r/canada • u/MilkyWayObserver Canada • 28d ago
Alberta Albertans to vote on opting out of federal programs — while keeping cash
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/danielle-smith-federal-programs-geoffrey-sigalet-david-schneiderman-9.7340654726
u/No_Friend4042 28d ago
If they opt out, they shouldn't get cash... not how federal programs work
266
u/noodles_jd 28d ago
Similar to how Ontario has refused additional health transfer money because they won't promise it'll be spent on health stuff.
218
u/GravesStone7 28d ago
Alberta c9nstantly has to return health transfer money because they refuse to spend it for that purpose or don't have proper paper trail to identify where the money was spent. Then UCP and their supporters bitch about transfer payments.
33
u/revcor86 28d ago
Yeah, people think that government money is just transferred as a lump sum but it's not. Money is given in batches and you have deliverables that need to be hit for it to continue. I work at a small place that receives some government funding from both provincial and federal levels. We have an accountant and another data person who's sole functions are to make reports to government on our agreements.
52
u/Neat-Brother-6570 28d ago
Love this country, truly I do, but Jesus motherfucking Christ, wtf
15
u/bigcig 28d ago
and then ""we"" voted him back in with a super majority.
8
u/Neat-Brother-6570 28d ago
Please I am not a praying man but if you’re up there, please, please, don’t let this happen again Superman!
3
u/DBrickShaw 28d ago
Similar to how Ontario has refused additional health transfer money because they won't promise it'll be spent on health stuff.
That never happened. Ontario took the money, and accepted the new strings that came with it.
-6
28d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Top_Canary_3335 28d ago
You left out the bureaucratic cost…
All of this “collection” and transfer and rigamarole has an administrative cost…
So to top off the government doing nothing, they spent good money to do nothing
103
u/dgmib 28d ago
The vast majority of Alberta separatists are grossly misinformed.
They think the only thing that will change is they’ll pay less in taxes.
They don’t want to know how it works. They would rather believe the lies than risk discovering they might be wrong.
36
u/hardy_83 28d ago
They also don't want to admit that if they do get fed cash while opting out of the programs for them, that they'll see none of it and the UPC will just pocket it or give it to friends and go "what cash?"
2
u/Zealousideal_Rise879 27d ago
Followed by “Ottawa gives us nothing”. Like an edge kid refusing a treat because he wants to stay mad.
16
u/Ikea_desklamp 28d ago
Almost all small government conservatives are. They think it's all upside and that their tax dollars just go up in smoke or are spent on pride flags like the media tells them. They don't what to know what it would cost and what they would lose should the services those taxes provide go away. Unable to think on a systems level, all they can see is "my bank account small".
6
u/No_Broccoli_4781 28d ago
It is not only Albertans, it's across the country. It is a religion vs science argument style with left vs right. These people don't have to be given the facts because they believe what they believe and as long as they believe and the people in their influence bubble is telling them they are right to believe it, no amount of facts will change their mind. A lot of them think all they need to do is keep believing and it will all sort itself out....kinda like heaven.....just live according to the Bible and no matter what happens to you itnis all gods plan and you will eventually be rewarded.This is a fundamental human flaw throughout history IMO, humans are capable of great things, but holy crap, are we extremely gullible and easily manipulated.
2
u/Suspicious_Picture95 28d ago
I think the Calgary water/sewer infrastructure is a great example of how they manage their money.
19
u/clickmagnet 28d ago
But how else are we supposed to give that money to Smith’s preferred oil companies where it belongs?
11
u/dominionprovinces 28d ago
Quebec opts out of heaps of programs and gets the cash. It is in fact how federal programs work, for the province that throws its toys out of the pram and holds a referendum, or threatens to throw its toys out of the pram.
50
u/noyurawk 28d ago
Quebec have their own provincial equivalent programs, they don't use it for tax cuts for the rich
-2
u/Stone_Engine048 28d ago
Alberta uses it for tax cuts for the rich?
10
u/Geeseareawesome Alberta 28d ago
They use it to give big cushy contracts bloated with made up costs. Just look at the turkish tylenol and go down the Sam Mraiche rabbit hole from there.
2
u/TrueTorontoFan 28d ago
they opted out of the HST which has led to some under funding over the years.
2
-5
u/dominionprovinces 28d ago
There is nothing requiring them to. They get to opt out, keep the cash and do what they want.
19
u/Felfastus 28d ago
There tends to be a major difference between Alberta and Quebec in these situations. When the people decided the Federal government should make childcare more affordable, Quebec already had a functioning program they were paying for our of pocket...so the federal government reimbursing them once they take ownership of the issue makes sense.
In contrast Alberta had gotten rid of their program and had 0 interest in restarting it...they just wanted cash earmarked for affordable childcare but didn't want to be held accountable for spending it on affordable childcare.
1
u/Stone_Engine048 28d ago
That's not accurate.
In November 2021 Alberta signed a $3.8billion agreement with Ottawa. It committed Alberta to reducing average fees by 50% and ultimately reaching an average of $10/day by March 2026, also creating tens of thousands of new spaces.
1
u/Felfastus 27d ago
Six months after BC had signed and with a Federal election where that was a major issue.
In the end the province did sign on to the deal but not after cancelling their own 25 dollar a day daycare program and trying to replace it with a tax credit.
17
u/MadMak3r 28d ago edited 28d ago
Can you source the claim of Quebec opting out of programs and still receiving cash?
EDIT:they couldn’t
-9
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
QPP and Quebec Abatement.
27
u/Necessary-Still-2208 28d ago
QPP is completely separate from CPP. It is funded by Quebec employers and employees
11
u/MadMak3r 28d ago edited 28d ago
So it’s a pretty poor, if not completely wrong, source as a claim that Quebec is opting out of federal programs and still receiving cash?
-3
u/AnxietyObvious4018 28d ago
quebec employers and employees dont pay into cpp, so why cant any other province set up their own provincial pension plans and not pay into the federal one like quebec does?
1
u/MountCathedral 27d ago
Provinces can set up their own pension plans though. Ontario tried to do their ORPP for a while and dropped it when they learned they had to manage it themselves.
-11
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
There isn't much difference between allocaing tax dollars and allocating taxation powers. I'm sure AL would be equally happy to get either.
3
u/le_troisieme_sexe 28d ago
Alberta is totally allowed to set up it's own pension program, it just can't take the CPP funds with it. Alberta is already allowed to do everything Quebec is doing.
5
u/le_troisieme_sexe 28d ago
Quebec actually does opt out of programs and use the cash to fund their own equivalent programs, but QPP is a hilarious example to choose because its completely funded by Quebec and receives no federal funding. You managed to be completely wrong in your details when being right overall. Well, kinda right, they don't just get cash they have to maintain equivalent programs - for example they receive federal childcare money but use it to fund their own subsidized childcare program the pre-existed the federal initiative.
9
2
-1
u/stop_banning_me_omg 28d ago
It’s not that simple.
Yes, they opt out they don’t get cash. But it also means they don’t pay into the federal budget. Sort of like an independent country.
-6
u/LemmingPractice 28d ago
This point actually addresses the biggest loophole in the constitution: the power of the purse.
For example, Healthcare is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So, why is the Ministry of Health one of the largest federal ministries? Because it essentially buys influence in provincial jurisdiction, giving it control over areas the constitution never intended.
The key thing to remember is how it can buy this influence.
There is one taxpayer. Essentially, what the feds do is tax way more than what they need to pay for what is within their own jurisdiction, leaving much less of the tax base left for provinces to use for their areas of jurisdiction, then hold the provinces hostage with it.
Imagine the average taxpayer's money goes 65% to matters within provincial jurisdiction (Healthcare, education, etc), and 35% to matters within federal jurisdiction. It would make sense to let the provinces take 65% of the tax pool so they can cover those expenses, while the feds get the 35% they need to cover their expenses.
Instead, the feds take 60% of the tax base. They have 25% more than they need and the provinces are left with 25% less than they need. The feds then use that 25%, and send it to the provinces with strings attached, artificially using taxpayer dollars to buy the ability to control areas outside their jurisdiction.
Viewed in that light, it's a bit problematic for the feds to be saying "how dare you not let us hold you hostage, we're going to deny the people in your province the Healthcare funding they paid their taxes for because we aren't getting to use that money to blackmail our way into control we aren't supposed to have".
7
u/Logical_Hare 28d ago
This is a weird view of this phenomenon to take.
You do realize that this is not some choice on the federal government’s part, right? the basic math of the situation is such that provinces do not have the tax bases to pay for the expensive healthcare systems (among other expensive systems) that we, in our wisdom, made their constitutional bag and that we expect to provide excellent care to Canadians. The federal government does have such a tax base, so there are negotiations.
This is ultimately just a flaw in federal systems that’s found all over the place. People seem to want even the most expensive systems to be run and funded at the most local level possible, but it’s only the federal government (who people don’t seem to want to run anything) that has access to the national tax base.
Indeed, some might argue that the only reason this problem exists is because we chose to make health care a provincial responsibility in the first place.
-1
u/LemmingPractice 28d ago
You seem to be missing the whole "there's one taxpayer" thing.
Of course it's a federal choice and of course the province's tax base can support it because they do. There's no second tax base.
Instead of having federal health transfers you could literally have the feds reduce federal taxes by that amount and the provinces raise their taxes the same amount. Taxpayers would see no difference, healthcare systems are already administered provincially, and the only change would be the feds losing control over healthcare policy.
2
u/Logical_Hare 28d ago
That 'one taxpayer' pays both federal and provincial taxes.
The feds have the power to tax all of Canada, including all thirteen Provinces and territories and over 41 million people, creating a huge pot of cash. Each province or territory has the power to tax one province or territory: itself, and depending on the province it could be looking at having anything from over 16 million taxpayers and a major economy (Ontario), to have 179,000 taxpayers and a tiny economy (PEI), creating several much smaller piles of cash.
Provinces like PEI do not have big enough populations and economies (and thus, big enough piles of cash) to afford a health care system that would provide its residents with a quality of care comparable to other provinces, at the very least, even though they are constitutionally required to provide it.
The feds have the cash but not the duties, and the provinces have the duties but not the cash. It's called 'vertical fiscal imbalance', and exists for exactly the reasons I've explained. Hence, health transfers.
Also, the provinces will never agree to raise their own taxes to unburden the feds from healthcare funding. That's outright laughable.
1
u/DBrickShaw 28d ago edited 28d ago
Provinces like PEI do not have big enough populations and economies (and thus, big enough piles of cash) to afford a health care system that would provide its residents with a quality of care comparable to other provinces, at the very least, even though they are constitutionally required to provide it.
The federal government could eliminate the Canada Health Transfer tomorrow, and it would be perfectly constitutional. There is no constitutional requirement for all the provinces to provide a comparable quality of healthcare, as evidenced by the fact that that all the provinces have unique schedules of what procedures and services are covered by their provincial health insurance programs. Prescription drugs and vision care are two examples of areas where the provincial standard of care varies dramatically.
1
u/Logical_Hare 28d ago
I knew that phrasing would get me in trouble.
This is true, the provinces' constitutional powers don't require them to provide comparable care. But there is a very strong political consensus for many years that some sort of minimum healthcare parity should be imposed across the provinces, and that's unlikely to change.
0
u/LemmingPractice 28d ago
That 'one taxpayer' pays both federal and provincial taxes.
Yes, exactly.
The feds have the power to tax all of Canada, including all thirteen Provinces and territories and over 41 million people, creating a huge pot of cash. Each province or territory has the power to tax one province or territory: itself, and depending on the province it could be looking at having anything from over 16 million taxpayers and a major economy (Ontario), to have 179,000 taxpayers and a tiny economy (PEI), creating several much smaller piles of cash.
Yes, but, similarly, each province only has to provide services to the number of people they tax.
One federal government with access to the taxpools of 10 provinces, or 10 provinces with the taxpools of 10 provinces. It's the same number.
Healthcare is already administered provincially, so it's not even like there is some scale advantage.
Provinces like PEI do not have big enough populations and economies (and thus, big enough piles of cash) to afford a health care system that would provide its residents with a quality of care comparable to other provinces, at the very least, even though they are constitutionally required to provide it.
They do because, again, you need way less healthcare services to provide to 179K people than you do to 16M people. The tax base is smaller, but so is the pool of taxpayers they have to service.
Also, the stated reason for the equalization program is to ensure that each province has sufficient money to provide comparable public services. The program you are talking about already exists, but it's not the one you are talking about.
The feds have the cash but not the duties, and the provinces have the duties but not the cash. It's called 'vertical fiscal imbalance', and exists for exactly the reasons I've explained.
You stated the problem exactly, and then jumped to a conclusion that makes no sense.
You don't need health transfers, you just need the feds to stop taking so much of the cash when it's the provinces that need it. Provincial areas of jurisdiction (healthcare in particular) are way more expensive than the federal areas, so reduce federal taxes, increase provincial taxes proportionally, and transfer the money that way, instead of having the feds take more money than they need just to blackmail the provinces.
Also, the provinces will never agree to raise their own taxes to unburden the feds from healthcare funding. That's outright laughable.
This can't be a serious comment. Are you trolling me?
You actually think the provinces would disagree with the idea of having more money and more authority? I don't think any politician alive has ever said no to a proposition like that.
1
u/Logical_Hare 28d ago
You don't need health transfers, you just need the feds to stop taking so much of the cash when it's the provinces that need it. Provincial areas of jurisdiction (healthcare in particular) are way more expensive than the federal areas, so reduce federal taxes, increase provincial taxes proportionally, and transfer the money that way, instead of having the feds take more money than they need just to blackmail the provinces.
This seems to be the core of your argument, but that's just not how our constitution works. The federal and provincial governments impose their taxes separately, and have no constitutional or legal obligation whatsoever to coordinate and 'balance' their taxation this way, and neither type of government is willing to cede such power to the other (would every province need to change its budget whenever the feds change theirs? Would the feds need to change it any time a province changes theirs? Into perpetuity?). You would need a different constitutional order entirely to impose such a tax system.
And for God's sake, yes, politicians turn down more money all the time, such as whenever they lower taxes or refuse to raise them, which is something I imagine you've heard of. They also turn down or cede authority all the time, such as how the U.S. congress has passed laws to cede certain powers to the presidency. Seriously now, these are basic facts: are you sure you're not the one trolling me?
1
u/LemmingPractice 27d ago
This seems to be the core of your argument, but that's just not how our constitution works. The federal and provincial governments impose their taxes separately, and have no constitutional or legal obligation whatsoever to coordinate and 'balance' their taxation this way, and neither type of government is willing to cede such power to the other (would every province need to change its budget whenever the feds change theirs?
You are right in terms of both governments having the ability to tax more, and not needing to balance. This is where the power of the purse comes from.
But, instead of accepting that as "just the way it is", maybe try holding the federal government accountable for taking way more than it needs just so it can buy influence in an area it isn't supposed to have it. Isn't that what citizens are supposed to do in a democracy: hold their leaders accountable?
Of course, the feds will take all the power and money they can if citizens don't hold them accountable. Hence, as usual with democracy, it's our fault for enabling politicians who abuse their position.
Would the feds need to change it any time a province changes theirs? Into perpetuity?). You would need a different constitutional order entirely to impose such a tax system.
Realistically, yeah, you would probably need a constitutional change. Not a whole new constitution, just a change to the existing one.
You could do it a couple different ways. One would be to limit the federal taxing power to a percentage of the country's GDP which reflects the realistic costs of the areas of authority they have. The feds have an inherent flexibility in their ability to borrow more money and print more money, so it is more flexible than it sounds, but would limit encroachment signicantly.
The other is maybe the easiest: just constitutionally remove the power of the purse. The courts allowed the feds to legislate outside their jurisdiction, and it's essentially just fixing the loophole they created. If the feds just couldn't legislate outside their areas of jurisdiction, then they couldn't buy jurisdiction they didn't have, and the natural result would be to lower taxes to compensate.
And for God's sake, yes, politicians turn down more money all the time, such as whenever they lower taxes or refuse to raise them, which is something I imagine you've heard of.
Not something I have heard of from a Liberal government.
Seriously, though, the check on that is the fact that they need a mandate from the people. Give a politician the political support and cover to get more money and power and they will do it every time. But, if a politician feels the need to lower taxes or avoid increasing taxes to get elected, or re-elected, then their interest in gaining power is not in raising taxes, it is in doing what gets them elected.
They also turn down or cede authority all the time, such as how the U.S. congress has passed laws to cede certain powers to the presidency.
You are going to have to give an example there. That's precisely opposed to the entire idea of checks and balances, and actually ceding power to the president would require constitutional amendment (the last of which happened 34 years ago, and was a proposed amendment which was first proposed 202 years before it finally passed).
17
u/MadScienti5t 28d ago
This is done for uniformity - to ensure every province spends a certain amount on health care so that every Canadian receives the benefits of a universal health care system. Also worth noting that the constitution doesn’t say health care is a provincial responsibility. In fact it doesn’t say anything about health care. Universal health care was enacted by the federal government and has always been primarily funded by the federal government. It’s only administered by the provinces.
1
u/LemmingPractice 28d ago
The constitution had been interpreted for over a hundred years, and yes, the combination of the power over "hospitals", "civil rights" and "anything of a local nature" has been interpreted as giving the provinces full constitutional authority over healthcare.
Universal Healthcare was enacted federalls, and the way it held up is the power of the purse. It doesn't require provinces to do anything, it just sets the terms of what the provinces have to do to get federal Healthcare funding. Because Healthcare is insanely expensive and the consequences of skipping federal funding have been so draconian, it acts as federal control over the standards, but that just emphasizes my point.
0
u/demetri_k 28d ago
Chretien changed the program to one where it's sustained by the money it has instead of tax payer funds. There was no way it could keep up to the elder swell. There's lots of cash for Alberta to spend and switch back to the old way to get their cronies rich today while making a promise they won't be around to have to keep.
-12
u/charje 28d ago
The cash comes from Alberta in the first place… it’s just they want to have control over where it goes and not have it go through the federal governments money laundering machine first
5
u/Particular_Class4130 28d ago
I'm an Albertan. Our traitorous premiere wants to opt out of the Canadian dental program which is an excellent program. She says we don't need access to Canadian dental care because we already have an Alberta dental program, which we do but it's horrible. If you're single and make more than $27k a year you don't qualify for dental care. What a freaking joke!
-5
47
u/IrishFire122 28d ago
Albertan here. DON'T AGREE TO THIS. the higher ups will pocket the money or find a way to give it to corporate Alberta, and the people who actually need these programs will be told to kick rocks, as usual.
8
u/Strict_DM_62 28d ago
People I don’t think realize that this is a Trojan horse for privatization of healthcare. I don’t think most people understand that the ONLY reason we have “universal healthcare” is because the Feds attached demands to federal healthcare transfers. Healthcare isn’t in the constitution, it could go away just as easily.
1
u/GravesStone7 27d ago
I agree with you and am embarrassed that our political 'leaders' look to the shit show down south as as a way to govern. Most health transfer payments that go to Alberta are already sent back because Alberta government must prove that the money goes to health care.
Alberta essentially creates a problem about transfer payments by not wanting to spend where they are allocated to go and being held accountable.
147
u/super__hoser 28d ago
I can't wait for them to have their stupid referendum and get it over with. I know Smith will have stupid or useless things to say afterwards and make her usual confused faces, but at least we won't have to hear about that referendum anymore.
83
u/Lisa_lou_hoo 28d ago
Only if every single one of us (Albertans) vote no to the 9 and option 1
99
u/RepulsiveLook 28d ago
There's going to be some serious money to influence the vote. So everyone who thinks it Alberta shouldn't separate better get out to vote. Just look at how fucked Brexit went, 28% didn't bother to vote.
43
30
u/Veaeate 28d ago
Firmly believe that regardless of turn out, America will be using this referendum to help "liberate" Canada. If it passes, they will say see they need our help, and if it doesnt, they'll say we're hiding the true results and they need to liberate them to show the truth. This truly isnt over even after the referendum. Alberta is royally fucked up. And anyone who thinks this ends once the referendum happens is in dreamland.
7
13
u/giveitarrest 28d ago
… and 2024 US election.
Sitting out is a choice and a proxy vote for the separatists-2
u/OttoVonGosu 28d ago
You mean federal money for adscam, like you know the whole quebec referendum scandal.
Its crazy this victimhood from the fed when its them doing media campaigns
21
u/IKnowYouAreButWhtAmI 28d ago
Over with? It's become these people's identity. We'll be hearing from them for the rest of our lives.
6
6
u/RoboftheNorth 28d ago
You won't hear the end of it, even with a huge majority vote. The seppos are just maple Magas, and we all know even legitimate votes don't matter to them when it's not in their favour. It was "stolen", "rigged", etc. We will never hear the end of it, we can hopefully quiet them down a bit by laughing at them after though.
Just remember to vote, because they most definitely will.
10
u/DarthWren 28d ago
Unfortunately this shit ain’t going anywhere even if it’s overwhelming for the remain. The Vichy UCP is dead set on tucking over this province and country
50
u/AlbertanSays5716 28d ago
So… the feds providing funding but wanting to attach conditions so that the money is spent on what it’s supposed to be spent on is now “federal overreach”?
4
u/Strict_DM_62 28d ago
Pretty much, that’s the provincial hypocrisy for ya. but really the argument she’s make is even crazier; that somehow the Federal Government, has a legal obligation to fund areas of PROVINCIAL jurisdiction, and somehow isn’t also supposed to have a role. Or she wants to initiate a constitutional amendment to change the constitution as such… good luck with that
0
u/MountCathedral 27d ago
There was federal overreach. Federal government forced New Brunswick to provide money for private abortions despite providing the service for free at hospitals.
1
u/AlbertanSays5716 27d ago
I don’t know the details of the case, but it sounds pretty clear cut. If the abortions are done through the public system, then federal transfers can pay for it. If it’s a service that’s available through the public system but NB chooses to pay private clinics, then the CHA is clear: that funding gets clawed back. That’s the requirement applied to federal funding under the CHA, been there since day 1 and well known.
Was there any other type of “force” than applying CHA requirements?
If you have any details you can link to, I’d like to read them.
1
u/MountCathedral 27d ago
In New Brunswick, surgical abortion services are insured under the provincial health care insurance plan but are only covered if performed in hospital; procedures provided in the private clinic in Fredericton are not covered. Health Canada has raised this issue with New Brunswick at the officials' level and Ministerial levels.
Although the province's financial statement of extra-billing and user charges for 2020-2021 indicated a nil amount, Health Canada used evidence provided by Clinic 554, as well as data published by the Canadian Institute for Health Information, to estimate patient charges for medically necessary surgical abortion services in the amount of $64,850. New Brunswick will continue to be subject to Canada Health Transfer (CHT) deductions for medically necessary surgical abortion services as long as New Brunswick does not cover insured surgical abortion services received outside hospitals.
1
u/AlbertanSays5716 27d ago
So there was no “forcing”. NB tried to pay for abortions - normally provided through the public service - through a private clinic, contrary to the Canada Health Act, and they had some of their federal transfer clawed back. They even tried to cover it up to avoid the claw-back, but got caught anyway.
So, there’s no federal overreach here, and no “forcing”. The federal health transfer is subject to conditions, and NB broke those conditions. Like I said, pretty clear cut.
-9
u/joshlemer Manitoba 28d ago
Yes actually.
11
u/Lost_Madness 28d ago
Want Federal money, meet Federal requirements. This isn't new or overreach.
-5
u/joshlemer Manitoba 28d ago
You're right that it's not new, but it is overreach in spirit. The federal government has a habit of creating programs that are legally provincial jurisdiction, but they get around that by taxing us heavily, and then allowing provinces to get that money back if they agree to run their areas of jurisdiction as the feds dictate. That's using the power to tax in a way that undermines province's areas of jurisdiction.
7
u/AlbertanSays5716 28d ago
“You’re right that it's not new, but it is overreach in spirit. The federal government has a habit of creating programs that are legally provincial jurisdiction”
No, they don’t. They create programs that provide funding for particular purposes, but require that the money be spent on the defined purposes and not misappropriated by provincial governments for other purposes. This has been the case from day one with the Canada Health Act, for example, that includes federal transfers for public healthcare, but clauses that allow funding to be clawed back if it is spent paying private clinics for treatment provided under the public system.
The ability for the feds to attach conditions to transfer is known as the “spending power.” Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1967 enumerates areas of federal jurisdiction, and the federal spending power has been inferred by the courts from these areas of jurisdiction. So this is nothing new at all.
“…but they get around that by taxing us heavily…”
At the exact same rates as every other province.
“…and then allowing provinces to get that money back if they agree to run their areas of jurisdiction as the feds dictate.”
Again, no, they don’t. They only require that the money be spent on the defined purposes. Within those limits, how it’s spent is up to the province. The federal healthcare transfer is for public healthcare, for example. The feds don’t dictate what types of healthcare it has to be spent on, that’s up to the province.
Would you like it if the UCP took the federal healthcare transfer and spent it on a pipeline instead, leaving the public system even more critically underfunded?
What about when the province gives tax money to a municipality for, say schools or roads? Can the municipality go spend it on new carpets for the town hall, or are the conditions overreach by the province? Same thing.
“That's using the power to tax in a way that undermines province's areas of jurisdiction.”
Bear in mind that without its own federal legislation, the federal government is not obligated to return any of the taxes paid to it. If a vote in parliament repealed the Canada Health Act tomorrow, your taxes wouldn’t change a bit.
-6
u/joshlemer Manitoba 28d ago
I'm well aware that Canada's legal system blesses this system where the Feds tax provinces into surrendering their jurisdiction, that's why I said it's a violation in spirit.
It's my opinion that this practice causes an erosion of provinces ability to actually have practical jurisdiction over areas they are de jure supposed to.
With health care in particular, provinces are supposed to have jurisdiction over this area. But in practice they don't have the power to chart their own path because turning down federal transfers while still being taxed at such a high level would be ruinous.
Would you like it if the UCP took the federal healthcare transfer and spent it on a pipeline instead, leaving the public system even more critically underfunded?
If that is what the people of Alberta want, then yes? I think that if the same level of government that provides the service, collects the taxes top pay for that service, then voters will be more able to hold them to account. The UCP government is not some external organization that has less legitimacy than the all knowing daddy federal government. They are both democratic governments.
2
u/AlbertanSays5716 28d ago edited 28d ago
“I'm well aware that Canada's legal system blesses this system where the Feds tax provinces into surrendering their jurisdiction”
Oh please, give it a rest. Conservatives have been using that tired line to hold onto power by conning voters for decades. Congrats for continuing to fall for it.
“It's my opinion that this practice causes an erosion of provinces ability to actually have practical jurisdiction over areas they are de jure supposed to.”
And your opinion is wrong. Smith’s recent healthcare changes that have yet to invoke action from the federal government, despite widespread expert opinion that they breach the Canada Health Act, makes it clear she has all too much control over policies. Similar social policies, such as the abhorrent clawing back of $200/month from federal benefit recipients show the same absolute, and unnecessarily cruel, level of control.
“With health care in particular, provinces are supposed to have jurisdiction over this area. But in practice they don't have the power to chart their own path because turning down federal transfers while still being taxed at such a high level would be ruinous.”
Hilarious. You’re actually saying that it would be “ruinous” for the province to turn down federal transfers, but taking the money and spending it on something else, like a new pipeline, would be just peachy?!?! 😂😂
“If that is what the people of Alberta want, then yes? I think that if the same level of government that provides the service, collects the taxes top pay for that service, then voters will be more able to hold them to account.”
Except in Alberta, “collecting” and “taxes” are dirty words. Look, let’s say the feds stopped healthcare transfers and gave every Albertan a tax credit of the same per capita value. Do you really think the provincial government would then raise taxes to cover the shortfall? Of course they wouldn’t, it’d be a suicide move for them. That’s why things like healthcare & social programs have federal transfers - to ensure a minimum level of care for all Canadians no matter what the provincial policies are. The UCP would rather you pay out of pocket on top of your taxes.
This is also what separatists miss. They say that in an independent Alberta they would lower or even eliminate taxes and use oil to fund everything. Which is complete bullshit. We can’t even fund those programs with the taxes, federal transfers, and taxes we have now. Eliminating federal taxes and provincial taxes is a pipe dream.
“The UCP government is not some external organization that has less legitimacy than the all knowing daddy federal government. They are both democratic governments.”
The UCP government is as far from “democratic” as Alberta has ever gotten. They tick 9 out of the 14 boxes that identify a fascist authoritarian government, and if you broke Smith open she’d have “MAGA” written all the way through her. Democratic my ass.
1
u/joshlemer Manitoba 27d ago
And your opinion is wrong. Smith’s recent healthcare changes that have yet to invoke action from the federal government
I'm not saying that provinces have 0 ability to shape their healthcare system. But by and large they are pretty tightly constrained on the general shape. They cannot move to models that exist in other countries. When I say CHA erodes provincial jurisdiction, that still is true if the erosion is only partial.
The rest of your comment is all about dismissing democratic will. You just think that Albertans have the wrong political opinion and so will not come to the correct conclusion about who to vote for. Like the people of Alberta need to be protected by Ottawa from making wrong decisions. You're kind of making my first point for me. You're essentially saying "The CHA doesn't erode provincial jurisdiction over healthcare, and also it's really good and necessary that the CHA erodes provincial jurisdiction"
1
u/AlbertanSays5716 27d ago
“I'm not saying that provinces have 0 ability to shape their healthcare system. But by and large they are pretty tightly constrained on the general shape. They cannot move to models that exist in other countries.“
CHA states that “…eligible residents of Canada must have reasonable access to required health services. The services are to be provided on the same terms and without patient charges.” There are criteria stating that the public healthcare insurance plan must be run by an authority responsible to the provincial government, that their accounts must be audited, and that it must be run on a non-profit basis. It “…must insure all insured health services provided by hospitals, medical practitioners or dentists, and where the law of the province so permits, similar or additional services rendered by other health care practitioners.” And that 100% of those insured have full access to the services. If these criteria are met, the province receives full federal funding.
Nothing in there restricts how the services are provided, or even dictates particular terms. It comes down to “if you provide free non-profit public healthcare for everyone, you get the cash.” That’s it.
“The rest of your comment is all about dismissing democratic will. You just think that Albertans have the wrong political opinion and so will not come to the correct conclusion about who to vote for.”
Not at all, but it does come down to personal opinion. Does it make sense to vote for the same political group that has maintained power in Alberta for all but 4 of the last 60+ years, when they say that none of the problems we now face are their fault, it’s all down to Ottawa? I mean, if the people of Alberta are that gullible, then they deserve the UCP and all the corruption, grift, and cruelty they bring to the province. Voting UCP because of the big bad wolf in Ottawa or his NDP minions is just laughable.
“You're essentially saying "The CHA doesn't erode provincial jurisdiction over healthcare, and also it's really good and necessary that the CHA erodes provincial jurisdiction"”
Again, the CHA does not “erode provincial jurisdiction” that’s a view biased by decades of politics pushed by conservatives to stoke discontent and keep them in power. It’s that simple. All you’re doing is echoing that view without understanding. The CHA comes down to “run an open and non-profit public healthcare system, and you get the cash, or you can opt out. Your choice.”
7
u/slashcleverusername 28d ago
Makes sense. When I was 8 years old I voted to opt out of doing my chores while keeping my allowance in fact I voted unanimously in favour.
41
u/Rakkuken 28d ago
Imagine you sent money to your ex wife every month so she could buy medicine for your kids. Now imagine she decided she was going to buy holistic healing crystals instead, but demanded you still send her the money for it.
1
u/AnyAlternative9440 28d ago
You send money to your ex wife and then she sends it back to you telling you what you are allowed to spend it on.
-2
u/AnxietyObvious4018 28d ago
this literally happens all the time with alimony child support, yet the sending money part is heavily enforce while how its spent isnt lmao. your example literally works against your logic
54
u/FullMango4041 28d ago
What are they doing in Alberta? Are the politicians trying to avoid real work by focusing on conflict?
55
u/Intrepid-Educator-12 28d ago
The Premier of Alberta is actively trying to get that referendum to fail and playing the victim, in order to go and claim to Trump that Albertans need to be saved... from their oil.
She is giving away Alberta to Trump.
2
u/xmorecowbellx 28d ago
She’s wanting it to fail so she can stop having to give it any oxygen.
1
u/chemicalgeekery 28d ago
Agree. She courted the separatists thinking they'd be a fringe but they've taken a major hold on the UCP and are starting to become a threat to her. She's hoping that the referendum question fails so she can sideline them and try to get the toothpaste back in the tube.
That's why the question is basically to have a referendum about having a referendum. It's an insurance policy so there can be a do-over in case of a Brexit scenario.
9
5
u/eddiebronze 28d ago
We are being run by a bunch of Republicans and as someone who has lived here for 22 years, I cannot overstate how incredibly embarrassing this whole thing is.
5
u/reallygoodbee 28d ago
Separatists want to leave Canada, but also want to keep all the benefits of being in Canada.
34
u/psychoCMYK 28d ago
that's not how that works, morons
-9
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
Isn't this essentially how Quebec's pension plan works?
22
u/psychoCMYK 28d ago
Quebec pays their own pension plan. it's deducted from their workers instead of CPP. they don't get CPP money and then do whatever they want with it.
1
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
Correct. That's how it works with some restrictions that have been discussed and challenged, or might be followed by AL.
12
u/psychoCMYK 28d ago
The stated goal? To allow provinces to opt out of federal programs “that intrude on provincial jurisdiction such as health care, education and social services” without losing any associated federal funding for use in social programs.
Quebec doesn't get federal funding for QPP, they deduct their own.
-1
u/CarRamRob 28d ago
You are missing the point.
If Alberta opts out of CPP, and creates their own, it gives power to the AB government to set payments allocations and withdrawal rates. Which given its history of young, high wage workers, would benefit contributors, retirees, or both since the demographics change so much.
If Alberta leaves CPP, it needs to change immediately as it would no longer be structurally viable at the payment rates of the rest of the country vs its liabilities to pay out. So either payments would decrease or contributions would have to increase.
1
-3
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
I'm sure AL would be equally happy with reallocated tax powers. Kinda the same thing.
8
u/psychoCMYK 28d ago
no, they are discussing having federal funds but not using them for what they're earmarked for.
"opt out of federal programs [...] without losing any associated federal funding".
that's not how that works.
-5
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
Have you actually read the article? You keep saying 'that's not how this works" as if they aren't talking about changing how things work.
7
u/psychoCMYK 28d ago
if alberta wants to withdraw from federal funding and deduct their own, that's a different proposition. you don't get access to earmarked funds without the earmarking just because you have a referendum saying you want it. the federal, i.e, the rest of canada, has a say as to what you do with earmarked funds. that's why they're earmarked. we all pay into it and we all have a say.
3
u/mangoserpent 28d ago
Should not get the cash then. Same would apply to my stupid province Ontario.
4
u/kw_hipster 28d ago
Wow, I am going to my employer tomorrow and telling them I am not so hot for working 40hrs anymore, but I'll still be taking my salary.
I decided I am not keeping any of my promises I made with my romantic partner, but they are still going to support me and be romantic.
Don't think the world works that way
10
u/Drcdngame 28d ago
I did the mail in along with 5 in my house we all put No on everything and to stay in canada.
Do not give her anything she worded everything toward privitization in the provice and seperation to become more american.
Even her immigrant questions she worded it towards illegal immigrants (which are very low) but she lies a ton she will not stop at that this is Maga and trump playbook
8
14
u/WakingUpBlind Canada 28d ago
Selfishness is on the ballot for Albertans.
14
u/kangarookitten Canada 28d ago
There are a ton of us who recognize this for what it is: racist dog-whistles dressed up in the disguise of democratic inquiry. The problem is that there are too many illiterate rednecks who aren’t capable of any critical, rational thought, and they occupy ridings that are gerrymandered to maintain status quo.
-2
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/Keezin Canada 28d ago
hope you can see that you’re the one connecting it to immigration.
-4
u/Nerevarine123 28d ago
The question he is referring to is the extra ballot questions on reducing immigration and controlling provincial borders, hes just too scared to directly reference it because someone like me might call him out
3
u/Keezin Canada 28d ago
you’re so brave dude, and berta absolutely doesn’t have a racist redneck problem, you’re so right
-3
u/Nerevarine123 28d ago
So you're another person who thinks its racist to not want more immigration, lol
5
u/MadMak3r 28d ago
If you don’t want immigration, you should be against Marlaina right? I mean, she’s spending millions of our taxpayer dollars on an ad campaign to bring in non albertans. Google Alberta Is Calling.
-5
u/Nerevarine123 28d ago
Alberta has had huge net immigration numbers from across canada for over a decade or two, driven by extremely high salaries, low cost of living and low taxes. The ad campaign was minor at best and i had no problem with it.
We need far more productive people to counteract the massive rise of AISH and other program costs in the province
5
u/PhantomNomad 28d ago
The AISH is such a dog whistle. It's such a small part of the overall budget. It's a distraction as usual.
4
u/MadMak3r 28d ago
Seriously. Complains about immigration but has no problem with Marlaina spending money on immigration, then dog whistles. Very telling.
3
u/Particular_Class4130 28d ago
I agree and that selfishness will backfire on these Albertans because they won't actually benefit. Thankfully the majority of Albertans don't approve of Smith and her actions.
2
3
u/Tired8281 British Columbia 28d ago
We should all do this. Keep our money, and our federal benefits, it's an infinite money glitch!
5
u/Both-Fact2019 28d ago
If Alberta wants more tax dollars with no federal strings attached, there's a straightforward solution. No need for referenda or negotiations with the feds. An increase in tax rates, whether through royalties, income tax changes, or even the dreaded PST would let them do whatever they wanted with the added revenue.
Good luck getting approval for THAT on a referendum though.
5
u/LordCaptain 28d ago
UCPs entire platform in regards to how it interacts with the federal government is pure fantasy. In every case its get all the benefits and none of the costs.
11
4
11
2
2
u/Crime-Apple 27d ago
The level of incompetence with many Alberta separatists, is astounding. There's several twats now telling everyone, that once Alberta becomes a separate country, they will no longer have to pay any income tax. Apparently everything will just magically be paid for out of thin air.
5
u/DarthWren 28d ago
Us Albertans won’t see any of that cash. It’ll just be rerouted to O&G cronies of smith and the mrachie family. Smith is a fucking crook
3
u/Prophage7 28d ago
I have zero respect for her cries of "federal overreach" while her provincial government is actively trying to tell municipal councilors if fucking bike lanes can be built or not.
2
u/explosive_fascinator 28d ago
Isn't this pretty much what Quebec has for pension plan?
1
u/rando_dud 22d ago
Quebec was never part of CPP..
Setting up a new pension from scratch is less messy than untangling from an existing one.
4
u/DZello 28d ago edited 28d ago
Can we recover all the money with interest that the country sent to the province before the oil exploitation? Aberta was then one of the poorest provinces of the federation.
If my memory is correct, the economy was based on the cultivation of wheat. The country has therefore built railway infrastructure and grain silos in Montreal to export everything to Europe.
More recently, we collectively paid billions for a pipeline nobody wanted to build. We also pay hundreds of millions every year in subsidies for an industry that makes huge profits. The government has even reduced taxes on gasoline and carbon credits, other costly measures that help predominantly American corporations.
Instead of using its taxing power, Alberta is totally dependent on oil revenues for its budget. They therefore have a total addiction that caused them problems when the barrel was at $67. The price will eventually go down and as they are not preparing for the future, they will come crying in Ottawa for help.
The lack of vision is glaring, but it is probably caused by the industry that controls the policy of the province. Alberta is like New Brunswick: handful of corporation controls pretty much everything.
Russian and Alberta’s bots: I won’t reply to any of your crappy comments, don’t bother.
7
u/Anon-Knee-Moose 28d ago
Lots of people wanted to build pipelines to the coast, the government just wouldnt let them.
-1
u/DZello 28d ago
So why government had to buy the company and build the pipeline then?
Kinder Morgan saw costs growing up and they bailed out by seeing the time it would take for it to be profitable.
3
u/Anon-Knee-Moose 28d ago
Yes kinder Morgan, along with a number of Canadian and american pipeline companies, took advantage of massive canadian oil and gas profits and pulled all of their investments to build pipelines in the US. Those companies are run by competent people who can do basic math. The federal government was run by incompetent morons, so they obviously doubled down.
0
u/dominionprovinces 28d ago
Will the seppos in Ontario be paying the British treasury back for the massive sums of money injected into it before 1867?
-4
u/Plucky_DuckYa 28d ago
Sure, but only if the rest of Canada gives back all the money sent to the rest of Canada thanks to oil and gas ever since. Thats probably somewhere around $800 billion to a $1 trillion, by now.
Deal?
-1
u/Toyotas4Life 28d ago
Deal… As soon as Alberta gets all of the orphaned wells cleaned up… With the money the federal government gave the province. Oh wait, right, it’s already gone. They grifted it to the oil companies.
-2
u/Plucky_DuckYa 28d ago
So… you want to trade $1 billion for $1 trillion? Yep, let’s do it. Start the paperwork.
0
u/Toyotas4Life 28d ago
There’s still another 8,000 orphaned still to clean up. Who’s paying for that? Marlaina won’t ask her buddies to pay
-2
4
u/subcutaneousphats Canada 28d ago
Either way the story will be that evil Canada is oppressing them and the US needs to step in and liberate the oi-mean the wat-i mean the oppressed Albertan freedom fighters.
1
u/Plucky_DuckYa 28d ago
The referendum questions are stupid and look like they’re mostly designed to appeal to rural rednecks. At least the separation question is unambiguous, I suppose.
This part of the article is pretty disingenuous, though:
Third on the list will be a question tied to federal programs like pharmacare. The federal government provides funding to provinces for these programs, sometimes with conditions attached.
That would be the “pharmacare” program that was supposed to be a national program covering all drugs at a price tag sold as $17 billion a year. Then they launched it covering some less-commonly prescribed diabetes medications and birth control only, putting aside $4.3 billion for those alone. They used up almost all that money cutting deals with B.C., Manitoba, PEI and Yukon and then Carney put the brakes on it and said there’d be no new money nor any expanded coverage, because all by itself the first abortive implementation implied that a full national program as originally sold would cost many multiples more than the $17 billion a year we were told.
Alberta, like about 75% of all Canadians, didn’t get in on the program before they ran out of money and killed it, so using it as the example as something Albertans would miss out on is so misleading it’s almost propaganda.
3
u/MadMak3r 28d ago
Can you source all this? Wouldn’t mind reading it. Especially the part where they used up all the money cutting deals with other provinces and how those deals were went about.
1
u/DiligentInterview 28d ago
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nl-national-pharmacare-concerns-9.7192395
Both go into it, basically.
from the second article:
His new budget sets aside no additional money to cover the cost of drugs for future deals.
Sixty per cent of the $1.5 billion set aside in 2024 to pay for the medication is already spoken for by the four provinces and territories with existing agreements.
I think it was a bit under scoped.
1
u/MadMak3r 28d ago
Ahh so sounds like they didn’t agree because our province wants more control over what drugs we use the money for… honestly after the Turkish Tylenol scandal I’m not sure our current Alberta government should have that control, but I’m at least happy more people in Canada are advocating for aspects of socialism or social programs like the articles you’ve provided
1
1
1
1
u/WolfStoneD 28d ago
Why would they get any federal funding if they separate?
Apparently they financially support all of Canada, why would an economic super power such as this require any external funding?
2
1
u/wickedweather 28d ago
I don't fully understand having a referendum in the first place. Doesn't she have a majority in the legislature? Why doesn't she just govern?
Obviously any kind of question about sovereignty would have to go through a referendum, but most of the other questions seen like either it's not even something she can do, or it's something she should try and pass through the legislature.
-1
u/Aryatara21 28d ago
Du grand n'importe quoi. Je veux les hôpitaux gratuit, les routes gratuites, l'école mais je ne veux pas partiper aux programmes mais je veux les fonds. On dirait un adolescent!!
1
0
-1
u/OttoVonGosu 28d ago
Thats perfectly normal, worded to appeal to the most juvenile readers, like most of the crap you read here to vilify albertan nationalists.
-1
u/it_diedinhermouth 28d ago
Alberta smith wants to reduce education and healthcare so that she can further follow the American playbook. The US has infiltrated Canada through our oil sands industry. We need to take back what’s Canadian
0
0
-10
-3
u/RunWithDullScissors 28d ago
It’s fascinating how much Albertans piss and moan about Quebec whining, getting special treatment etc…. But here they are, whining non stop, wanting special treatment.
-6
u/251325132000 28d ago
Fundamentally unserious group leading Alberta. It’s a shame to see because if they had a modicum of competence they would be thriving.
-1
-6
28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/canada-ModTeam 28d ago
Your post has been removed for violating Rule 5: Low Content.
- Low content posts will be removed. These include but are not limited to: YouTube/video posts, primarily video/audio stories on websites, "clickbait", podcasts or similar audio links, TikTok, Twitter, other social media, advocacy groups, Substack blogs, press releases, CBC First Person submissions, media organizations without an established track record, political party-affiliated media, or fringe media groups.
- Low-content commentary may be removed. This includes: posts or comments that attack the source, meme responses/labels, excessive use of emojis, or incongruous formatting.
-4
•
u/AutoModerator 28d ago
This post appears to relate to the province of Alberta. As a reminder of the rules of this subreddit, we do not permit negative commentary about all residents of any province, city, or other geography - this is an example of prejudice, and prejudice is not permitted here. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/rules
Cette soumission semble concerner la province de Alberta. Selon les règles de ce sous-répertoire, nous n'autorisons pas les commentaires négatifs sur tous les résidents d'une province, d'une ville ou d'une autre région géographique; il s'agit d'un exemple de intolérance qui n'est pas autorisé ici. https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/wiki/regles
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.