Indeed, from 1981 to 2022 (the latest year of available data), Alberta workers paid 14.4 per cent (annually, on average) of total CPP contributions (typically from their paycheques) while retirees in the province received 10.0 per cent of the payments. That’s a net contribution of $53.6 billion from Albertans over the period.

Alberta’s demographic and income advantages also mean that if the province left the CPP, Albertans could pay lower contribution rates while still receiving the same retirement benefits under a provincial pension plan (in fact, the CPP Act requires that to leave CPP, a province must provide a comparable plan with comparable benefits). This would mean Albertans keep more of their money, which they can use to boost their private retirement savings (e.g. RRSPs or TFSAs).

According to one estimate, Albertans’ contribution rate could fall from 9.9 per cent (the current base CPP rate) to 5.85 per cent under a provincial pension plan. Under this scenario, a typical Albertan earning the median income ($50,000 in 2025) and contributing since age 18, would save $50,023 over their lifetime from paying a lower rate under provincial pension plan. Thanks to the power of compound interest, with a 7.1 per cent (average) nominal rate of return (based on a balanced portfolio of investments), those savings could grow to nearly $190,000 over the same worker’s lifetime.

Pair that amount with what you’d receive from the new provincial pension plan ($265,000) and you’d have $455,000 in retirement income (pre-tax)—nearly 72 per cent more than under the CPP alone.

To be clear, exactly how much you’d save depends on the specific contribution rate for the new provincial pension plan. We use 5.85 per cent in the above scenario, but estimates vary. But even if we assume a higher contribution rate, Albertan’s could still receive more in retirement with the provincial pension plan compared to the current CPP.

Consider the potential with a provincial pension contribution rate of 8.21 per cent. A typical Albertan, contributing since age 18, would generate $330,000 in pre-tax retirement income from the new provincial pension plan plus their private savings, which is nearly one quarter larger than they’d receive from the CPP alone (again, $265,000).

Albertans should consider the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan, but it’s clearly Albertans could benefit from higher retirement income due to increased private savings.