This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lennie Kaplan

Ottawa’s emissions cap unfairly targets Alberta while claiming to serve national climate goals

Alberta could face a deep recession in 2030, driven not by global markets but by Ottawa’s climate agenda. A new analysis warns that federal plans to
cap oil and gas emissions and cut greenhouse gases would hit Alberta harder than any other province, gutting jobs, income and government revenues.

According to recent analysis by the Conference Board of Canada, a respected non-partisan economic research group, the impact of these federal climate policies would be both severe and long-lasting. As the report states:

“Given the importance of the oil and gas sector to Alberta’s economy, the province will be disproportionately impacted by the policies in the ERP [Emissions Reduction Plan]. Alberta would experience a deep recession in 2030 and would subsequently experience slower economic growth compared to our Baseline forecast. As a result, Alberta’s GDP (11.0 per cent), employment (4.1 per cent), and government revenues (9.3 per cent) would all be lower than in our Baseline scenario in 2050. Also… incomes in Alberta would be 7.3 per cent, or $3,300 lower per person.”

These are not hypothetical figures. The modelling, presented to the Alberta government in January 2025, examined a range of scenarios, including different oil price assumptions and technology adoption paths. Regardless of the outlook, one conclusion stands out: Alberta would shoulder nearly 80 per cent of all Canadian oil and gas production cuts under the proposed emissions cap.

Oil and gas account for nearly one-third of Alberta’s GDP and a major share of its government revenues. With so much of the provincial economy dependent on energy production, the consequences of these federal mandates would be disproportionately severe.

This raises serious questions about fairness, federalism and the balance of power in Confederation. Why should one province absorb the lion’s share of the cost to satisfy national targets negotiated without its full consent?

This isn’t just poor policy: it’s deliberate and destructive.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s government has recognized the threat and responded by forming the Alberta Next Committee and appointing a special negotiating team. Its efforts are aimed at securing a more balanced deal with Ottawa—an “Alberta Accord” that protects the province’s core economic interests while contributing to national climate goals through technology and innovation, not coercion.

Prime Minister Marc Carney has long promoted the idea of building a green economy, and his government appears poised to continue down that path. But real transitions require co-operation. A credible climate plan cannot be built by crippling one region to subsidize another.

Alberta is already leading in areas such as carbon capture, hydrogen and clean power generation. Yet those efforts risk being undercut by federal policies that punish energy producers simply for existing.

The memory of the National Energy Program looms large. Introduced by the first Trudeau government in the 1980s, it redirected energy revenues to Ottawa, drove investment out of Alberta and triggered one of the province’s worst economic downturns. The parallels today are hard to ignore: once again, a federal Liberal government is imposing top-down energy policy with little regard for the fallout in the West.

The situation also highlights a deeper issue—the steady erosion of provincial autonomy in economic decision-making. If federal policies can devastate one province’s economy in the name of national ambition, what does that say about the future of Canadian federalism?

The numbers are clear. The proposed federal emissions cap would gut Alberta’s economy, eliminate jobs and cripple public revenues. The Smith government must escalate its pushback and build broad provincial support to stop Ottawa from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Alberta cannot afford a second National Energy Program.

Lennie Kaplan is a former senior manager in the Fiscal and Economic Policy Division of Alberta’s Treasury Board and Finance Ministry, where, among other duties, he assessed the risks of government financial arrangements with private sector business ventures. He also served as a research consultant to the Auditor General of Alberta’s 2018 audit entitled APMC Management of Agreement to Process Bitumen at the Sturgeon Refinery. 

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Michael Zwaagstra

New rules on sexually explicit books in libraries ensure that students only have access to age-appropriate materials

Should books with sexually explicit content be in school libraries?

If your answer to this question is “no,” then you agree with the Government of Alberta’s recent ministerial order on school libraries. If your answer is “yes,” then you agree with the critics who oppose this order. It is that simple.

Judging by the reaction of the government’s critics, one might think the Alberta government had just enacted a sweeping book ban. However, the guidelines announced by Education Minister Demetrios Nicolaides are clearly targeted at sexually explicit content. Unless you believe young children should have access to sexually explicit content at school, it makes little sense to oppose these new guidelines.

Lest one assume no school would allow sexually explicit content in its library, the Alberta government posted excerpts from four American books found in many Alberta school libraries. There is no question that the content in these books is sexually explicit, something any reasonable person can confirm.

The Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA), which seems to oppose every announcement this government makes, issued a statement claiming these guidelines would “result in the removal of valuable and inclusive resources from our libraries.” However, it’s unlikely many parents think there’s anything valuable or inclusive about providing children with sexually explicit content.

In its news release, the ATA also argued these guidelines would “have a chilling effect on our schools and signal to students who are coming to understand themselves that some expressions of their gender and sexual identities are shameful and should be hidden away.”

However, these guidelines do not single out or target any gender identity or sexual orientation. Instead, the focus is entirely on books that contain sexually explicit content. Students will still be able to access books that portray a variety of gender identities and sexual orientations from their school libraries. Additionally, these guidelines do not apply to books that address topics such as puberty and menstruation.

Critics argue that these guidelines impose an unreasonable burden on school boards and distract them from more important issues. However, there is nothing unreasonable about requiring school boards to make clear what criteria they use when selecting books for their school libraries. Frankly, this should have already happened years ago.

Regarding the argument that these guidelines distract from more pressing issues in education, nothing in this announcement detracts from other current initiatives in Alberta schools. In fact, the announcement was made in July, one of the slowest times for the education system. If the government really wanted to distract from other issues, one might have expected this announcement to happen in September or October, when the school year is just beginning.

In addition, some school boards have been vocal in their support for these new guidelines. For example, Nicole Buchanan, chair of the board for Red Deer Public Schools, spoke in favour of the library guidelines at a provincial news conference. As part of her remarks, she said, “This isn’t about banning books or silencing voices. It’s about recognizing that some content simply isn’t appropriate in a K-12 setting.”

Buchanan is absolutely right. Just because some things are widely available to students outside of school doesn’t mean they must be accessible within school. For example, as a teacher, I understand many students watch television shows and YouTube videos that contain plenty of profanity. However, that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for me to use the same words or show the same videos in class.

As a society, we recognize that schools have a responsibility to protect students and ensure they are exposed to positive influences. While we cannot control what students do outside of school, there is certainly an expectation that any content we provide to students in school is age-appropriate. This is true whether we are in the classroom or in the school library.

The Alberta government did the right thing when it introduced guidelines for school libraries. There is nothing unreasonable about ensuring students, particularly those in elementary school, are not exposed to sexually explicit content in school.

Parents and students deserve no less. The Alberta government has made the right decision.

Michael Zwaagstra is a public high school teacher and a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy