Connect with us

Alberta

Why the Sovereignty Act is good for Alberta – Jason Stephan

Published

6 minute read

Submitted by Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan

The Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act is Good for Alberta

There is a lot of fear mongering on the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act. My purpose is to share why this Act is good for Alberta.

Eastern politicians do not like the Act. It threatens the status quo they benefit under.

Their status quo has enabled a pattern of abuse and economic warfare on Alberta, disrespecting its jurisdiction over its resources, creating chaos and injecting commercial uncertainty, chasing away billions in private sector investments and thousands of Alberta jobs. They are a threat to our freedom and prosperity.

Some of them are using straw men to misrepresent the Act and then attack the worst version of it manufactured out of their misrepresentations, only existing in their minds. The Act says Alberta possesses a unique culture and shared identity within Canada.

What is Alberta’s culture and identity?

Alberta is a land of freedom and prosperity. To many Albertans, this inheritance and heritage is an integral part of our culture and identity.

Why is Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act necessary?

Is it because there are concerns we are sleepwalking towards disaster? Yes.

Is it because the morally and fiscally bankrupt Trudeau, Canada’s first NDP prime minister, government is a hostile, one trillion plus fiscal train wreck, attacking Alberta, threatening to drag us down with it? Yes.

Yet, in spite of this incompetent Ottawa, Alberta still succeeds. But they are a growing danger. We need to protect ourselves.

If Alberta was not a part of Canada, and was invited to join this rigged partnership, under current terms, would we join? No.

Is Alberta compelled to be a “host” in a parasitic relationship? No.

Alberta is not compelled to suffer constant harassment and attack.

But, what about unity? For the sake of unity, are we forced to allow ourselves to suffer attacks from politicians seeking power? No.

Albertans do not need to unite with political corruption. Unity without integrity is fake.

Canada is a dysfunctional partnership. That is the truth. Alberta is a rainmaker partner. A partnership that undermines and attacks its rainmaker partner would never survive in the real world.

There are some partners, such as Quebec, that “game” this partnership and take from Alberta families and businesses for political gain. This partnership is becoming corrupt.

A partnership where “producing” is displaced with “taking” as a ruling principle will never survive.

A foundational principle of the Act is accountability. Accountability can take a partnership that is dysfunctional and corrupt, restore integrity and make it competitive.

There are dark clouds in the horizon. Trudeau is the paymaster of the CBC and others, seek to fill our minds with mush, virtue signaling pablum.

Yet, we must prepare, we cannot be slothful, we cannot be neglectful, we cannot sit in a thoughtless stupor, not understanding, sticking heads in the sand.

The more truth, the better.

Doesn’t Ottawa seek to do indirectly, what constitutionally it is not allowed to do directly, such as with Alberta’s constitutional authority over its oil and gas resources? Yes.

Didn’t Alberta’s Court of Appeal describe Trudeau’s carbon tax as a sneaky “constitutional trojan horse”? Yes.

Isn’t Trudeau now proposing a new carbon tax or cap and trade that singles out and disproportionately punishes Alberta? Yes.

Wouldn’t that inflict more economic “chaos”, chasing out additional billions in investment and Alberta jobs with it? Yes.

Is this part of a pattern of hostile behavior from Ottawa seeking to attack and take advantage of Alberta, holding it back? Yes.

How have sternly worded letter served us?

Isn’t the purpose of this Act, to assert and defend constitutional parameters that Ottawa habitually ignores and attacks? Yes.

Under section 92A of the Constitution Act, Alberta has jurisdiction over its natural resources, not Ottawa. This Act should be invoked and say NO to Ottawa and their “discussion paper” and leave Alberta and their constitutional jurisdiction alone.

The unfortunate truth is that Ottawa has made itself an unpredictable and hostile variable, a threat to the freedom and prosperity of Alberta businesses and families that should not be underestimated. Alberta is compelled to protect itself.

Boundaries support accountability, boundaries are integral to normal adult relationships. This Act seeks to impose boundaries that Ottawa continually disrespects, to discriminate, attack, and force itself into Alberta’s constitutional jurisdictions.

Ottawa is the risk that we can no longer afford, not a law that seeks to do something about it!

The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act is good for Alberta.
Alberta is a land of freedom and prosperity. We must be vigilant to keep it that way.

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

2025 Federal Election

Group that added dozens of names to ballot in Poilievre’s riding plans to do it again

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

The ‘Longest Ballot Committee’ is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta.

A group called the “Longest Ballot Committee” is looking to run hundreds of protest candidates against Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre in an upcoming by-election in the Alberta Battle River–Crowfoot riding, just like they did in his former Ottawa-area Carelton riding in last week’s election.

The Longest Ballot Committee is a grassroots group that packs ridings with protest candidates and is looking to place 200 names in the Battle River–Crowfoot riding. The riding was won by Conservative-elect MP Damien Kurek who garnered over 80 percent of the vote, but has since said he is going to vacate his seat to allow Poilievre to run a by-election and reclaim his seat in Parliament in a Conservative-safe area.

In an email to its followers, the committee said “dozens and dozens” of volunteers are ready to sign up as candidates for the yet-to-be-called by-election. The initiative follows after the group did the same thing in Poilievre’s former Carelton riding which he lost last Monday, and which saw voters being given an extremely long ballot with 90 candidates.

The group asked people who want to run to send them their legal name and information by May 12, adding that if about 200 people sign up they will “make a long ballot happen.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X