Connect with us

Opinion

City Council decides to keep investigation into one of it’s own a secret

Published

21 minute read

When governments have to release information they really don’t want the public to know about, they’ll release it late Friday afternoon.  That’s the one time in the week virtually no one is paying attention to the “news cycle”.  In fact, a Friday before a long weekend is as close to a perfect time to bury some information as you can get.  Reporters are people too.  They’ve got long weekend plans and they’re trying to get done early like everyone else.  Reporters are just as anxious as the average person to get home and desperately finish packing so they can rush out and pay more more to gas up (long weekend price hike coincidence/tradition).  More likely in these days of covid they’re just rushing home to fill up a glass (also more expensive but worth it at virtually any price, right?).

That’s why it was so interesting to see this news release from Red Deer City Council on Friday afternoon at 4:09.  It was actually posted to the city website at 4:05, so now I now it takes about 4 minutes for an email to get to me (It’s those fun little details that make the world go round eh?).

Actually I didn’t see it at 4:09 because like most people I don’t sit still in the afternoon watching my inbox to react immediately to every email.   Maybe I should.  Instead I typically check my email periodically, and typically that happens far less regularly late Friday afternoon.. especially on the Friday of a long weekend.. especially this particular Friday.  Instead of seeing this at 4:09 I was rushing from a quick trip to Calgary to pick up our oldest boy (U of C student) and I was transitioning to hockey coach, going over some U13 drills on the Hockey Canada website to prepare for our late afternoon U13B West Country hockey practice.  (The kids were awesome by the way). Then it was a meeting with team parents.  Then it was home to late supper.  Then it was movie night with our two boys.  Then to bed without even checking email and phone messages.

Just as they hoped (in my own humble opinion) I and many others didn’t see this email right away.  Now that I have seen it, I’m in quite a conundrum.  It’s a long weekend and I have plans to continue painting trim on our house.  I also plan to continue safe social distancing practices by staying away from loved ones for the second Thanksgiving in a row.  While painting I’ll also wonder why our governments and doctors aren’t aggressively pushing for early treatment so we can relieve pressure on our hospitals and save some lives and stop living in fear.. but I digress.

Saturday morning I started the typical upkeep of Todayville.com and periodically checked email messages.  Then I came across this beauty sent Friday afternoon at 4:09.  In case you haven’t seen it yet, here it is….


News Release from the City of Red Deer

Second Code of Conduct investigation closes

(Red Deer, Alberta) – An investigation stemming from a code of conduct complaint received by City Council on May 7, 2021, has closed, and a majority of Council did not accept the investigation report at yesterday’s Council meeting. The investigation is considered complete and will remain confidential under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP).

“City Council’s Code of Conduct bylaw is a set of expectations for Council member’s conduct and behaviour. This is the second of two Code of Conduct complaints that were investigated in 2021,” said Deputy Mayor Lawrence Lee.

All municipalities in Alberta are required by the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to have a Code of Conduct Bylaw that sets shared expectations for conduct or behaviour. The bylaw outlines how members should conduct themselves while carrying out their responsibilities and establishes a review and investigation process when a complaint is received. The City of Red Deer passed its Code of Conduct Bylaw (2608-2018) on July 23, 2018.

After a review committee of three Council members initially reviewed the complaint, there was a majority vote to proceed to formal investigation. An investigator was hired to investigate and report back to City Council, and City Council had three meetings on this issue.

“Upholding City Council’s Code of Conduct, procedural fairness, relationships and role clarity are essential as we work to ensure good governance that is in the best interest of the organization and our community,” said Deputy Mayor Lawrence Lee.

Council passed a second resolution directing the confidential report be shared with the City Manager to prepare a confidential memorandum outlining “lessons learned” to be brought back to Council in the first quarter of 2022. The memorandum should make recommendations on the integration and relationships of the Mayor and Council’s office with administration. Through the City Manager, the staff and council will work together to move forward.

For more information about City Council’s Code of Conduct Bylaw, visit www.reddeer.ca


So what does all this mean?  Well we know there was an investigation into the conduct of at least one member of city council.  We know three councillors reviewed this complaint.  Then the majority of council decided we (taxpayers) should pay an investigator to look into this complaint.  (That doesn’t sound cheap).  We know council met three times to discuss this complaint. Then the report came back and the majority of Red Deer City Council did not accept the investigator’s report that we (taxpayers) paid for.  And.. we know the investigation is considered complete and that it will “remain confidential” until someone pays for and goes through the process of applying for a Freedom of Information Request.

WE also know this might be the last time this council will meet before the 2021 Municipal Election.  What a brutal meeting to have hanging over your head as you gun for re-election!  Makes me feel horrible for all those candidates I know (and in some cases REALLY like) who have to face the electorate in a few days.  Kind of makes me SUPER curious about the contents of this second investigation.  Seems like precisely the kind of information I’d like to have before I decide who to vote for in a few days.  But as is happening so much these days, our elected officials are saving us from the details and we should rest easy knowing that they have our best interests in mind (you know, before their own).

So we’ll have to imagine how Thursday’s “in-camera” conversation went (and thousands of voters will be doing just that).  I guess someone must have said something like “I know this seemed like a big deal back in the spring.  I know we talked about it in three separate meetings and that three of us reviewed it and we all decided we should hire an investigator to look into this.  Buuuuuuut.  That was such a long time ago.  Now it’s fall and with an election just days away, frankly we’ve got better things to worry about.”   To which the majority of council must have said something like “You know. You’re right!  I don’t know what we were thinking back there in the spring.  The truth is there’s nothing to see here.  Why don’t we prove it by telling the people who pay us absolutely nothing about why we spent our time and their money investigating a complaint that three of us reviewed in the spring and the majority of us voted to proceed to formal investigation.”   Then I guess someone called for a vote.  When only Buck Buchanan and Dianne Wyntjes disagreed, (as reported here in this really interesting opinion piece/video by 2017 Council candidate Calvin Goulet-Jones) those seeking reelection all took off to presumably check on their election signs.

Actually this being the “Second” Code of Conduct investigation, it reminds me there was a “First” Code of Conduct investigation back in April.  Although that investigation started 1 month before this one, it actually wrapped up more than two months ago.  Investigation #1 resulted in Councillor Buck Buchanan facing some embarrassing disciplinary measures.  Remember that?  That news release was also released late in the afternoon, but NOT late Friday afternoon.  The news release regarding investigation number 1 was released at 4:59 Monday, July 26.  Media types know this means it’s going to be all the rage come Tuesday morning and will have lots of time to build up for the rest of the week.  Here’s what that looked like (in case you’re keeping score of the Council Code of Conduct investigations at home)….


News Release from the City of Red Deer

Code of Conduct investigation closes with sanctions for Councillor Buchanan

Following an independent investigation stemming from a complaint received by City Council on April 15, 2021, Councillor Buck Buchanan faces sanctions for breaching Red Deer City Council’s Code of Conduct Bylaw. By a majority vote on July 26, 2021, Council accepted the findings in the investigator’s report, which conclude that Councillor Buchanan breached three sections of the Code of Conduct Bylaw.All municipalities in Alberta are required by the Municipal Government Act (MGA) to have a Code of Conduct Bylaw that sets shared expectations for conduct or behaviour. The bylaw outlines how members should conduct themselves while carrying out their responsibilities and establishes a review and investigation process when a complaint is received. The City of Red Deer passed its Code of Conduct Bylaw (2608-2018) on July 23, 2018.The formal Code of Conduct complaint (C-01-2021), submitted by Mayor Tara Veer in response to public and staff complaints, alleges that Councillor Buchanan breached the bylaw through his social media activity in January 2021 and prior actions, causing City Council to lose leadership credibility and frustrating The City’s pandemic response efforts.

After a review committee of three Council members initially reviewed the complaint, and by majority vote determined that it should proceed to formal investigation, SAGE Analytics Inc. was hired to investigate and report back to City Council.

SAGE is a municipal consulting firm with expertise in governance evaluation, dispute resolution, and council code of conduct complaint investigations. SAGE utilized a process that included interviews and follow-up with both parties, witness interviews, a review of related correspondence received by The City, document review, analysis and report writing.

With the investigation complete, the findings conclude that Councillor Buchanan breached three sections in the Council Code of Conduct Bylaw:

  • 7.1, which states “members shall uphold the law established by the Parliament of Canada and the Legislature of Alberta and the bylaws, policies and procedures adopted by Council.”
  • 7.2, which states “members shall respect the Municipality as an institution, its bylaws, policies and procedures and shall encourage public respect for the Municipality, its bylaws, policies and procedures” and
  • 4.1(d), which states, City Council must “arrange their private affairs and conduct themselves in a manner that promotes public confidence.”

According to the findings, a social media post made by Councillor Buchanan in January 2021, combined with his prior actions, amounted to a breach of the bylaw. SAGE determined these actions were disrespectful to the local pandemic response efforts and increased a division in the community between individuals in favour of and opposed to health restrictions. SAGE’s report finds that through Councillor Buchanan’s actions, The City’s reputation was damaged, and The City’s pandemic response efforts were negatively impacted. They also determined he demonstrated a pattern of conduct where he made negative comments that did not promote public confidence in The City’s pandemic response efforts.

Having accepted that Councillor Buchanan contravened three sections of the Bylaw, Council considered the sanctions recommended by SAGE and ultimately resolved by majority vote to require that Councillor Buchanan:

  • Issue a public apology to Red Deer residents, businesses, staff, and Council for his actions and social media post on January 27, 2021, which caused increased confusion and division in the community during a time of crisis; and that this apology be provided to the satisfaction of Council, during a public portion of a Council meeting.
  • Arrange an in-person meeting with the AHS Central Zone Medical Director, or designate to offer a personal apology to Alberta Health Services for any harm caused by his public comments during the pandemic response.
  • Be suspended from all Council committees and all Deputy Mayor rotation duties until sincere apologies are provided.
  • Complete social media training hired and paid for by The City of Red Deer that aligns with typical media training for City staff.

The investigation is considered complete. Councillor Buchanan continues to serve as Red Deer City Councillor.

This is the first formal Code of Conduct complaint received by The City of Red Deer.


So we have two Code of Conduct investigations against this council.  The first looks kind of like an expensive slap on the wrist to Buch Buchanan for daring to ask on Twitter whether AHS had shown up at a restaurant in Sylvan Lake that was protesting covid restrictions.  (The Horror).  The second complaint?  Well it looked like a bigger deal back in the spring.

Just before I let you go back to Turkey prep and avoiding your loved ones I’d like to offer some free advice to the members of City Council who voted to keep the details of investigation number two from the people who pay for everything they do and for their salaries (as insufficient as they may seem to those who have to cash the cheques).  I admit this has to be free because in all likelihood no one in their right mind would pay for it.  However I’m avoiding the paint brush for just a few more minutes.  Here goes:  I really think it might be a good idea to tell voters who was investigated and why.  That’s it.  The problem with keeping this quiet is that it will tarnish not just the unfortunate soul(s) who was investigated.  Now all of you who voted this way will be part of that same embarrassment and presumably you could pay the price for this.

Yes 31 percent of the 60 percent of Canadians who vote, continually vote for Justin Trudeau no matter what aboriginal female minister he turfs for daring to question his friends at Canada’s most notorious construction firm, or how many times he wears black face or how many times he declares a holiday to recognize one of the most serious problems in Canada and then forgets he might be the most important person to appear at events on that day and accidentally takes his family on a private jet to an 18 million dollar hideaway (and then forgot to hide very well).  No matter what, some elected officials will have a blind following.  But you are definitely taking at least a small risk here.  Some people are paying attention (hi Calvin).  And some people talk to other people.  And some of those people will be voting.   And some people will jump to the conclusion that you voted to keep this quiet because you care about something else, anything else, more than you care about the voters who you are undoubtedly shaking hands with at the farmers market right now while you tell them that nothing is more important to you than they are.  But something is more important.  You should tell us.

Sorry for rambling.  I’ve completely run out of things to say.  If you want to run a beer over to our place to reward me for doing a second rate painting job.. just keep your distance.   I’ve got a valid negative covid rapid test that has to last until I get another one and another one before my vaccine kicks in.

 

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Alberta

‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law

Published on

Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Macdonald Laurier Institute challenges Globe article on gender medicine

The complaint, now endorsed by 41 physicians, was filed in response to an article about Alberta’s law restricting gender surgery and hormones for minors.

On June 9, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute submitted a formal complaint to The Globe and Mail regarding its May 29 Morning Update by Danielle Groen, which reported on the Canadian Medical Association’s legal challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26.

Written by MLI Senior Fellow Mia Hughes and signed by 34 Canadian medical professionals at the time of submission to the Globe, the complaint stated that the Morning Update was misleading, ideologically slanted, and in violation the Globe’s own editorial standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance. It objected to the article’s repetition of discredited claims—that puberty blockers are reversible, that they “buy time to think,” and that denying access could lead to suicide—all assertions that have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.

Given the article’s reliance on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the complaint detailed the collapse of WPATH’s credibility, citing unsealed discovery documents from an Alabama court case and the Cass Review’s conclusion that WPATH’s guidelines—and those based on them—lack developmental rigour. It also noted the newsletter’s failure to mention the growing international shift away from paediatric medical transition in countries such as the UK, Sweden, and Finland. MLI called for the article to be corrected and urged the Globe to uphold its commitment to balanced, evidence-based journalism on this critical issue.

On June 18, Globe and Mail Standards Editor Sandra Martin responded, defending the article as a brief summary that provided a variety of links to offer further context. However, the three Globe and Mail news stories linked to in the article likewise lacked the necessary balance and context. Martin also pointed to a Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) statement linked to in the newsletter. She argued it provided “sufficient context and qualification”—despite the fact that the CPS itself relies on WPATH’s discredited guidelines. Notwithstanding, Martin claimed the article met editorial standards and that brevity justified the lack of balance.

MLI responded that brevity does not excuse misinformation, particularly on a matter as serious as paediatric medical care, and reiterated the need for the Globe to address the scientific inaccuracies directly. MLI again called for the article to be corrected and for the unsupported suicide claim to be removed. As of this writing, the Globe has not responded.

Letter of complaint

June 9, 2025

To: The Globe and Mail
Attn: Sandra Martin, standards editor
CC: Caroline Alphonso, health editor; Mark Iype, deputy national editor and Alberta bureau chief

To the editors;

Your May 29 Morning Update: The Politics of Care by Danielle Groen, covering the Canadian Medical Association’s legal challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26, was misleading and ideologically slanted. It is journalistically irresponsible to report on contested medical claims as undisputed fact.

This issue is far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism lacking vital perspectives and scientific context. At stake is the health and future of vulnerable children, and your reporting risks misleading parents into consenting to irreversible interventions based on misinformation.

According to The Globe and Mail’s own Journalistic Principles outlined in its Editorial Code of Conduct, the credibility of your reporting rests on “solid research, clear, intelligent writing, and maintaining a reputation for honesty, accuracy, fairness, balance and transparency.” Moreover, your principles go on to state that The Globe will “seek to provide reasonable accounts of competing views in any controversy.” The May 29 update violated these principles. There is, as I will show, a widely available body of scientific information that directly contests the claims and perspectives presented in your article. Yet this information is completely absent from your reporting.

The collapse of WPATH’s credibility

The article’s claim that Alberta’s law “falls well outside established medical practice” and could pose the “greatest threat” to transgender youth is both false and inflammatory. There is no global medical consensus on how to treat gender-distressed young people. In fact, in North America, guidelines are based on the Standards of Care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)—an organization now indisputably shown to place ideology above evidence.

For example, in a U.S. legal case over Alabama’s youth transition ban, WPATH was forced to disclose over two million internal emails. These revealed the organization commissioned independent evidence reviews for its latest Standards of Care (SOC8)—then suppressed those reviews when they found overwhelmingly low-quality evidence. Yet WPATH proceeded to publish the SOC8 as if it were evidence-based. This is not science. It is fraudulent and unethical conduct.

These emails also showed Admiral Rachel Levine—then-assistant secretary for Health in the Biden administration—pressured WPATH to remove all lower age recommendations from the guidelines—not on scientific grounds, but to avoid undermining ongoing legal cases at the state level. This is politics, not sound medical practice.

The U.K.’s Cass Review, a major multi-year investigation, included a systematic review of the guidelines in gender medicine. A systematic review is considered the gold standard because it assesses and synthesizes all the available research in a field, thereby reducing bias and providing a large comprehensive set of data upon which to reach findings. The systematic review of gender medicine guidelines concluded that WPATH’s standards of care “lack developmental rigour” and should not be used as a basis for clinical practice. The Cass Review also exposed citation laundering where medical associations endlessly recycled weak evidence across interlocking guidelines to fabricate a false consensus. This led Cass to suggest that “the circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.”

Countries like SwedenFinland, and the U.K. have now abandoned WPATH and limited or halted medicalized youth transitions in favour of a therapy-first approach. In Norway, UKOM, an independent government health agency, has made similar recommendations. This shows the direction of global practice is moving away from WPATH’s medicalized approach—not toward it. As part of any serious effort to “provide reasonable accounts of competing views,” your reporting should acknowledge these developments.

Any journalist who cites WPATH as a credible authority on paediatric gender medicine—especially in the absence of contextualizing or competing views—signals a lack of due diligence and a fundamental misunderstanding of the field. It demonstrates that either no independent research was undertaken, or it was ignored despite your editorial standards.

Puberty blockers don’t ‘buy time’ and are not reversible

Your article repeats a widely debunked claim: that puberty blockers are a harmless pause to allow young people time to explore their identity. In fact, studies have consistently shown that between 98 per cent and 100 per cent of children placed on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones. Before puberty blockers, most children desisted and reconciled with their birth sex during or after puberty. Now, virtually none do.

This strongly suggests that blocking puberty in fact prevents the natural resolution of gender distress. Therefore, the most accurate and up-to-date understanding is that puberty blockers function not as a pause, but as the first step in a treatment continuum involving irreversible cross-sex hormones. Indeed, a 2022 paper found that while puberty suppression had been “justified by claims that it was reversible … these claims are increasingly implausible.” Again, adherence to the Globe’s own editorial guidelines would require, at minimum, the acknowledgement of the above findings alongside the claims your May 29 article makes.

Moreover, it is categorically false to describe puberty blockers as “completely reversible.” Besides locking youth into a pathway of further medicalization, puberty blockers pose serious physical risks: loss of bone densityimpaired sexual developmentstunted fertility, and psychosocial harm from being developmentally out of sync with peers. There are no long-term safety studies. These drugs are being prescribed to children despite glaring gaps in our understanding of their long-term effects.

Given the Globe’s stated editorial commitment to principles such as “accuracy,” the crucial information from the studies linked above should be provided in any article discussing puberty blockers. At a bare minimum, in adherence to the Globe’s commitment to “balance,” this information should be included alongside the contentious and disputed claims the article makes that these treatments are reversible.

No proof of suicide prevention

The most irresponsible and dangerous claim in your article is that denying access to puberty blockers could lead to “depression, self-harm and suicide.” There is no robust evidence supporting this transition-or-suicide narrative, and in fact, the findings of the highest-quality study conducted to date found no evidence that puberty suppression reduces suicide risk.

Suicide is complex and attributing it to a single cause is not only false—it violates all established suicide reporting guidelines. Sensationalized claims like this risk creating contagion effects and fuelling panic. In the public interest, reporting on the topic of suicide must be held to the most rigorous standards, and provide the most high-quality and accurate information.

Euphemism hides medical harm

Your use of euphemistic language obscures the extreme nature of the medical interventions being performed in gender clinics. Calling double mastectomies for teenage girls “paediatric breast surgeries for gender-affirming reasons” sanitizes the medically unnecessary removal of a child’s healthy organs. Referring to phalloplasty and vaginoplasty as “gender-affirming surgeries on lower body parts” conceals the fact that these are extreme operations involving permanent disfigurement, high complication rates, and often requiring multiple revisions.

Honest journalism should not hide these facts behind comforting language. Your reporting denies youth, their parents, and the general public the necessary information to understand the nature of these interventions. Members of the general public rely greatly on the news media to equip them with such information, and your own editorial standards claim you will fulfill this core responsibility.

Your responsibility to the public

As a flagship Canadian news outlet, your responsibility is not to amplify activist messaging, but to report the truth with integrity. On a subject as medically and ethically fraught as paediatric gender medicine, accuracy is not optional. The public depends on you to scrutinize claims, not echo ideology. Parents may make irreversible decisions on behalf of their children based on the narratives you promote. When reporting is false or ideologically distorted, the cost is measured in real-world harm to some of our society’s most vulnerable young people.

I encourage the Globe and Mail to publish an updated version on this article in order to correct the public record with the relevant information discussed above, and to modify your reporting practices on this matter going forward—by meeting your own journalistic standards—so that the public receives balanced, correct, and reliable information on this vital topic.

Trustworthy journalism is a cornerstone of public health—and on the issue of paediatric gender medicine, the stakes could not be higher.

Sincerely,

Mia Hughes
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Author of The WPATH Files

The following 41 physicians have signed to endorse this letter:
Dr. Mike Ackermann, MD
Dr. Duncan Veasey, Psy MD
Dr. Rick Gibson, MD
Dr. Benjamin Turner, MD, FRCSC
Dr. J.N. Mahy, MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Khai T. Phan, MD, CCFP
Dr. Martha Fulford, MD
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Darrell Palmer, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Jane Cassie, MD, FRCPC
Dr. David Lowen, MD, FCFP
Dr. Shawn Whatley, MD, FCFP (EM)
Dr. David Zitner, MD
Dr. Leonora Regenstreif, MD, CCFP(AM), FCFP
Dr. Gregory Chan, MD
Dr. Alanna Fitzpatrick, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Chris Millburn, MD, CCFP
Dr. Julie Curwin, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Roy Eappen, MD, MDCM, FRCP (c)
Dr. York N. Hsiang, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Dion Davidson, MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Kevin Sclater, MD, CCFP (PC)
Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak, MB, ChB, DRCOG
Dr. Sofia Bayfield, MD, CCFP
Dr. Elizabeth Henry, MD, CCFP
Dr. Stephen Malthouse, MD
Dr. Darrell Hamm, MD, CCFP
Dr. Dale Classen, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Adam T. Gorner, MD, CCFP
Dr. Wesley B. Steed, MD
Dr. Timothy Ehmann, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Ryan Torrie, MD
Dr. Zachary Heinricks, MD, CCFP
Dr. Jessica Shintani, MD, CCFP
Dr. Mark D’Souza, MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP*
Dr. Joanne Sinai, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. Jane Batt, MD*
Dr. Brent McGrath, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. Leslie MacMillan MD FRCPC (emeritus)*
Dr. Ian Mitchell, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. John Cunnington, MD

*Indicates physician who signed following the letter’s June 9 submission to the Globe and Mail, but in advance of this letter being published on the MLI website.

Continue Reading

Automotive

Federal government should swiftly axe foolish EV mandate

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.

First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.

Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.

And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.

Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.

Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.

So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.

If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X