Connect with us

Alberta

Free Alberta Strategy backing Smith’s Provincial Priorities Act

Published

12 months ago

6 minute read

News release from Free Alberta Strategy

Premier Danielle Smith had a message for Ottawa last week.

Keep out.

On Wednesday, the Premier rolled out her latest weapon in the fight against federal intrusions into provincial jurisdiction.

If passed, Bill 18 – the Provincial Priorities Act – aims to align federal funding with provincial priorities, ensuring that said funding reflects Alberta’s interests.

The legislation stipulates that any agreements between the federal government and any provincial entities – including municipalities – must receive provincial approval to be considered valid.

Smith has already given it a nickname: “the stay-out-of-my-backyard bill.”

It’s an apt description of the legislation, especially considering that’s what the federal government has been doing for years – encroaching into Alberta’s jurisdiction.

The legislation shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

We all know that most deals the Alberta government enters into with the federal government don’t work out for Albertans.

We end up paying more in federal taxes than gets spent in federal spending on the programs.

The programs come laden with restrictive conditions that undermine our autonomy, and are often detrimental to our ability to provide the services.

This is especially true with regard to the recent agreement between Ottawa and the provinces that allows the federal government to nationalize childcare.

The childcare agreement has come under heavy criticism due to funding shortfalls in the deal.

It also applies to housing, where despite Alberta accounting for 12% of the national population and experiencing the most rapid population growth, it received a mere 2.5% of the total $1.5 billion in federal housing funding last summer.

Jason Nixon, Minister of Seniors, Community and Social Services, is in charge of housing in Alberta – which is provincial jurisdiction.

On the latest rollout of conditional federal housing handouts, Nixon isn’t buying.

“We will not be bribed, with our own money, to increase the time it takes to get homes built with green energy that makes homes more expensive.”

The theory also applies to the federal government’s latest gambit – doing an end-around provincial negotiations and going directly to municipalities, who seem more interested in taking the money than the conditions attached.

Municipalities are provincial jurisdiction.

Bill 18 mandates that entities within Alberta’s jurisdiction, such as municipalities, universities, school boards, housing agencies, and health authorities, must seek the province’s approval before engaging in, modifying, extending, or renewing agreements with Ottawa.

Agreements between the federal government and provincial entities lacking Alberta’s endorsement will be deemed illegal under this legislation.

That’s Premier Smith’s message.

She’s had enough of it.

“It is not unreasonable for Alberta to demand fairness from Ottawa. They have shown time and again that they will put ideology before practicality, which hurts Alberta families and our economy. We are not going to apologize for continuing to stand up for Albertans so we get the best deal possible.

“Since Ottawa refuses to acknowledge the negative impacts of its overreach, even after losing battles at the Federal and Supreme Courts, we are putting in additional measures to protect our provincial jurisdiction to ensure our province receives our fair share of federal tax dollars and that those dollars are spent on the priorities of Albertans.”

Municipal Affairs Minister Ric McIver had additional thoughts:

“For years, the federal government has been imposing its agenda on Alberta taxpayers through direct funding agreements with cities and other provincial organizations. Not only does Alberta not receive its per capita share of federal taxpayer dollars, the money we do receive is often directed towards initiatives that don’t align with Albertan’s priorities.

“Albertans from all corners of the province expect our federal share of taxes for roads, infrastructure, housing and other priorities – not federal government political pet projects and programs in select communities.”

The Provincial Priorities Act is based on existing provincial legislation in Quebec – called “An Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil executif” – which prohibits any municipal body from entering into or negotiating an agreement with the federal government or its agencies without express authorization from the Quebec government.

That’s right – the Quebec government has the same rule!

So, this boils down to the same argument we’ve been making for years – if Ottawa wants to step into our backyard, it must first seek Alberta’s approval.

Enough is enough – we won’t stand idly by as our interests are trampled upon.

It’s time for Ottawa to recognize Alberta’s autonomy and respect our right to determine our own future.

At the Free Alberta Strategy, we know that constant vigilance is necessary – for every fence we put up, the federal government tries to find a way around it.

We’ll continue to bring you information about what’s happening in Alberta’s backyard and fighting to keep Ottawa out.

The Free Alberta Strategy Team

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
2025 Federal Election / 7 hours ago

Pierre Poilievre Declares War on Red Tape and Liberal Decay in Osoyoos

Alberta / 8 hours ago

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

International / 9 hours ago

Biden Lied About Everything, Including Nuclear Risk, During Ukraine Operation

Alberta

Is Canada’s Federation Fair?

Published on April 6, 2025

By

The Audit David Clinton

Contrasting the principle of equalization with the execution

Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light.

You’ll need to search long and hard to find a Canadian unwilling to help those less fortunate. And, so long as we identify as members of one nation¹, that feeling stretches from coast to coast.

So the basic principle of Canada’s equalization payments – where poorer provinces receive billions of dollars in special federal payments – is easy to understand. But as you can imagine, it’s not easy to apply the principle in a way that’s fair, and the current methodology has arguably lead to a very strange set of incentives.

According to Department of Finance Canada, eligibility for payments is determined based on your province’s fiscal capacity. Fiscal capacity is a measure of the taxes (income, business, property, and consumption) that a province could raise (based on national average rates) along with revenues from natural resources. The idea, I suppose, is that you’re creating a realistic proxy for a province’s higher personal earnings and consumption and, with greater natural resources revenues, a reduced need to increase income tax rates.

But the devil is in the details, and I think there are some questions worth asking:

  • Whichever way you measure fiscal capacity there’ll be both winners and losers, so who gets to decide?
  • Should a province that effectively funds more than its “share” get proportionately greater representation for national policy² – or at least not see its policy preferences consistently overruled by its beneficiary provinces?

The problem, of course, is that the decisions that defined equalization were – because of long-standing political conditions – dominated by the region that ended up receiving the most. Had the formula been the best one possible, there would have been little room to complain. But was it?

For example, attaching so much weight to natural resource revenues is just one of many possible approaches – and far from the most obvious. Consider how the profits from natural resources already mostly show up in higher income and corporate tax revenues (including income tax paid by provincial government workers employed by energy-related ministries)?

And who said that such calculations had to be population-based, which clearly benefits Quebec (nine million residents vs around $5 billion in resource income) over Newfoundland (545,000 people vs $1.6 billion) or Alberta (4.2 million people vs $19 billion). While Alberta’s average market income is 20 percent or so higher than Quebec’s, Quebec’s is quite a bit higher than Newfoundland’s. So why should Newfoundland receive only minimal equalization payments?

To illustrate all that, here’s the most recent payment breakdown when measured per-capita:
Equalization 2025-26 – Government of Canada

For clarification, the latest per-capita payments to poorer provinces ranged from $3,936 to PEI, $1,553 to Quebec, and $36 to Ontario. Only Saskatchewan, Alberta, and BC received nothing.

And here’s how the total equalization payments (in millions of dollars) have played out over the past decade:

Is energy wealth the right differentiating factor because it’s there through simple dumb luck, morally compelling the fortunate provinces to share their fortune? That would be a really difficult argument to make. For one thing because Quebec – as an example – happens to be sitting on its own significant untapped oil and gas reserves. Those potential opportunities include the Utica Shale formation, the Anticosti Island basin, and the Gaspé Peninsula (along with some offshore potential in the Gulf of St. Lawrence).

So Quebec is effectively being paid billions of dollars a year to not exploit their natural resources. That places their ostensibly principled stand against energy resource exploitation in a very different light. Perhaps that stand is correct or perhaps it isn’t. But it’s a stand they probably couldn’t have afforded to take had the equalization calculation been different.

Of course, no formula could possibly please everyone, but punishing the losers with ongoing attacks on the very source of their contributions is guaranteed to inspire resentment. And that could lead to very dark places.

Note: I know this post sounds like it came from a grumpy Albertan. But I assure you that I’ve never even visited the province, instead spending most of my life in Ontario.

1

Which has admittedly been challenging since the former primer minister infamously described us as a post-national state without an identity.

2

This isn’t nearly as crazy as it sounds. After all, there are already formal mechanisms through which Indigenous communities get more than a one-person-one-vote voice.

Subscribe to The Audit.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Big win for Alberta and Canada: Statement from Premier Smith

Published on April 2, 2025

By

Premier Danielle Smith issued the following statement on the April 2, 2025 U.S. tariff announcement:

“Today was an important win for Canada and Alberta, as it appears the United States has decided to uphold the majority of the free trade agreement (CUSMA) between our two nations. It also appears this will continue to be the case until after the Canadian federal election has concluded and the newly elected Canadian government is able to renegotiate CUSMA with the U.S. administration.

“This is precisely what I have been advocating for from the U.S. administration for months.

“It means that the majority of goods sold into the United States from Canada will have no tariffs applied to them, including zero per cent tariffs on energy, minerals, agricultural products, uranium, seafood, potash and host of other Canadian goods.

“There is still work to be done, of course. Unfortunately, tariffs previously announced by the United States on Canadian automobiles, steel and aluminum have not been removed. The efforts of premiers and the federal government should therefore shift towards removing or significantly reducing these remaining tariffs as we go forward and ensuring affected workers across Canada are generously supported until the situation is resolved.

“I again call on all involved in our national advocacy efforts to focus on diplomacy and persuasion while avoiding unnecessary escalation. Clearly, this strategy has been the most effective to this point.

“As it appears the worst of this tariff dispute is behind us (though there is still work to be done), it is my sincere hope that we, as Canadians, can abandon the disastrous policies that have made Canada vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States, fast-track national resource corridors, get out of the way of provincial resource development and turn our country into an independent economic juggernaut and energy superpower.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X