Ah, got it!

I think there are a couple of different ways to approach this question. We can either focus on the current government structure and legal framework, or we can explore it more philosophically, how we believe things should work.

Given that we’re in the middle of an election cycle, I’m choosing to look at it through the lens of our current system, not from an idealistic standpoint, if that makes sense.

In Canada, healthcare is universal and primarily a provincial responsibility. The federal government contributes through transfer payments, ensures provinces meet national standards, and regulates new treatments. Meanwhile, provincial governments manage the actual delivery of care, administer health insurance plans, oversee budgets and resource allocation, and license healthcare providers.

So when the federal Liberal leader says he would overturn a provincial regulation on youth transitioning, I see that as top-down interference. In Alberta, a strong majority supports the regulation. For the federal government to override that is, in my view, an example of overbearing control.

If healthcare weren’t universal and taxpayer-funded, we could have a different conversation. But under the current system, where my time, energy, and resources are taken through taxation to fund healthcare, I believe I should have some say in how those funds are used. Being compelled to contribute to something I fundamentally disagree with, especially when it involves children, is to me, a clear overstep of government authority.

The counter argument to my point, I'm assuming, from the Federal government's view, is that they are protection a minority's (trans-youth) constitutional rights.

Universal healthcare should be universal, therefore if Alberta is the only province with such laws, it makes it so that care is different across the nation, therefore not universal.

From their perspective, federal involvement isn’t government overreach, it’s a safeguard against provincial overreach.