Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Vanishing lines and fading logic

Published

4 minute read

From Resource Works

By

Canada’s road paint rules are fading fast—along with public patience

The short paint story that’s actually a big deal

Across Canada, road crews are repainting more often, spending more taxpayer money, and—ironically—emitting more carbon. Why? Because of a federal regulation aimed at reducing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in traffic paint. The change sounds technical, even trivial. It’s not.

In warm months—from May 1 to October 15—Canadian regulations now cap VOC content in road marking paint at 150 g/L, down from 450 g/L the rest of the year. The reason? To reduce smog formation during periods of high air pollution risk.

But the real-world consequences are showing up fast. Paint doesn’t last. Lines fade. And in rural areas without streetlights, that’s not a minor annoyance—it’s a serious hazard.

This isn’t just a quirky tale of bureaucratic overreach. It’s part of a larger pattern where well-intentioned environmental policy drifts into untested technocracy—implemented with little transparency, consultation, or regard for operational impact.

Municipal leaders, from Halton Hills to Brazeau County, are speaking up. First responders and firefighters are reporting crashes tied to disappearing lane markings. Yet the federal stance remains firm: the air must be cleaned—whether or not the paint adheres.

And here’s the kicker. These seasonal VOC limits? They’ve been in place since 2012 under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. But what’s new is a 2023 proposal to tighten VOC limits even further, aligning Canadian standards with California’s most aggressive targets. According to the Canadian Paint and Coatings Association (CPCA):

“Canada is now expected to meet these same low VOC limits in the proposed regulations expected to pass in 2024… If passed, the outcome will mean a loss of products for Canadians, a high cost of reformulation for businesses, and minimal or no improvement in air quality.”

Let’s be clear: these proposals have not yet been enacted. But the direction is unmistakable—and it’s raising alarms in industries that value both environmental responsibility and real-world functionality.

On environmental policy, we’ve crossed a line—ironically, one you can’t see anymore because the paint wore off.

The same pressure groups lobbying against Canadian resource development are now campaigning against VOCs in coatings. And once again, Ottawa is listening—without due consideration for trade-offs, unintended consequences, or operational feasibility.

Environmental rules must pass a basic test: Do they deliver measurable public benefit without causing disproportionate harm or risk? In this case, the evidence suggests the answer is no.

If new paint regulations increase taxpayer costs, degrade road safety, and achieve little to no net environmental gain, what exactly are we doing?

We all want to live in a cleaner world. But climate stewardship does not mean blind acceptance of every restrictive measure wrapped in green.

It means balancing outcomes, respecting evidence, and listening to those who are affected on the ground. A policy that forces municipalities to paint more often, at higher cost, with lower durability, is not sustainable by any definition.

Business

Bill C-8 would allow minister to secretly cut off phone, Internet service

Published on

From the Canadian Constitution Foundation

“I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system”

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is concerned about the civil liberties implications of the Carney government’s proposed cyber security bill, C-8, which would allow the minister of industry to secretly order telecommunications service providers like Telus, Bell and Rogers to stop providing services to individual Canadians.

The minister would be allowed to make such an order if she has “reasonable grounds to believe that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat, including that of interference, manipulation, disruption or degradation.”

An individual who does not comply, including by failing to keep the order secret, could face fines of up to $25,000 for the first contravention and $50,000 for subsequent contraventions. Businesses could face fines of up to $10 million for the first contravention and up to $15 million for subsequent contraventions.

The orders would remain secret indefinitely, with the minister required only to present an annual report to Parliament on the number of orders made and her opinion on their necessity, reasonableness and utility.

CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said that the power to cut off the Internet or cellphone service of Canadians is a “very serious power that requires very strong safeguards, which are presently lacking in the bill.” 

“While this power may be necessary in some cases to prevent cyber attacks, it also poses serious risks to civil liberties,” Dehaas said. “I worry that this law could be used to secretly cut off political dissidents from their phone or Internet service on the pretense that they may try to manipulate the telecom system,” Dehaas explained. “Such an action would violate our most cherished freedoms including free speech.”

CCF Litigation Director Christine Van Geyn said that the government cannot be trusted with such a power unless proper safeguards are in place.

“You may think that the idea of the government cutting off political dissidents from the necessities of life sounds far-fetched, but that’s exactly what happened during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests in Ottawa,” she said. “The federal government ordered banks to freeze hundreds of bank accounts without any judicial authorization, cutting protesters off from their money in the middle of a very cold winter.”

“Although the Federal Court agreed with the CCF that freezing bank accounts this way violated the constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, that kind of damage isn’t easily repaired,” Van Geyn added.

Ottawa has appealed the Federal Court’s finding. The CCF is awaiting a decision from the Federal Court of Appeal.

Dehaas said that Parliament should consider requiring either judicial pre-authorization or an immediate, automatic judicial review of any decision to cut off an individual or business from their Internet or phone.

The CCF is also concerned that Bill C-8 would allow the minister to weaken telecommunications companies’ encryption standards, allowing for unconstitutional access to Canadians’ private information.

Finally, the CCF is concerned that the bill could allow the minister or any person designated by the minister to engage in unconstitutional searches.

Joanna Baron, the CCF’s Executive Director, said that Canadians must be vigilant about their constitutional rights and freedoms because they can be easily taken away, especially in times of crisis.

“I would encourage Canadians to fight for their freedoms, whether it’s by taking the CCF’s free privacy course, signing up for our weekly Freedom Update newsletter or becoming a monthly donor,” Baron said.

“Concerned Canadians are also encouraged to write to their MPs using our form letter, to tell them to amend these bills to ensure Canadians’ rights to privacy and free expression are protected,” Baron added.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Taxpayers: Alberta must scrap its industrial carbon tax

Published on

  • Carney praises carbon taxes on world stage

  • Alberta must block Carney’s industrial carbon tax

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on the government of Alberta to completely scrap its provincial industrial carbon tax.

“It’s baffling that Alberta is still clinging to its industrial carbon tax even though Saskatchewan has declared itself to be a carbon tax-free zone,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “Prime Minister Mark Carney is cooking up his new industrial carbon tax in Ottawa and Alberta needs to fight that head on.

“Alberta having its own industrial carbon tax invites Carney to barge through our door with his punishing industrial carbon tax.”

On Sept. 16, the Alberta government announced some changes to Alberta’s industrial carbon tax, but the tax remains in effect.

On Friday night at the Global Progress Action Summitt held in London, England, Carney praised carbon taxes while speaking onstage with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

“The direct carbon tax which had become a divisive issue, it was a textbook good policy, but a divisive issue,” Carney said.

During the federal election, Carney promised to remove the more visible consumer carbon tax and change it into a bigger hidden industrial carbon tax. He also announced plans to create “border adjustment mechanisms” on imports from countries that do not have national carbon taxes, also known as carbon tax tariffs.

“Carney’s ‘textbook good policy’ comments about carbon taxes shows his government is still cooking up a new industrial carbon tax and it’s also planning on imposing carbon tax tariffs,” Sims said. “Alberta should stand with Saskatchewan and obliterate all carbon taxes in our province, otherwise we are opening the door for Ottawa to keep kicking us.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X