From the Fraser Institute

By Paige MacPherson

Recently, amid the backdrop of a teacher strike, an Alberta high school teacher began collecting signatures for a petition to end government funding of independent schools in the province. If she gets enough people to sign—10 per cent of the number of Albertans who voted in the last provincial election—Elections Alberta will consider launching a referendum about the issue.

In other words, the critical funding many Alberta families rely on for their children’s educational needs may be in jeopardy.

In Alberta, the provincial government partially funds independent schools and charter schools. The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), whose members are currently on strike, opposes government funding of independent and charter schools.

But kids are not one-size-fits-all, and schools should reflect that reality, particularly in light of today’s increasing classroom complexity where different kids have different needs. Unlike government-run public schools, independent schools and charter schools have the flexibility to innovate and find creative ways to help students thrive.

And things aren’t going very well for all kids or teachers in government-run pubic school classrooms. According to the ATA, 93 per cent of teachers report encountering some form of aggression or violence at school, most often from students. Additionally, 85 per cent of unionized teachers face an increase in cognitive, social/emotional and behavioural issues in their classrooms. In 2020, one-quarter of students in Edmonton’s government-run public schools were just learning English, and immigration to Canada—and Alberta especially—has exploded since then. It’s not easy to teach a classroom of kids where a significant proportion do not speak English, many have learning disabilities or exceptional needs, and a few have severe behavioural problems.

Not surprisingly, demand for independent schools in Alberta is growing because many of these schools are designed for students with special needs, Autism, severe learning disabilities and ADHD. Some independent schools cater to students just learning English while others offer cultural focuses, expanded outdoor time, gifted learning and much more.

Which takes us back to the new petition—yet the latest attempt to defund independent schools in Alberta.

Wealthy families will always have school choice. But if the Alberta government wants low-income and middle-class kids to have the ability to access schools that fit them, too, it’s crucial to maintain—or better yet, increase—its support for independent and charter schools.

Consider a fictional Alberta family: the Millers. Their daughter, Lucy, is struggling at her local government-run public school. Her reading is below grade level and she’s being bullied. It’s affecting her self-esteem, her sleep and her overall wellbeing. The Millers pay their taxes. They don’t take vacations, they rent, and they haven’t upgraded their cars in many years. They can’t afford to pay full tuition for Lucy to attend an independent school that offers the approach to education she needs to succeed. However, because the Alberta government partially funds independent schools—which essentially means a portion of the Miller family’s tax dollars follow Lucy to the school of their choice—they’re able to afford the tuition.

The familiar refrain from opponents is that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for independent school tuition. But in fact, if you’re concerned about taxpayers, you should encourage school choice. If Lucy attends a government-run public school, taxpayers pay 100 per cent of her education costs. But if she attends an independent or charter school, taxpayers only pay a portion of the costs while her parents pay the rest. That’s why research shows that school choice saves tax dollars.

If you’re a parent with a child in a government-run public school in Alberta, you now must deal with another teacher strike. If you have a child in an independent or charter school, however, it’s business as usual. If Albertans are ever asked to vote on whether or not to end government funding for independent schools, they should remember that students are the most important stakeholder in education. And providing parents more choices in education is the solution, not the problem.

Paige MacPherson

Associate Director, Education Policy, Fraser Institute

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.”

In case you haven’t heard, the Alberta government plans to submit a proposal to the federal government to build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia’s north coast.

But B.C. Premier Eby dismissed the idea, calling it a project imported from U.S. politics and pursued “at the expense of British Columbia and Canada’s economy.” He’s simply wrong. A new pipeline wouldn’t come at the expense of B.C. or Canada’s economy—it would strengthen both. In fact, particularly during the age of Trump, provinces should seek greater cooperation and avoid erecting policy barriers that discourage private investment and restrict trade and market access.

The United States remains the main destination for Canada’s leading exports, oil and natural gas. In 2024, nearly 96 per cent of oil exports and virtually all natural gas exports went to our southern neighbour. In light of President Trump’s tariffs on Canadian energy and other goods, it’s long past time to diversify our trade and find new export markets.

Given that most of Canada’s oil and gas is landlocked in the Prairies, pipelines to coastal terminals are the only realistic way to reach overseas markets. After the completion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion (TMX) project in May 2024, which transports crude oil from Alberta to B.C. and opened access to Asian markets, exports to non-U.S. destinations increased by almost 60 per cent. This new global reach strengthens Canada’s leverage in trade negotiations with Washington, as it enables Canada to sell its energy to markets beyond the U.S.

Yet trade is just one piece of the broader economic impact. In its first year of operation, the TMX expansion generated $13.6 billion in additional revenue for the economy, including $2.0 billion in extra tax revenues for the federal government. By 2043, TMX operations will contribute a projected $9.2 billion to Canada’s economic output, $3.7 billion in wages, and support the equivalent of more than 36,000 fulltime jobs. And B.C. stands to gain the most, with $4.3 billion added to its economic output, nearly $1 billion in wages, and close to 9,000 new jobs. With all due respect to Premier Eby, this is good news for B.C. workers and the provincial economy.

In contrast, cancelling pipelines has come at a real cost to B.C. and Canada’s economy. When the Trudeau government scrapped the already-approved Northern Gateway project, Canada lost an opportunity to increase the volume of oil transported from Alberta to B.C. and diversify its trading partners. Meanwhile, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, B.C. lost out on nearly 8,000 jobs a year (or 224,344 jobs in 29 years) and more than $11 billion in provincial revenues from 2019 to 2048 (inflation-adjusted).

Now, with the TMX set to reach full capacity by 2027/28, and Premier Eby opposing Alberta’s pipeline proposal, Canada may miss its chance to export more to global markets amid rising oil demand. And Canadians recognize this opportunity—a recent poll shows that a majority of Canadians (including 56 per cent of British Columbians) support a new oil pipeline from Alberta to B.C.

But, as others have asked, if the economic case is so strong, why has no private company stepped up to build or finance a new pipeline?

Two words—bad policy.

At the federal level, Bill C-48 effectively bans large oil tankers from loading or unloading at ports along B.C.’s northern coast, undermining the case for any new private-sector pipeline. Meanwhile, Bill C-69 (a.k.a. the “no pipelines act”) has added massive uncertainty to the project approval process, requiring proponents to meet vague criteria that go far beyond any sensible environmental concerns—for example, assessing any project’s impact on the “intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors.” And the federal cap on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions exclusively for the oil and gas sector will inevitably force a reduction in oil and gas production, again making energy projects including pipelines less attractive to investors.

Clearly, policymakers in Canada should help diversify trade, boost economic growth and promote widespread prosperity in B.C., Alberta and beyond. To achieve this goal, they should put politics aside, focus of the benefits to their constituents, and craft regulations that more thoughtfully balance environmental concerns with the need for investment and economic growth.