Alberta’s Covid-19 Report clearly shows the way

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

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.

Up Next

Calling on all Albertans to help shape health care

Don't Miss

Things worth fighting for

Todayville

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

Conservatives demand probe into Liberal vaccine injury program’s $50m mismanagement

Business / 5 hours ago

Canada must address its birth tourism problem

Alberta / 5 hours ago

Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan

Alberta

Median workers in Alberta could receive 72% more under Alberta Pension Plan compared to Canada Pension Plan

Published on July 15, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill and Joel Emes

Moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans in the form of lower contribution rates (which could be used to increase private retirement savings while receiving the same pension benefits as the CPP under the new provincial pension), finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.

“Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate through a separate provincial pension plan while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP,” said Tegan Hill, director of Alberta policy at the Fraser Institute and co-author of Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan.

Assuming Albertans invested the savings from moving to a provincial pension plan into a private retirement account, and assuming a contribution rate of 5.85 per cent, workers earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025) could accrue a stream of retirement payments totalling $454,741 (pre-tax)—a 71.6 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Put differently, under the CPP, a median worker receives a total of $264,968 in retirement income over their life. If an Alberta worker saved the difference between what they pay now into the CPP and what they would pay into a new provincial plan, the income they would receive in retirement increases. If the contribution rate for the new provincial plan was 5.85 per cent—the lower of the available estimates—the increase in retirement income would total $189,773 (or an increase of 71.6 per cent).

If the contribution rate for a new Alberta pension plan was 8.21 per cent—the higher of the available estimates—a median Alberta worker would still receive an additional $64,672 in retirement income over their life, a marked increase of 24.4 per cent compared to the CPP alone.

Put differently, assuming a contribution rate of 8.21 per cent, Albertan workers earning the median income could accrue a stream of retirement payments totaling $329,640 (pre-tax) under a provincial pension plan—a 24.4 per cent increase from their stream of CPP payments.

“While the full costs and benefits of a provincial pension plan must be considered, its clear that Albertans could benefit from higher retirement payments under a provincial pension plan, compared to the CPP,” Hill said.

Illustrating the Potential of an Alberta Pension Plan

Due to Alberta’s comparatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes, and younger population, Albertans would pay a lower contribution rate with a separate provincial pension plan, compared with the CPP, while receiving the same benefits as under the CPP.
Put differently, moving from the CPP to a provincial pension plan would generate savings for Albertans, which could be used to increase private retirement income. This essay assesses the potential savings for Albertans of moving to a provincial pension plan. It also estimates an Albertan’s potential increase in total retirement income, if those savings were invested in a private account.
Depending on the contribution rate used for an Alberta pension plan (APP), ranging from 5.85 to 8.2 percent, an individual earning the CPP’s yearly maximum pensionable earnings ($71,300 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $429,524 and $584,235. This would be 22.9 to 67.1 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($349,545).
An individual earning the median income in Alberta ($53,061 in 2025), would accrue a stream of retirement payments under the total APP (APP plus private retirement savings), yielding a total retirement income of between $329,640 and $454,741, which is between 24.4 percent to 71.6 percent higher, respectively, than their stream of CPP payments ($264,968).

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Alberta

Alberta ban on men in women’s sports doesn’t apply to athletes from other provinces

Published on July 15, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Alberta’s Fairness and Safety in Sport Act bans transgender males from women’s sports within the province but cannot regulate out-of-province transgender athletes.

Alberta’s ban on gender-confused males competing in women’s sports will not apply to out-of-province athletes.

In an interview posted July 12 by the Canadian Press, Alberta Tourism and Sport Minister Andrew Boitchenko revealed that Alberta does not have the jurisdiction to regulate out-of-province, gender-confused males from competing against female athletes.

“We don’t have authority to regulate athletes from different jurisdictions,” he said in an interview.

Ministry spokeswoman Vanessa Gomez further explained that while Alberta passed legislation to protect women within their province, outside sporting organizations are bound by federal or international guidelines.

As a result, Albertan female athletes will be spared from competing against men during provincial competition but must face male competitors during inter-provincial events.

In December, Alberta passed the Fairness and Safety in Sport Act to prevent biological men who claim to be women from competing in women’s sports. The legislation will take effect on September 1 and will apply to all school boards, universities, as well as provincial sports organizations.

The move comes after studies have repeatedly revealed what almost everyone already knew was true, namely, that males have a considerable advantage over women in athletics.

Indeed, a recent study published in Sports Medicine found that a year of “transgender” hormone drugs results in “very modest changes” in the inherent strength advantages of men.

Additionally, male athletes competing in women’s sports are known to be violent, especially toward female athletes who oppose their dominance in women’s sports.

In February, Andres ranted about why men should be able to compete in women’s competitions, calling for “the Ontario lifter” who opposes this, apparently referring to powerlifter April Hutchinson, to “die painfully.”

Interestingly, while Andres was suspended for six months for issuing death threats, Hutchinson was suspended for two years after publicly condemning him for stealing victories from women and then mocking his female competitors on social media. Her suspension was later reduced to a year.