Federal Election Response: One Albertan’s Thoughts

The wholly predictable results of yesterday’s election are tantamount to a deafening sucker punch to Alberta and the West – and things are not about to get better for us under this minority Liberal government, because Justin Trudeau is effectually tone deaf to our deep and growing alienation.

Or worse, perhaps he just doesn’t care. He says he will support Alberta, but he also said he would balance the federal budget by 2019 and told an Ontario town hall gathering two years ago that: “We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out.” So how supported do Albertans feel right now? Not very.

Bills C-48 and C-69 speak loudly his intentions with respect to Alberta and the West. The fact that his minority government will now have to rely on NDP or Bloc support in the House almost certainly means no social license for Alberta’s “dirty oil” going forward – notwithstanding we have the cleanest, most ethically produced, environmentally sensitive, human & employee rights protected oil and gas industry in the world.

It’s truly a sad day for Albertans and the West generally. As a proud, hard-working, industrious people, we must now rally together and send a clear message to the federal government and the rest of Canada that we will not concede to second-class citizen status any longer.

We cannot continue to generate net billions in transfer payments (even through the most painfully protracted recession in collective memory), while the main industry responsible for that wealth is under targeted attack on several fronts, and while provinces like Quebec (and Ontario between 2009 and 2018) continue to reap the benefits of collecting net billions: $11.7 and $13.1 billion transferred to Quebec in 2018 and 2019 fiscal years respectively – in a time of fiscal surplus for Quebec to the tune of 2.5 to 3 billion dollars.

Meanwhile in July 2017, the Fraser Institute reported that Alberta contributed 221.4 billion more in revenue than it received in federal transfer payments and grants between the years 2007 and 2015 – contributing more money to the federal purse than any other province in Canada. Last year alone, Alberta paid net 21.8 billion more in taxes to the federal government than we got back in grants – notwithstanding our economy is still mired in recession with shuttered businesses on every corner – and we’ve not received a federal transfer payment since 1965.

Premier Jason Kenney noted that “Since equalization was created [in 1957], Alberta has received 0.02% of all payments, the last of which was in 1964-1965. In contrast, Quebec has received equalization money every year of the program, totalling 221 billion dollars or 51 per cent of all payments.”

Part of the injustice of this program stems from the systemic inequity in how provincial revenue capacity is calculated under the federal equalization formula. Here’s a quick case study:

Between 2005 and 2010, Quebec received 42.5 billion in equalization payments. Had transfer payment rules treated Quebec’s hydro-electric revenue the same as they treat Alberta’s oil and gas revenue in the calculation of revenue capacity, those payments would have been reduced to 28.1 billion over that same period – meaning that Quebec was overpaid by 14.4 billion dollars (or 34 per cent) during that time, because the rules are designed to favour Quebec in the calculation of provincial revenue under the federal formula.

In the wake of yesterday’s federal election, it’s hard to see a path where Premier Kenney won’t be putting the question of equalization equity to Albertans by way of an upcoming referendum, since he promised that:

“If the federal government continues its attacks through the National Energy Board (NEB) and the federal carbon tax, then Alberta should take a common-sense approach and hold a referendum demanding the removal of non-renewable resource revenues from the equalization formula … [to] massively reduce Alberta’s contribution to equalization.”

Moreover, Section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217 seems to pave a clear path for the democratic will of any province to express itself, by referendum or otherwise, to the rest of the country by renegotiating the terms of its participation:

“The clear repudiation by the people of [Alberta] of the existing constitutional order would confer legitimacy on demands for [fiscal equity], and place an obligation on the other provinces and the federal government to acknowledge and respect that expression of democratic will by entering into negotiations and conducting them in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles already discussed.” [Edited from the original text: people of Quebec and demands for secession to reflect Alberta’s aspirations for equity].

Finally, no substantive review of this Albertan’s response to yesterday’s election would be complete without reference to the submission published in the National Post on January 24, 2001, headlined “An open letter to Ralph Klein” wherein we read:

“… We believe the time has come for Albertans to take greater charge of our own future. This means resuming control of the powers that we possess under the constitution of Canada but that we have allowed the federal government to exercise. Intelligent use of these powers will help Alberta build a prosperous future in spite of a misguided and increasingly hostile government in Ottawa. …

All of these steps can be taken using the constitutional powers that Alberta now possesses. In addition, we believe it is imperative for you to take all possible political and legal measures to reduce the financial drain on Alberta caused by Canada’s tax-and-transfer system. …

Starting to act now will secure the future for all Albertans. It is imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction. …

The precondition for the success of this Alberta Agenda is the exercise of all our legitimate provincial jurisdictions under the constitution of Canada.”

Elements of this Alberta Agenda identified in the now famous “Firewall” letter include:

Withdraw from Canada Pension Plan to create an Alberta Pension Plan.
Collect our own revenue from personal income tax.
Create our own Alberta Provincial Police Force.
Resume Provincial responsibility for health care policy.
Advocate for meaningful senate reform.
Reduce the drain on Alberta caused by transfer payments.

Whether by a Firewall, Wexit arrangement, or otherwise, Alberta and the West now need to circle the wagons, so to speak, and formulate a strategy that makes the rest of Canada stand up and take notice. And by take notice, I mean effect meaningful change to level the playing field of Confederation.

It’s been so shamefully, undemocratically, inexcusably unlevel for so long, that the West can no longer abide our current configuration in Canada. We can no longer stand to be second-class citizens of this great nation. Some iteration of change is inexorably forthcoming, because the West deserves – and must demand – justice.

Vesna Higham

Retired lawyer, current Red Deer City Councillor, happy wife and proud mother of five great kids.

Follow Author

Federal Election Response: One Albertan’s Thoughts

Alberta

Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail, Mackenzie Moir and Lauren Asaad

In October, Alberta’s provincial government announced forthcoming legislative changes that will allow patients to pay out-of-pocket for any diagnostic test they want, and without a physician referral. The policy, according to the Smith government, is designed to help improve the availability of preventative care and increase testing capacity by attracting additional private sector investment in diagnostic technology and facilities.

Unsurprisingly, the policy has attracted Ottawa’s attention, with discussions now taking place around the details of the proposed changes and whether this proposal is deemed to be in line with the Canada Health Act (CHA) and the federal government’s interpretations. A determination that it is not, will have both political consequences by being labeled “non-compliant” and financial consequences for the province through reductions to its Canada Health Transfer (CHT) in coming years.

This raises an interesting question: While the ultimate decision rests with Ottawa, does the Smith government’s new policy comply with the literal text of the CHA and the revised rules released in written federal interpretations?

According to the CHA, when a patient pays out of pocket for a medically necessary and insured physician or hospital (including diagnostic procedures) service, the federal health minister shall reduce the CHT on a dollar-for-dollar basis matching the amount charged to patients. In 2018, Ottawa introduced the Diagnostic Services Policy (DSP), which clarified that the insured status of a diagnostic service does not change when it’s offered inside a private clinic as opposed to a hospital. As a result, any levying of patient charges for medically necessary diagnostic tests are considered a violation of the CHA.

Ottawa has been no slouch in wielding this new policy, deducting some $76.5 million from transfers to seven provinces in 2023 and another $72.4 million in 2024. Deductions for Alberta, based on Health Canada’s estimates of patient charges, totaled some $34 million over those two years.

Alberta has been paid back some of those dollars under the new Reimbursement Program introduced in 2018, which created a pathway for provinces to be paid back some or all of the transfers previously withheld on a dollar-for-dollar basis by Ottawa for CHA infractions. The Reimbursement Program requires provinces to resolve the circumstances which led to patient charges for medically necessary services, including filing a Reimbursement Action Plan for doing so developed in concert with Health Canada. In total, Alberta was reimbursed $20.5 million after Health Canada determined the provincial government had “successfully” implemented elements of its approved plan.

Perhaps in response to the risk of further deductions, or taking a lesson from the Reimbursement Action Plan accepted by Health Canada, the province has gone out of its way to make clear that these new privately funded scans will be self-referred, that any patient paying for tests privately will be reimbursed if that test reveals a serious or life-threatening condition, and that physician referred tests will continue to be provided within the public system and be given priority in both public and private facilities.

Indeed, the provincial government has stated they do not expect to lose additional federal health care transfers under this new policy, based on their success in arguing back previous deductions.

This is where language matters: Health Canada in their latest CHA annual report specifically states the “medical necessity” of any diagnostic test is “determined when a patient receives a referral or requisition from a medical practitioner.” According to the logic of Ottawa’s own stated policy, an unreferred test should, in theory, be no longer considered one that is medically necessary or needs to be insured and thus could be paid for privately.

It would appear then that allowing private purchase of services not referred by physicians does pass the written standard for CHA compliance, including compliance with the latest federal interpretation for diagnostic services.

But of course, there is no actual certainty here. The federal government of the day maintains sole and final authority for interpretation of the CHA and is free to revise and adjust interpretations at any time it sees fit in response to provincial health policy innovations. So while the letter of the CHA appears to have been met, there is still a very real possibility that Alberta will be found to have violated the Act and its interpretations regardless.

In the end, no one really knows with any certainty if a policy change will be deemed by Ottawa to run afoul of the CHA. On the one hand, the provincial government seems to have set the rules around private purchase deliberately and narrowly to avoid a clear violation of federal requirements as they are currently written. On the other hand, Health Canada’s attention has been aroused and they are now “engaging” with officials from Alberta to “better understand” the new policy, leaving open the possibility that the rules of the game may change once again. And even then, a decision that the policy is permissible today is not permanent and can be reversed by the federal government tomorrow if its interpretive whims shift again.

The sad reality of the provincial-federal health-care relationship in Canada is that it has no fixed rules. Indeed, it may be pointless to ask whether a policy will be CHA compliant before Ottawa decides whether or not it is. But it can be said, at least for now, that the Smith government’s new privately paid diagnostic testing policy appears to have met the currently written standard for CHA compliance.

Nadeem Esmail

Director, Health Policy, Fraser Institute

Mackenzie Moir

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Lauren Asaad

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Housing in Calgary and Edmonton remains expensive but more affordable than other cities

Published on December 19, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson

In cities across the country, modest homes have become unaffordable for typical families. Calgary and Edmonton have not been immune to this trend, but they’ve weathered it better than most—largely by making it easier to build homes.

Specifically, faster permit approvals, lower municipal fees and fewer restrictions on homebuilders have helped both cities maintain an affordability edge in an era of runaway prices. To preserve that edge, they must stick with—and strengthen—their pro-growth approach.

First, the bad news. Buying a home remains a formidable challenge for many families in Calgary and Edmonton.

For example, in 2023 (the latest year of available data), a typical family earning the local median after-tax income—$73,420 in Calgary and $70,650 in Edmonton—had to save the equivalent of 17.5 months of income in Calgary ($107,300) or 12.5 months in Edmonton ($73,820) for a 20 per cent down payment on a typical home (single-detached house, semi-detached unit or condominium).

Even after managing such a substantial down payment, the financial strain would continue. Mortgage payments on the remaining 80 per cent of the home’s price would have required a large—and financially risky—share of the family’s after-tax income: 45.1 per cent in Calgary (about $2,757 per month) and 32.2 per cent in Edmonton (about $1,897 per month).

Clearly, unless the typical family already owns property or receives help from family, buying a typical home is extremely challenging. And yet, housing in Calgary and Edmonton remains far more affordable than in most other Canadian cities.

In 2023, out of 36 major Canadian cities, Edmonton and Calgary ranked 8th and 14th, respectively, for housing affordability (relative to the median after-tax family income). That’s a marked improvement from a decade earlier in 2014 when Edmonton ranked 20th and Calgary ranked 30th. And from 2014 to 2023, Edmonton was one of only four Canadian cities where median after-tax family income grew faster than the price of a typical home (in Calgary, home prices rose faster than incomes but by much less than in most Canadian cities). As a result, in 2023 typical homes in Edmonton cost about half as much (again, relative to the local median after-tax family income) as in mid-sized cities such as Windsor and Kelowna—and roughly one-third as much as in Toronto and Vancouver.

To be clear, much of Calgary and Edmonton’s improved rank in affordability is due to other cities becoming less and less affordable. Indeed, mortgage payments (as a share of local after-tax median income) also increased since 2014 in both Calgary and Edmonton.

But the relative success of Alberta’s two largest cities shows what’s possible when you prioritize homebuilding. Their approach—lower municipal fees, faster permit approvals and fewer building restrictions—has made it easier to build homes and helped contain costs for homebuyers. In fact, homebuilding has been accelerating in Calgary and Edmonton, in contrast to a sharp contraction in Vancouver and Toronto. That’s a boon to Albertans who’ve been spared the worst excesses of the national housing crisis. It’s also a demographic and economic boost for the province as residents from across Canada move to Alberta to take advantage of the housing market—in stark contrast to the experience of British Columbia and Ontario, which are hemorrhaging residents.

Alberta’s big cities have shown that when governments let homebuilders build, families benefit. To keep that advantage, policymakers in Calgary and Edmonton must stay the course.