Alberta
Province overhauls Victim Services model, creating regional hubs and full access
By Mike Ellis, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Services
All victims of crime deserve support
Dealing with the aftermath of a crime can be challenging for victims, and everyone’s journey to recovery is different.
Alberta’s government is committed to making sure victims get the support they need, which is why we are changing how victim services currently operates to ensure every Albertan in every corner of the province will have access to the help they need when they need it.
Alberta’s government decision to overhaul the Victim Services Unit (VSU) model, with its 60 detachment-based and locally governed units, was made with careful consideration of the current challenges facing the system. A comprehensive review of the current system – one that included
discussions with 150 stakeholder groups – identified inconsistencies and gaps in services that had been developing over a long period of time and needed to be addressed.
Under the old model, 14 areas had no local victim services unit, which is why the new model being implemented by Alberta’s government ensures every RCMP detachment in the province will have access to consistent victim services.
That means if you were a victim of crime in a certain part of Alberta, you had no service. This was unacceptable.
Also, under the old model, each unit was operated by an independent society, which resulted in a lack of integration and resource-sharing. Under the new model, regional governance will ensure each community can draw on resources to keep their public services stable and consistent. To address these issues, we’re moving towards a regional governance model with four integrated Regional Victim Serving Societies.
These regional societies will help victims by increasing the reliability, of support across the province. This means that victims will have access to stable and consistent levels of care and assistance, regardless of their location. It’s a new approach that will allow for greater flexibility to deliver services at the community level where they are needed most.
With a renewed focus on the needs of victims, this approach will streamline operations, foster collaboration both within and across regions, and ensure all Albertans have fair access to critical victim services. As well, the changes mean that the total number of frontline employees will increase from 130 to 153, and both frontline employees and local volunteer advocates will have the resources and training necessary to better serve victims in their communities.
The regional societies are independent, and they make their own staffing decisions for the units in their regions.
The primary goal of these changes is to ensure that victims and survivors have access to the supports they need to recover and rebuild their lives in the aftermath of a crime or tragedy.
I have met with many municipalities and the Rural Municipalities of Alberta, and we have incorporated feedback into the redesign.
Airdrie Mayor Peter Brown supported the redesign and said, “We look forward to working with the new team, providing the same efficient, caring & compassionate service that supports our community at their most vulnerable times.”
Mayor Megan Hanson, from the Town of Sylvan Lake told me the redesign is a “Much-needed change.”
She said, “Under the previous Victims Services model, staff and volunteers in Sylvan Lake tried valiantly to provide and maintain supports for victims of crime but lacked adequate supports This shift to a new model is a positive and much-needed change for our community. A regional model helps to
pool resources and gives us confidence that victims in Sylvan Lake and across Alberta will receive the help they truly deserve.”
Alberta’s government is taking action so every community across our province will have access to the services and support.
To those who are victims of crime or tragedy, Alberta’s government will there regardless of where you live.
Alberta
Ottawa’s oil and gas emissions cap will hit Alberta with a wallop
From the Fraser Institute
Even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.
After considerable waiting, the Trudeau government released on Monday draft regulations to cap greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canada’s oil and gas producers.
The proposed regulations would set a cap on GHG emissions equivalent to 35 per cent of the emissions produced in 2019 and create a GHG emissions “cap and trade” system to enable oil and gas producers (who cannot reduce emissions enough to avoid the cap) to buy credits from other producers able to meet the cap. Producers unable to meet the cap will also be able to obtain emission credits (of up to 20 per cent of their needed emission reductions) by investing in decarbonization programs or by buying emission “offsets” in Canada’s carbon markets.
According to the government, the cap will “cap pollution, drive innovation, and create jobs in the oil and gas industry.” But in reality, while the cap may well cap pollution and drive some innovation, according to several recent analyses it won’t create jobs in the oil and gas industry and will in fact kill many jobs.
For example, the Conference Board of Canada think-tank estimates that the cap would reduce Canada’s GDP by up to $1 trillion between 2030 and 2040, kill up to 151,300 jobs across Canada by 2030, and national economic growth from 2023 to 2030 would slow from 15.3 per cent to 14.3 per cent.
Not surprisingly, Alberta would be hardest hit. According to the Board, from 2023 to 2030, the province’s economic growth would fall from an estimated 17.8 per cent to 13.3 per cent and employment growth would fall from 15.8 per cent to 13.6 per cent over the same period. Alberta government revenues from the sector would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2030 compared to a scenario without the cap. As a result, Alberta government revenues would be $4.5 billion lower in nominal terms in fiscal year 2030/31. And between 54,000 to 91,500 of Canada’s job losses would occur in Alberta.
Another study by Deloitte estimates that, due to the federal cap, Alberta will see 3.6 per cent less investment, almost 70,000 fewer jobs, and a 4.5 per cent decrease in the province’s economic output (i.e. GDP) by 2040. Ontario would lose more than 15,000 jobs and $2.3 billion from its economy by 2040. And Quebec would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $0.4 billion from its economy during the same period.
Overall, according to Deloitte, Canada would experience an economic loss equivalent to 1.0 per cent of GDP, translating into lower wages, the loss of nearly 113,000 jobs and a 1.3 per cent reduction in government tax revenues. (For context, Canada’s economic growth in 2023 was only 1.1 per cent.)
And what will Canadians get for all that economic pain?
In my study published last year by the Fraser Institute, I found that, even if Canada eliminated all its GHG emissions expected in 2030 due to the federal cap, the emission reduction would equal only four-tenths of one per cent of global emissions—a reduction unlikely to have any impact on the trajectory of the climate in any detectable manner or produce any related environmental, health or safety benefits.
Clearly, the Trudeau government’s new proposed emissions cap on the oil and gas sector will impose significant harms on Canada’s economy, Canadian workers and our quality of life—and hit Alberta with a wallop. And yet, as a measure intended to avert harmful climate change, it’s purely performative (like many of the government’s other GHG regulations) and will generate too little emission reductions to have any meaningful impact on the climate.
In a world of rational policy development, where the benefits of government regulations are supposed to exceed their costs, policymakers would never consider this proposed cap. The Trudeau government will submit the plan to Parliament, and if the cap becomes law, it will await some other future government to undo the damage inflicted on Canadians and their families.
Author:
Alberta
Edmonton public school board takes action in defiance of Alberta’s proposed pro-family policies
From LifeSiteNews
The Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.
An Edmonton school board submitted a motion to defy Alberta’s policy requiring parental knowledge if a child goes by different pronouns at school.
On November 5, the Edmonton Public School Board filed a motion against Alberta’s new pro-family policies requiring parents to opt in rather than opt out of sex-ed classes and mandating that parental permission is obtained before a student uses a different pronoun.
“The Division’s current policy on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression is part of our mandate to provide a safe, welcoming and healthy school environment for students, staff and families,” the board claimed in the motion sent to the Board of Trustees.
“The policy changes being proposed by Premier Smith will contradict what our Board, and previous Boards of Trustees, have worked hard to ensure: the safety and well being of all children in Edmonton Public schools,” it continued.
The new policies, introduced last week by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith under Bill 27, will mean that sex-education classes will not be included in a child’s education, and teachers or school staff will no longer be allowed to conceal whether a student begins to use different pronouns or names.
Once Bill 27 becomes law, schools must notify parents of what is being taught at least “30 days in advance and be given the opportunity to opt in rather than opt out of this instruction.”
However, while Alberta is working to keep parents informed and children safe from the radical LGBT agenda, the Edmonton board has argued parents must be kept in the dark to prevent them from stopping their children from accepting the falsehoods of the LGBT agenda.
“For transgender youth who choose a name different from the one given at birth, use of their chosen name in multiple contexts affirms their gender identity and reduces mental health risks, which are known to be high in this group,” the board claimed.
However, significant body of evidence shows that “affirming” gender confusion carries serious harms, especially when done with impressionable children who lack the mental development, emotional maturity, and life experience to consider the long-term ramifications of the decisions being pushed on them, or full knowledge about the long-term effects of life-altering, physically transformative, and often irreversible surgical and chemical procedures.
Studies find that more than 80 percent of children suffering gender dysphoria outgrow it on their own by late adolescence and that “transition” procedures, including “reassignment” surgery, fail to resolve gender-confused individuals’ heightened tendency to engage in self-harm and suicide – and even exacerbate it, including by reinforcing their confusion and neglecting the actual root causes of their mental strife.
Additionally, as LifeSiteNews previously reported, many Ontario parents revealed that public schools did not ask for parental consent before “gender transitioning” their children, resulting in child-parent relationships being destroyed.
Furthermore, many teachers struggle to keep secret from parents. A Saskatchewan teacher who wished to remain anonymous previously told LifeSiteNews that she feels guilty about keeping secrets from parents and supports the decision to keep parents informed.
“I fear that we are not supporting students or parents when we keep secrets,” she explained. “We have many students using alternate names, which sometimes changes frequently during the year, and then are asked by parents if we were aware of the changes after the fact. I feel responsible for keeping the secret and I don’t think it’s fair. I think schools are already taking on too many ‘parent roles’ and it’s important that parents play the ‘parent role’ not teachers!”
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
The Biden-Harris Version of Trump’s ‘Cruel’ Mass Deportation of Immigrant Families – with No Media Freakout
-
Business2 days ago
Up to $41 billion in World Bank climate finance unaccounted for, Oxfam finds
-
armed forces2 days ago
Canadian veterans battle invisible wounds of moral injury and addiction
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
New Australian law, if passed, will make the gov’t the sole arbiter of truth’
-
Addictions20 hours ago
Ottawa “safer supply” clinic criticized by distraught mother
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
A License to Censor? The Fierce Fight Over the GEC’s Renewal
-
DEI16 hours ago
TMU Medical School Sacrifices Academic Merit to Pursue Intolerance
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Garbage in = Garbage Out…The issues with censorship and AI.