Alberta
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms challenges AMA to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review

Justice Centre President sends an open letter to Dr. Shelley Duggan, President of the Alberta Medical Association
Dear Dr. Duggan,
I write in response to the AMA’s Statement regarding the Final Report of the Alberta Covid Pandemic Data Review Task Force. Although you did not sign your name to the AMA Statement, I assume that you approved of it, and that you agree with its contents.
I hereby request your response to my questions about your AMA Statement.
You assert that this Final Report “advances misinformation.” Can you provide me with one or two examples of this “misinformation”?
Why, specifically, do you see this Final Report as “anti–science and anti–evidence”? Can you provide an example or two?
Considering that you denounced the entire 269-page report as “anti–science and anti–evidence,” it should be very easy for you to choose from among dozens and dozens of examples.
You assert that the Final Report “speaks against the broadest, and most diligent, international scientific collaboration and consensus in history.”
As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware of the “consensus” whereby medical authorities in Canada and around the world approved the use of thalidomide for pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s, resulting in miscarriages and deformed babies. No doubt you are aware that for many centuries the “consensus” amongst scientists was that physicians need not wash their hands before delivering babies, resulting in high death rates among women after giving birth. This “international scientific consensus” was disrupted in the 1850s by a true scientist, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, who advocated for hand-washing.
As a medical doctor, you should know that science is not consensus, and that consensus is not science.
It is unfortunate that your AMA Statement appeals to consensus rather than to science. In fact, your AMA Statement is devoid of science, and appeals to nothing other than consensus. A scientific Statement from the AMA would challenge specific assertions in the Final Report, point to inadequate evidence, debunk flawed methodologies, and expose incorrect conclusions. Your Statement does none of the foregoing.
You assert that “science and evidence brought us through [Covid] and saved millions of lives.” Considering your use of the word “millions,” I assume this statement refers to the lockdowns and vaccine mandates imposed by governments and medical establishments around the world, and not the response of the Alberta government alone.
What evidence do you rely on for your assertion that lockdowns saved lives? You are no doubt aware that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading to every city, town, village and hamlet, and that lockdowns did not stop Covid from spreading into nursing homes (long-term care facilities) where Covid claimed about 80% of its victims. How, then, did lockdowns save lives? If your assertion about “saving millions of lives” is true, it should be very easy for you to explain how lockdowns saved lives, rather than merely asserting that they did.
Seeing as you are confident that the governments’ response to Covid saved “millions” of lives, have you balanced that vague number against the number of people who died as a result of lockdowns? Have you studied or even considered what harms lockdowns inflicted on people?
If you are confident that lockdowns did more good than harm, on what is your confidence based? Can you provide data to support your position?
As a medical doctor, you are no doubt aware that the mRNA vaccine, introduced and then made mandatory in 2021, did not stop the transmission of Covid. Nor did the mRNA vaccine prevent people from getting sick with Covid, or dying from Covid. Why would it not have sufficed in 2021 to let each individual make her or his own choice about getting injected with the mRNA vaccine? Do you still believe today that mandatory vaccination policies had an actual scientific basis? If yes, what was that basis?
You assert that the Final Report “sows distrust” and “criticizes proven preventive public health measures while advancing fringe approaches.”
When the AMA Statement mentions “proven preventive public health measures,” I assume you are referring to lockdowns. If my assumption is correct, can you explain when, where and how lockdowns were “proven” to be effective, prior to 2020? Or would you agree with me that locking down billions of healthy people across the globe in 2020 was a brand new experiment, never tried before in human history? If it was a brand new experiment, how could it have been previously “proven” effective prior to 2020? Alternatively, if you are asserting that lockdowns and vaccine passports were “proven” effective in the years 2020-2022, what is your evidentiary basis for that assertion?
Your reference to “fringe approaches” is particularly troubling, because it suggests that the majority must be right just because it’s the majority, which is the antithesis of science.
Remember that the first doctors to advocate against the use of thalidomide by pregnant women, along with Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis advocating for hand-washing, were also viewed as “advancing fringe approaches” by those in authority. It would not be difficult to provide dozens, and likely hundreds, of other examples showing that true science is a process of open-minded discovery and honest debate, not a process of dismissing as “fringe” the individuals who challenge the reigning “consensus.”
The AMA Statement asserts that the Final Report “makes recommendations for the future that have real potential to cause harm.” Specifically, which of the Final Report’s recommendations have a real potential to cause harm? Can you provide even one example of such a recommendation, and explain the nature of the harm you have in mind?
The AMA Statement asserts that “many colleagues and experts have commented eloquently on the deficiencies and biases [the Final Report] presents.” Could you provide some examples of these eloquent comments? Did any of your colleagues and “experts” point to specific deficiencies in the Final Report, or provide specific examples of bias? Or were these “eloquent” comments limited to innuendo and generalized assertions like those contained in the AMA Statement?
In closing, I invite you to a public, livestreamed debate on the merits of Alberta’s lockdowns and vaccine passports. I would argue for the following: “Be it resolved that lockdowns and vaccine passports imposed on Albertans from 2020 to 2022 did more harm than good,” and you would argue against this resolution.
Seeing as you are a medical doctor who has a much greater knowledge and a much deeper understanding of these issues than I do, I’m sure you will have an easy time defending the Alberta government’s response to Covid.
If you are not available, I would be happy to debate one of your colleagues, or any AMA member.
I request your answers to the questions I have asked of you in this letter.
Further, please let me know if you are willing to debate publicly the merits of lockdowns and vaccine passports, or if one of your colleagues is available to do so.
Yours sincerely,
John Carpay, B.A., LL.B.
President
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
Alberta
Fact, fiction, and the pipeline that’s paying Canada’s rent

From Resource Works
Is the Trans Mountain a fake, like some say the moon landing was faked?
It’s hard to interpret otherwise a persistent claim being made in media by British Columbia’s premier, David Eby.
This week he said that Alberta is “not even using” the new Trans Mountain pipeline from Edmonton to Metro Vancouver.


Could that be true? We decided to look into it.
Here’s what we discovered.
Since May 2024 when the Trans Mountain expansion project was opened, Alberta oil has flowed steadily down the pipeline from its origin in a suburb of Edmonton.
Credible international news organizations have reported that the new pipeline is 85% full. Indications are that by the period 2027-28, it will reach as close to 100% full as it’s possible to.
The number of ship calls to the Westridge coastal loading facility in Burnaby is on track to reach 400 by the end of the year. This strongly supports the contention that Alberta oil is flowing through the pipeline.


https://www.statcan.gc.ca/o1/en/plus/8439-trans-mountain-pipeline-delivering
I often say Trans Mountain is “paying Canada’s rent,” and I mean it literally. Ottawa owns the pipeline through Trans Mountain Corporation, and it’s already sending more than a billion dollars a year back to the federal treasury in dividends, interest, and fees.
It’s also boosting export revenues by letting Alberta oil reach world markets instead of being trapped at a discount — raising royalties, taxes, and paycheques across the Prairies. And every tanker that sails from Burnaby keeps tug crews, port workers, and coastal suppliers in business. That’s real money flowing through the economy — the kind that actually pays the rent for Canada.
In total, Resource Works examined nine claims that would all need to be true if Premier Eby is telling the truth about the pipeline being empty:
Truth Test: “Alberta isn’t even using the pipeline we bought them last time.”
Category | Claim or Implication | Evidence / Data | Source(s) | Finding / Truth Rating |
1. Pipeline utilization | TMX is unused or empty. | Trans Mountain reports 757,000 bpd throughput on an 890,000 bpd capacity system (≈ 85 %). | Trans Mountain Q1 2025 Financial Results; Reuters (30 Jul 2025). | |
2. Export volumes | Few or no shipments. | 306 vessels loaded at Westridge Marine Terminal by Q2 2025 (~20–25 per month). | Trans Mountain Q2 2025 Results; CER Market Snapshot (Sept 2025). | |
3. Financial returns | No financial benefit to Canadians. | $729 million returned to federal government YTD 2025; projected >$1.25 billion for year. | Trans Mountain Q2 2025 Results. | |
4. Shipper commitments | No demand for pipeline capacity. | 80 % of capacity contracted to long-term shippers; 20 % reserved for spot. | S&P Global Commodity Insights (Feb 2025); CER Snapshot. | |
5. Operational timeline | Project still inactive or delayed. | Commercial service began May 1 2024; steady throughput growth each quarter. | Trans Mountain Corporate Reports 2024–25. | |
6. Regulatory data | No verified data exist. | Monthly throughput published by CER and Trans Mountain Corp. | Canada Energy Regulator (CER Data Portal). | |
7. Market impact | No improvement to Alberta’s market access. | WCS-Brent differential narrowed; Asia exports up sharply. | CER Market Snapshot (Sept 2025); S&P Global 2025 report. | |
8. Ownership context | B.C. or Alberta “owns” the pipeline. | Owned by Government of Canada via Trans Mountain Corporation. | Finance Canada; Trans Mountain Corp. Ownership Statement. | |
9. Provincial benefit analysis | No benefit to B.C. or Alberta. | Royalties, tax revenue, and employment gains in both provinces; marine services in B.C. | TMX Economic Impact Assessment 2024; CER regional reports. |
Last year, on three occasions I visited the Westridge Marine Terminal, twice on tours of the land-based facilities and the third time from the water. Ships were docked at the terminal on all three occasions, and I was told by staff that they were being loaded.
I didn’t actually see any oil at the oil terminal, but…
I have to admit I did not actually see (or smell) any oil. But I’m also aware that it is very much in the interest of the Trans Mountain Corporation to never expose any oil to where it can be seen, touched or smelled, since this would result in stiff fines and other harsh repercussions.
At this point, I have to say that there is no supporting evidence whatsoever that Alberta is using the Trans Mountain pipeline as a moon landing style hoax for some nefarious goal. There is no sign of a massive fraud that required collaboration among energy regulators, Alberta oil producers, the pipeline company, the international business press, numerous federal ministers, trade union leaders, numerous environmental organizations that expend enormous efforts to try to curtail shipments of the oil that they say moves through the pipeline, and the many First Nations that have actively supported from and benefit from the project in its completed state.
Of course, I’m well aware there is a political context here. Since October 1, Premier Eby has been engaged in a war of words with Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. She announced that she is determined to see get built another new pipe from her province to a federally regulated port somewhere on the Pacific coast.
And to be clear, this isn’t about giving Alberta a free pass. Premier Smith isn’t blameless either — she’s been happy to turn complex national issues into provincial sound bites when it suits her. The difference is that Canada can’t afford leaders on either side of the Rockies who substitute theatre for truth.
Premier Eby is right when he says British Columbians should not be forced to give up opportunities because another province wants to do something. Labour market fears are legitimate as we’ve seen in the recent past. But when it comes to infrastructure and investment opportunities, time and again Canadians have learned the hard way that “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” There is no guarantee that today’s opportunities, pushed away, will materialize again at any point in the future.
There’s also a public context. At no moment in recent times have British Columbia residents been more supportive of the idea of building more oil pipeline infrastructure. The following slide from a poll by Innovative Research Group (shared by pollster Greg Lyle at a recent event organized by Resource Works) is consistent with other findings:

Even without out this quite exceptional condition, the current situation deserves a vigorous public conversation. It also deserves the truthful use of information.
My final verdict is this: We can all be fully confident that the Trans Mountain Expansion is indeed 85 per cent full, that hundreds of tankers have already sailed, and that more than a billion dollars has flowed back to Canadians.
Bottom Line
The facts show a functioning, profitable national asset:
- Operational since May 2024
- 85% utilized and rising
- Hundreds of ships exporting Canadian oil
- Over $1 billion flowing back to the public purse from Trans Mountain – that’s even before counting the upstream employment and impacts
This Resource Works analysis is based on public reports from Trans Mountain Corporation (2024 & 2025), Canada Energy Regulator (2025), Statistics Canada, S&P Global Commodity Insights, and Reuters.

Stewart Muir, visting the Trans Mountain pipeline’s Westridge Marine Terminal.
Alberta
Alberta Is Where Canadians Go When They Want To Build A Better Life

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
One in three Canadians chooses Alberta to start over. But to stay Canada’s top destination, it must fight Ottawa’s barriers and complacency
No province has captured the Canadian imagination quite like Alberta—and not because of oil.
One in three Canadians leaving their provinces in the past five years headed to Alberta. They were escaping stagnant wages, high housing costs and suffocating bureaucracy. They came for freedom and opportunity, and Alberta delivered. Its edge is cultural: it rewards enterprise instead of strangling it.
The question now is whether Albertans can keep that edge before Ottawa and complacency close in.
Prosperity, like liberty, vanishes the moment people stop fighting for it. If Alberta wants to remain Canada’s economic engine, it must continue to move forward, tearing down old barriers while fending off the new ones that Ottawa and other provinces are always erecting.
The cost of standing still is staggering.
Economists say provincial trade barriers (rules that prevent goods, services, and workers from moving freely) cost the Canadian economy up to $130 billion a year. For Alberta, even a 10 per cent reduction would be worth $7.3 billion a year.
When Quebec killed the Energy East pipeline that would have carried Alberta crude to eastern refineries, Alberta lost the chance to export oil worth as much as $15 billion annually.
That’s not theory. That’s lost paycheques, lost tax revenue and public services that never materialized.
Alberta has always been more willing than others to break free from the barriers that hold back growth. Liquor sales were privatized decades ago, as were property registries. The New West Partnership with Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. opened labour mobility and procurement, though it has since stalled. Alberta doesn’t impose cultural tests and it doesn’t levy a provincial sales tax. Families arrive because life here is easier. They can work, start a business, raise kids or simply breathe without bureaucrats looking over their shoulder.
But cracks remain. Liquor shelves may be free, but the Alberta Gaming, Liquor and Cannabis Commission monopoly clogs the warehouse. Professional associations in law, teaching and health care are slow to recognize credentials and drown their members in red tape.
Procurement often tilts local, because, apparently, free markets stop at the city line. And like every other province, Alberta still bows to Ottawa’s anticompetition telecom rules, the dairy and poultry cartel and the banking oligopoly, systems that consistently benefit Quebec farmers and Bay Street lenders at Alberta’s expense.
And as if the old cracks weren’t enough, new barriers are appearing. One of the worst is protectionism. Canadians love mocking Donald Trump’s tariffs, yet happily embrace the same thing at home. “Buy local” sounds warm and fuzzy but props up cartels in groceries, banking, telecom and construction. The truth? We’ve imposed more barriers on ourselves than Trump ever dreamed of.
Prime Minister Mark Carney exemplified the problem when he promoted subsidies for canola farmers. It was a double insult. First, it showed Ottawa would rather hand out cash than negotiate hard. Second, it reminded farmers that the “help” isn’t free. They pay for it through their own taxes, scooped from Saskatchewan and Alberta, laundered through federal bureaucracy, then mailed back with a ribbon.
Carney also vowed that interprovincial barriers would vanish by July 1, 2025. That deadline came and went. His shiny new “process” for expediting infrastructure looks like more of the same: more Ottawa mediation that risks slowing everything down.
But it isn’t only economics standing in the way. Ideology is becoming a barrier of its own. Diversity, equity and inclusion has morphed into a system for entrenching gatekeepers. It compels people to think and act in ways they didn’t choose. It drains productivity, creates make-work compliance jobs and sorts people into categories. Worst of all, it punishes anyone who doesn’t conform. Alberta resists this infection better than most, but its universities and federally dependent agencies are already hooked.
Then comes debanking. In 2022, Ottawa showed how quickly it could freeze accounts, and banks complied without hesitation. Since then, regulators have only expanded their reach under the banner of anti–money laundering and climate policy. The message is blunt: if Ottawa decides your sector is undesirable, access to financial services can vanish. For Alberta, with its energy industry branded a planetary threat, this is no hypothetical.
A free economy is meaningless if citizens can be financially exiled from it by decree. Alberta must shield its people by turning ATB, its provincially owned bank, into a fortress institution and enshrining access to financial services as a civil right.
So what does moving forward mean? It means doubling down on being the most desirable province to live and work. That requires bold reforms. Cut regulators down to size. Protect banking access in law. Decentralize big-city governments to make them more accountable and give residents real choices. Reform health care to expand choice and slash wait times. Deregulate housing and trucking to lower costs. Confront public-sector unions that act as ideological monopolies.
Canada loves to brag about free trade, but governs like a feudal kingdom. Alberta has already shown that a freer path is possible. The task now is to resist cartels, fight the banks, tear down old walls and stop new ones from rising.
Alberta has always been a frontier of builders, risk-takers and prosperity seekers, and to thrive it must keep moving. If Alberta leads, it will stay prosperous and desirable. If it falters, doors will close.
The choice is clear: Alberta can either be strangled by regulations or break free and keep its frontier spirit alive.
Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).
-
International2 days ago
Trump gets an honourable mention: Nobel winner dedicates peace prize to Trump
-
Business1 day ago
The Grocery Greed Myth
-
COVID-192 days ago
Tamara Lich says she has no ‘remorse,’ no reason to apologize for leading Freedom Convoy
-
Crime2 days ago
Canada’s safety minister says he has not met with any members of damaged or destroyed churches
-
Business2 days ago
Trump Warns Beijing Of ‘Countermeasures’ As China Tightens Grip On Critical Resources
-
Business1 day ago
Carney government plans to muddy the fiscal waters in upcoming budget
-
Business1 day ago
Tax filing announcement shows consultation was a sham
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy3 hours ago
Canada’s Democracy Is Running On Fumes