Can Albertans sue the provincial government for the harm caused by its gross incompetence? It’s not just a hypothetical question.

When the majority of Albertans suffer material harm as a result of decisions the government makes, a case could be made that citizens have a right to seek legal recourse.

Have a look at the Alberta Bill of Rights, which was established way back in 1972. Among its protections is a commitment to safeguard the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived of these except by due process of law. It also protects the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law.

Amendments to the act passed in 2024 include allowing the court to issue remedies, such as awarding damages when the Alberta Bill of Rights has been breached. Before those changes, the legislation offered few ways to enforce those rights in practice.

That matters because governments are not free to act recklessly without consequences simply because they call their actions “policy.” Once the government materially interferes with protected rights or causes demonstrable harm, citizens are entitled to ask whether legal limits have been crossed.

Many would agree that recent actions of the government have indeed caused harm and violated the rights of citizens. By providing a public platform to separatist extremists, the United Conservative government has fueled a toxic debate that has already harmed the economy, made citizens feel insecure about their future, and opened the door to future conflict that could, in the worst case, escalate into violence.

At the very least, this contradicts the Bill of Rights’ guarantee of “security of the person and enjoyment of property.” It’s hard to feel that one’s future is secure in a province that tolerates a group of radicals who illegally distribute personal information in voters’ lists, seek support from the U.S. administration to break up the Canadian Confederation, and show little regard for the treaty rights of Alberta’s Indigenous people.

Indigenous people, in particular, have reason to argue that allowing a separatist vote, thankfully temporarily blocked by the courts, is a betrayal of the right to equality before the law and the protection of the law. Indigenous leaders have argued that separation discussions could directly affect treaty relationships protected under the Constitution.

Even if the separatism talk ends tomorrow, which it will not, the province will have suffered long-term economic harm. A year ago, Nancy Southern, chief executive of ATCO, said Alberta separatism sentiment was hurting the investment climate. Businesses are losing the confidence they need to make significant investment decisions, she said.

Businesses across Alberta are nervous. In a survey done in cooperation with the Alberta Chambers of Commerce and released last week, the Calgary Chamber reported that 28 per cent of businesses surveyed across the province said talk about Alberta’s separation from Canada was affecting their business, and 88 per cent of them said the impact was negative. More than half of those respondents said separation talk was affecting the provincial economy, almost entirely negatively.

For a typical Albertan, this chill will lead to fewer jobs, diminished property values, and the risk that one of Canada’s economic powerhouses will slowly turn into a have-not province.

Premier Danielle Smith has stated that, while she is a federalist, she wants to respect the wishes of Albertans who demand a voice on the question of separatism. Few would disagree with the argument that Albertans have been taken for granted by central Canada. But many of those same people would stop short of seeing the creation of a landlocked country, ripe to be overtaken by the United States, as a viable solution.

The numbers supporting an end to this fruitless debate are already there. The Forever Canadian campaign accumulated 456,000 signatures (404,293 verified) from Albertans who, let’s be clear, do not want a referendum on separation; who, in fact, want this ridiculous circus to end right now. The separatists claim they have 301,620 signatures from people who want a referendum vote. But those signatures have not been verified, leaving one to wonder how they would stand up to scrutiny.

So, it is apparent that the will of Albertans is already on the record.

Now, practically speaking, it’s not easy to sue a provincial government. Canadian courts generally give governments broad protection when making political or policy decisions, even unpopular ones. The law states that citizens cannot sue the government over “core policy decisions,” as long as those decisions were made in good faith and are not irrational. That protection exists so governments can govern without facing lawsuits over every unpopular decision. But it is not absolute immunity from accountability.

And that is where this government may have a problem.

A government that knowingly fuels instability, ignores foreseeable economic harm and undermines investor confidence may eventually find it harder to argue that its actions were rational, responsible and undertaken in good faith. That becomes an even harder argument when the same government bypasses Indigenous consultation obligations and legitimizes unlawful conduct by extremist actors.

As Smith has demonstrated with her end-run referendum question (which she admitted was designed to bypass a court ruling requiring Indigenous consultation before any separation vote), this government is nothing if not adept at spotting and exploiting loopholes.

A constitutional law authority whom I consult with also sees such a lawsuit as a long shot. “The biggest challenge would be in establishing the interference—i.e., how does a referendum on the possibility of holding a referendum that may trigger negotiations on secession actually interfere with the protected rights (whether as articulated in the Alberta Bill of Rights or the Charter)?” he wrote to me.

Fair question. But courts also look at consequences. And the consequences of this government’s handling of separatism are already visible in business confidence and growing uncertainty about Alberta’s future.

Even so, a legal challenge might be worth a shot, if only to send a message to this hapless government. Albertans have been harmed and will continue to suffer as a result of the government’s incoherent handling of the separatist discussion. Is it negligence? Incompetence? Machiavellianism? Ideological blinkers? Pick your theory because they all have their adherents.

In a twist of irony, Smith’s ambivalence on the separatist question has failed to lock in the support of the separatists who helped her gain party leadership after ousting ex-premier Jason Kenney in 2022. After Smith announced her confusing referendum question, separatist leader Jeffrey Rath declared, “It’s time for Danielle Smith to go.”

So all this chaos, encouraged by a premier trying to hang on to her job, has been for naught. And Albertans are suffering the consequences. Let’s talk about asking the courts for a little remedy for this collective ordeal.

Doug Firby is an award-winning editorial writer with over four decades of experience working for newspapers, magazines and online publications in Ontario and western Canada. Previously, he served as Editorial Page Editor at the Calgary Herald.

The post Danielle Smith’s separatist circus comes with a hefty price tag first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Ottawa is giving Syria’s new government the benefit of the doubt even as Christians, Alawites and Druze report massacres, intimidation and humanitarian collapse across the country.

Canadian ambassador Gregory Galligan recently gave the post-Assad government led by Ahmed al-Sharaa a passing grade during testimony before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

When MPs Ziad Aboultaif and Rob Oliphant pressed him on the status of minorities in Syria, Galligan offered a cautiously optimistic assessment. He also defended the removal of sanctions that were in place until the fall of Bashar Assad in 2024, when Western governments began cautiously reopening diplomatic engagement with Syria’s new leadership.

“They (the Al-Sharaa government) listen to our concerns about representation of women and minorities,” he said, adding that Canada is actively “issuing grants to women’s groups and those advancing a democratic vision for Syria, measures which would not have been possible under the previous sanctions.”

But Christian, Alawite and Druze activists, as well as observers on the ground, say Galligan’s testimony seriously downplayed the fear, uncertainty and sheer terror of extremist attacks these communities face on a day-to-day basis. Many remain skeptical because of Al-Sharaa’s past as the leader of HTS (Hayat Tahrir al Sham), an Islamist faction formerly linked to al-Qaeda and designated as a terrorist organization by several Western governments.

“Our partners on the ground inform us that Christian families are living in fear, and there is no stability or security for them in Syria, driving many of them to leave their homeland,” said Nagui Demian, international programs coordinator with Development and Peace-Caritas Canada (D&P), the Canadian bishops’ development agency that works with partners on the ground, Caritas Syria and Jesuit Refugee Services (JRS).

“The humanitarian needs are enormous, especially as thousands of Syrians are now returning from Lebanon and the regional conflict involving Iran is spilling over into Syria.”

Witnesses contend that the violence against minorities is relentless despite Al-Sharaa’s assurances that HTS’s extremist past is behind him and that Syria’s new leadership has turned over a new leaf.

But those assurances are colliding with events on the ground, particularly among minority communities that fear reprisals under Sunni Islamist rule after years of sectarian violence during Syria’s civil war.

Two major waves of violence in 2025 devastated Alawite and Druze communities. In March, 1,400 Alawites were killed in coastal areas including Latakia, while in July Druze activists and local monitors reported that 17,000 Druze lost their lives and 200,000 were displaced in the Suweida area.

To Syria’s minorities, these are not isolated incidents but evidence that they remain dangerously exposed despite diplomatic claims of reform.

Nuri Kino, a Swedish journalist and leader of the humanitarian and advocacy organization A Demand for Action, has had extensive experience in political advocacy as well as coordinating humanitarian aid in Syria. He has been monitoring the human rights situation of the country’s sharply reduced Christian population—from 1.5 million before 2011 to fewer than 300,000 at present.

Kino spoke of an alarming incident: a foiled bomb plot at a Christian funeral in Aleppo on May 13.

“We are deeply concerned and outraged,” he said. “We called our contacts in Syria immediately and spoke to two witnesses to the incident. Now we can only thank Our Lord that the bomb did not detonate.”

This is one of several incidents of threats, intimidation and violence against Christians and other minorities that have taken place in recent months, according to survivors and witnesses.

Sara Abbas, a Canadian Syrian Alawite activist based in Regina, Sask., is co-founder and vice-president of the Western Syria Alliance. She questioned Galligan’s testimony to the Commons committee.

“We (the Alawite community) are surprised by the ambassador’s excuses for the jihadist government in Damascus, when the reality is that there are ongoing human rights abuses of minorities,” Abbas said. “If the ambassador had made a simple visit to the coast (of Syria) and met people there, away from the eyes of government authorities, he would have discovered the truth of the massacres, the arbitrary arrests, the kidnapping of women and the denial of their cultural, economic and religious rights.”

Sana Barouki, a Druze activist based in Vancouver, also had strong words of criticism for Galligan’s testimony.

“It is both ridiculous and tragic, what the ambassador told the committee,” Barouki said. “The situation for minorities continues to deteriorate. The Druze remain under siege, and 36 villages abandoned by their inhabitants are still under the control of the government in Damascus, which is preventing people from returning to their homes.”

Barouki echoed Demian’s comments about the urgent humanitarian needs.

“The health care situation is catastrophic,” she said. “There is no access to dialysis or cancer treatment. And the tragedy is not limited to Alawite and Druze regions. Girls are reportedly being kidnapped and sold into slavery. Even in Damascus, the situation is devastating, with soaring electricity prices, widespread disease and the collapse of basic services.”

To many Syrian minorities, these accounts are proof that Western governments are normalizing relations with Damascus while ignoring what is happening on the ground.

Local churches and international charities such as Aid to the Church in Need and D&P are working on the ground with partners to provide material aid.

“We are working with JRS to meet health-care needs and running three clinics in Aleppo,” Demian said. “We also work with Caritas Syria on food assistance, health care and education for children. We also run social cohesion projects.”

He said this is done despite reduced funding from the Canadian government.

“Currently, all our funds come from private (mostly Catholic) donors,” he said. “We are waiting to see if the government will call for project proposals seeking financial support.”

Much of that humanitarian work now depends on private donors despite growing international recognition of Syria’s new government.

International advocacy efforts are led by non-governmental organizations with a global reach, such as A Demand for Action and In Defence of Christians. A coalition of Canadian Syrians, including Alawites, Druze and Christians, has been lobbying the Canadian government, which has committed over $100 million in development aid to Syria, to demand human rights protection for minorities from the Al-Sharaa regime.

In a written submission to the Commons committee on foreign affairs and international trade, the Canadian coalition expressed deep concern about Galligan’s statements.

“We express our deep concern regarding the assessments presented by Canadian ambassador Gregory Galligan to the March 24, 2026, meeting of the Standing Committee on International Development and Trade. In our view, he significantly minimized the scale and nature of the atrocities committed against minority communities. His statements were entirely based on the narrative of the Syrian government,” they wrote.

The coalition urged the Canadian government to support impartial international investigations into the ongoing massacres and sectarian crimes in Syria, to engage directly with independent civil society organizations, survivors and victims’ families rather than relying exclusively on government narratives, and to make the lifting of sanctions conditional on concrete guarantees and accountability mechanisms for human rights protections for all Syrians.

If the accounts from Syria’s Christians, Alawites and Druze are accurate, then Ottawa is not merely misreading events. It risks helping legitimize a government that minorities themselves say is failing to protect them from sectarian violence, intimidation and displacement.

Kino warned that the entire Syrian Christian community might be forced to leave its ancient homeland unless the international community takes immediate action.

“What’s happening now is ethno-religious cleansing—a slow systematic removal of minorities through fear, violence and dispossession,” he said. “The world must wake up now and demand stronger protection for Syria’s religious and ethnic minorities.”

Susan Korah is Ottawa correspondent for The Catholic Register,  a Troy Media Editorial Content Provider Partner.

The post Canada is whitewashing Syria’s new regime first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Pipeline announcements in Canada and the United States are about more than energy exports. They are reminders that the infrastructure driving North American prosperity is increasingly vulnerable to foreign interference, cartel activity and illicit finance.

On April 30, 2026, the White House granted Bridger Pipeline Expansion LLC a presidential permit for cross-border pipeline facilities at the Canada-U.S. boundary in Montana. Reuters reported that the proposal would use idle Keystone XL pipe in Canada and could increase Canadian crude exports to the U.S. by more than 12 per cent if completed. Two weeks later, Canada and Alberta announced an agreement under which Alberta will submit a proposal by July 1, 2026, for a bitumen pipeline to Asian markets capable of moving at least one million barrels per day.

Pipelines, ports, power grids, rail corridors, casinos, financial institutions, critical minerals and border crossings now sit inside a wider contest over economic security. Canada and the U.S. remain deeply integrated economies. That integration is a strength but creates vulnerabilities.

A North American security panel framed prosperity as a shared security problem. The issue is whether foreign state and criminal actors can exploit division faster than democratic institutions can respond.

The same actors operate on both sides of the border. China targets technology, critical minerals, research, supply chains, infrastructure and political narratives. Iran has used intelligence networks, criminal proxies and transnational repression. Cartels exploit precursor chemical supply, money laundering, firearms flows and transportation corridors. Canadian Security Intelligence Service reporting identifies China and Iran among the main foreign interference and espionage actors targeting Canada.

These actors do not need a single command structure to produce a shared effect. China-linked fentanyl precursor supply and Chinese money laundering networks support cartel activity. Cartels move drugs, cash, people and weapons through border corridors that lawful commerce depends on. Iran has shown willingness to use criminal proxies, including outlaw motorcycle group members, to pursue coercive objectives abroad.

The result is that foreign state activity, organized crime, illicit finance, cyber pressure and influence operations increasingly reinforce one another.

A firearms trafficking case illustrates the risk. U.S. prosecutors allege that a network moved illegally obtained firearms from New Hampshire through Akwesasne territory, which spans parts of Ontario, Quebec and New York state, and into Canada, where some weapons were recovered at crime scenes.

The same vulnerability applies to corporate subversion through commercial relationships. First Nations economic development corporations, resource partnerships, port ventures, casino ownership and critical mineral projects can be targeted through apparently legitimate investment and commercial relationships, including shell companies, consultants, brokers and financing structures.

Casino ownership transitions in Western Canada should be considered in this context. Recent reporting shows that eight British Columbia casinos and two Alberta casinos have either changed hands or are in transition, with First Nations groups involved in those sales.

The risk is not Indigenous economic participation. The risk is that Indigenous partners may be targeted because of their strategic economic position.

The Cullen Commission, the public inquiry into money laundering in British Columbia, found that, between 2008 and 2018, Lower Mainland casinos accepted hundreds of millions of dollars in cash proceeds of crime through the Vancouver model, a money laundering system linking organized crime, underground banking and B.C. casinos.

Cash facilitators affiliated with criminal organizations provided large sums of illicit cash to casino patrons, including patrons with wealth in China who faced currency export restrictions. In 2014, British Columbia casinos accepted nearly $1.2 billion in cash transactions of $10,000 or more, including nearly $200 million reported as suspicious.

Warning indicators existed before the public inquiry. Cullen materials record intelligence work involving River Rock high-limit rooms, cash buy-ins, suspicious transaction verification and banned cash facilitators. Peter German’s Dirty Money Part 2 described Greater Vancouver as a laundering environment for Mainland Chinese, Mexican cartels, and Iranian organized crime, including alleged intersections with Hells Angels networks.

The policy lesson is straightforward. Energy infrastructure, casinos, fentanyl precursors, firearms, cyber espionage, foreign interference and Indigenous economic development should not be treated as unrelated files. They form part of the same prosperity-security system.

Canada and the United States need practical unity: investment screening, beneficial ownership enforcement, fentanyl finance targeting, scrutiny of foreign-linked corporate structures, protection for Indigenous governments and businesses, resilient energy and port infrastructure, and integrated border enforcement against firearms, narcotics, human smuggling and illicit finance.

The pipeline announcements are reminders that prosperity now depends on security, and security depends on economic resilience. Foreign state and criminal actors have learned to profit from division. Canada and the United States need to strengthen shared prosperity.

Scott A. McGregor is a senior fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and managing partner of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He is co-author of The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard.

The post Canada’s economic security is under attack first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Now that Premier Danielle Smith plans to put a question related to Alberta independence to Albertans this fall, her government needs to prepare and release a full economic and fiscal cost-benefit analysis of the impacts of independence, including issues such as pensions, federal transfers, debt allocation, trade and investment impacts.

Previous estimates have suggested Alberta separation could cost the province roughly $130 billion over a decade, underscoring the need for rigorous independent analysis before any referendum.

Public discussion of Alberta independence has intensified amid growing frustration over federal energy, environmental and fiscal policies. But neither Alberta Treasury Board and Finance nor Executive Council, Intergovernmental and International Relations have done a concrete analysis of what independence would mean for Alberta’s economy, even as a risk-planning exercise, despite numerous Access to Information (ATI) requests I have filed over the past year. The most recent request to Executive Council, filed on May 4 of this year, revealed that no work has been prepared.

A government analysis would likely examine issues including division of the federal debt, CPP participation, equalization, trade access, federal transfers and currency options. An independent Alberta would also face substantial transition costs associated with replacing or duplicating federal institutions and services.

The Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), an advocacy group promoting Alberta sovereignty and independence, has released what it considers to be a fully costed plan for an independent Alberta. An analysis by the Alberta government would help clear up misconceptions and independently test the APP’s assumptions as Alberta heads into a referendum campaign this summer and fall.

If the necessary capacity to do this sort of analysis is not available in-house within Alberta Treasury Board and Finance and/or Executive Council, the Smith government should hire a highly respected independent forecasting firm, such as the Conference Board of Canada (now Signal 49 Research) or Stokes Economics, to perform this critical work.

Any referendum campaign would also create uncertainty for investors, businesses and financial markets, making credible analysis even more essential.

The Smith government should release a full fiscal and economic analysis of Alberta independence by Aug. 15, 2026, so Albertans can consider its findings during the fall referendum campaign.

The government’s role is to inform its citizens about the likely benefits, costs and consequences of serious policy choices. Shouldn’t the Smith government test the APP fiscal plan and show whether it adds up? Don’t Albertans, whether they support or oppose independence, deserve clear and objective information about issues such as pensions, taxation, debt obligations and trade impacts before they are asked to vote?

As Albertans continue to debate the merits of independence, one thing shouldn’t be up for debate: the Smith government has a duty to provide accurate and transparent analysis of Alberta independence. At the very least, Albertans deserve all the numbers before being asked to vote this fall on Alberta’s future.

Lennie Kaplan is an economic consultant and a former senior manager with over two decades of experience in the Fiscal and Economic Policy Division of Alberta’s Ministry of Treasury Board and Finance. He also served as the executive director of the MacKinnon Panel on Alberta’s Finances, specializing in the development of policy options to reform federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and provincial financial structures.

The post Albertans need the real facts on separation first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Most consumers have heard of shrinkflation. Less quantity, same price. It is highly visible and easy to notice, especially now that everyone carries a smartphone, takes pictures and collectively compares products online. Shrinkflation has long been perceived as a legal, yet deceptive, way to protect margins while quietly reducing value.

But another phenomenon has been unfolding more discreetly, and most consumers barely notice it. It is called “skimpflation.”

Skimpflation occurs when manufacturers replace higher-quality ingredients with cheaper substitutes while keeping prices relatively stable. Artificial ingredients replace natural ones. Cocoa butter is swapped for alternatives. Sweeteners, oils, fillers and flavouring systems are reformulated to cut costs. Unless consumers closely examine nutritional labels and ingredient lists, these changes often go undetected. Yet the food itself has fundamentally changed.

For years, the food industry justified these adjustments as necessary responses to inflationary pressures, volatile commodity markets and increasingly price-sensitive consumers. In many cases, companies believed shoppers cared more about price than formulation. That assumption may now be changing.

A growing number of major food companies are quietly reversing course.

Jell-O, the iconic gelatin brand known for its bright colours and highly processed formulations, recently announced the launch of Jell-O Simply, a product line free from synthetic dyes and artificial sweeteners. The new line also contains 25 per cent less sugar than traditional ready-to-eat Jell-O products. More importantly, Kraft Heinz has committed to removing certified synthetic colours across its portfolio by the end of 2027, including in legacy Jell-O products.

The confectionery sector is experiencing a similar recalibration. Products formulated with cocoa butter substitutes are increasingly losing appeal among consumers seeking authenticity and better quality. Reports suggest that Hershey plans to return to more traditional chocolate recipes next year while other manufacturers are exploring similar moves. Barry Callebaut, one of the world’s largest chocolate suppliers, has acknowledged that a full recovery in cocoa demand may still take several years but the direction is becoming clearer: consumers are paying more attention to what is actually in their food.

This shift is not driven solely by health concerns or marketing optics. Economics also plays a central role.

Over the last several years, many major brands diluted their value proposition through aggressive cost engineering. As formulations changed and quality perceptions deteriorated, consumers increasingly realized that lower-priced private-label products were offering a remarkably similar experience at a discount. In some categories, national brands effectively trained consumers to trade down.

That is a dangerous trend for the food industry.

Competing exclusively on price creates a race to the bottom that rarely benefits anyone over the long term, including manufacturers, retailers or consumers. While affordability remains critical during a period of persistent food insecurity and household financial strain, the industry cannot cut its way to sustainable growth. Innovation, quality, trust and product differentiation remain essential drivers of long-term competitiveness.

Consumers may accept smaller packages during difficult economic times. What they are far less willing to tolerate is the perception that the food itself has been quietly downgraded.

The recent return to simpler recipes, recognizable ingredients and more authentic formulations suggests that many food companies are beginning to understand an important economic reality: value is no longer defined solely by price. Increasingly, consumers are reassessing what they are actually paying for.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University.

The post Is skimpflation over? Why food brands are reversing course first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Some policy problems require complex solutions. Canada’s immigration mess is not one of them.

Take the international study program, which is now synonymous with diploma mills, fraud and slumlords renting out crowded basements to desperate foreign students. The program has seen excessive demand, with the international student population rising from just 122,665 in 2000 to 638,280 in 2019 and then soaring again to roughly one million in 2024. Increasingly, study permits became tied to work permits and permanent residency.

The uncontrolled growth strained housing, hospitals and food banks. In response, the federal government capped overall student numbers. But the cap fails to address the incentives driving the program’s dramatic expansion: work and permanent residency.

International students can work 24 hours a week, then obtain a “Post-Graduation Work Permit” of up to three years. According to a survey by the Canadian Bureau of International Education (CBIE), 57 per cent of foreign students ultimately want to become permanent residents.

By prohibiting foreign students from working and removing those pathways to permanent residency, we would be left with a limited number of genuine students who want to study, contribute to a lively cultural exchange in our universities, and then return home.

How about foreign workers? Many Canadians feel cheap foreign labour is displacing Canadian workers, especially youth, from retail and restaurant jobs. The data backs this up. A study by the Fraser Institute found that 437,000 people aged 15 to 24 looked for a job but could not find one last year, up 57 per cent from 2022. Yet Ottawa intends to approve 230,000 new foreign worker permits this year, many in the same low-skill sectors Canadian youth are qualified for.

When the Temporary Foreign Worker Program was introduced in 1973, it was limited to specialized occupations like academics or engineers. Employers have only been able to hire low-skill temporary foreign workers since 2002, with the program expanding into sectors such as food service and hospitality. Ottawa could revoke that privilege tomorrow. Ending the low-skill temporary foreign worker stream would not only open up jobs for Canadians, but it would also incentivize bosses to invest in workers through training, benefits and opportunities for advancement.

Canada allows foreign nationals to claim asylum and affords them a process whereby they can demonstrate that they are a legitimate refugee. Canadians are a kind people who largely support this idea but are wary of their generosity being abused. Between 2016 and 2025, active asylum claims skyrocketed from 17,537 to 295,819. How do we retake control?

We can take inspiration from Denmark’s approach. This progressive Scandinavian country was the first to ratify the 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention and is now pioneering asylum reforms in a 21st-century world where global travel has made migration so much easier. Simply put, Denmark has made it very difficult for asylum seekers to attain permanent residency. They can stay until their home country is safe and must return to help rebuild when danger is over.

Britain has moved toward the Danish approach, introducing reforms that make refugee protection temporary and could require many asylum seekers to wait up to 20 years before qualifying for permanent residency. If their home country is deemed safe during that period, the asylum seekers are sent home.

Canada should emulate these fellow Western democracies and balance kindness with fairness in our asylum system.

Every aspect of our immigration policy should be analyzed in terms of whether it benefits the average Canadian rather than special interests or lobbies. Until the 1990s, we had what was known as a “tap on, tap off” immigration policy, where immigration levels rose or fell depending on unemployment and broader economic conditions.

Instead of a high and ever-increasing annual flow, levels were adjusted to match the economy. This meant that some tough decades, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s, saw almost no immigration. If we restored this approach now, we might choose to turn the proverbial tap off for the rest of this decade as unemployment rises, trade wars rage and rumours of a global recession swirl.

The policy decisions needed to restore Canada’s immigration system are simple. The hard part is finding politicians willing to admit it and reverse course.

Riley Donovan is a freelance journalist and the editor of Dominion Review. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post It’s time to turn off the immigration tap first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Prime Minister Mark Carney says he wants pipelines, but his own policies still punish the industry building them.

That contradiction sits at the heart of the May 15, 2026, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Ottawa and Alberta for a new crude oil pipeline to Canada’s West Coast. The agreement promises faster approvals, access to Asian markets and billions in potential economic growth. But it also keeps many of the climate policies and costs that helped cripple previous energy projects.

Ottawa and Alberta are now locked into an extremely aggressive approval timeline after a decade of stalled, delayed and cancelled energy projects. The Carney government says the pipeline will be declared in the national interest by Oct. 1, 2026, with construction approval expected by Sept. 1, 2027.

At the same time, Ottawa says it wants to simplify the regulatory process by backing away from the much-criticized Impact Assessment Act of 2019, which many industry critics blamed for years of uncertainty and delays.

That should reassure investors. But they’ve heard promises like this before.

“The MOU Implementation Agreement is a meaningful step toward restoring confidence in Canadian energy infrastructure,” says Michael Binnion, president of Questerre Energy Corporation. “However, the underlying economics deserve a clearer hearing.”

He is right.

The biggest problem is Ottawa’s decision to tie the pipeline directly to the massive Pathways CCUS project. The federal government and Alberta reaffirmed that construction of the pipeline and the multibillion-dollar carbon capture system are mutually dependent. That linkage may ultimately threaten the entire deal.

Ottawa and Alberta are forcing oilsands producers to absorb the regulatory burdens of this massive CCUS project even though international competitors face no such rules.

The broader carbon-cost problem does not stop there.

The agreement also raises the carbon price from $95 per tonne in 2026 to $130 per tonne in 2035, with further increases afterward. Although that trajectory is lower than Ottawa’s earlier proposal, it still threatens Canadian competitiveness. At $130 per tonne, Canadian producers could face compliance costs ranging from 50 cents to as much as $2 per barrel while competitors in other countries avoid similar burdens.

Instead of reducing costs and uncertainty to attract investment, governments are layering new climate obligations onto the very industry expected to finance and build the project.

Governments are also relying on taxpayer-funded incentives to cover much of the estimated $20-billion capital cost of Pathways CCUS along with billions more in operating costs. That comes as Canadians are already struggling with affordability pressures, high taxes and growing federal debt.

Ottawa is also quietly acknowledging another reality it spent years resisting: Canada still needs enormous amounts of reliable energy.

The agreement calls for expanded electricity infrastructure, continued natural gas generation and major transmission-line construction. Those commitments directly contradict years of political messaging suggesting Canada could rapidly move away from fossil fuels without major economic consequences.

Natural gas will continue playing a major role in Canada’s electricity system because governments are finally confronting the realities of electrification, industrial demand and AI data centres.

But even if the economics somehow work, major political and legal risks still remain.

A private-sector proponent capable of financing and building the pipeline has yet to emerge. Potential investors have watched previous pipeline projects collapse after years of political fights, court battles and regulatory delays.

British Columbia remains openly hostile to new pipelines. Indigenous consultations could also trigger prolonged legal disputes despite support from many Indigenous communities.

Canadians have seen this movie before.

Opposition and political uncertainty already delayed and dramatically increased the cost of the federally owned Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline.

Carney now says Canada wants pipelines again. But if Ottawa continues piling climate costs, regulatory uncertainty and political risk onto the industry expected to build them, investors may conclude nothing has really changed.

The opportunity before Canada is real. So is the possibility that Ottawa will once again smother a major energy project under the weight of its own climate policies.

Yogi Schulz is an energy sector specialist and technology executive with 40 years of experience in Western Canada. A former board member of the Professional Petroleum Data Management (PPDM) Association, he advises on project risk, technological readiness, and regulatory compliance frameworks for major resource developments. He is the co-author of A Project Sponsor’s Warp-Speed Guide.

The post Ottawa could still strangle Canada’s next pipeline first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Global oil markets are no longer just facing high prices. They are running out of emergency reserves.

Commercial oil inventories are falling at a record pace as the Strait of Hormuz blockade continues to choke global supply. The narrow waterway handles roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil trade, making it one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints. The International Energy Agency says stockpiles now hold only weeks of coverage, raising fears the world may be moving from an oil-price problem to an oil-security problem.

Previous Middle East crises usually pushed prices sharply higher before markets stabilized and supply resumed. This time looks different.

JPMorgan warns commercial inventories in developed economies are approaching operational stress levels. Saudi Aramco says gasoline and jet fuel inventories could soon become critically low. Rapidan Energy goes further, warning that if stockpiles continue falling at the current pace, parts of the global economy could begin seizing up as transportation systems struggle to secure fuel at any price. The problem is no longer simply expensive oil. It is the growing risk of physical shortages.

Oil markets are already showing signs of strain. Roughly 14 million barrels per day of exports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE have been disrupted since the Strait of Hormuz was effectively shut. Analysts estimate the disruption has already removed the equivalent of billions of barrels of annual supply from global markets. Some analysts now see this as one of the most serious supply disruptions modern energy markets have faced.

The implications go far beyond crude prices. Modern economies depend on continuous fuel availability. Airlines, trucking fleets, shipping lines, agriculture, manufacturing and emergency services all rely on stable petroleum supplies. Once inventories fall below critical operational levels, the issue becomes physical availability, not affordability. At that stage, shortages begin affecting transportation, supply chains and consumer prices.

That is why analysts increasingly believe prices may need to rise dramatically simply to destroy demand. Rapidan Energy argues severe economic contraction is now more likely than a complete depletion of inventories because economies would slow sharply before stockpiles fully run dry. Despite signs of demand destruction, global consumption still remains above available supply.

Markets remain volatile because nobody knows how long the Strait crisis will continue. U.S. President Donald Trump continues sending mixed signals regarding negotiations with Iran, while tanker movements through the region remain inconsistent. Some vessels have been allowed to leave the Strait intermittently, but normal energy flows have not resumed.

Washington’s recent reversal on Russian oil sanctions also underscores the seriousness of the situation. After initially allowing waivers on Russian oil sales to expire, the U.S. quietly granted a 30-day extension to countries importing Russian crude already at sea. The move reflected growing concern that global energy markets are becoming increasingly fragile.

Even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens soon, the damage to global energy markets will not disappear quickly. Oil fields shut during the crisis cannot instantly resume full production. Woods Mackenzie estimates some southern Iraqi fields could require nine months merely to recover to 85 per cent of prewar production levels.

The same problem applies to inventories. IEA member countries are releasing roughly 400 million barrels from emergency reserves to stabilize markets. Those reserves will eventually need to be rebuilt, prolonging tight supply conditions long after the immediate crisis passes.

Liquefied natural gas markets also face prolonged disruption. Damage to Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG infrastructure could take more than a year to repair, further tightening global energy supplies fully.

Goldman Sachs expects Brent crude to average around US$90 per barrel in the fourth quarter even under the optimistic assumption that Persian Gulf exports normalize relatively quickly. If disruptions persist longer, prices could move substantially higher. Tight energy markets and elevated prices could persist well into 2027.

For Alberta, the implications are significant. After years of discounted pricing, constrained infrastructure and political hostility toward the energy sector, the province suddenly finds itself holding one of the world’s most valuable strategic assets: stable North American oil supply. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent signals supporting new pipeline capacity, if he actually follows through on his promises, only strengthen Alberta’s long-term position.

The world is relearning a lesson it periodically forgets. Energy security matters. And as global energy markets grow increasingly fragile, countries with reliable oil supplies become far more important than governments once liked to admit.

Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.

The post Forget high gas prices. It’s oil shortages that are going to break us first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

Does it make sense to create a new sovereign wealth fund on borrowed dollars?

That seems to be Prime Minister Mark Carney’s plan. Ahead of last week’s spring economic update, Carney announced plans to create a “Canada Strong Fund,” with an initial federal contribution of $25 billion.

A sovereign wealth fund is a state-owned investment fund that normally uses government surplus reserves to invest in financial assets, such as stocks and bonds, and is independently financially managed. Alberta has such a fund, called the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which was established some 50 years ago.

The new Canada Strong Fund will, according to Carney, “focus on investing in Canada.” In other words, the federal government already plans to direct this fund, or at least strongly guide it, in terms of where to invest.

That should raise an immediate red flag for taxpayers. Sovereign wealth funds are generally designed to get the most bang for the taxpayer’s buck and are arm’s length for that very reason. Most countries, like Norway, also require such funds to be invested abroad to try to avoid politicization, something Carney is clearly failing to do.

But beyond that, there’s a more fundamental question at stake: does it make financial sense to try to create a sovereign wealth fund through borrowed cash?

Carney tried to compare his Canada Strong Fund to Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, but Norway’s fund invests its direct oil and gas revenues and isn’t funded through government debt.

The federal government is currently awash in red ink. The federal deficit remains well over $65 billion, with no sign of a surplus on the horizon. In fact, Ottawa has been running budget deficits for more than a decade.

The Montreal Economic Institute’s Emmanuelle Faubert hit the nail on the head.

“The Norwegian model is not funded on debt. Right now, we have increasing deficits. We have increasing debt, both federally and provincially, and the funding model in Norway [would] work better because it’s funded through surpluses,” said Faubert.

Borrowing money to invest it is a risky venture. Any sane financial advisor would tell a private individual that it isn’t a good idea to borrow a chunk of money just to invest it, as borrowing money means paying interest on that borrowed money.

The federal government should adhere to that same logic.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre seems to recognize the risk as well.

“Norway, Singapore and Saudi Arabia run big budget surpluses, which they accumulate and put into their sovereign wealth funds,” said Poilievre. “Canada has no surplus, and therefore no wealth to put in such a fund.”

Poilievre went on to mock Carney’s plans, calling the fund a “sovereign debt fund.”

Creating a sovereign wealth fund in and of itself is not a bad idea. It makes sense to take extra money and invest it for the sake of future generations. But doing so on borrowed money is a risky scheme that will likely generate very limited, if any, returns. And encouraging that fund to be invested in Canada, even if that’s not where the best returns might be generated, is yet another reason why borrowing money to fund this scheme is ill-advised.

Yes, Canada should have a sovereign wealth fund. But this is something that the Chrétien government ought to have set up in the late 1990s or early 2000s, when the government was consistently posting budget surpluses. It would have made sense, for example, to commit to putting any oil revenue into such a fund back when the books were balanced and a fund could have been started on surplus cash.

What Carney is doing is not creating a sovereign wealth fund. He’s borrowing money on your dime to create a risky new scheme that any good financial advisor would advise against.

If Carney truly wants to set his sights on creating a sovereign wealth fund like Norway’s, he should focus on balancing the books first. Once the federal government’s books are in order, Carney could then look at setting up a genuinely arm’s-length fund that invests abroad rather than at home to ensure depoliticization. Anything short of following the Norwegian model is a mistake.

When it comes to the Canada Strong Fund, the Carney government ought to go back to the drawing board.

Jay Goldberg is a fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post Borrowing $25 billion for a “wealth fund” is financial insanity first appeared on Edmonton's Business.

The 2026 World Cup was sold to Canadians as a manageable public expense with major economic benefits. Instead, Toronto and Vancouver are now staring at more than $1 billion in combined costs, while taxpayers are once again being told the overruns are worth it.

When Toronto’s city council originally considered a World Cup bid back in 2018, they were told it would cost no more than $45 million. That figure is now $380 million. Vancouver’s story is no different. Despite an original price tag of $240 million, it’s now expected to cost $624 million.

None of this should surprise anyone, least of all the politicians who signed off on it. Governments consistently understate costs and overstate benefits. From roads to recreation centres, international sporting events are no different.

Initial estimates are kept low to make projects politically palatable. Then, once the commitment is made, costs escalate and budgets bloat. That isn’t bad luck. That’s government.

Costs have gotten so out of hand that the federal government, having already committed $220 million to support the tournament, recently announced another $145 million, plus a further $100 million for impacted federal departments. That’s on top of what Ontario and British Columbia have already kicked in.

All told, what was supposed to cost a few hundred million dollars has metastasized into more than a billion dollars in public spending.

If FIFA came to Canada, covered its own costs and ran its operation like any other private event organizer, that would be one thing. But that’s not the arrangement.

Host countries are expected to foot the bill, promised that tourists will flood in, hotels will fill up, restaurants will overflow and GDP will surge. The historical record shows those promises of economic invigoration are consistently, embarrassingly wrong.

Before the 1994 World Cup, U.S. host cities were promised a $4-billion economic boost. Instead, they ended up with losses between $5.5 billion and $9.3 billion. South Africa spent $6 billion on the 2010 tournament, notwithstanding a $650-million budget, generating revenues of $513 million despite projections of $900 million. Brazil paid $15 billion to host the 2014 edition, promising huge economic gains, only to experience negative economic growth in the years that followed.

Yes, restaurants will be busy and hotels will fill, but that doesn’t make the country any better off. Much of that spending is money that would have been spent anyway elsewhere in the economy, and none of it comes close to justifying a $1-billion public outlay.

Which raises the question: why do politicians keep agreeing to host these events? The answer has less to do with economics than with optics.

Hosting an international tournament comes with its fair share of political perks. For ambitious politicians looking to boost their status or cement a legacy on the world stage, the ribbon-cuttings and photo ops are simply too tempting to pass up.

Of course, if they actually wanted a legacy, they could start with the basics: homes people can afford, transit that actually runs, communities that are safe to live in. Yet somehow, despite these long-standing issues, which governments have failed to address, they still managed to find a $1-billion budget for their political vanity project.

And make no mistake about who is actually paying for this. Every Canadian taxpayer, including those who will never attend a game, is subsidizing an event that primarily benefits FIFA and its corporate sponsors, the hospitality industry in two specific Canadian cities, and the affluent who can afford $1,000 tickets to watch 90 minutes of soccer in the middle of a workday. There are few more regressive uses of public money than that.

But with kickoff weeks away, there’s no stopping it now. All we can do is remember exactly how we got here: politicians who couldn’t resist the spotlight, governments that couldn’t stay on budget, and a public too swept up in the excitement to worry about the bill.

Conrad Eder is a policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

The post The 2026 World Cup is a fiscal disaster for Canada first appeared on Edmonton's Business.