Latest news with #WestofCentre
CBC
27-04-2025
- Politics
- CBC
What to watch for as polls close on election day
Chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton speaks with former Liberal cabinet minister Mary Ng, former Conservative cabinet minister and former Alberta premier Jason Kenney, and former NDP MP Randall Garrison. They discuss what a positive outcome looks like for the parties on election day. Plus, the Sunday Scrum hears from former CBC parliamentary bureau chief Rob Russo, Toronto Star Queen's Park bureau chief Robert Benzie, and host of CBC's West of Centre podcast Kathleen Petty about what they will be watching for when polls close.
CBC
01-04-2025
- Politics
- CBC
'West of Centre' live in Medicine Hat April 16
Wednesday, April 16, 2025 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Doors open 6 p.m.) Esplanade Arts & Heritage Centre (401 1 St SE, Medicine Hat) Admission is free. Please register here. Join us for a dynamic evening as CBC's political podcast, West of Centre, comes to Medicine Hat for a special live taping – one night only! Be part of the conversation as we bring together an insightful panel to discuss the key issues shaping southern Alberta's political and economic landscape. From the future of energy to Western alienation and the impact of the upcoming federal election, our panelists will break down what it all means for the region. Panel Guests: Janet Brown – Independent Pollster Rochelle Pancoast – Managing Director of Energy, Land and Environment, City of Medicine Hat Michaela Frey – Former UCP MLA for Brooks–Medicine Hat Barry Morishita – Former Mayor of Brooks / Former Alberta Party Leader Join our live audience and take part in the Q&A at the beautiful Esplanade Arts and Heritage Centre as we record this episode of West of Centre. This is your opportunity to ask questions, share your insights, and engage in a meaningful discussion about the issues that matter most to your community.
CBC
28-03-2025
- Politics
- CBC
From taboo to tactic: How strategic voting could shake up this election
West of Centre is a weekly podcast about the priorities, preoccupations and politics of Canadians living in the West. Listen here or wherever you find your podcasts. Alvin Finkel still remembers the day he was kicked out of the NDP. The lifelong New Democrat from Edmonton had been running a website during Alberta's 2012 provincial election to consolidate progressive votes behind certain Liberal, NDP and Alberta Party candidates. His hope was that "strength in numbers" might help turn the tide against the then-dominant Progressive Conservatives and their rising rival, the Wildrose Party. About 50 like-minded volunteers joined his cause, obsessing over polling data and fanning out across key ridings in Edmonton and Calgary to count lawn signs for each party, pinpointing non-conservative candidates with a real shot at victory. The argument was simple: if left-of-centre urban voters concentrated their ballots behind one person, rather than splitting between three parties, they stood a better chance of winning. It's a much-maligned practice known as strategic voting — and among smaller political parties, it's borderline heresy. "All parties have this notion that you're supposed to park your brains at the front door and assume that your party could win," he said. "It's a fairy tale." For his efforts, Finkel was given the orange boot — for a while anyway. He was eventually let back into the party in 2016. So imagine his bewilderment this month when he heard about Cheryl Oates's appearance on CBC Radio, where she openly mused about voting Liberal in the upcoming federal election. Oates, who served as a top aide for Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley from 2015 to 2019, admitted during an Alberta at Noon call-in show that she'd consider voting strategically to block a Conservative win. "I've been an NDP supporter for a really long time," she said on March 10. "But I really, really don't want Pierre Poilievre to be the next prime minister." Finkel says he never expected that sentiment from hardcore party faithfuls like Oates because "those are the kinds of the people who threw me out of the NDP." Yet as the federal campaign heats up, the perennial debate over strategic voting — choosing a less-preferred party to block a more-disliked one — has resurfaced. If current polling holds, it could loom larger on voting day. Finkel believes his 2012 initiative helped the Alberta NDP narrowly capture two of its four seats that year. But some observers say a similar strategy might now boost Mark Carney's Liberals at the expense of the NDP on the federal stage. Just this week, former federal NDP leader Tom Mulcair wrote an editorial in Bloomberg urging voters on the left —including those who normally vote NDP, Bloc or Green — to consider this election a two-party race. "One thing is clear is this election is more and more shaping up to look like it's a binary choice," said Calgary-based pollster Janet Brown about the choice between Poilievre and Carney. "The NDP has got to just focus on … saving the deck chairs, making sure they come out of this with official party status," she told CBC host Kathleen Petty on West of Centre. In the last federal election, 217 of 338 ridings were won with less than 50 per cent of the vote. That suggests the numbers exist in many districts for strategic voting to make a difference. Polarization, tight race and high stakes Sometimes, voters don't choose the party they like best. They pick their second — or even third — preference if it helps defeat their least-favourite option. While skepticism abounds regarding the practicalities of strategic voting, those who have studied the phenomenon in Canada agree this election might have set the right conditions for it to play a role in the outcome. Razor-thin margins, polarization and concerns over U.S. policy are all potential motivating factors, said Jean-François Daoust, who teaches political science at the University of Sherbrooke. He co-wrote a 2020 paper on the motivations behind strategic voting, using provincial survey data from Ontario in 2011, Quebec in 2012 and federal data from 2015. His study suggests that while only around seven to 12 per cent of voters fit the "strategic" definition overall, that small group can tip close races. "They tend to come from small parties. So even if it's a few percentage points, if it's a tight race, it can be important," he explained to West of Centre, adding that those voters are especially motivated if they severely dislike the alternative frontrunner. In practice, the study suggests this could translate to a concentrated 20 to 35 per cent of "non-viable" party supporters engaging in strategic voting. Daoust says when it's a close race — especially with two major parties at the top — strategic voting tends to rise because voters don't want to "waste" their ballot. In the current election cycle, he said, a key question then becomes whether the NDP under Jagmeet Singh has become "non-viable." Recent polling data suggests NDP support has dropped sharply since Justin Trudeau resigned as Liberal leader. Already, the Liberals have recruited notable New Democrats, including former Vancouver mayor and NDP MLA Gregor Robertson and Alberta NDP MLA Rod Loyola, possibly signalling to NDP supporters they're free to switch parties. Political strategist Jean-Marc Prevost, who worked as a staffer for NDP provincial governments in Alberta and Manitoba, says the move also allows the Liberal Party to evoke a sense of stability for voters. "That's hearkening to a more stable time — remembering the faces that we used to see around the cabinet table or in politics at a time when things seemed more certain in the world," he said on the West of Centre podcast. What about right-of-centre parties? Those who switch between voting Liberal and Conservative go by many names: centrists, "red Tories," "blue Liberals," fiscal conservatives, pragmatists and so on. They are, however, not typically considered the same kind of strategic voters as those on the farther ends of the political spectrum, since neither of their top choices — Conservative or Liberal — is generally viewed as "non-viable," except in a few historic blips and parts of the country. In other words, though these "squishy middle" voters may feel they're making a strategic choice, they're simply voting for a party that best represents them at a moment in time. Theoretically then, it's those who support a smaller party ranking in third place or lower who "strategically" park their vote with a different party. However, choices are slimmer for conservative or farther right-of-centre voters following the "unite the right" merger between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance in 2003. A far-right voter might choose the Conservatives over the People's Party of Canada (PPC) to stop a Liberal or NDP candidate. Daoust said it comes down to "the ideological gap between my strategic option and the worst option I'm trying to block." In 2021, the increase in support for the PPC, from 1.6 per cent to 4.9 per cent of the vote share, failed to win the party any seats in Parliament, but it didn't stop pundits from speculating that it may have cost the Conservatives a dozen or so ridings because of vote splitting. In fact, during the campaign, former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole equated a vote for the PPC to a throwaway vote for Liberals — effectively asking PPC supporters to vote strategically for his more mainstream party. But while strategic voting can help narrow the margin on either side, there is greater risk on the left for the move to backfire due to more fractured options, and therefore potential outcomes. Public opinion researcher Mario Canesco, who runs Vancouver-based Research Co., points to several ridings in his jurisdiction — including Granville and Kingsway — where if enough NDP supporters decide to switch their vote to Liberal, it could contribute to their opposite desired outcome. "So you could have a situation where if you're urging people to vote for a specific candidate or the other, the Conservatives could come through the middle and essentially win," Canesco said. "This was definitely more likely to be a factor when the Conservatives were riding significantly higher levels of public support." Plenty of skeptics Not everyone is convinced that strategic voting meaningfully alters election outcomes. Trevor Harrison, a retired political sociologist at the University of Lethbridge, argues the efficacy of the practice can be overstated — especially when voters lack reliable, riding-level data to inform their choice. "First, the people themselves who are voting aren't actually really sure," he said, noting that most Canadians only see national polling numbers, which can bear little resemblance to on-the-ground realities. "They don't have great information about the accuracy of the polls," he said. "And they are also voting locally." Without credible local surveys, voters can't reliably deduce which non-preferred candidate actually stands a better chance of beating the contender they dislike the most. That makes strategic voting a gamble — not a precise calculation. "It's really complicated because you're trying to do all this in your head without actually having very much information," Harrison said. In places where a party consistently dominates — such as many rural areas in Alberta that vote Conservative by wide margins — no amount of strategic voting can tip the scales. Conversely, in a close three-way urban race, strategic balloting might matter, but only if voters can accurately guess which candidate is truly viable. Malcolm Bird, who teaches political science at the University of Winnipeg, is similarly cautious about reading too much into dramatic polling shifts. He points to the NDP's history of ups and downs — and questions the assumption that left-leaning voters will line up neatly behind the Liberals to block a Conservative win. "I think for your average public sector, urban woman voter — OK, you're going to be able to convince her to vote [Liberal]," Bird said. "The bigger question for the progressives is actually getting working people to vote for them." He says any "fear factor" around Poilievre or the Conservatives may not seal the deal. Bird also points to the number of variables that are underrepresented in polling data, including the voting patterns of new Canadians living in suburbia. "They tend to be more family-oriented ... more faith-oriented, and the Conservative Party is the only party that even has a place for people of faith," he said. Poilievre says it's election day result that matters, not polling 12 hours ago Duration 1:51 Divining one's own riding Back in Edmonton, Finkel didn't let his NDP expulsion keep him from promoting strategic voting in the next provincial election. He was back at it in 2015. That year, Notley's NDP unexpectedly formed government — ironically less from left-wing unity than a split in support between the Progressive Conservatives and the Wildrose Party. Once those two parties merged into the United Conservative Party, it reclaimed a majority in 2019. Finkel, a retired Athabasca University history professor, stayed dedicated to rallying votes against conservative candidates on all levels of government because, in his words: "I'm left-wing and want to preserve our social, environmental programs." But he says anyone trying to make their ballot count strategically must focus on their own riding, especially in the final week of campaigning. "This isn't like a [U.S.] presidential race," Finkel said. "We don't vote nationally in Canada." This time, he's volunteering for the local NDP incumbent Heather McPherson, not the Liberals, because he believes the NDP is more viable in his riding of Edmonton Strathcona. "There's a Calgary riding right now that has a Liberal MP. If I lived there I'd be tempted to vote for that fellow even though I don't think he's a great MP," he said. "But in my riding, the NDP has the best chance of winning here." In other words, one of Alberta's best-known champions of strategic voting — and a one-time outcast from his own party for urging progressives to unite — won't be checking the Liberal challenger's box on April 28.
CBC
08-03-2025
- Business
- CBC
Rebooting Canada's backbone: Trump's tariffs put megaprojects back in spotlight
West of Centre is a weekly podcast about the priorities, preoccupations and politics of Canadians living in the West. Listen here or wherever you find your podcasts. For the first time in the lives of many Canadians, the idea of large-scale, nation-building infrastructure is back in the spotlight. Not since the completion of the Trans-Canada Highway in 1971 have so many politicians, experts and ordinary Canadians been talking up major projects — everything from an east-west "energy corridor" to port expansions and rail upgrades — insisting the country needs to build, and build fast. A big part of this urgency comes from shifting geopolitics and economic uncertainty tied to Canada's reliance on the United States. President Donald Trump's tariffs and "51st state" rhetoric have driven home the need for alternate trade routes and new markets. Federal leaders, premiers and industry insiders are now looking at ways to fast-track projects that once languished in political purgatory, all in hopes of making Canada more self-reliant and resilient. But to truly build again in ways that would propel the country's GDP, proponents say Canada needs to look beyond regional projects — beyond even the recently launched $3.9-billion development plan for a high-speed rail linking Toronto to Quebec City. What Canadian high speed rail could look like 4 months ago Duration 2:33 The time it takes to travel from one city to another could be cut in half, which could have a massive effect on how many people travel, and even where people live. But some say the costs associated with the federal government's plan may keep high-speed rail in Canada out of reach. "It's a good start. Personally, I would like to see some more stuff outside of that Toronto-Windsor corridor. A lot of cities here don't even have bus service anymore," said Kent Fellows, professor of economics at the University of Calgary. Think of megaprojects on the scale of the Canadian Pacific Railway or Highway 1. For decades, Fellows says, the country has relied on the private sector to build new infrastructure. But in recent years, the risks and costs have ballooned to the point where few companies, no matter how large, are willing to bear them. "We've certainly seen that on the pipeline front, but we're seeing it on other fronts," Fellows said. "Maybe it's time to rethink that strategy." If the goal is to build big and build fast in response to Trump, Canada's recent track record isn't encouraging. From the Northern Gateway and Energy East pipelines to multiple proposed LNG terminals in British Columbia and Nova Scotia, as well as light rail and metro projects in Montreal, Surrey, B.C., and Hamilton, Ont., plenty of high-profile projects have been abandoned, cancelled or stalled. Even some of the smaller scale proposals related to renewables, such as a graphite mine in western Quebec or Uranium prospecting in eastern Ontario, face fierce opposition. Industries have pointed to bureaucracy, NIMBYism and shifting regulatory frameworks as hurdles driving away investment. Collectively, they've created what one expert calls "infinite" veto points to strike down a project — at community levels, across provincial lines and in the courts. "We've gone from one extreme, where almost no one could say no, to the opposite extreme, where it's almost impossible to get a good project built," said Marc Dunkelman, author of Why Nothing Works. Though his research focuses mostly on the United States, some of the cases he's looked at involve Canada as well, with conclusions relevant to both countries. Dunkelman envisions a more functional system. "Everyone should have a voice, but no one should ever veto," he said. Many are now pointing to Trump's threats as a turning point for Canada. "Maybe this is our wake-up call … this is the end of our holiday from history," former Alberta premier and federal cabinet minister Jason Kenney told CBC's West of Centre in February after Canadians started booing the American anthem during hockey games. "It's time for us, as a country, to put on our big-boy pants. It's time for us to stop talking about things like productivity and competitiveness and actually damn well do it." Reviving the 'corridor' concept One idea making the rounds is an east-west "energy corridor" — once central to former Conservative leader Andrew Scheer's 2019 election campaign. Pierre Poilievre, too, has been making the case for such a right-of-way since before Conservatives chose him to lead the party. More recently, Liberal Party leadership candidate Frank Baylis referenced his proposal to build two pipelines as "corridors" to transport Alberta's natural gas to Europe and Asia. The broader concept of an infrastructure corridor has been around since the 1970s. Researchers at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy gave it a serious boost in 2016 and 2018, bringing together experts across legal, socio-economic, environmental and regulatory disciplines to propose a "Northern Corridor" spanning Canada's three coasts. The core idea was to set aside space for highways, rail lines, power transmission and pipelines — basically any infrastructure Canada might need to tie the country together. "We are the largest G7 country in terms of land mass and the smallest in terms of population, so moving stuff around our country and moving stuff internationally is really important for us, but it's something we really haven't kept up on in terms of infrastructure spend," said Fellows, who led the corridor research. A 2024 Statistics Canada report found about half of businesses surveyed cited transportation costs or sheer distance as the main barriers to interprovincial trade. Zach Parston, who leads the major-project advisory in the Prairie region for KPMG Canada and has consulted for both government and industry on projects such as ports and LNG infrastructure, is pushing to revive the corridor concept. He describes it as a network of ditches or tunnels, 100 to 500 metres wide, stretching from coast to coast to coast — a "utility agnostic" plan that could serve the needs of today and tomorrow. "I think there's an immediate opportunity to look at oil, to look at power transmission across the country," Parston told West of Centre. "But then it offers the potential for telecommunications, in terms of fibre optics, and others potentially, [like] sequestering carbon from other parts of Canada." 'Pre-approved' industrial zones Along with the corridor idea, Parston sees several other critical fronts where Canada must "build big," including the need to set up what he calls "pre-approved" industrial zones. "If you think of the utility corridor as the backbone, these become appendages that connect to it," Parston said on the podcast. He cited the Alberta Industrial Heartland, northeast of Edmonton, as a good template for pre-establishing what can or can't be built in a clustered area. In these zones, environmental and community consultations happen up front, so when companies do apply, approvals can be streamlined. The idea, Parston says, is to cut red tape and give investors more certainty. Modernizing ports — including the Arctic Experts warn that none of these big builds will pay off unless Canada modernizes its ports. After all, all the stuff we produce — from energy to lumber to car parts — all have to go elsewhere if not south to the United States. And with any alternative market you pick, from Asia to Europe, there's a large body of water sloshing between us. Addressing gridlock at the country's largest port in Vancouver has become a pressing concern, with expansion hampered by sky-high land prices in the Lower Mainland. Fellows see a solution in upgrading existing ports such as Prince Rupert on the West Coast, as well as Halifax and Montreal in the East. "You want to bring in a full container and send out a full container — you don't want to be running those containers empty anywhere in the country, if you can avoid it," Fellows said about the need to boost capacity in all the major ports. At some point, he says, Canada might also want to look north. Churchill in northern Manitoba remains Canada's only Arctic deepwater port, and it's been far less active since the Harper government dismantled the Canadian Wheat Board. "There's been some discussion of trying to use it as an export port for energy," Fellows said. "I'm not sure that works out quite as well just because of the physical location, and because of the seasonality of the port. But if someone can figure that out, that's potentially an option as well." For Parston, the North — which includes the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut — is key to Canada's future. It's packed with critical minerals like rare earth elements, cobalt, nickel, copper and tungsten, which are crucial for emerging technologies such as EV batteries, renewable energy systems and advanced electronics. "It's critical for our economy, our economic security and in the future of what Canada has to offer related to critical minerals and others," Parston said. "But also … what an opportunity to put a stamp on Arctic sovereignty, right?" Both Poilievre and presumed Liberal leadership front-runner Mark Carney have stressed the need to build military bases in the North. Poilievre made a point last month of visiting Iqaluit, Nunavut, while Carney has suggested future Canadian Forces bases could be built in Iqaluit and Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T. What about NIMBYism, environmental and Indigenous concerns? All these big, nation-building ideas inevitably collide with a reality that writer Dunkelman describes as a dramatic cultural shift in how large projects get approved. In the mid-20th century, he points out, the "establishment" — often "older white men in positions of power" — enjoyed broad public trust. They had wide discretion to decide where highways would go, which neighbourhoods would face demolition, and how farmland or forests might be repurposed. But scandals, environmental disasters and social movements of the 1960s and '70s eroded faith in big institutions, forcing governments to impose more checks and balances. "The cohort of change — the boomers — were now of age to vote and participate in public life," Dunkelman explained. "And they were by nature more skeptical and cynical about public authority." That brought new public reviews, environmental impact assessments and protective laws. Dunkelman says the change empowered communities and safeguarded ecosystems, while also requiring leaders to consider costs once ignored. Over time, however, he says more "stakeholders" kept joining the process. "When everyone has a voice, you get a cacophony," Dunkelman said. "And it's almost impossible to make a decision, particularly if all of you — all of the voices — have a veto." In Canada, the Crown's troubled history with Indigenous peoples has sown generations of distrust, adding rights and complications yet to be fully reconciled. One solution, according to former premier Kenney, is to turn "challenges" into incentives — such as giving First Nations a stake in resource projects. "Ten years ago, if we were talking about massively expanding our resource exports, we would have said there's big Indigenous challenges," Kenney said. "But I think broadly, certainly in Western Canada, First Nations overwhelmingly have come on board as partners in responsible resource development." Challenges do remain, however, especially when it comes to the differing sentiments between elected leaders and hereditary chiefs in B.C. Both Fellows and Parston agree that fast-tracking new projects shouldn't mean skipping over Indigenous or environmental consultations. "When people say cut red tape, there's the way to do that responsibly and there's a way to do that irresponsibly," Fellows said. "I think it's really critical not to throw out the good with the bad." Hundreds of billions of dollars Estimates vary, but there's little doubt the cost of large-scale, pan-Canadian infrastructure would be in the hundreds of billions of dollars — far more than a single pipeline or high-speed rail link. For comparison, the price tag for the proposed rail line between Toronto and Quebec City, which critics say isn't ambitious enough, is pegged at $80 billion. Fellows says few companies could afford such eye-watering sums, leaving the federal government as a likely backer or partner. "The benefits are very diffused," he said. "There are a lot of benefits across a lot of the economy, but if we wait for a private sector to try to do that — the revenue stream has to make sense for them to spend that money." He points to the Canadian Pacific Railway as an example of major infrastructure that continues to pay dividends for sectors from manufacturing to agriculture, more than a century later. The question is whether Canadians — and their political leaders — are willing to commit the necessary billions today, in order to reap the full payoff tomorrow (or much later). Cost overruns aside, the political risks are just as real. After all, scandals surrounding Canadian Pacific's development helped bring down two governments in the 19th century. And nearly a decade after the Trudeau government approved, then bought, the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Liberals have yet to sway many voters in the West. But Fellows says this time might be different. "I think this sort of falls into the portfolio of 'never let a good crisis go to waste,'" Fellows said. "I think maybe now, with the trade relationship with the U.S., it's become more of a priority. "Twelve months ago, if you talked to someone in politics or policy about this, they'd go, 'Yeah, it's a good idea,' and that would be the end of the conversation. But I think now we're actually seeing public statements on this."
CBC
28-02-2025
- Business
- CBC
Trump tariffs and tax cut have Alberta's finance minister seeing red (ink)
Social Sharing In a rare admission, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledged there was some political daylight between him and Premier Danielle Smith when it came to putting Alberta deeper into deficit for the sake of fast-tracking a tax cut. Horner tabled a budget with $5.2 billion of red ink this year, and $1.2 billion of that is the cost of the reduced income tax rate the premier promised in the last election campaign. He'd previously said Alberta couldn't afford to bring in the new eight per cent tax bracket until 2027. And after expressing concern that oil prices and other uncertainties threatened to tip Alberta into its first deficit since the height of the COVID pandemic, his budget brought in the rate cut anyhow. When Smith told CBC News in December that she'd be OK with going into deficit to bring in her tax cut, she also said Horner had "robust conversations" with her on this question, and he tended to be the cautious sort of finance minister. Horner made that reluctance clear when asked about it Thursday. "If it wasn't for the position that we're in with the tariffs coming in — the uncertainty — I might have had to get drug [dragged] to this point if I was going to do this," Horner told reporters. "Balanced budgets mean a lot to me." Danielle and Donald It would appear, based on that assertion, that Smith's own lobbying proved less persuasive than the high likelihood that U.S. President Donald Trump will impose punishing tariffs on Canada. A tax cut that could save individuals up to $750 a year, Horner now reasons, offers some affordability relief against the coming economic blow. Historically, balanced budgets have meant a lot to Albertans, too, including former premier Ralph Klein's triumphant erasure of the provincial debt two decades ago, and Jason Kenney's return to surpluses after the oil-price slump and recession the NDP government oversaw. But these days, Horner isn't sure he's governing over a province of anti-deficit hawks. The minister says he tells provincial counterparts: "I don't know how fiscally conservative Albertans are, but they're definitely tax averse." Smith's first budgets as premier hiked spending more in two years than Rachel Notley's NDP did over four, and 2025's edition raises spending in many areas, largely to keep up with the rapid growth that will push Alberta's population past five million this year. She and Horner appear to have judged that the populace doesn't want the sort of Klein-era cuts that chased away unbalanced budgets. Rather, Albertans may want a little extra something for themselves if the government is adding to taxpayer debt instead of curbing it. "Conservatives, we don't like deficits. We're allergic to them," conservative strategist Sarah Biggs told the West of Centre podcast this week. "But if the deficit is caused because of a tax cut to the middle class, I think they will be OK." Will the big question marks around Trump tariffs add to the public's deficit tolerance? Certain uncertainties The province based its budget on the assumption that the president will slap 10 per cent tariffs on Canadian oil and gas soon, and that tariffs on other exports will average 15 per cent for the year — the calculation being that the tariffs will either be less than the 25 per cent Trump has declared, or that they won't stick around for the whole year. If it's worse than projected — and as tough as Trump has threatened — Alberta's deficit will be nearly $9 billion this year, the province could flirt with recession, and unemployment could reach eight per cent next year, according to provincial forecasts. Joblessness in Alberta hasn't been that high, outside the pandemic spike, since the rough patch in 2016 and 2017. Alberta's budget-makers are perennially used to unpredictability, having to guess what global oil prices and the exchange rate will do for the year ahead. In fact, the "low" and "high" scenarios in past financial blueprints have been far greater than in Budget 2025. But those are based on economists' best predictions on crude price and other indicators. This year, the province's optimistic and pessimistic scenarios narrowly focused on a single highly volatile factor: what one man in the White House will decide to do on Canadian trade. Another slice of the Smith government's first deficit is due to a contingency fund set at $4 billion, not the $2 billion of past years — some of it to cope with climate-related disasters like wildfires, some to potentially settle employee wage negotiations, and some to brace for necessary relief programs in response to tariffs. British Columbia's government considered the same dire economic threat from our neighbours and decided to backtrack on the affordability measure its NDP government pledged in an election. It cancelled a $1,000 grocery rebate — which would have been more of a temporary bit of relief than Alberta's permanent tax rate cut. On the other side of the country, Nova Scotia last week tabled the first pre-tariff budget. Stop us if this sounds familiar to Albertans: that province's Conservatives introduced a deficit budget that sets aside a reserve for tariff relief, but also cuts income tax rates. Even federal Liberals campaigning for the party leadership would see their own ideas in what Horner did. Both Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland are promising middle-class tax breaks in budgets that wouldn't yet be balanced. Horner is forecasting that Alberta budgets for 2026 and 2027 will feature deficits as well, but provincial fiscal policy would require a return to balance after that."We do need a path out of this," the minister said. Trump will still be president in 2028, and it's difficult enough to peg where oil prices will be for the rest of this year, let alone later this decade. But as for Horner, he's hoping that Albertans — and his premier, presumably — will have an appetite for some of the restraint and sacrifice he believes in to end this red-ink streak.
