Alberta
Province has three scenarios for return to school in September. Final decision by August 1. Details

From the Province of Alberta
Getting ready for 2020-21 school year
A comprehensive re-entry plan for the upcoming school year allows schools and parents to prepare for learning while putting student and staff safety first.
The plan offers guidance on a wide range of operational issues including hygiene and health requirements, student learning, transportation and diploma exams. It also addresses mental health and psychological supports for students and staff.
School authorities will plan for all three scenarios for September:
- In-school classes resume (near normal operations with health measures)
- In-school classes partially resume with additional health measures
- At home learning continues (in-school classes are cancelled)
The preferred and likely scenario is that students will return to daily in-school classes at the beginning of the year. The government will share its final decision by Aug. 1 on which scenario will be in place at the beginning of the school year. However, school authorities are asked to prepare for implementing any of the three possibilities during the upcoming school year, including on short notice.
“We are providing clear direction and the certainty parents and the school system need to plan ahead and get ready for what the new school year may look like. We are hoping, and it is likely, students can return to daily classes at school while taking health precautions, but we have to prepare for all possibilities. I want to thank our education leaders, teachers and parents for their thoughtful contributions to this comprehensive plan.”
“This plan puts the interests of students and staff first. Educators, administrators, families, health professionals and government all need to work together to support a safe return to in-person classes. We continue to monitor the situation closely. The reality is, we must weigh the risk of prolonged school closures against the risk of COVID-19 outbreaks in closed settings, such as schools. A safe and successful school year will only be possible if we all work together.”
The re-entry plan balances the need for provincial standardized approaches in some areas while also providing flexibility and recognition of school authorities’ autonomy to address health guidelines in the most effective ways in their own communities.
Alberta Education worked closely with many education partners on the plan, including the Alberta School Boards Association, the Alberta Teachers’ Association, the College of Alberta School Superintendents, the Association of Independent Schools and Colleges in Alberta, The Association of Alberta Public Charter Schools, individual school authorities and the Alberta School Councils’ Association which compiled input from more than 66,000 parents.
“The Alberta School Councils’ Association is pleased that considerations for the safety of students and staff remain priorities throughout this detailed plan, along with the recognition that school authorities are best suited to making operational decisions directly impacting their local school communities. We look forward to ongoing work and communications with the ministry, as this is key for successful implementation and return to school.”
“Alberta’s teachers are looking forward to supporting our students as we transition into the 2020-21 school year. As our recent survey indicates, teachers are concerned about the health and safety of themselves, their colleagues and their students. We expect to work with government to strengthen and improve the plans for re-entry to ensure that schools can provide healthy and safe environments for teachers and students.”
“Supporting the health and safety of students and staff continues to be a top priority for the ASBA and all school boards. We appreciate government providing clarity, while ensuring flexibility and autonomy, as each of Alberta’s public, Catholic and Francophone boards face challenges within the context of their local communities. As the situation evolves, we will continue to collaborate with government and our members to adjust the plan in preparation for the upcoming school year.”
“The College of Alberta School Superintendents joins the province in its commitment to protecting the health and well-being of all students and staff as we transition to the 2020-21 school year. We appreciate the collaborative manner in which the re-entry plan has developed and are pleased that school divisions have been provided with the flexibility and authority to implement procedures beyond the plan that they deem necessary to ensure the safety of their learning environments.”
“We are deeply appreciative of the ongoing consultation with all educational partners by the Minister of Education and the ministry as a whole in these trying circumstances. Teachers and systems have responded to the pandemic with remarkable energy and ingenuity. The proactive, engaging leadership of our government continues to be essential for education to fulfil its vital role in Alberta through this critical time.”
“Our association appreciates the government’s collaborative approach in developing this re-entry plan. We remain committed to supporting our schools so that their staff and students can experience a safe and positive learning environment in the coming academic year.”
Public health guidance for schools
Return to in-school class learning may vary across the province and is dependent on the number of COVID-19 cases in the local area. School boards should develop their own COVID-19 plans under the applicable scenario and health guidelines prior to reopening.
Measures to reduce the risk – scenario 1 (in-school classes resume – near normal operations with health measures)
Cleaning
- Enhanced cleaning and disinfecting, including daily cleaning for all areas of the school, washrooms and high-touch surfaces cleaned several times a day or more as needed.
- Regularly scheduled deep cleaning when students are not present.
Student/staff hygiene and illness
- Routine screening for all staff and students.
- Strict stay-at-home policy for any students or staff exhibiting symptoms of COVID-19.
- Hand hygiene expectations when entering and exiting the school and classrooms, before and after eating.
- Continual reminders of the importance of respiratory etiquette (e.g., cover coughs and sneezes, avoid touching the face and disposal of used tissues promptly, followed by hand hygiene).
- Students who develop symptoms at school may be asked to wear a mask and isolate in a separate room until a parent arrives for pickup. If a separate room is not available, the student must be kept at least two metres away from other individuals.
Physical distancing and grouping
- When possible, practise some physical distancing as a good precaution to prevent the spread of disease.
- In classrooms, buses and during activities when physical distancing may not be possible, extra emphasis is put on other hygiene practices.
- Reorganization of rooms to allow for more physical space.
- Cohorting of students by class where possible.
- Guiding foot traffic flow through entrances and hallways by using markers on the floor or pylons/barriers.
- Avoiding large gatherings such as assemblies.
Masks
- Staff and students will not be mandated to wear masks.
- Masks may be considered in circumstances where there is prolonged close contact (greater than 15 minutes) and distance of two metres cannot be maintained.
- Masking is generally not recommended for younger students.
Shared items
- A no-sharing policy – all students should have their own supplies.
- Where sharing of equipment is required, the equipment should be cleaned between uses.
Cases of COVID-19 in a school
- The zone medical officer of health will work with school authorities on the rapid identification of cases through easily accessible testing, rapid close contact identification, and isolation measures when needed.
- The zone medical officer of health will also work with school authorities to provide follow-up recommendations and messaging for staff, parents and students.
- Alberta Health Services may request the school to close in-person classes to allow the public health investigation to take place.
- Each school authority will support students and staff to learn or work at home if they are required to self-isolate.
Measures to reduce the risk – scenario 2 (in-school classes partially resume with additional health measures)
The same considerations as scenario 1, with the following differences:
- A recommended maximum of 15 people in a classroom to allow for more consistent physical distancing.
- Students will attend school less regularly as school authorities will need to adjust their class schedule and configuration to meet the physical distancing requirement.
Non-COVID-19 operational highlights
- Any summer programming will follow scenario 2 of the re-entry plan and the associated public health measures.
- August diploma exams will proceed for students taking diploma courses this summer.
- For the 2020-21 school year, diploma exams will be held if the first or second scenarios are in place. In scenario 3, exams may be cancelled.
- Provincial achievement tests (PATs) for Grades 6 and 9 can be held in the first and second scenarios, but will be optional for school authorities to participate.
- If scenario 3 is in place at the beginning of the school year, the January PATs will be cancelled. May/June PATs may be cancelled based on the duration of at-home learning.
- School authorities can, as deemed appropriate at the local level, reduce time spent teaching non-core subjects to allow for additional instruction time on core subjects.
- School authorities must enable the full participation and inclusion of students with disabilities under each scenario and address any learning gaps from the 2019-20 school year.
- Mental health supports should be in place for students and staff.
This plan is part Alberta’s Relaunch Strategy to safely begin removing public health restrictions and reopen our economy. For more information, visit alberta.ca/RelaunchStrategy.
Alberta
‘Far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism’: Complaint filed against Globe and Mail article challenging Alberta’s gender surgery law

Macdonald Laurier Institute challenges Globe article on gender medicine
The complaint, now endorsed by 41 physicians, was filed in response to an article about Alberta’s law restricting gender surgery and hormones for minors.
On June 9, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute submitted a formal complaint to The Globe and Mail regarding its May 29 Morning Update by Danielle Groen, which reported on the Canadian Medical Association’s legal challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26.
Written by MLI Senior Fellow Mia Hughes and signed by 34 Canadian medical professionals at the time of submission to the Globe, the complaint stated that the Morning Update was misleading, ideologically slanted, and in violation the Globe’s own editorial standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance. It objected to the article’s repetition of discredited claims—that puberty blockers are reversible, that they “buy time to think,” and that denying access could lead to suicide—all assertions that have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.
Given the article’s reliance on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the complaint detailed the collapse of WPATH’s credibility, citing unsealed discovery documents from an Alabama court case and the Cass Review’s conclusion that WPATH’s guidelines—and those based on them—lack developmental rigour. It also noted the newsletter’s failure to mention the growing international shift away from paediatric medical transition in countries such as the UK, Sweden, and Finland. MLI called for the article to be corrected and urged the Globe to uphold its commitment to balanced, evidence-based journalism on this critical issue.
On June 18, Globe and Mail Standards Editor Sandra Martin responded, defending the article as a brief summary that provided a variety of links to offer further context. However, the three Globe and Mail news stories linked to in the article likewise lacked the necessary balance and context. Martin also pointed to a Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) statement linked to in the newsletter. She argued it provided “sufficient context and qualification”—despite the fact that the CPS itself relies on WPATH’s discredited guidelines. Notwithstanding, Martin claimed the article met editorial standards and that brevity justified the lack of balance.
MLI responded that brevity does not excuse misinformation, particularly on a matter as serious as paediatric medical care, and reiterated the need for the Globe to address the scientific inaccuracies directly. MLI again called for the article to be corrected and for the unsupported suicide claim to be removed. As of this writing, the Globe has not responded.
Letter of complaint
June 9, 2025
To: The Globe and Mail
Attn: Sandra Martin, standards editor
CC: Caroline Alphonso, health editor; Mark Iype, deputy national editor and Alberta bureau chief
To the editors;
Your May 29 Morning Update: The Politics of Care by Danielle Groen, covering the Canadian Medical Association’s legal challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26, was misleading and ideologically slanted. It is journalistically irresponsible to report on contested medical claims as undisputed fact.
This issue is far too serious for such uninformed, careless journalism lacking vital perspectives and scientific context. At stake is the health and future of vulnerable children, and your reporting risks misleading parents into consenting to irreversible interventions based on misinformation.
According to The Globe and Mail’s own Journalistic Principles outlined in its Editorial Code of Conduct, the credibility of your reporting rests on “solid research, clear, intelligent writing, and maintaining a reputation for honesty, accuracy, fairness, balance and transparency.” Moreover, your principles go on to state that The Globe will “seek to provide reasonable accounts of competing views in any controversy.” The May 29 update violated these principles. There is, as I will show, a widely available body of scientific information that directly contests the claims and perspectives presented in your article. Yet this information is completely absent from your reporting.
The collapse of WPATH’s credibility
The article’s claim that Alberta’s law “falls well outside established medical practice” and could pose the “greatest threat” to transgender youth is both false and inflammatory. There is no global medical consensus on how to treat gender-distressed young people. In fact, in North America, guidelines are based on the Standards of Care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)—an organization now indisputably shown to place ideology above evidence.
For example, in a U.S. legal case over Alabama’s youth transition ban, WPATH was forced to disclose over two million internal emails. These revealed the organization commissioned independent evidence reviews for its latest Standards of Care (SOC8)—then suppressed those reviews when they found overwhelmingly low-quality evidence. Yet WPATH proceeded to publish the SOC8 as if it were evidence-based. This is not science. It is fraudulent and unethical conduct.
These emails also showed Admiral Rachel Levine—then-assistant secretary for Health in the Biden administration—pressured WPATH to remove all lower age recommendations from the guidelines—not on scientific grounds, but to avoid undermining ongoing legal cases at the state level. This is politics, not sound medical practice.
The U.K.’s Cass Review, a major multi-year investigation, included a systematic review of the guidelines in gender medicine. A systematic review is considered the gold standard because it assesses and synthesizes all the available research in a field, thereby reducing bias and providing a large comprehensive set of data upon which to reach findings. The systematic review of gender medicine guidelines concluded that WPATH’s standards of care “lack developmental rigour” and should not be used as a basis for clinical practice. The Cass Review also exposed citation laundering where medical associations endlessly recycled weak evidence across interlocking guidelines to fabricate a false consensus. This led Cass to suggest that “the circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.”
Countries like Sweden, Finland, and the U.K. have now abandoned WPATH and limited or halted medicalized youth transitions in favour of a therapy-first approach. In Norway, UKOM, an independent government health agency, has made similar recommendations. This shows the direction of global practice is moving away from WPATH’s medicalized approach—not toward it. As part of any serious effort to “provide reasonable accounts of competing views,” your reporting should acknowledge these developments.
Any journalist who cites WPATH as a credible authority on paediatric gender medicine—especially in the absence of contextualizing or competing views—signals a lack of due diligence and a fundamental misunderstanding of the field. It demonstrates that either no independent research was undertaken, or it was ignored despite your editorial standards.
Puberty blockers don’t ‘buy time’ and are not reversible
Your article repeats a widely debunked claim: that puberty blockers are a harmless pause to allow young people time to explore their identity. In fact, studies have consistently shown that between 98 per cent and 100 per cent of children placed on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones. Before puberty blockers, most children desisted and reconciled with their birth sex during or after puberty. Now, virtually none do.
This strongly suggests that blocking puberty in fact prevents the natural resolution of gender distress. Therefore, the most accurate and up-to-date understanding is that puberty blockers function not as a pause, but as the first step in a treatment continuum involving irreversible cross-sex hormones. Indeed, a 2022 paper found that while puberty suppression had been “justified by claims that it was reversible … these claims are increasingly implausible.” Again, adherence to the Globe’s own editorial guidelines would require, at minimum, the acknowledgement of the above findings alongside the claims your May 29 article makes.
Moreover, it is categorically false to describe puberty blockers as “completely reversible.” Besides locking youth into a pathway of further medicalization, puberty blockers pose serious physical risks: loss of bone density, impaired sexual development, stunted fertility, and psychosocial harm from being developmentally out of sync with peers. There are no long-term safety studies. These drugs are being prescribed to children despite glaring gaps in our understanding of their long-term effects.
Given the Globe’s stated editorial commitment to principles such as “accuracy,” the crucial information from the studies linked above should be provided in any article discussing puberty blockers. At a bare minimum, in adherence to the Globe’s commitment to “balance,” this information should be included alongside the contentious and disputed claims the article makes that these treatments are reversible.
No proof of suicide prevention
The most irresponsible and dangerous claim in your article is that denying access to puberty blockers could lead to “depression, self-harm and suicide.” There is no robust evidence supporting this transition-or-suicide narrative, and in fact, the findings of the highest-quality study conducted to date found no evidence that puberty suppression reduces suicide risk.
Suicide is complex and attributing it to a single cause is not only false—it violates all established suicide reporting guidelines. Sensationalized claims like this risk creating contagion effects and fuelling panic. In the public interest, reporting on the topic of suicide must be held to the most rigorous standards, and provide the most high-quality and accurate information.
Euphemism hides medical harm
Your use of euphemistic language obscures the extreme nature of the medical interventions being performed in gender clinics. Calling double mastectomies for teenage girls “paediatric breast surgeries for gender-affirming reasons” sanitizes the medically unnecessary removal of a child’s healthy organs. Referring to phalloplasty and vaginoplasty as “gender-affirming surgeries on lower body parts” conceals the fact that these are extreme operations involving permanent disfigurement, high complication rates, and often requiring multiple revisions.
Honest journalism should not hide these facts behind comforting language. Your reporting denies youth, their parents, and the general public the necessary information to understand the nature of these interventions. Members of the general public rely greatly on the news media to equip them with such information, and your own editorial standards claim you will fulfill this core responsibility.
Your responsibility to the public
As a flagship Canadian news outlet, your responsibility is not to amplify activist messaging, but to report the truth with integrity. On a subject as medically and ethically fraught as paediatric gender medicine, accuracy is not optional. The public depends on you to scrutinize claims, not echo ideology. Parents may make irreversible decisions on behalf of their children based on the narratives you promote. When reporting is false or ideologically distorted, the cost is measured in real-world harm to some of our society’s most vulnerable young people.
I encourage the Globe and Mail to publish an updated version on this article in order to correct the public record with the relevant information discussed above, and to modify your reporting practices on this matter going forward—by meeting your own journalistic standards—so that the public receives balanced, correct, and reliable information on this vital topic.
Trustworthy journalism is a cornerstone of public health—and on the issue of paediatric gender medicine, the stakes could not be higher.
Sincerely,
Mia Hughes
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Author of The WPATH Files
The following 41 physicians have signed to endorse this letter:
Dr. Mike Ackermann, MD
Dr. Duncan Veasey, Psy MD
Dr. Rick Gibson, MD
Dr. Benjamin Turner, MD, FRCSC
Dr. J.N. Mahy, MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Khai T. Phan, MD, CCFP
Dr. Martha Fulford, MD
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Darrell Palmer, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Jane Cassie, MD, FRCPC
Dr. David Lowen, MD, FCFP
Dr. Shawn Whatley, MD, FCFP (EM)
Dr. David Zitner, MD
Dr. Leonora Regenstreif, MD, CCFP(AM), FCFP
Dr. Gregory Chan, MD
Dr. Alanna Fitzpatrick, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Chris Millburn, MD, CCFP
Dr. Julie Curwin, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Roy Eappen, MD, MDCM, FRCP (c)
Dr. York N. Hsiang, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Dion Davidson, MD, FRCSC, FACS
Dr. Kevin Sclater, MD, CCFP (PC)
Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak, MB, ChB, DRCOG
Dr. Sofia Bayfield, MD, CCFP
Dr. Elizabeth Henry, MD, CCFP
Dr. Stephen Malthouse, MD
Dr. Darrell Hamm, MD, CCFP
Dr. Dale Classen, MD, FRCSC
Dr. Adam T. Gorner, MD, CCFP
Dr. Wesley B. Steed, MD
Dr. Timothy Ehmann, MD, FRCPC
Dr. Ryan Torrie, MD
Dr. Zachary Heinricks, MD, CCFP
Dr. Jessica Shintani, MD, CCFP
Dr. Mark D’Souza, MD, CCFP(EM), FCFP*
Dr. Joanne Sinai, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. Jane Batt, MD*
Dr. Brent McGrath, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. Leslie MacMillan MD FRCPC (emeritus)*
Dr. Ian Mitchell, MD, FRCPC*
Dr. John Cunnington, MD
*Indicates physician who signed following the letter’s June 9 submission to the Globe and Mail, but in advance of this letter being published on the MLI website.
Alberta
COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada

Fr0m Energy Now
As Calgarians take a break from the incessant news of tariff threat deadlines and global economic challenges to celebrate the annual Stampede, Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre gave them even more to celebrate.
Poilievre returned to Calgary, his hometown, to outline his plan to amplify the legitimate demands of Western Canada and not only fight for oil and gas, but also fight for the interests of farmers, for low taxes, for decentralization, a stronger military and a smaller federal government.
Speaking at the annual Conservative party BBQ at Heritage Park in Calgary (a place Poilievre often visited on school trips growing up), he was reminded of the challenges his family experienced during the years when Trudeau senior was Prime Minister and the disastrous effect of his economic policies.
“I was born in ’79,” Poilievre said. “and only a few years later, Pierre Elliott Trudeau would attack our province with the National Energy Program. There are still a few that remember it. At the same time, he hammered the entire country with money printing deficits that gave us the worst inflation and interest rates in our history. Our family actually lost our home, and we had to scrimp and save and get help from extended family in order to get our little place in Shaughnessy, which my mother still lives in.”
This very personal story resonated with many in the crowd who are now experiencing an affordability crisis that leaves families struggling and young adults unable to afford their first house or condo. Poilievre said that the experience was a powerful motivator for his entry into politics. He wasted no time in proposing a solution – build alliances with other provinces with mutual interests, and he emphasized the importance of advocating for provincial needs.
“Let’s build an alliance with British Columbians who want to ship liquefied natural gas out of the Pacific Coast to Asia, and with Saskatchewanians, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who want to develop their oil and gas and aren’t interested in having anyone in Ottawa cap how much they can produce. Let’s build alliances with Manitobans who want to ship oil in the port of Churchill… with Quebec and other provinces that want to decentralize our country and get Ottawa out of our business so that provinces and people can make their own decisions.”
Poilievre heavily criticized the federal government’s spending and policies of the last decade, including the increase in government costs, and he highlighted the negative impact of those policies on economic stability and warned of the dangers of high inflation and debt. He advocated strongly for a free-market economy, advocating for less government intervention, where businesses compete to impress customers rather than impress politicians. He also addressed the decade-long practice of blocking and then subsidizing certain industries. Poilievre referred to a famous quote from Ronald Reagan as the modus operandi of the current federal regime.
“The Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If anything moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
The practice of blocking and then subsidizing is merely a ploy to grab power, according to Poilievre, making industry far too reliant on government control.
“By blocking you from doing something and then making you ask the government to help you do it, it makes you reliant. It puts them at the center of all power, and that is their mission…a full government takeover of our economy. There’s a core difference between an economy controlled by the government and one controlled by the free market. Businesses have to clamour to please politicians and bureaucrats. In a free market (which we favour), businesses clamour to impress customers. The idea is to put people in charge of their economic lives by letting them have free exchange of work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest.”
Poilievre also said he plans to oppose any ban on gas-powered vehicles, saying, “You should be in the driver’s seat and have the freedom to decide.” This is in reference to the Trudeau-era plan to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, which the Carney government has said they have no intention to change, even though automakers are indicating that the targets cannot be met. He also intends to oppose the Industrial Carbon tax, Bill C-69 the Impact Assessment Act, Bill C-48 the Oil tanker ban, the proposed emissions cap which will cap energy production, as well as the single-use plastics ban and Bill C-11, also known as the Online Streaming Act and the proposed “Online Harms Act,” also known as Bill C-63. Poilievre closed with rallying thoughts that had a distinctive Western flavour.
“Fighting for these values is never easy. Change, as we’ve seen, is not easy. Nothing worth doing is easy… Making Alberta was hard. Making Canada, the country we love, was even harder. But we don’t back down, and we don’t run away. When things get hard, we dust ourselves off, we get back in the saddle, and we gallop forward to the fight.”
Cowboy up, Mr. Poilievre.
Maureen McCall is an energy professional who writes on issues affecting the energy industry.
-
Alberta2 days ago
COWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada
-
MAiD1 day ago
Canada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse
-
Crime2 days ago
Eyebrows Raise as Karoline Leavitt Answers Tough Questions About Epstein
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta and Ontario sign agreements to drive oil and gas pipelines, energy corridors, and repeal investment blocking federal policies
-
Fraser Institute24 hours ago
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million from 2016 to 2024
-
Censorship Industrial Complex13 hours ago
Canadian pro-freedom group sounds alarm over Liberal plans to revive internet censorship bill
-
Daily Caller1 day ago
‘I Know How These People Operate’: Fmr CIA Officer Calls BS On FBI’s New Epstein Intel
-
International2 days ago
Chicago suburb purchases childhood home of Pope Leo XIV