Danielle Smith vows to fight Trudeau’s ‘unconstitutional’ plan to ban gas-powered cars

Alberta’s premier called a federal government directive that all new vehicles are electric by 2035 ‘a disaster.’

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith made it crystal clear that she intends to fight with “everything” at her disposal what she called an “unconstitutional” new federal government mandate that all new cars and trucks by 2035 be electric, which would in effect ban the sale of new gasoline- or diesel- only powered vehicles after that year.

“The Government of Alberta will do everything within its legal jurisdiction to thwart implementation of these unconstitutional regulations in our province,” Smith said in a statement yesterday on the EV mandate that was posted to X (formerly Twitter).

“The sheer hypocrisy of this announcement is astounding. To date, the federal government’s EV approach has been a disaster.”

On Tuesday, Canadian Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault announced the “Electric Vehicle Availability Standard.” This is a plan that will try and mandate more EV or so-called “zero-emission vehicles” (ZEV) sales via increasing targets per year.

Starting in 2026, the federal government will mandate that 20% of all new cars or trucks are ZEV. That number will move to 60% by 2030 and to 100% by 2035. So-called cars that qualify under the new rules are battery electric, plug-in hybrid, or hydrogen fuel cars.

This is not the first time Smith has called out federal EV mandates. Early this year, she blasted what was then a Trudeau government proposal to ban new sales of gas-powered cars after 2035. She called it an attack on her province’s oil and gas industry.

Trudeau’s war on the internal combustion engine comes despite the fact Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world, which is produced ethically, unlike in other nations.

Electric cars cost thousands more to make and buy, are not suited to Canada’s cold climate, offer poor range and long charging times (especially in cold weather), and have batteries that take tremendous resources to make and are hard to recycle.

A recent report from the Western Standard documents how one Alberta couple found out the hard way that going EV does save not time or money.

“In addition, northern communities are expected to face more difficulties with the transition to EVs due to prolonged periods of cold temperatures that may affect the range of battery-powered electric vehicles.”

Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre said he would overturn Trudeau’s “Draconian” EV mandate should he win the next election and his party form government.

Smith warns power grids won’t be able to handle extra pressure of EVs

Smith noted that when it comes to Trudeau’s EV mandate, “Ottawa is trying to force increased demands on the electricity grid while simultaneously weakening Alberta’s and other provinces’ grids through their federal electricity regulations.”

“Our electric grids are not equipped to handle the massive demand surge that a forced full-scale transition to EVs would need to accommodate the delusional timelines in Ottawa’s regulations, and the federal government has not provided remotely enough financial assistance to assist provincial grids to meet this mandated electricity demand,” she noted.

Smith was clear that while the Alberta government “supports reducing emissions from the transportation sector,” it also supports choice when it comes to what kind of car or truck a person wants to buy.

She said any new rules should be led by “consumers and businesses” and not by government decree.

“The federal government has no legal or moral authority to tell Albertans what vehicles they can and cannot buy,” she said.

“The federal government should rein back its failed command economy tactics and work with us on a consumer-based market approach that is achievable and doesn’t hurt people.”

Smith then took a shot at the Trudeau Liberals and its lack of a plan when it comes to supporting the power grid.

“Not only are there not enough electric vehicle chargers, Ottawa doesn’t even know where EV chargers are needed. The federal government will fail to hit its target even where it has complete discretion, and yet it plans to mandate similar targets on consumers throughout all of Canada,” she said.

“Although it seems rather obvious to say, emissions targets and regulations must be realistic, achievable, and cannot result in multiple severe harms to millions of Canadians. A federal government that can’t transition its own fleet to EVs should not be telling Albertans and Canadians to do what even it is unable to do.”

Since taking office in 2015, Trudeau has continued to push a radical environmental agenda similar to the agendas being pushed the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations “Sustainable Development Goals.”

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.

A June 2017 peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician confirmed that most of the recent global warming data have been “fabricated by climate scientists to make it look more frightening.”

There have been two recent court rulings that have dealt a blow to Trudeau’s environmental laws.

The most recent was the Federal Court of Canada on November 16 overturned the Trudeau government’s ban on single-use plastic, calling it “unreasonable and unconstitutional.”

The second ruling comes after Canada’s Supreme Court recently sided in favor of provincial autonomy when it comes to natural resources. The Supreme Court recently ruled that Trudeau’s law, C-69, dubbed the “no-more pipelines” bill, is “mostly unconstitutional.” This was a huge win for Alberta and Saskatchewan, which challenged the law in court. 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.

Related Topics:#AlbertaOttawa #AnthonyMurdoch #DanielleSmith #EVMandate #JustinTrudeau #LifeSiteNews

Up Next

Teacher refuses to give up fight for free speech after being canceled for objecting to LGBT books

Don't Miss

CBC television ad revenue dropped 16% in first half of 2023 as mainstream media flounders

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

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Agriculture / 3 hours ago

End Supply Management—For the Sake of Canadian Consumers

International / 17 hours ago

Australian PM booed at Bondi vigil as crowd screams “shame!”

Alberta

Alberta Next Panel calls to reform how Canada works

Published on December 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

The Alberta Next Panel, tasked with advising the Smith government on how the province can better protect its interests and defend its economy, has officially released its report. Two of its key recommendations—to hold a referendum on Alberta leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and to create a commission to review programs like equalization—could lead to meaningful changes to Canada’s system of fiscal federalism (i.e. the financial relationship between Ottawa and the provinces).

The panel stemmed from a growing sense of unfairness in Alberta. From 2007 to 2022, Albertans’ net contribution to federal finances (total federal taxes paid by Albertans minus federal money spent or transferred to Albertans) was $244.6 billion—more than five times the net contribution from British Columbians or Ontarians (the only other two net contributors). This money from Albertans helps keep taxes lower and fund government services in other provinces. Yet Ottawa continues to impose federal regulations, which disproportionately and negatively impact Alberta’s energy industry.

Albertans were growing tired of this unbalanced relationship. According to a poll by the Angus Reid Institute, nearly half of Albertans believe they get a “raw deal”—that is, they give more than they get—being part of Canada. The Alberta Next Panel survey found that 59 per cent of Albertans believe the federal transfer and equalization system is unfair to Alberta. And a ThinkHQ survey found that more than seven in 10 Albertans feel that federal policies over the past several years hurt their quality of life.

As part of an effort to increase provincial autonomy, amid these frustrations, the panel recommends the Alberta government hold a referendum on leaving the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and establishing its own provincial pension plan.

Albertans typically have higher average incomes and a younger population than the rest of the country, which means they could pay a lower contribution rate under a provincial pension plan while receiving the same level of benefits as the CPP. (These demographic and economic factors are also why Albertans currently make such a large net contribution to the CPP).

The savings from paying a lower contribution rate could result in materially higher income during retirement for Albertans if they’re invested in a private account. One report found that if a typical Albertan invested the savings from paying a lower contribution rate to a provincial pension plan, they could benefit from $189,773 (pre-tax) in additional retirement income.

Clearly, Albertans could see a financial benefit from leaving the CPP, but there are many factors to consider. The government plans to present a detailed report including how the funds would be managed, contribution rates, and implementation plan prior to a referendum.

Then there’s equalization—a program fraught with flaws. The goal of equalization is to ensure provinces can provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable tax rates. Ottawa collects taxes from Canadians across the country and then redistributes that money to “have not” provinces. In 2026/27, equalization payments is expected to total $27.2 billion with all provinces except Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan receiving payments.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether or not they support the principle of the program, but again, it has major flaws that just don’t make sense. Consider the fixed growth rate rule, which mandates that total equalization payments grow each year even when the income differences between recipient and non-recipient provinces narrows. That means Albertans continue paying for a growing program, even when such growth isn’t required to meet the program’s stated objective. The panel recommends that Alberta take a leading role in working with other provinces and the federal government to reform equalization and set up a new Canada Fiscal Commission to review fiscal federalism more broadly.

The Alberta Next Panel is calling for changes to fiscal federalism. Reforms to equalization are clearly needed—and it’s worth exploring the potential of an Alberta pension plan. Indeed, both of these changes could deliver benefits.

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail, Mackenzie Moir and Lauren Asaad

In October, Alberta’s provincial government announced forthcoming legislative changes that will allow patients to pay out-of-pocket for any diagnostic test they want, and without a physician referral. The policy, according to the Smith government, is designed to help improve the availability of preventative care and increase testing capacity by attracting additional private sector investment in diagnostic technology and facilities.

Unsurprisingly, the policy has attracted Ottawa’s attention, with discussions now taking place around the details of the proposed changes and whether this proposal is deemed to be in line with the Canada Health Act (CHA) and the federal government’s interpretations. A determination that it is not, will have both political consequences by being labeled “non-compliant” and financial consequences for the province through reductions to its Canada Health Transfer (CHT) in coming years.

This raises an interesting question: While the ultimate decision rests with Ottawa, does the Smith government’s new policy comply with the literal text of the CHA and the revised rules released in written federal interpretations?

According to the CHA, when a patient pays out of pocket for a medically necessary and insured physician or hospital (including diagnostic procedures) service, the federal health minister shall reduce the CHT on a dollar-for-dollar basis matching the amount charged to patients. In 2018, Ottawa introduced the Diagnostic Services Policy (DSP), which clarified that the insured status of a diagnostic service does not change when it’s offered inside a private clinic as opposed to a hospital. As a result, any levying of patient charges for medically necessary diagnostic tests are considered a violation of the CHA.

Ottawa has been no slouch in wielding this new policy, deducting some $76.5 million from transfers to seven provinces in 2023 and another $72.4 million in 2024. Deductions for Alberta, based on Health Canada’s estimates of patient charges, totaled some $34 million over those two years.

Alberta has been paid back some of those dollars under the new Reimbursement Program introduced in 2018, which created a pathway for provinces to be paid back some or all of the transfers previously withheld on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Ottawa for CHA infractions. The Reimbursement Program requires provinces to resolve the circumstances which led to patient charges for medically necessary services, including filing a Reimbursement Action Plan for doing so developed in concert with Health Canada. In total, Alberta was reimbursed $20.5 million after Health Canada determined the provincial government had “successfully” implemented elements of its approved plan.

Perhaps in response to the risk of further deductions, or taking a lesson from the Reimbursement Action Plan accepted by Health Canada, the province has gone out of its way to make clear that these new privately funded scans will be self-referred, that any patient paying for tests privately will be reimbursed if that test reveals a serious or life-threatening condition, and that physician referred tests will continue to be provided within the public system and be given priority in both public and private facilities.

Indeed, the provincial government has stated they do not expect to lose additional federal health care transfers under this new policy, based on their success in arguing back previous deductions.

This is where language matters: Health Canada in their latest CHA annual report specifically states the “medical necessity” of any diagnostic test is “determined when a patient receives a referral or requisition from a medical practitioner.” According to the logic of Ottawa’s own stated policy, an unreferred test should, in theory, be no longer considered one that is medically necessary or needs to be insured and thus could be paid for privately.

It would appear then that allowing private purchase of services not referred by physicians does pass the written standard for CHA compliance, including compliance with the latest federal interpretation for diagnostic services.

But of course, there is no actual certainty here. The federal government of the day maintains sole and final authority for interpretation of the CHA and is free to revise and adjust interpretations at any time it sees fit in response to provincial health policy innovations. So while the letter of the CHA appears to have been met, there is still a very real possibility that Alberta will be found to have violated the Act and its interpretations regardless.

In the end, no one really knows with any certainty if a policy change will be deemed by Ottawa to run afoul of the CHA. On the one hand, the provincial government seems to have set the rules around private purchase deliberately and narrowly to avoid a clear violation of federal requirements as they are currently written. On the other hand, Health Canada’s attention has been aroused and they are now “engaging” with officials from Alberta to “better understand” the new policy, leaving open the possibility that the rules of the game may change once again. And even then, a decision that the policy is permissible today is not permanent and can be reversed by the federal government tomorrow if its interpretive whims shift again.

The sad reality of the provincial-federal health-care relationship in Canada is that it has no fixed rules. Indeed, it may be pointless to ask whether a policy will be CHA compliant before Ottawa decides whether or not it is. But it can be said, at least for now, that the Smith government’s new privately paid diagnostic testing policy appears to have met the currently written standard for CHA compliance.