Alberta
Alberta’s bureaucratic shuffle bears little resemblance to necessary health-care reforms
From the Fraser Institute
Author:
Sometime soon, the Smith government will begin a major shift in the administrative structure of the province’s health-care system, switching from a single overarching health authority (Alberta Health Services) to multiple authorities each tasked with overseeing one area of the health-care system. Unsurprisingly, the usual defenders of the status quo were quick to decry the reform as unnecessary or problematic. To other critics, this seems a lot like a distraction tactic from the old playbook where the deck chairs on the Titanic are shuffled to make it appear as if the government is finally doing something about the province’s failing health-care system while nothing will really change.
Then again, it’s also possible that the provincial government is building the structure for some very positive reforms that will meaningfully benefit Alberta’s patients in the future. Alberta’s health-care system is not known for being efficient, effective or timely—and reforms are badly needed.
Among the provinces, Alberta’s provincial health spending ranked second-highest (after adjusting for age and sex) in 2021, the latest year of available data, while Albertans endure health-care wait times that are longer than the national average. Nationally, Canada is a relatively high spender among universal health-care countries, yet ranks near the bottom for the availability of medical professionals, medical technologies and hospital resources. And Canadian patients suffer some of the longest delays for access to care in the developed world.
Put simply, Albertans spend more and get less than their counterparts in other developed countries when it comes to universal health care. The solution to this problem is to learn from countries such as Switzerland, Australia and Germany, which all deliver more timely universal care with comparable health spending to our own.
So what do these countries do differently? They all have private competitive providers delivering universally accessible services within the public system, and payment for such care is based on actual delivery of services, known as “activity-based” funding. Alberta’s new bureaucratic shuffle appears to bear little resemblance to these higher-performing approaches pursued elsewhere. And if the bureaucratic shuffle is the entire goal, then this reform will likely generate little to no improvement.
But again, perhaps the Smith government is setting the stage for meaningful reform. Before moving from a government-dominated health-care system (like we have in Alberta and every other province) to a higher-performing model with competitive patient-focused delivery, governments must first separate and clearly define the roles of the purchaser of health care and the providers of that care. The Alberta Health Services, which the Smith government will soon begin to dissect, directly provides, oversees and pays for health-care services (e.g. surgeries) in the province. This leads to a lack of transparency and the politicization of health-care decision-making.
A shift to multiple health authorities focused on the delivery of care, accountable to other authorities and the provincial government, has hints of the more transparent and contractual relationships between payers and providers that have reduced wait times and enhanced health system efficiency in a number of European countries. If that’s indeed the government’s goal, Albertans could soon benefit from an improved health-care system.
In other words, if this reform, to move from one large health authority to multiple authorities, is really about more clearly defining government’s role as the purchaser and oversight authority for universal health care, with authorities and providers being transparently accountable for delivering timely quality care to patients, then Albertans may well be on the road to shorter wait times and a higher-quality health-care system.
However, if this is the provincial government working from the same old playbook, with another administrative shuffle to distract Albertans from the real problems in the health-care system, then nothing will really change and patients will pay the price.
Author:
Alberta
Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes
Moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans in the form of lower contribution rates (which could be used to increase private retirement savings while receiving the same pension benefits as the CPP under the new provincial pension), finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
“Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate through a separate provincial pension plan while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan.
Assuming Albertans invested the savings from moving to a provincial pension plan into a private retirement account, and assuming a contribution rate of 5.85 per cent, workers earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025) could accrue a stream of retirement payments totalling $454,741 (pre-tax)—a 71.6 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).
Put differently, under the CPP, a median worker receives a total of $264,968 in retirement income over their life. If an Alberta worker saved the difference between what they pay now into the CPP and what they would pay into a new provincial plan, the income they would receive in retirement increases. If the contribution rate for the new provincial plan was 5.85 per cent—the lower of the available estimates—the increase in retirement income would total $189,773 (or an increase of 71.6 per cent).
If the contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan was 8.21 per cent—the higher of the available estimates—a median Alberta worker would still receive an additional $64,672 in retirement income over their life, a marked increase of 24.4 per cent compared to the CPP alone.
Put differently, assuming a contribution rate of 8.21 per cent, Albertan workers earning the median income could accrue a stream of retirement payments totaling $329,640 (pre-tax) under a provincial pension plan—a 24.4 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments.
“While the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan must be considered, its clear that Albertans could benefit from higher retirement payments under a provincial pension plan, compared to the CPP,” Hill said.
Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan
- Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate with a separate provincial pension plan, compared with the CPP, while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP.
- Put differently, moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans, which could be used to increase private retirement income. This essay assesses the potential savings for Albertans of moving to a provincial pension plan. It also estimates an Albertan’s potential increase in total retirement income, if those savings were invested in a private account.
- Depending on the contribution rate used for an Alberta pension plan (APP), ranging from 5.85 to 8.2 percent, an individual earning the CPP’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings ($71,300 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $429,524 and $584,235. This would be 22.9 to 67.1 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($349,545).
- An individual earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $329,640 and $454,741, which is between 24.4 percent to 71.6 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Joel Emes
From LifeSiteNews
Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act bans transgender males from women’s sports within the province but cannot regulate out-of-province transgender athletes.
Alberta’s ban on gender-confused males competing in women’s sports will not apply to out-of-province athletes.
In an interview posted July 12 by the Canadian Press, Alberta Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko revealed that Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to regulate out-of-province, gender-confused males from competing against female athletes.
“We don’t have authority to regulate athletes from different jurisdictions,” he said in an interview.
Ministry spokeswoman Vanessa Gomez further explained that while Alberta passed legislation to protect women within their province, outside sporting organizations are bound by federal or international guidelines.
As a result, Albertan female athletes will be spared from competing against men during provincial competition but must face male competitors during inter-provincial events.
In December, Alberta passed the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act to prevent biological men who claim to be women from competing in women’s sports. The legislation will take effect on September 1 and will apply to all school boards, universities, as well as provincial sports organizations.
The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely, that males have a considerable advantage over women in athletics.
Indeed, a recent study published in Sports Medicine found that a year of “transgender” hormone drugs results in “very modest changes” in the inherent strength advantages of men.
Additionally, male athletes competing in women’s sports are known to be violent, especially toward female athletes who oppose their dominance in women’s sports.
Last August, Albertan male powerlifter “Anne” Andres was suspended for six months after a slew of death threats and harassments against his female competitors.
In February, Andres ranted about why men should be able to compete in women’s competitions, calling for “the Ontario lifter” who opposes this, apparently referring to powerlifter April Hutchinson, to “die painfully.”
Interestingly, while Andres was suspended for six months for issuing death threats, Hutchinson was suspended for two years after publicly condemning him for stealing victories from women and then mocking his female competitors on social media. Her suspension was later reduced to a year.
Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home
Women and girls beauty pageant urges dismissal of transgender human rights complaint
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
The Covid 19 Disaster: When Do We Get The Apologies?
-
Business24 hours ago
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Business2 days agoCarney government should apply lessons from 1990s in spending review
-
Entertainment2 days agoStudy finds 99% of late-night TV guests in 2025 have been liberal
-
Alberta23 hours agoTemporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says
-
Opinion1 day agoCharity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoCanada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Daily Caller19 hours ago‘Strange Confluence Of Variables’: Mike Benz Wants Transparency Task Force To Investigate What Happened in Butler, PA
-
Uncategorized2 days agoCNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda