Alberta
Canadians owe a debt to Premier Danielle Smith
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
In recent days, Premier Smith has endured criticism from many people about her recent announcements relating to treatments for what is often described as gender transition.
Instead, she deserves praise for decisions that are as important for how they were made as for the gender transition issues that concern her and her colleagues. Her actions on this matter demonstrate how public policy should be developed and explained.
The most important quality of the recent policy announcements by the Alberta government is that they are evidence based.
There is an emerging consensus outside Canada that the evidence supporting pharmacological and surgical procedures to change genders in minors is either very weak or nonexistent.
Sweden, Finland, the UK and Norway have restricted or forbidden the use of these treatments on minors, as have twenty-three American states. Ms. Smith referred to these in her press conference announcing the changes her government is making.
Leaders in other countries have done this after conducting detailed studies including one by the UK High Court of Justice and another by Dr. Hilary Cass, a former President of the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health in the United Kingdom
Dr. Cass is an independent expert commissioned to provide advice to the National Health Service on gender treatments. She concluded that “evidence on the appropriate management of children with gender incongruence is inconclusive both nationally and internationally’’.
The second reason the decisions taken by Alberta are important is that they were taken despite ideology advocated by the Government of Canada and the unwillingness of federal officials including the Prime Minster to support their opposition to the Alberta policies with any evidence.
In his initial comments, the Prime Minister made no reference to any of the many studies that have been done describing the dangers of pharmacological and surgical procedures to change the gender of minor children.
He also displayed no understanding of the experiences of other countries on this matter. He did not refer to the Cass report and its seminal conclusions.
The comments by Federal Health Minister Mark Holland lacked any evidence the public could use. He also used offensive rhetoric.
Mr. Holland described the Alberta decisions as being behaviour that is “extremely dangerous to engage in …. which is, I think, playing politics about children’s lives.” He also referred to the “devastation that its going to bring”, referring to the Alberta changes.
Federal communications marked by a factual vacuum and excessive language are not going to help resolve serious differences of opinion on serious issues. They are also not condusive to good relations between the federal government and an important province.
The third and particularly significant reason the recent changes announced by the Alberta government are so important is that they will protect children.
Adolescence, a phase of child development that has been with us for thousands of years, is an important part of everyone’s life.
It is a vital part of what it means to be human. Delaying or blocking it is dangerous, something that many observers have noted but that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health do not recognize.
Federal leaders need to inform themselves, particularly about the negative impact of puberty blockers on bone and brain development and the lifelong medical attention many transitioners will need because of the pharmacological and surgical procedures used on them to change genders.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health should also learn about the increasingly large number of transitioners who regret their transition and later seek to reverse it. Their situation is particularly tragic because many of the negative consequences of changing genders in children cannot be reversed.
Federal leaders also support hiding from parents the decisions children make in schools about the pronouns they use to describe their genders. This is another practice that many feel is harmful and divisive.
The federal perspective on this is unreasonable.
Our species survived over the centuries because the first priority for most parents is their children and most take good care of them.
There is no basis for a lack of trust in them and in the relatively few cases where parents do not provide appropriate care, the child protection laws come into play.
It is particularly important that federal leaders recognize the grave problems that puberty blockers and related surgeries often pose for children who are gays or lesbians.
These children sometimes display some of the attributes of the opposite sex as they grow, and these are often misinterpreted as gender dysphoria. They then get treated for a problem they don’t have, with serious lifelong consequences.
Unfortunately, this happens in many Canadian pediatric hospitals.
There is nothing wrong with these children. They should be allowed to develop and grow in their own way and be who they are. That means no puberty blockers or surgeries to change them.
The fourth reason to respect the new directions on gender issues Ms. Smith and her colleagues have decided upon is the moderation displayed by the Alberta government in putting them forward and communicating with the public about them.
The language used has been understated. The changes are lawful in every respect including in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedom and other legislation.
The evidence has been clearly presented in a way most citizens can readily understand and great care has been taken to deal with those who may have concerns thoughtfully, including allowing time for debate and discussion before the changes are made.
This is a good example of how governments should behave. Federal leaders should show some respect for the approaches taken by Ms. Smith and her colleagues as they dealt with a very complex issue.
The final reason for the importance of the Alberta approach is that it has avoided many of the problems associated with medical practice standards and regulation that are so evident in Canada and which have been a major cause of the difficulties our country faces on gender issues.
Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and many regulators elsewhere regulate doctors based largely on prevailing practices by physicians rather than clinical outcomes.
This means that there have been many cases over the years, in Canada and elsewhere, where evidence to support medical procedures has been lacking. Current practices toward gender dysphoria in Canada and some US states are examples.
In these cases, if something is done often enough by enough doctors, that procedure becomes the standard and not clinical outcomes. This often leads to perverse outcomes that everyone ultimately regrets.
In the years to come, unless we change course soon and unless others follow the Alberta path, people will be wondering how the problems summarized in this article developed and why we damaged so many children by an approach defined more by ideology than factual reality.
David MacKinnon is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Alberta
Premier Smith: Canadians support agreement between Alberta and Ottawa and the major economic opportunities it could unlock for the benefit of all
From Energy Now
By Premier Danielle Smith
Get the Latest Canadian Focused Energy News Delivered to You! It’s FREE: Quick Sign-Up Here
If Canada wants to lead global energy security efforts, build out sovereign AI infrastructure, increase funding to social programs and national defence and expand trade to new markets, we must unleash the full potential of our vast natural resources and embrace our role as a global energy superpower.
The Alberta-Ottawa Energy agreement is the first step in accomplishing all of these critical objectives.
Recent polling shows that a majority of Canadians are supportive of this agreement and the major economic opportunities it could unlock for the benefit of all Canadians.
As a nation we must embrace two important realities: First, global demand for oil is increasing and second, Canada needs to generate more revenue to address its fiscal challenges.
Nations around the world — including Korea, Japan, India, Taiwan and China in Asia as well as various European nations — continue to ask for Canadian energy. We are perfectly positioned to meet those needs and lead global energy security efforts.
Our heavy oil is not only abundant, it’s responsibly developed, geopolitically stable and backed by decades of proven supply.
If we want to pay down our debt, increase funding to social programs and meet our NATO defence spending commitments, then we need to generate more revenue. And the best way to do so is to leverage our vast natural resources.
At today’s prices, Alberta’s proven oil and gas reserves represent trillions in value.
It’s not just a number; it’s a generational opportunity for Alberta and Canada to secure prosperity and invest in the future of our communities. But to unlock the full potential of this resource, we need the infrastructure to match our ambition.
There is one nation-building project that stands above all others in its ability to deliver economic benefits to Canada — a new bitumen pipeline to Asian markets.
The energy agreement signed on Nov. 27 includes a clear path to the construction of a one-million-plus barrel-per-day bitumen pipeline, with Indigenous co-ownership, that can ensure our province and country are no longer dependent on just one customer to buy our most valuable resource.
Indigenous co-ownership also provide millions in revenue to communities along the route of the project to the northwest coast, contributing toward long-lasting prosperity for their people.
The agreement also recognizes that we can increase oil and gas production while reducing our emissions.
The removal of the oil and gas emissions cap will allow our energy producers to grow and thrive again and the suspension of the federal net-zero power regulations in Alberta will open to doors to major AI data-centre investment.
It also means that Alberta will be a world leader in the development and implementation of emissions-reduction infrastructure — particularly in carbon capture utilization and storage.
The agreement will see Alberta work together with our federal partners and the Pathways companies to commence and complete the world’s largest carbon capture, utilization and storage infrastructure project.
This would make Alberta heavy oil the lowest intensity barrel on the market and displace millions of barrels of heavier-emitting fuels around the globe.
We’re sending a clear message to investors across the world: Alberta and Canada are leaders, not just in oil and gas, but in the innovation and technologies that are cutting per barrel emissions even as we ramp up production.
Where we are going — and where we intend to go with more frequency — is east, west, north and south, across oceans and around the globe. We have the energy other countries need, and will continue to need, for decades to come.
However, this agreement is just the first step in this journey. There is much hard work ahead of us. Trust must be built and earned in this partnership as we move through the next steps of this process.
But it’s very encouraging that Prime Minister Mark Carney has made it clear he is willing to work with Alberta’s government to accomplish our shared goal of making Canada an energy superpower.
That is something we have not seen from a Canadian prime minister in more than a decade.
Together, in good faith, Alberta and Ottawa have taken the first step towards making Canada a global energy superpower for benefit of all Canadians.
Danielle Smith is the Premier of Alberta
Alberta
A Memorandum of Understanding that no Canadian can understand
From the Fraser Institute
The federal and Alberta governments recently released their much-anticipated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining what it will take to build a pipeline from Alberta, through British Columbia, to tidewater to get more of our oil to markets beyond the United States.
This was great news, according to most in the media: “Ottawa-Alberta deal clears hurdles for West Coast pipeline,” was the top headline on the Globe and Mail’s website, “Carney inks new energy deal with Alberta, paving way to new pipeline” according to the National Post.
And the reaction from the political class? Well, former federal environment minister Steven Guilbeault resigned from Prime Minister Carney’s cabinet, perhaps positively indicating that this agreement might actually produce a new pipeline. Jason Kenney, a former Alberta premier and Harper government cabinet minister, congratulated Prime Minister Carney and Premier Smith on an “historic agreement.” Even Alberta NDP Leader Naheed Nenshi called the MOU “a positive step for our energy future.”
Finally, as Prime Minister Carney promised, Canada might build critical infrastructure “at a speed and scale not seen in generations.”
Given this seemingly great news, I eagerly read the six-page Memorandum of Understanding. Then I read it again and again. Each time, my enthusiasm and understanding diminished rapidly. By the fourth reading, the only objective conclusion I could reach was not that a pipeline would finally be built, but rather that only governments could write an MOU that no Canadian could understand.
The MOU is utterly incoherent. Go ahead, read it for yourself online. It’s only six pages. Here are a few examples.
The agreement states that, “Canada and Alberta agree that the approval, commencement and continued construction of the bitumen pipeline is a prerequisite to the Pathways project.” Then on the next line, “Canada and Alberta agree that the Pathways Project is also a prerequisite to the approval, commencement and continued construction of the bitumen pipeline.”
Two things, of course, cannot logically be prerequisites for each other.
But worry not, under the MOU, Alberta and Ottawa will appoint an “Implementation Committee” to deliver “outcomes” (this is from a federal government that just created the “Major Project Office” to get major projects approved and constructed) including “Determining the means by which Alberta can submit its pipeline application to the Major Projects Office on or before July 1, 2026.”
What does “Determining the means” even mean?
What’s worse is that under the MOU, the application for this pipeline project must be “ready to submit to the Major Projects Office on or before July 1, 2026.” Then it could be another two years (or until 2028) before Ottawa approves the pipeline project. But the MOU states the Pathways Project is to be built in stages, starting in 2027. And that takes us back to the circular reasoning of the prerequisites noted above.
Other conditions needed to move forward include:
The private sector must construct and finance the pipeline. Serious question: which private-sector firm would take this risk? And does the Alberta government plan to indemnify the company against these risks?
Indigenous Peoples must co-own the pipeline project.
Alberta must collaborate with B.C. to ensure British Columbians get a cut or “share substantial economic and financial benefits of the proposed pipeline” in MOU speak.
None of this, of course, addresses the major issue in our country—that is, investors lack clarity on timelines and certainty about project approvals. The Carney government established the Major Project Office to fast-track project approvals and provide greater certainty. Of the 11 project “winners” the federal government has already picked, most either already had approvals or are already at an advanced stage in the process. And one of the most important nation-building projects—a pipeline to get our oil to tidewater—hasn’t even been referred to the Major Project Office.
What message does all this send to the investment community? Have we made it easier to get projects approved? No. Have we made things clearer? No. Business investment in Canada has fallen off a cliff and is down 25 per cent per worker since 2014. We’ve seen a massive outflow of capital from the country, more than $388 billion since 2014.
To change this, Canada needs clear rules and certain timelines for project approvals. Not an opaque Memorandum of Understanding.
-
MAiD2 days agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review
-
Business2 days agoCarney government should privatize airports—then open airline industry to competition
-
Business2 days agoWhat’s Going On With Global Affairs Canada and Their $392 Million Spending Trip to Brazil?
-
COVID-1915 hours agoUniversity of Colorado will pay $10 million to staff, students for trying to force them to take COVID shots
-
Bruce Dowbiggin14 hours agoIntegration Or Indignation: Whose Strategy Worked Best Against Trump?
-
Energy2 days agoCanada following Europe’s stumble by ignoring energy reality
-
Banks2 days agoTo increase competition in Canadian banking, mandate and mindset of bank regulators must change
-
Business2 days agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?


