Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Senate Reform needed sooner than later for the sake of national unity

Published

6 minute read

Article submitted by Project Confederation

Real Equality For Provinces

Last week I wrote to you all about how some provinces are more equal than others when it comes to seats in the House of Commons.

You can refer back to last week’s email for the full details, but here’s a quick summary:

In theory, seats are distributed across the country based on the populations of the provinces but, in practice, a number of provinces receive “bonus” seats to make things “fairer” for them.

Quebec gets 6 bonus seats, while some of the smaller provinces receive a few too, and once all the political favours are handed out, at the extreme end of things, we end up with Prince Edward Island having one seat per 40,000 voters, while Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario have one seat per 120,000.

Despite this, Quebec politicians want Quebec to not lose seats when the re-calculation of population is done and, in fact, the Bloc Quebecois has asked for a guarantee that Quebec will have at least 25% of the seats in the House of Commons, no matter their population.

The debate over seats in the House of Commons exposes a fatal structural deficiency in confederation, where the east demand to be able to maintain the power they hold, despite the fact that the west’s population has grown at a much faster rate.

Clearly, they’re not actually interested in democracy, they’re interested in power, but despite all this, Quebec’s position does actually contain a nugget of validity – yes, really!

One of Quebec’s primary concerns is to protect itself from overreach by the federal government in Ottawa, and on that point, Alberta agrees (even if we’d do far different things if we were left alone by Ottawa).

But the place to protect provincial rights is the Senate, not the House of Commons.

The House of Commons represents the people, and so should have seats distributed evenly by population, so every Canadian has an equal say.

The Senate should represent the provinces, and so should have seats distributed evenly by province, so every province has an equal say.

Instead, Senate seats are currently assigned on a regional basis:

  • 24 seats for Ontario
  • 24 seats for Quebec
  • 24 seats for the Maritime provinces
  • 24 seats for the Western provinces
  • 6 seats for Newfoundland and Labrador
  • 3 seats for the territories (1 each)

Obviously, this distribution is based on politics not on fairness, and if we ever want a Senate that can act as a real check on the power of the federal government on behalf of the provinces, then the seats must be distributed evenly.

Earlier today, federal Conservative Party leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre said that he supports provinces electing Senators and that, as Prime Minister, he would appoint Senators elected by provinces, rather than appoint political friends and allies as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has done up until now.

But Poilievre also said that Senate reform was unlikely as, in order to achieve Senate reform:

“We’d have to open the constitution, which would begin a whole new can of worms about every other grievance that people have with the constitutional structure of the nation.”

Poilievre is right that Senate reform would require opening up the constitution, but this doesn’t mean that we should shy away from doing it.

It’s long overdue for Canada to make significant changes to update an institution that has a fundamental bias against western Canada, and one of those changes must be reforming the Senate into an equal, elected, and effective Triple-E Senate.

Elmer MacKay once said:

“If we give the centre of our country superior status to the rest, how will we ever change it? It will be very difficult and may destroy us one way or another, because although we are proud Canadians, we have a strong attachment and loyalty to our provinces.”

This is exactly why provincial equality must be respected in the governance structure of Canada, before national division erodes to the point of no return.

An elected Senate with effective powers and an equal number of Senators per province is the key to preventing this erosion.

It’s time to renew the conversation, re-open the constitution, and restore balance to confederation.

Regards,

The Project Confederation Team

 

PS: Project Confederation doesn’t accept any government funding and never will. We think you should be free to choose, for yourself, which organizations to support. If you’re in a position to contribute financially to our important work, you can make a donation here.

Alberta

Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

 

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.  

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.  

 

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal. 

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.  

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.  

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.   

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.  

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form. 

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.    

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.   

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.  

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children. 

A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.” 

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.

The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.

For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).

And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.

In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.

This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.

Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.

Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.

Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.

When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.

According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.

Continue Reading

Trending

X