联合保守党政府将继续推进其退出联邦牙科和药品福利计划、转而采用阿尔伯塔省自建方案的计划，尽管选民在上周的全民公投中否决了类似策略。
The United Conservative Party government will press ahead with its plan to opt out of federal dental and drug benefit programs in favour of its own made-in-Alberta approach, even though voters rejected a similar strategy in last week's referendum.
自2024年以来，阿尔伯塔省一直寻求在加拿大牙科保健计划（CDCP）和全国药品保健计划上走自己的路。省政府主张，它应当获得属于自己的那部分联邦资金，以便按自己的意愿重塑相关计划。
Alberta has been looking to go its own way on the Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP) and the national pharmacare program since 2024. The provincial government has argued that it should receive its share of federal funding in order to reshape programs as it sees fit.
上周，阿尔伯塔省民众在全民公投中被问及，是否认为该省应牵头推动广泛修宪，使各省能够退出联邦计划，同时将渥太华的资金用于本省项目，从而确立一项一揽子退出规则。但选民否决了联合保守党的这一提案，57%的选民投了反对票。
Last week, Albertans were asked in a referendum if they thought the province should lead a broad push to amend the Constitution so provinces could opt out of federal programs while using Ottawa’s cash for its own, establishing a blanket opt-out rule. But voters rejected the UCP proposal, with 57 per cent of voters saying no.
尽管结果如此，一名政府发言人表示，阿尔伯塔省计划在牙科和药品保健这两个备受关注的政策领域继续推进。
Despite the result, a government spokesperson said Alberta plans to move forward on those two high-profile policy fronts of dental and pharmacare.
医院与外科健康服务部新闻秘书麦迪逊·麦基在一份声明中写道：“阿尔伯塔省将继续呼吁联邦政府提供可预测、可持续、无条件的卫生资金，并尊重省级管辖权。”
“Alberta will continue to call on the federal government for predictable, sustainable, unconditional health funding that respects provincial jurisdiction,” wrote Maddison McKee, press secretary for the Ministry of Hospital and Surgical Health Services, in a statement.
“我们的政府将继续争取阿尔伯塔省应得的联邦资金份额，以加强我们全面的牙科和药品计划。”该省此前曾表示，将在2026年前在加拿大牙科保健计划上走独立路线。麦基没有立即回应置评请求，该请求希望了解有关最新时间表的更多细节。
“Our government will continue advocating for Alberta’s fair share of federal funding to strengthen our comprehensive dental and drug programs.”The province previously said it would pursue an independent path on the CDCP by 2026. McKee did not immediately respond to a request for comment looking for more details about an updated timeline.
联邦政府的数据显示，截至9月30日，已有34.9万名阿尔伯塔省民众注册参加2026-2027福利年度的加拿大牙科保健计划，其中9.1万人的报销申请已获批准。
As of Sept. 30, there were 349,000 Albertans enrolled in the CDCP for the 2026-2027 benefit period, 91,000 of whom had received an approved claim, according to the federal government.
否决普遍退出规则 从本质上看，这项公投提议改变所谓的宪法支出权。如果投“赞成”票，阿尔伯塔省将必须获得议会以及至少七个省（其人口总和至少占加拿大人口一半）的支持，才能修改宪法。
Rejected universal opt-out rule In essence, the referendum proposed a change to what’s known as constitutional spending power. In the event of a “yes” vote, Alberta would have had to get the support of Parliament and at least seven provinces representing at least half of Canada’s population in order to change the Constitution.
解析阿尔伯塔省宪法公投问题 阿尔伯塔省等省级政府认为，渥太华经常对转移支付资金附加条件，从而干预省级管辖领域。
Breaking down Alberta's Constitutional referendum questions Governments like Alberta have argued that Ottawa often imposes conditions on transfer funds and in doing so intrudes into areas of provincial jurisdiction.
在投票前接受CBC新闻采访的宪法专家指出，学者们对这一安排持不同观点。一些人认为阿尔伯塔省在此事上有道理，主张支出权违宪，或可能在未来引发诉讼。任何宪法修正案都难上加难。
Constitutional experts who spoke to CBC News before the vote noted scholars take different perspectives on this arrangement. Some said Alberta had a point on the matter, arguing that the spending power is unconstitutional or that it could be open to future litigation. Any constitutional amendment would be a steep hill to climb.
但渥太华大学政治学家安德烈·勒库尔认为，将这张选票问题单纯视为宪法问题“总是具有误导性”，他的研究聚焦联邦制。
But viewing this ballot question solely as a constitutional question was “always misleading,” in the view of André Lecours, a University of Ottawa political scientist whose research focuses on federalism.
“这个问题实际上关乎加拿大联邦制如何运作，”他说，并补充称，该问题的失败“是所有问题中最有趣、最令人惊讶，也许也是最重要的”。“在魁北克，这绝对是板上钉钉的事，”他说。
“That question is really about how federalism works in Canada,” he said, adding that its failing was “the most interesting, surprising and maybe important” of them all. “Certainly in Quebec, this is an absolute gimme,” he said.
勒库尔表示，从形式上看，该问题的失败并不妨碍省级政府退出新近设立的联邦项目。阿尔伯塔省仍可指出该问题大约五五开，或指出该问题涉及一般原则而非具体政策。
Formally, the question failing doesn’t prevent the provincial government from withdrawing from recently-created federal programs, Lecours said. Alberta could still point to a roughly 50-50 split on the question or note that the question dealt with a general principle rather than specific policies.
省级政府今天如果不喜欢附加条件，可以拒绝联邦资金。但如果两级政府无法达成协议，可能意味着放弃资金。
Provinces can reject federal money today if they don’t like the conditions attached. But if the two levels of government can’t come to an agreement, that can mean leaving money behind.
“看看联邦政府想如何处理会很有趣。它是否想拿出第8号问题的结果来说，‘看，我不确定你们这样做是否具有很强的合法性？’”他说。
“It will be interesting to see how the federal government wants to play it. Does it want to bring up the result on Question 8 to say, ‘Look. I’m not sure that you have a great legitimacy to do this?’” he said.
接下来的谈判 加拿大药品保险计划（CDCP）当然是一项联邦保险计划——加拿大人可以选择加入或退出——而国家药品保险计划是一个自愿加入的项目，卡尔加里大学卡明医学院健康政策中心主任菲奥娜·克莱门特指出。
Negotiations to come The CDCP, of course, is a federal insurance plan — Canadians opt in or opt out — while the national pharmacare program is an opt-in program, noted Fiona Clement, director of the Centre for Health Policy at the University of Calgary's Cumming School of Medicine.
这意味着这项投票问题不会对这些项目产生直接影响。但克莱门特指出，更多的辩论即将到来，包括关于联邦医疗保健协议的辩论。
It means that this ballot question wouldn’t have had an immediate impact on those programs. But Clement noted that more debates are on the horizon, including around federal health-care agreements.
“我真正希望这能实现的是，让各级政府能够着手开展我们需要完成的艰苦工作，”克莱门特说。
“What I really hope this enables is the ability for the different levels of government to get on with the hard work that we need to do,” Clement said.
阿尔伯塔大学宪法学教授杰拉德·肯尼迪表示，省政府的言论表明，他们将继续推进自己的优先事项以及对省级管辖权的看法。但他们这样做时手段较弱，他说。
Gerard Kennedy, a constitutional law professor at the University of Alberta, said the provincial government’s comments signal they are going to continue to pursue their priorities and their views on provincial jurisdiction. But they do so with a weaker hand, he said.
“我们投了‘反对票’这一事实，可能意味着联邦政府从政治角度感到特别有底气，可以说‘不，’”他说。
“The fact that we voted ‘no’ probably means the federal government, from a political perspective, feels particularly strong in saying ‘no,’” he said.