Alberta
No Permission Required: Alberta Will Protect Its Daughters
Section 33 Is a Legitimate Democratic Instrument
Tell everyone. There is no Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports. Nor is there a constitutional right for children to be maimed and rendered sterile in service to self-proclaimed identities. And there is certainly no excuse for a government in Ottawa to interfere with provinces’ ability to defend women and girls from the fallout of sexual fetishism dressed in federalist drags.
Yet here we are.
Albertans are being invited to ask an important question. When rights collide, should we trust the flawed judgment of elected officials who face the people every few years, or surrender that authority to similarly flawed judges selected in near secrecy, immune to removal, and uninterested in the lived realities of the citizens they affect?
Section 33 of the Charter—the “notwithstanding clause”—exists for precisely this purpose. It was never a loophole. It was a constitutional safeguard demanded by Premiers like Alberta’s Peter Lougheed and Saskatchewan’s Allan Blakeney. It was their condition for agreeing to the Trudeau Charter in 1982, a shield for legislatures to retain sovereignty in cases where Ottawa-appointed, unelected courts would push too far into political life. It was a tool to defend provincial uniqueness against Ottawa’s homogenizing power.
Blakeney explained it plainly. Where judicial rulings lead to outcomes that might cause undue harm, for example, legislatures must retain the right to legislate, even if a court believes a Charter right has been breached. It was an elegant way to deal with the inevitable tension between rights adjudicated by judges and those protected by governments chosen by the people. It was a way to guarantee democracy over legal technocracy. The hysterical NDP machine will have people believe it is also the legislation of cruelty.
Section 33 is a temporary mechanism—suitable for five years, renewable only through re-legislation. Whatever the progressives say, it does not override or erase any rights. It cannot be used in secret, and any government that invokes it must defend its choice publicly. That is democratic accountability. The people can debate it (and we now where the contemporary left stands on debating), throw the government out, or demand that the law be changed, if they so choose.
This safeguard is now essential. Alberta is acting to protect the integrity of women’s sports and spaces. Who would be against protecting their daughters? Girls have lost competitions, lost scholarships, and in some cases been physically injured competing against males who claim to be female. These are not hypotheticals. They are real, measurable harms—harms progressive politicians and the courts are at times unwilling to recognize. Alberta’s proposed protections have drawn fierce opposition from progressive ideological activists and their allies in the press and the federal parliament, who now claim that such laws are contrary to the Charter. They seek to keep imposing without open debate the fiction that there is a Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports.
There is no such right, and it doesn’t exist in the Charter. The Charter was not drafted to validate identity fantasies. It was not written to erase biological sex or enshrine the right of middle-aged men to force immigrant women to handle their genitals. It was not intended to give minors access to irreversible surgeries without the knowledge or consent of their parents. These things are being “read into” the Charter by tribunals and activist judges trained in Laurentian law schools with no democratic mandate, often under pressure from a woke federal government happy to let the courts advance policies it wants but is afraid to pass through Parliament.
Naheed Nenshi has made it clear where he stands. He bluntly opposes the use of Section 33 to protect Alberta women and girls. His allegiance is to the same cultural current that waddles through Ottawa. He speaks the language of progress but misses the point entirely. This isn’t about political posturing. It is about protecting girls and women from being injured, marginalized, and erased to satisfy the ideological demands of his political base.
It is about affirming the constitutional prerogative of Alberta’s legislature to protect its jurisdictional sphere. This is about facing anti-scientific postures with courage and preserving truth: men aren’t women, no matter how much ideological poultry progressive voodoo priests sacrifice to affirm it.
Ottawa’s interest in neutering Section 33 is not born of a deep commitment to human rights. It is a power play. The Trudeau-era delusional policies and its Carney-extended government see in Section 33 an obstacle to the court-driven social revolution it has vigorously encouraged. It wants provinces disarmed. Not through constitutional amendment, which would require tough negotiating, broad agreement and transparency, but through attrition—by shaming any use of the clause and suggesting that invoking it is inherently illegitimate. But that federal poodle won’t hunt in Alberta.
Ottawa already has the power to disallow provincial legislation outright under Section 90 of the BNA Act, 1867. That power—known as disallowance—allows the federal cabinet to kill any provincial law within a year of its passage. It has not been used since 1943, not because it is illegal, but because it is politically toxic. If Ottawa were to disallow an Alberta or Saskatchewan law protecting girls’ sports or parental rights, the backlash would be immediate and overwhelming. Progressives prefer pushing their ideological agendas in the dark, through political smoke curtains, behind close doors.
The federal government would rather pretend it lacks power while trying to strip away the strongest tool provinces have to protect their constitutional space. Section 33 is a scalpel compared to Ottawa’s sledgehammer, but it is a scalpel that Ottawa doesn’t want the provinces to use because it limits the power of the judges they appoint.
And let us not pretend this kind of judicial overreach is limited to social policy. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to strike down Canada’s tangle of interprovincial trade barriers in the Comeau case (2018). The question was straightforward: does Section 121 of the Constitution, which says goods “shall be admitted free” between provinces, actually mean what it says?
The Court answered no. It chose legal technicalities over the clear, economic intent of the BNA Act. In doing so, it upheld a regime of trade barriers that make Canada’s internal economy more balkanized. Donald Trump’s tariffs have nothing on the now court-preserved domestic trade barriers.
While the courts did not impose the regime of inter provincial blockages, it was the last to endorse it, weakening the country. Canadians cannot freely ship beer or wine across provincial lines. Businesses face duplicated regulations and supply chains carved up by provincial restrictions. The result is a sluggish, over-regulated economy that punishes ordinary citizens while rewarding monopolies and gatekeepers.
The Comeau decision was a betrayal of Confederation. It was also a reminder of the deeper problem: judges, however skilled, are not elected. That doesn’t make them bad people, but they are not accountable. The current Chief Justice, who condemned the truckers’ protest knowing legal cases would be coming active challenging the COVID lockdowns, openly advocated for stronger federal power. He is not neutral. And even if he were, he remains unaccountable to the people of Alberta. His political judgment carries no democratic legitimacy, yet it shapes the rules under which we are expected to live.
This is why Section 33 must be preserved—and used. But whether or not it is used legitimately in Alberta, it is for Albertans to determine. Not Ottawa. The threat isn’t coming from Alberta’s legislature—it’s coming from courts and bureaucrats choosing to advance male fetish desire as sacred while erasing female safety.
Premier Danielle Smith understands this. So does Premier Scott Moe. That is not judicial defiance. That is democratic responsibility. When Ottawa and the NDP opposition in both provinces seek to override parental rights, deny biology, and impose ideology on children, women, and families, it is the perfect time for legislatures to act. And if not legislatures, then who?
Albertans should not have to ask permission from Ottawa to protect their daughters. They should not have to wait years for a judge’s approval to define women’s places and spaces. They should not be ruled by edicts from individuals who have never faced a voter in their lives.
Section 33 is a lawful democratic instrument. It exists to ensure that provinces do not lose control over essential provincial matters. Alberta is using it for precisely the reason it was designed—to uphold the will of its people in the face of potential judicial activism that favours anti-scientific ideology above reality.
No permission is required. Alberta will protect its daughters.
Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
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
Mackenzie Moir
Lauren Asaad
Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
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.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Austin Thompson
Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Argentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
‘Almost Sounds Made Up’: Jeffrey Epstein Was Bill Clinton Plus-One At Moroccan King’s Wedding, Per Report
Saskatchewan woman approved for euthanasia urged to seek medical help in Canada rather than US
Danielle Smith slams Skate Canada for stopping events in Alberta over ban on men in women’s sports
-
Business1 day ago
Argentina’s Milei delivers results free-market critics said wouldn’t work
-
Business2 days agoState of the Canadian Economy: Number of publicly listed companies in Canada down 32.7% since 2010
-
espionage16 hours agoCarney Floor Crossing Raises Counterintelligence Questions aimed at China, Former Senior Mountie Argues
-
International2 days agoDOJ fails to fully comply with Friday deadline for Epstein files release
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoHunting Poilievre Covers For Upcoming Demographic Collapse After Boomers
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta’s new diagnostic policy appears to meet standard for Canada Health Act compliance
-
Business11 hours agoTaxing food is like slapping a surcharge on hunger. It needs to end
-
Business1 day agoDeadlocked Jury Zeroes In on Alleged US$40 Million PPE Fraud in Linda Sun PRC Influence Case