Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

Project Confederation group urging UCP Leadership hopefuls to consider Alberta first

Published

6 minute read

Article submitted by Josh Andrus of Project Confederation

The current Alberta government has certainly talked the talk about standing up to the federal government much better than previous administrations.

Actions speak louder than words, though, and action has been sorely lacking.

It has been more than nine months since Albertans strongly voiced their opinion in favour of abolishing equalization from the Constitution.

In the aftermath, the muted response from the federal government speaks volumes – when we called, nobody answered.

It has, therefore, become glaringly obvious that the equalization referendum was not enough to convince Ottawa to come to the table and initiate constitutional talks.

It’s also important to make sure we keep focused not just on any one particular problem, but on the core issue itself – the jurisdictional fight between the federal government and the provinces.

That’s why we need to effectively communicate to every Albertan three things:

  1. How the Canadian federation is supposed to work
  2. How it’s actually being run at the moment
  3. How to fix the problem and get it back to how it should be

1 How Canada is supposed to work is misunderstood (or misrepresented, perhaps deliberately so) all the time by the media, academics, politicians, and many others.

Canada is designed as a federation, and that word actually means something.

A federation is a union of (at least partially) self-governing states or provinces.

The creation of Canada didn’t merge a bunch of provinces, territories, colonies and countries into a single new entity.

Canadian confederation created a system where there was a clear division of powers between the federal government and the provinces.

Many (especially in Ottawa) think that the federal government sits “above” the provinces, suggesting it is more important, more powerful, and can tell the “lower” level of government what to do.

In fact, the federal government has complete sovereignty over the issues they were given jurisdiction over, while the provincial governments have complete sovereignty over the issues they were given jurisdiction over.

In short, Alberta – and all the other provinces – are supposed to be equal partners in this country, not subservient to continuously hostile federal governments in Ottawa.

 

2 Unfortunately, over time, the federal government has exerted jurisdiction over things it’s not supposed to control, and because the federal government gets to appoint federal judges, the federal judges have tended, also over time, to let the federal government get away with this.

Historically, this has involved ever-increasing federal control of natural resources and environmental concerns and the current federal government continued this trend, spending the past seven years trampling all over the constitutional jurisdiction of Alberta – through Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the carbon tax, and more.

Worse, they haven’t just completely ignored Alberta’s complaints about this overreach – they’ve actually continued to make things worse.

Since the equalization referendum, the federal government has continued to roll out even more new federal policies that will take over Alberta’s jurisdiction on a wide range of issues – childcare funding, healthcare rules, agriculture and fertilizer constraints, environment regulations, and more.

The current relationship between federal and provincial governments in Canada is not how it is supposed to be, and it isn’t sustainable.

Something has to give.

 

3 Given this approach by the federal government, it has become abundantly obvious that the equalization referendum was not enough to convince Ottawa to come to the table and negotiate some kind of compromise with Alberta.

Alberta must stand up for itself.

Alberta needs to start saying no to Ottawa, not just asking Ottawa nicely to change their mind.

Alberta must also demand that the Canadian Constitution be re-opened.

If the federal government’s judges are willing to twist the words in the Constitution so much that they become meaningless, then we need to re-write sections of the Constitution to make it crystal clear, in plain language, that the federal government’s current actions will not be tolerated or permitted any longer.

At a minimum, these changes would involve:

  • Abolishing equalization
  • A fair House of Commons
  • An equal Senate
  • Unrestricted free trade (including pipelines)
  • Complete provincial control over resources

Yes, this would be a big change from the current status quo.

But, let’s be clear, that’s only because things have drifted so far from what they are supposed to be.

Albertans are not actually asking for anything unique or radical.

We are simply asking for the federal government to follow the rules of the Constitution as they are written, not as they’ve been twisted to mean since.

And if the federal government won’t even agree to something as simple as that, well… at least we’ll have our answer then

Regards,

Josh Andrus
Executive Director
Project Confederation

PS:  If you’re in a position to contribute financially to our important work fighting for Alberta, you can make a donation here.

 

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

Alberta

Alberta’s move to ‘activity-based funding’ will improve health care despite naysayer claims

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail

After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.

First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.

Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.

In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.

For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.

Multi-national studies on the shift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studies have also shown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.

Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.

And what of those theoretical drawbacks?

Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.

Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.

And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.

Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.

Nadeem Esmail

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Alberta

Charges laid in record cocaine seizure

Published on

From ALERT – The Alberta Law Enforcement Response Team

Five suspects have now been charged in relation to a major cocaine seizure that took place in Edmonton last year. In April 2024 $3 million worth of cocaine and other drugs was seized.

ALERT Edmonton’s organized crime team, in consultation with Alberta Crown Prosecution Service, was able to arrest and lay charges against five suspects on April 21, 2025. The charges are wide-ranging and include participation in the activities of a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic drugs, drug trafficking, and money laundering.

“Following last year’s drug seizure, our investigative team was able to conduct a thorough investigation and identify the suspects responsible. We now have significant charges put before the courts in the hopes of holding this organized crime group accountable,” said Insp. Angela Kemp, ALERT Edmonton.

The drug seizure was initially announced by ALERT on May 6, 2024. At 27 kilograms of cocaine, it was highlighted as the largest cocaine seizure by ALERT in Edmonton.

The seizure took place on April 30, 2024 when a search warrant was executed at a west Edmonton home in the Lewis Estates neighbourhood.

ALERT alleges that the suspects are part of an organized crime group that was involved in drug trafficking in the Edmonton region, and had also supplied drugs to Grande Prairie and Saskatchewan. ALERT received assistance on the investigation by the Edmonton Police Service and RCMP Federal Policing Northwest Region.

The following suspects were charged:

  • Jeffrey Vil, a 45-year-old from Edmonton, is charged with participation in activities of a criminal organization, commission of an offence for a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic drugs, conspiracy to possess drugs for the purpose of trafficking, possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, laundering proceeds of crime, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a prohibited device.
  • Tommy Szeto, a 35-year-old from Edmonton, is charged with participation in activities of a criminal organization, commission of an offence for a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic drugs, conspiracy to possess drugs for the purpose of trafficking, possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and laundering proceeds of crime.
  • Tayler Fraser, a 27-year-old from Edmonton, is charged with is charged with participation in activities of a criminal organization, commission of an offence for a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic drugs, and conspiracy to possess drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
  • Christian Barwise, a 35-year-old from Edmonton, is charged with drug trafficking.
  • Adrian De Guzman, a 27-year-old from Edmonton, is charged with drug trafficking.

The suspects were released from custody and are scheduled to appear in court on May 22, 2025.

Members of the public who suspect drug or gang activity in their community can call local police, or contact Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS (8477). Crime Stoppers is always anonymous.

ALERT was established and is funded by the Alberta Government and is a compilation of the province’s most sophisticated law enforcement resources committed to tackling serious and organized crime.

Continue Reading

Trending

X