Premier Danielle Smith responded to some heated questions on federal equalization payments and other topics at the Alberta Next town hall in Lethbridge on Thursday night, where critics accused her government of misrepresenting the agenda and fuelling “grievance politics.”One attendee challenged Smith, calling the panel’s video on equalization “incredibly hypocritical and kind of propagandistic.”“It really misrepresents how equalization even works and ignores the fact that a big part of the reason why we do not get equalization payments is just the fact that we refuse to adopt similar tax policies to other provinces,” the attendee said.She accused Smith and her government of refusing federal funding for things such as “pharmacare, dental care, and housing initiatives” and then turning around and saying, “the federal government doesn't want to give us any money. It's just hypocritical.”Smith defended her government’s stance, arguing the equalization formula has been left untouched for nearly twenty years.She said that provinces such as Quebec have also benefited from keeping natural gas in the ground, citing former premier Pauline Marois’s comments that resource development could reduce equalization payments..Alberta Next panel floats equalization and senate reform in Lloydminster .An audience member also raised concerns about the government’s approach to a potential Alberta Pension Plan (APP), questioning the premier on whether Albertans were misled during the last election.She asked Smith if Albertans would have the chance to vote on the government’s current pension strategy.Smith responded by saying the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) has changed significantly since its early days and pointed to ballooning management costs as one of the reasons for the system’s declining performance. She then stressed that Albertans would not lose existing benefits if the province were to create its own plan.Another question came up regarding Alberta’s role in treaty obligations and the representation of First Nations, with one local resident saying that the numbered treaties were signed by the British Crown, with both the federal and provincial governments holding responsibility as representatives.The attendee said that the federal government has not always fulfilled its duties and may not provide adequate funding in the future and asked if the provincial government would become the sole representative if Alberta sovereignty were to become a reality.Smith pointed to the province’s existing relationship with Métis communities, while emphasizing that First Nations’ still have a primary relationship with Ottawa.“Alberta had a special relationship with Métis nations, and part of that was that the Métis had the choice of if they wanted their principal relationship to be with the federal government or if they wanted it to be with the provincial government, and they chose the provincial government,” Smith said.“We're building recovery communities on reserves... We fund employment services... We want to play a role as an advocate. But again, it's up to the nations, because they are sovereign.”.Alberta Next panel discusses pensions, immigration, and federal policies in Fort Mac.Panelist Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council of Canada, added that treaties pre-date Alberta itself and should not be misinterpreted as part of an independence debate.Buffalo noted that treaties continue to bring financial benefits to local communities, pointing to Lethbridge as a beneficiary of Blood Tribe spending.He added that the province has made progress in creating economic opportunities for First Nations, highlighting the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation.“The province and the Premier have done well in bridging gaps, and now it’s about continuing to work together in a good way,” he said.On the agriculture and supply management front, Lindsay Van Essen, daughter of Henk Van Essen, a small-scale egg producer arrested earlier this year over alleged quota disputes, criticized the federal supply management system.“Since its inception in the 1970s, the number of laying hens a small-time producer can have without requiring quota in Alberta has not increased,” she said.“So while the population has [grown], we have not seen that. I know we have no support from Ottawa, but I think it is worth reviewing and updating supply management and quota regulations at the provincial level to ensure the most robust and competitive regulations in Canada, challenging the monopolies that have subsequently been created.”Panelist Melody Garner-Skiba addressed the issue and extended it to broader food supply issues in Alberta, connecting them to federal policies, saying there are mechanisms to regularly review supply management.“I think what’s important for us to all realize is agriculture is a shared constitutional jurisdiction, but the province’s desires are supposed to override,” she said.Garner-Skiba feels that decreased research funding has put Canada behind the eight-ball, and “farmers and ranchers can’t access risk management programs unless they meet certain environmental requirements,” which she says drives up input costs and production, “which in turn raises food prices.”She emphasized Alberta’s role as a food-producing province, saying, “we all talk about oil and gas [but] southern Alberta feeds people. That’s our priority.”“We need to take back the power and make it work for Albertans so we can feed Albertans and feed Canadians.”The Alberta Next panel will be continuing its tour across the province in Airdrie on Sept. 15.
