Alberta
Alberta’s Covid-19 Report clearly shows the way
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Lee Harding
The Manning Commission showed that Alberta actually had a very bad process for making critical decisions. Specifically, a court case showed that the PHO checked in with cabinet decisions, but the cabinet denied that the decisions were up to them. This was not even legal
Alberta’s Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel has made 90 sound recommendations which that, frankly, all provinces should enact.
The panel chaired by Preston Manning examined whether the province needed better structures and legislation to handle public emergencies. Of course, Alberta needed stronger legislation to handle the COVID_19 pandemic.
The report’s strongest conclusion is that the premier, cabinet, and key ministers “have the ultimate authority and responsibility…[t]o make decisions on the emergency response measures adopted, accounting for key values, priorities and tradeoffs.”
The previous provincial Emergency Management Act left decisions with the provincial health officer (PHO). The Manning Commission showed that Alberta actually had a very bad process for making critical decisions. Specifically, a court case showed that the PHO checked in with cabinet decisions, but the cabinet denied that the decisions were up to them. This was not even legal, as the law said the PHO had final authority in emergency situations
Some critics warned that putting emergency management decisions in the hands of elected officials could leave them swayed by politics. This is a very weak argument because the same could be legitimately said for everything an elected government does.
The government responses to the pandemic led to an eight per cent contraction in the Alberta economy. This $24 billion burden had its own economic and health consequences. Unfortunately, a myopic focus on the virus by the health bureaucrats disregarded the serious toll that isolation, addiction, and suicide had on citizens.
An unfortunate dogma emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, that social distancing, lockdowns, and rushed vaccines all deserved to be fully supported, while, at the same time, certain inexpensive generic drugs should not be used. At this time, a considerable amount of research shows that there is a defensible contrary perspective, which is a point that the Alberta report’s sharpest critics don’t seem to acknowledge.
In fact, the report wisely advises “‘[t]hat a clear and conscious decision be made by elected officials as to the scope of the scientific advice to be sought and that this decision not be left entirely to the subject-matter agency or department, given that it may have a narrower perspective than that actually required.”
To this end, “whatever scientific advisory committees, advisors and contractors are assembled to support the response be broadly based, multidisciplinary in nature, and appropriately balanced from both inside and outside government.”
The recommendation to consult widely and not to become “stuck” in political paradigms that may not work seems irrefutably sensible. Unfortunately, an openness to “alternative perspectives” has been unduly bashed.
The report emphasized that the education of school children must continue despite an emergency. Most countries avoided the long months of school closures common to Alberta and, indeed, common to other provinces. The report warns that the “compromised learning and reduced socialization…will be felt well into the future by both Alberta and Canada, across all dimensions of society, economy and country.”
Correctly the report recommends that n the future schools must remain open “except under the most exceptional circumstances,” The authors said Alberta law should enshrine not just a right that children have to education, but the province has a duty to offer it, with stiff penalties for the dereliction of such duties. The report argues that in-person learning is preferred to online learning, but improved access to technology for on-line learning was also advised.
The panel also called for helping students who fell by the wayside during school closures so that they can “make up for learning loss.” As well, the panel also called for a system-wide “intensification of punctuality, behavioural and academic performance standards.”
The panel also called for changes to the Employment Standards Code to “disallow permanent dismissals of non-compliant employees during a temporary public emergency.” Those fired for not taking the vaccine can only welcome this recommendation. The report also says that the Health Professions Act needs its “standard of practice” amended to include “recognition and protection of the rights of members to freedom of expression.” Basic measures to bolster health care will only come about when experts can freely express and defend their concerns in open debates.
The panel also recommended that the Alberta Bill of Rights be revised and strengthened. Guarantees of personal and professional freedom and “protection against discrimination on the basis of opinion, disability and medical status or history” were among the most important revisions that were suggested.
Obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic has been a painful memory for both policy makers and citizens, but the thoughtful analysis offered by the Manning panel is necessary so that Alberta is ready for the next crisis. Hopefully, all provincial governments, and indeed the federal government, will look carefully at the Alberta report and they will prepare accordingly. The next crisis, whatever it may be, could unfortunately be soon be upon us.
Lee Harding is Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
Premier Danielle Smith, Minister of Finance Nate Horner, and Minister of Education Demetrios Nicolaides issued the following statement.
“Yesterday, the Provincial Bargaining and Compensation Office wrote to the Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) and formally requested an agreement to enter an enhanced mediation process.
“This process would have ensured that students returned to the classrooms on Monday, and that teachers returned to work.
“Negotiating would have continued with the ATA, Teachers’ Employer Bargaining Association (TEBA) and a third-party mediator to propose a recommended agreement.
“We are very disappointed that the Alberta Teachers’ Association refused this offer. Teachers and students should also be disappointed.
“PBCO made this offer to the ATA because the union has not made a reasonable offer and this strike is impacting students. Alberta’s government is trying to put kids first and bring an end to this strike.
“The offer of enhanced mediation provided a clear path to ending it.
“We want the same things as the ATA: More teachers. More pay for teachers. More educational assistants. And more classrooms.
“This strike has gone on too long and we are extremely concerned about the impact it is having on students.
“We are willing to consider further options to ensure that our next generation gets the world-class education they deserve. After about three weeks, a strike of this nature would reach the threshold of causing irreparable harm to our students’ education.
“The ATA needs to do what is right for its members, and for all Alberta students.
“If it refuses to do so, we will consider further options to bring this strike to an end.”
Diploma exam update
November diploma exams will be optional for students.
With instructional time in schools disrupted due to the teacher strike, the November 2025 diploma exams will now be optional for students. Students who wish to write a diploma exam may request to do so, and their school boards will accommodate the request.
The optional diploma exams apply to all schools provincewide. These exams will still take place on the currently scheduled dates.
Students who choose not to write the November diploma exams can still complete their courses and graduate on time. Their final grade will be based entirely on the school-awarded mark provided by their teacher.
Choosing not to write the November diploma exams will not affect a student’s ability to apply to, be accepted by, or attend post-secondary institutions after graduation.
No changes have been made to the January and June diplomas and provincial achievement tests.
Quick facts
- Students are automatically exempted from writing the November diploma exams but can request to write them.
- School boards must allow the student to write the diploma exam if requested.
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill and Austin Thompson
Next week, voters across Alberta will go to the polls to elect their local governments. Of course, while the issues vary depending on the city, town or district, all municipal governments spend taxpayer money.
And according to a recent study, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County were among Alberta’s highest-spending municipalities (on a per-person basis) in 2023 (the latest year of comparable data). Kara Westerlund, president of the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, said that’s no surprise—arguing that it’s expensive to serve a small number of residents spread over large areas.
That challenge is real. In rural areas, fewer people share the cost of roads, parks and emergency services. But high spending isn’t inevitable. Some rural municipalities managed to spend far less, demonstrating that local choices about what services to provide, and how to deliver them, matter.
Consider the contrast in spending levels among rural counties. In 2023, Grande Prairie County and Red Deer County spent $5,413 and $4,619 per person, respectively. Foothills County, by comparison, spent just $2,570 per person. All three counties have relatively low population densities (fewer than seven residents per square kilometre) yet their per-person spending varies widely. (In case you’re wondering, Calgary spent $3,144 and Edmonton spent $3,241.)
Some of that variation reflects differences in the cost of similar services. For example, all three counties provide fire protection but in 2023 this service cost $56.95 per person in Grande Prairie County, $38.51 in Red Deer County and $10.32 in Foothills County. Other spending differences reflect not just how much is spent, but whether a service is offered at all. For instance, in 2023 Grande Prairie County recorded $46,283 in daycare spending, while Red Deer County and Foothills County had none.
Put simply, population density alone simply doesn’t explain why some municipalities spend more than others. Much depends on the choices municipal governments make and how efficiently they deliver services.
Westerlund also dismissed comparisons showing that some counties spend more per person than nearby towns and cities, calling them “apples to oranges.” It’s true that rural municipalities and cities differ—but that doesn’t make comparisons meaningless. After all, whether apples are a good deal depends on the price of other fruit, and a savvy shopper might switch to oranges if they offer better value. In the same way, comparing municipal spending—across all types of communities—helps Albertans judge whether they get good value for their tax dollars.
Every municipality offers a different mix of services and those choices come with different price tags. Consider three nearby municipalities: in 2023, Rockyview County spent $3,419 per person, Calgary spent $3,144 and Airdrie spent $2,187. These differences reflect real trade-offs in the scope, quality and cost of local services. Albertans should decide for themselves which mix of local services best suits their needs—but they can’t do that without clear data on what those services actually cost.
A big municipal tax bill isn’t an inevitable consequence of rural living. How much gets spent in each Alberta municipality depends greatly on the choices made by the mayors, reeves and councillors Albertans will elect next week. And for Albertans to determine whether or not they get good value for their local tax dollars, they must know how much their municipality is spending.
Tegan Hill
Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute
Austin Thompson
Oil Sands are the Costco of world energy – dependable and you know exactly where to find it
Hamas releases all living hostages under Trump peace plan
Canada’s privacy commissioner says he was not consulted on bill to ban dissidents from internet
Enbridge CEO says ‘there’s a good reason’ for Alberta to champion new oil pipeline
Melania Trump quietly reunites children divided by Ukraine war
Former Trump Advisor Says US Must Stop UN ‘Net Zero’ Climate Tax On American Ships
$4.5B awarded in new contracts to build Smart Wall along southwest border
-
International2 days agoPoland’s president signs new zero income tax law for parents with two children
-
Business1 day agoFord’s Whisky War
-
International2 days agoAustralian territory bans men from women’s prisons in national first
-
National2 days agoPoilievre accuses Canada’s top police force of ‘covering up’ alleged Trudeau crimes
-
Agriculture6 hours agoIs the CFIA a Rogue Agency or Just Taking Orders from a Rogue Federal Government?
-
COVID-192 days agoFreedom Convoy leader Tamara Lich says ‘I am not to leave the house’ while serving sentence
-
Focal Points1 day agoTrump Walks Back His Tomahawk Tease from Zelensky
-
Automotive1 day ago$15 Billion, Zero Assurances: Stellantis Abandons Brampton as Trudeau-Era Green Deal Collapses