Connect with us

Alberta

Public Statement from Pastor James Coates

Published

13 minute read

This statement from Pastor James Coates is featured on the website of Edmonton’s GraceLife Church.  It was updated the day he turned himself into police for violating Alberta’s Health Act.  Coates has been in custody since he turned himself into police on Tuesday, because he refuses to agree to the conditions of his release.

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Dear fellow Albertans,

It goes without saying this has been an incredibly difficult 11 months. The effects and ramifications of COVID-19 on our precious province are not insignificant. We sympathize with everyone who has suffered loss in this time, whether it be the loss of a loved one, or loss stemming from government lockdowns (such as economic loss or suffering as a result of being denied necessary health care).

Given the attention our church has received in recent days, we want to address the broader public on our reasons for gathering as a local church. What follows is not a theological defence. We have already addressed that sufficiently here, here, here and here (and it is primarily and predominantly obedience to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ that has shaped our stance). Instead, what follows will shed light on our approach to what is being called a “pandemic.” The reason we put “pandemic” in quotes is because the definition of a pandemic was changed about 10 years ago. At one time, a pandemic was defined as an infectious disease that resulted in a certain percentage of excess deaths over and above normal annual averages. The definition was changed in connection with H1N1 to remove this threshold. Ten years ago, COVID-19 would not have qualified as a pandemic. In fact, not even close.

When COVID-19 first appeared, we shifted to livestream and abided by most of the new government guidelines for our gatherings. But when the first declared public health emergency ended, we opened our doors and returned to nearly normal gatherings on Sunday June 21st, 2020. We did so recognizing COVID-19 was much less severe than the government had initially projected. This sentiment was reflected in the assessment of the Premier of Alberta, who deliberately referred to COVID-19 as “influenza” multiple times in a speech announcing the end of the first declared public health emergency.

In early July, it was brought to our attention that two separate individuals had attended our gatherings on two consecutive Sundays and subsequently tested positive for the virus (both cases being unrelated to each other). At that time, we did our own internal contact tracing (prior to AHS notifying us of the exposure), many of our congregants were tested, and it was determined that no transmission of the virus had taken place. Out of an abundance of caution, we shifted exclusively to livestream and shutdown all other ministries for two weeks (14 days). We did this to mitigate any further spread of COVID-19. When it was evident that no further spread had taken place, we resumed our nearly normal gatherings. Since then, we have gathered as a church each Sunday without incident (28 Sundays to date).

Having engaged in an immense amount of research, interacting with both doctors and frontline healthcare workers, it is apparent that the negative effects of the government lockdown measures on society far surpass the effects of COVID-19. The science being used to justify lockdown measures is both suspect and selective. In fact, there is no empirical evidence that lockdowns are effective in mitigating the spread of the virus. We are gravely concerned that COVID-19 is being used to fundamentally alter society and strip us all of our civil liberties. By the time the so-called “pandemic” is over, if it is ever permitted to be over, Albertans will be utterly reliant on government, instead of free, prosperous, and independent.

As such, we believe love for our neighbor demands that we exercise our civil liberties. We do not see our actions as perpetuating the longevity of COVID-19 or any other virus that will inevitably come along. If anything, we see our actions as contributing to its end – the end of destructive lockdowns and the end of the attempt to institutionalize the debilitating fear of viral infections. Our local church is clear evidence that governmental lockdowns are unnecessary. In fact, it is also evidence of how harmful they are. Without going into detail, we recently lost the life of one of our precious congregants who was denied necessary health care due to government lockdown measures.

Consider the following statistics. It is alleged that 129,075 Albertans have tested positive for the virus. That works out to just less than 3% of the population. However, it needs to be pointed out that the PCR test being used to test for COVID-19 is fraught with false positives. This is especially true, since at least until recently, Alberta was running the PCR test at 40 amplifications. As such, the number of Albertans who have actually contracted the virus is likely significantly less. It is also vital to highlight that more than 99% of those who contract the virus will fully recover.

Alberta is currently reporting 1,782 COVID-related deaths. It is critically important to articulate it this way. There is a big difference between dying from COVID and dying with COVID. But it is also critical to note that these COVID-related deaths, as tragic as they are, have not resulted in a statistically significant increase in excess deaths (and the average age of those who have died related to COVID-19 is 82, consistent with life expectancy in Alberta). Sadly, most of these individuals would have likely died due to various other lethal co-morbidities (and it immensely grieves us that in many cases they were forced to die apart from their family unnecessarily). In addition, experts estimate that deaths, in the long run, resulting from government lockdown measures will surpass COVID-related deaths 10 to 1 (e.g. premature deaths resulting from not receiving necessary health care, suicides, drug overdoses, addictions, the development of chronic health conditions, total loss of income, family breakdown, etc.). In fact, it would seem that COVID-related deaths are being treated as though they are somehow more tragic than any and all other deaths.

Many Albertans are afraid and are convinced of the efficacy of government lockdowns for two reasons: misinformation and fearmongering. The media has so pounded the COVID-19 drum since the “pandemic” began, almost exclusively emphasizing caseload and deaths, that people are fearful. So fearful, in fact, they have been convinced that yielding up their civil liberties to the government is in their best interests. It is difficult to have not lost confidence in the mainstream media. It would seem as though journalism is on life-support in our province. The media should be made up of the most thorough, discerning, and investigative people in our society. Instead, many of them seem to be serving an ideological agenda. Now more than ever, it is vital that Albertans exercise discernment when listening to the mainstream media.

What do we believe people should do? We believe they should responsibly return to their lives. Churches should open, businesses should open, families and friends should come together around meals, and people should begin to exercise their civil liberties again. Otherwise we may not get them back. In fact, some say we are on the cusp of reaching the point of no return. Protect the vulnerable, exercise reasonable precautions, but begin to live your lives again.

That said, living life comes with risks. Every time we get behind the wheel of a car, we are assuming a degree of risk. We accept that risk due to the benefits of driving. Yes, though vastly overblown, there are associated risks with COVID-19, as there are with other infections. Human life, though precious, is fragile. As such, death looms over all of us. That is why we need a message of hope. One that addresses our greatest need. That message is found in Jesus Christ. It is found in Him because all of us have sinned and have fallen short of God’s perfect standard of righteousness (Rom 3:23). To sin is to violate the holiness and righteousness of God. As our Creator, He is the one who will judge us according to our deeds and no one will stand on their own merit in that judgment. Therefore, we need a substitute. One who has both lived the life we could not and died the death we deserve.

Praise be to God, there is! God the Father commissioned His Son into the world, to take upon Himself human flesh (John 1:14), being true God and true man, whereby He lived under the Law of God (Gal 4:4), fulfilled it in every respect, was tempted in all things as we are, and yet was without sin (Heb 4:15). Then, in obedience to the Father, He went to the cross, drank the full cup of the Father’s wrath for the sin of all who would ever believe on His name, died, and rose again! In this way, He proved He had conquered both sin and death, our two greatest enemies. He has ascended into heaven and is now seated at the right hand of the Father (Col 3:1), awaiting the time of His Second Coming.

In the meantime, this message of salvation is to be proclaimed to all people (Matt 28:18–20). In fact, the church exists to proclaim this message! That if you would turn from your sin and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, putting full trust in His finished work on the cross along with His resurrection from the dead, you will be saved! Not only will all of your sins be forgiven you, but you will also be credited with a perfect record of righteousness; the very righteousness of Christ (2 Cor 5:21). And so, we would urge you to be reconciled to God through His Son this day. The very one who has given you life and breath.

Should you do so, you will receive eternal life and will experience life after death (John 11:25).

Death looms over all of us. But there is a message of concrete hope, in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

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

Yes Alberta has a spending problem. But it has solutions too

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Milagros Palacios

The Smith government’s recent fiscal update sparked concerns as once again the province has swung from budget surpluses to a budget deficit. To balance the budget, Finance Minister Nate Horner has committed to address the spending side and will “look under every stone” before considering the revenue side, and this is the right approach. Alberta’s fiscal challenges are a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

For perspective, if program spending had grown by inflation and population over the past two decades, it would be $55.6 billion in 2025/26 rather than the actual $76.4 billion. So, while the Smith government has demonstrated important restraint in recent years, total program spending and per person (inflation-adjusted) program spending is still materially higher in 2025/26 than in previous periods.

Alberta’s high spending is fuelling the projected $6.5 billion deficit. Consider that at the alternative spending level ($55.6 billion) Alberta would be enjoying a large budget surplus of $14.4 billion in 2025/26—rather than adding to the province’s red ink.

Despite this, the discussion around deficits often revolves around volatile resource revenue (e.g. oil and gas royalties). It’s true—resource revenue has declined year over year and that has an impact on the budget. But again, it’s not the underlying problem. The problem is successive governments have increased spending during good times of relatively high resource revenue to levels that are unsustainable without incurring deficits when resource revenue inevitably declines. In other words, the fiscal framework for the provincial government relies too heavily on volatile resource revenues to balance its budget.

As a share of the economy, non-resource revenue (e.g. personal income and business income) averaged 12.5 per cent over the last decade (2016/17 to 2025/26) compared to 11.1 per cent between 2006/07 to 2015/16. In other words, Alberta is collecting a larger share of non-resource revenues than in the past as a share of the economy. This statistic alone makes it difficult to argue that the province has a revenue problem.

So, what can the government do to rein in its spending?

Government employee compensation typically accounts for nearly 50 per cent of the Alberta government’s operating spending. From 2019 to 2024, the number of provincial government jobs in Alberta increased by 46,500. Over that period, total compensation for provincial government jobs jumped from $24.2 billion to $29.5 billion. Put differently, government compensation now costs $5.3 billion more annually than pre pandemic. The government should reduce the number of government jobs back to pre-pandemic levels through attrition and a larger program review.

Business subsidies (a.k.a. corporate welfare) is another clear area for reform. Business subsidies consume a meaningful share of each ministries‘ annual budget costing billions of dollars. For example, in 2024/25, grants were the second-largest expense for the ministry of environment at $182.0 million and the largest expense for the ministry of arts, culture and status of women at $154.2 million. For the ministry of energy and minerals, grants totalled $166.3 million in 2024/25. With more than 25 ministries, the provincial government could find meaningfully savings by requiring that each to closely examine their budgets and eliminate business subsidies to yield savings.

The Smith government’s recent fiscal update rung the alarm bells, but to fix the province’s fiscal challenges, one must first understand the underlying problem—Alberta has a spending problem. Fortunately, there are some clear first steps to tackle it.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Maritime provinces can enact policies to reduce reliance on Alberta… ehem.. Ottawa

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen

Nova Scotia’s Finance Minister John Lohr recently took the rare step of publicly commenting on the province’s reliance on transfer payments from Ottawa. For decades, the Maritime provinces have heavily relied on federal transfers, and the equalization program in particular, to fund provincial budgets.

Ottawa collects taxes from across Canada and then redistributes money to different provinces and/or individual Canadians through various programs, including equalization. The MacDonald Notebook recently reported that Lohr told a Halifax Chamber of Commerce audience “we’re very aware that we are very dependent on transfer payments from other parts of the country… we can’t continue to take that for granted… we have the resources here.”

Lohr makes an important point. Consider equalization, a federal program that, in effect, provides payments to provinces with weaker economies and a lower ability to raise tax revenues, with the goal of ensuring all provinces can deliver comparable services at comparable tax rates.

Premiers in other provinces have often lobbied for changes including reform or outright elimination of the program. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador (backed by Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan) is currently challenging the program in court. These provinces believe the program is unfair given how equalization payments are calculated on an annual basis. And this is a serious political concern because at some point these provinces could force reforms to equalization that would result in reduced payments to recipient provinces.

Such a move would have a major impact on provincial finances in the Maritimes. In 2024/25, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are the three provinces most dependent on equalization funds, ranging between $3,718 per person in P.E.I. to $3,252 per person in Nova Scotia. Equalization represents between 19.4 per cent and 21.9 per cent of provincial revenue in these provinces. Put differently, without this federal transfer program, these provinces would lose roughly one-fifth of their revenue. Only Manitoba comes close to this level of reliance on equalization.

But why should the Maritime provinces wait to have reform forced upon them? Moreover, it shouldn’t be a goal to be a long-term recipient province for the same reason one wouldn’t want to be a long-term welfare recipient. Regardless of what Alberta and Saskatchewan wants, we in the east should want to be off equalization for our own reasons. Strengthening provincial economies in the Maritimes would raise living standards and incomes, while strengthening provincial finances and reducing reliance on programs such as equalization.

So, what can be done?

First, the Nova Scotia government’s recent shift in policy to permit more natural resource development in areas such as mining and natural gas is a strong first step. The province is sitting on billions of dollars in economic opportunity in this sector, while the sector’s wages tend to be among the highest of any industry. Other provinces should follow suit and develop their natural resource sectors.

More broadly, governments in the region should trim their bloated bureaucracies to make way for broad-based tax relief. The Maritime provinces have the largest governments in Canada, with government spending (at all levels—federal, provincial and local) exceeding 57 per cent of provincial economies. A consequence of this large government sector is some of the highest taxes in North America (across all types of taxation). Reducing the size of government to national-average levels would make room for substantial tax relief that would boost growth in the region.

Long-term dependence on federal transfers does not need to be a given in the Maritimes. With the right policy environment in place, the governments of Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and New Brunswick can strengthen their economies while reducing reliance on the rest of Canada. On this front, Minister Lohr is on the right track.

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X