Connect with us

Alberta

Canadians owe a debt to Premier Danielle Smith

Published

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By David MacKinnon

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

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Alberta

Canadians owe Smith a debt of gratitude

Published on

CAE Logo Dan McTeague

“Thank you, Danielle Smith!”

That is what every man, woman, and child in our great nation should be shouting from the rooftops this week. Instead, our journalists, politicians, and their army of Leftist loudmouths on social media, are sticking with the story that she’s, somehow, a traitor. That couldn’t be further from the truth, and every one of them should be ashamed of themselves for saying it.

In fact, Smith has been almost entirely alone in fighting for Canada since Donald Trump began broadcasting his intention to use the threat of tariffs to pressure our government on illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking over our border.

The response from the media was first mockery and scorn — ‘Look at this American buffoon! He doesn’t even know how much he needs us!’ — followed by outrage at Trump and any Canadian who dared to suggest he might have a point. “Where is their patriotism?!” asked elitists who have spent their careers scoffing at any and every expression of Canadian pride.

And the response from our governing class has been all virtue-signaling and egotism. Yes, Justin Trudeau flew to Mar-a-Lago to make a perfunctory case against the tariff, but he took every opportunity which presented itself to trash Trump, accuse the American people who elected him of sexism, and imply that Canadians who might consider voting conservative were just as bad.

Meanwhile, Doug Ford began his chest-thumping ‘Captain Canada’ act, while calling an early election with an eye towards keeping himself in power for a few more years. The argument for this move didn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Why did Ford call an election in the middle of what he described as an all-hands-on-deck national emergency? Because he needed a huge majority in Queen’s Park to authorize the COVID-19-level government spending and interventions he needed to respond to Trump’s tariff… never mind the fact that the opposition parties are entirely on board with government spending and intervention.

Maybe he was worried that there are still a few conservatives left in his own caucus who’d object to him driving Ontario’s finances further into the mud? He shouldn’t be – if they stuck with him as he sunk billions into the dying EV industry, they’re likely to stick with him now.

In any event, Ford has created a situation where, in the midst of a crisis, his attention is split between governing and campaigning. It’s self-interest all the way down!

Smith, on the other hand, sprang into action. She flew to the States, first to Mar-a-Lago and then to Washington, and tirelessly made the case to all of the major players on this file — Trump himself, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and others — that the U.S. and Canada are better off working together.

She made it clear that Albertans are also concerned about the border, and about fentanyl trafficking. She criticized Trudeau’s anti-Trump tirades as “not helpful,” slammed proposals to cut off Canadian oil and gas to the U.S., and called for Ottawa to appoint a border and drugs czar, ideally a retired general, rather than some political flunky, an idea which has gotten support from retired members of our military corps.

Her instinct has always been towards turning down the temperature, rather than trying to heat things up — that, by the way, is called “diplomacy” — and she never missed an opportunity to stand up for our oil and gas industry. When our Laurentian elite began sabre rattling about slapping an export duty on Canadian energy heading south, she stood opposed to that as well.

And this is at the heart of the Liberal critique of Smith. She’s betrayed Canada, they say, because she only cares about Alberta and its energy industry. She stands opposed to any action which might imperil Albertan oil and gas.

To which I say: Of course! And good on her for it.

Because, remember, it isn’t only Alberta’s oil and gas industry. It’s Canada’s. And though Justin Trudeau, Mark Carney, and their “green” ideologue friends might wish it otherwise, oil and gas remains the backbone of the Canadian economy. It is our “golden goose,” in the words of economists Jack Mintz and Philip Cross, in a recent study of Canada’s resource sector. And it is far too important to the livelihood of Canadians — not just Albertans mind you — for the Trudeau Liberals to use it as a bargaining chip. Especially since they’ve spent years hamstringing it, while suggesting that we’d ultimately be better off if it went the way of the Dodo.

It’s worth noting that when the (short-lived) tariffs were announced, the White House underlined Smith’s advocacy by singling out oil and gas for a lower rate. More importantly, the concessions from Trudeau which got us our present reprieve — the drug czar and enhanced border enforcement especially — were first proposed by Smith!

So, a separatist? A traitor? Perish the thought! Smith is an advocate for our interests, and a great Canadian.

Hopefully, as we try to avert the unwelcome return of these tariffs, the government looks to Danielle Smith for some guidance. Especially because, chances are, her advice will be, ‘Call an election, so our prime minister has a mandate from the people and can negotiate from a position of strength!’

For the good of Canada, here’s hoping they listen.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy

Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!

Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.

Donate Now

Continue Reading

Alberta

As President Trump creates new economy, Trudeau government ‘pandering’ to globalists

Published on

Jordan Peterson in a February 5, 2025 video titled ‘Canada Must Offer Alberta More Than Trump Could’

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

“Enough idiot green moralizing, enough carbon tax. Enough bloody net-zero,” he said, adding, “how about this: enough multiculturalism and destruction of the Canadian identity.” 

Well-known Canadian psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson had choice words for Canadian politicians last week, accusing them of “pandering” to elites and ruining the nation.

In the February 5 video entirely dedicated to the topic of Canadian politics, Peterson said that he is sick of “pathetic celebrity wannabe” politicians, a category in which he includes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who are “pandering” to the global elites at the expense of ordinary citizens.

Peterson, who is from Alberta, in particular defended his province from a continued push by the Liberal government to undermine its oil and gas industry, amidst a trade tariff dispute with the United States. 

“Enough overt and covert attempts to destroy the basis of the economy of my fair and hard-working province,” said Peterson. 

“Enough delaying critical infrastructure development and rejection of international trade offers for natural gas, oil, and coal. Enough treatment of the resource economy upon which Quebec in particular, so unacceptably depends as a moral pariah.” 

Peterson also took issue with Trudeau’s unpopular carbon tax and the Liberal government’s ongoing promotion of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) ideology. 

“Enough idiot green moralizing, enough carbon tax. Enough bloody net-zero,” he said, adding, “how about this: enough multiculturalism and destruction of the Canadian identity.” 

In recent weeks, the Trudeau government has been embroiled in a trade dispute with U.S. President Donald Trump, the latter threatening to impose a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian goods if border security and fentanyl trafficking is not taken more seriously.

Canada was given a 30-day reprieve from the 25 percent tariffs by Trump after Trudeau promised to increase border security and crack down on fentanyl making its way south.  

Since taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government has continued to push a radical environmental agenda like the agendas being pushed by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.”  

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been a fierce opponent of Trudeau’s green energy agenda and an advocate for the oil and gas industry.   

Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world, with most of it being in Alberta. Unlike in other nations, Alberta’s industry is largely considered ethical.

This is not the first time Peterson has accused Trudeau and his government of working against the interests of Canada.

Last year, Peterson formally announced his departure from Canada in favor of moving to the United States, saying his birth nation has become a “totalitarian hell hole.”  

Continue Reading

Trending

X