Alberta
Local school divisions say Provincial Budget leaves them 5.5 Million short

A joint press release from Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools and Red Deer Public Schools
Local School Boards Face Provincial Budget Challenges
Boards, Administration and Teachers Share Their Concerns
The provincial education budget was announced by Alberta Education on October 24. Ā On Friday, October 25, the details of that budget were shared with school divisions.
While the overall provincial funding for educationā āhas remained the same, the reality is there has been a dramatic reduction in funding, which will be felt in both our school divisions. Ā A key impact came with the reallocation of funding for class size and classroom improvement to support student enrollment growth across the province.ā āAs a result, both Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools and Red Deer Public Schools will face higher deficits than originally planned.
Both school divisions anticipated funding shortfalls for this school year. However, now that we have seen the details and actual numbers in the provincial budget, more adjustments will have to be made. Red Deer Public Schools is facing an additional $3.5 million loss in funding on its original budget of $125 million and will need to fill that gap. Ā Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools will see a $2 million reduction in funding from its original budget of $115 million.
This means both jurisdictions will have to use accumulated reserves to cover the deficits beyond what was originally anticipatedā.ā While our shared priority is to have the least impact on the classroom, this funding shortfall will ultimately have an affect on all classrooms, programs and students. Beyond that, our schools continue to grow and now more than ever, we are experiencing more complexity in our classrooms with students and teachers needing more support.
Both Divisions now have important and challenging decisions to make as a result of the provincial budget. It will be even more difficult to make theseā āchanges mid-year.
āIn preparation for projected funding changes, we reduced our allocations to schools and some programs by two per cent for the start of the 2019-2020 school year. This decision has offset the bulk of the more than $2 million loss in funding we experienced with Thursdayās provincial budget. We will use our reserves to eliminate the remaining deficit, but we also are concernedĀ about funding allocations going forward,ā said Superintendent Dr. V. Paul Mason at Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools.
āAfter hearing more details of the 2019 Provincial Budget, Red Deer Public will be forced to reevaluate some of our priorities. These are priorities that were set before the 2019/20 school year and reevaluating them mid-year will have a significant impact to staff and ultimately students. This could also mean examining school fees for next school year to offset costs due to the shortfall in provincial funding,ā said Stu Henry, Superintendent for Red Deer Public Schools.
Teachers in both Divisions are also concerned.
“Teachers know that a fully funded education system is a good investment for government that pays off exponentially for our society in the future. Unfortunately, these budget cuts likely means that more students, especially those who require additional learning supports, may not have access to tools and resources that they need to fully realize their potential, despite having the very best teachers in their classrooms,ā said Stephen Merredew, Alberta Teachersā Association Local 80 President representing teachers in Red Deer Catholic Regional Schools.
āTeachers are disappointed with this budget. Once again, teachers will be asked to do more with less, but they shouldnāt have to. Our children are our most precious resource in this province and they deserve better than what this government has brought forward for education funding,ā said Kelly Aleman, Alberta Teachers’ Association Local 60 President representing teachers in Red Deer Public Schools.
As both divisions continue to grow, the question of funding and future budgets remains a concern.
Alberta
āFar too serious for such uninformed, careless journalismā: 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 toĀ The Globe and MailĀ regarding its May 29Ā Morning UpdateĀ by Danielle Groen, which reported on the Canadian Medical Associationās legal challenge to Albertaās Bill 26.
Written by MLI Senior Fellow Mia Hughes and signed by 34 Canadian medical professionals at the time of submission to theĀ Globe, the complaint stated that theĀ Morning UpdateĀ was misleading, ideologically slanted, and in violation theĀ Globeās own editorial standards of accuracy, fairness, and balance. It objected to the articleās repetition of discredited claimsāthat puberty blockers are reversible, that they ābuy time to think,ā and that denying access could lead to suicideāall assertions that have been thoroughly debunked in recent years.
Given the articleās reliance on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), the complaint detailed the collapse of WPATHās credibility, citing unsealed discovery documents from an Alabama court case and the Cass Reviewās conclusion that WPATHās guidelinesāand those based on themālack developmental rigour. It also noted the newsletterās 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,Ā Globe and MailĀ Standards Editor Sandra Martin responded, defending the article as a brief summary that provided a variety of links to offer further context. However, the threeĀ Globe and MailĀ 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 āsufficient context and qualificationāādespite the fact that the CPS itself relies on WPATHās 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:Ā The Globe and Mail
Attn:Ā Sandra Martin, standards editor
CC:Ā Caroline Alphonso, health editor; Mark Iype, deputy national editor and Alberta bureau chief
To the editors;
YourĀ May 29Ā Morning Update: The Politics of CareĀ by Danielle Groen, covering the Canadian Medical Associationās legal challenge to Albertaās 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 toĀ The Globe and Mailās ownĀ Journalistic PrinciplesĀ outlined in its Editorial Code of Conduct, the credibility of your reporting rests on āsolid research, clear, intelligent writing, and maintaining a reputation for honesty, accuracy, fairness, balance and transparency.ā Moreover, your principles go on to state thatĀ The GlobeĀ will āseek to provide reasonable accounts of competing views in any controversy.ā 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 WPATHās credibility
The articleās claim that Albertaās law āfalls well outside established medical practiceā and could pose the āgreatest threatā 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,Ā guidelinesĀ are basedĀ on the Standards of Care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH)āan organization now indisputably shown to place ideology above evidence.
For example, in a U.S. legal case over Alabamaās youth transition ban, WPATH was forced to disclose over two million internal emails. TheseĀ revealedĀ the organization commissioned independent evidence reviews for its latest Standards of Care (SOC8)āthen 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 emailsĀ also showedĀ Admiral Rachel Levineāthen-assistant secretary for Health in the Biden administrationāpressured WPATH to remove all lower age recommendations from the guidelinesānot on scientific grounds, but to avoid undermining ongoing legal cases at the state level. This is politics, not sound medical practice.
The U.K.āsĀ Cass Review, a major multi-year investigation, included aĀ systematic reviewĀ 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 guidelinesĀ concludedĀ that WPATHās standards of care ālack developmental rigourā 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 toĀ suggestĀ that āthe circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.ā
Countries likeĀ Sweden,Ā Finland, andĀ the U.K. have now abandoned WPATH andĀ limited or haltedĀ medicalized youth transitions in favour of aĀ therapy-first approach. In Norway,Ā UKOM, an independent government health agency, hasĀ made similar recommendations. This shows the direction of global practice is moving away from WPATHās medicalized approachānot toward it. As part of any serious effort to āprovide reasonable accounts of competing views,ā your reporting should acknowledge these developments.
Any journalist who cites WPATH as a credible authority on paediatric gender medicineāespecially in the absence of contextualizing or competing viewsāsignals 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 donāt ābuy timeā 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 betweenĀ 98 per centĀ andĀ 100 per centĀ of children placed on puberty blockers go on to take cross-sex hormones. Before puberty blockers,Ā most children desistedĀ 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 mostĀ accurate and up-to-dateĀ 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,Ā a 2022 paper foundĀ that while puberty suppression had been ājustified by claims that it was reversible ⦠these claims are increasingly implausible.ā Again, adherence to theĀ GlobeāsĀ 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 ācompletely reversible.ā Besides locking youth into a pathway of further medicalization, puberty blockers pose serious physical risks: loss ofĀ bone density,Ā impaired sexual development,Ā stunted fertility, andĀ psychosocial harmĀ 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 theĀ GlobeāsĀ stated editorial commitment to principles such as āaccuracy,ā the crucial information from the studies linked above should be provided in any article discussing puberty blockers. At a bare minimum, in adherence to theĀ GlobeāsĀ commitment to ābalance,ā 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 ādepression, self-harm and suicide.ā There is no robust evidence supporting this transition-or-suicide narrative, and in fact, the findings of theĀ highest-quality studyĀ 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 falseāit 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 āpaediatric breast surgeries for gender-affirming reasonsā sanitizes the medically unnecessary removal of a childās healthy organs. Referring to phalloplasty and vaginoplasty as āgender-affirming surgeries on lower body partsā conceals the fact that these are extreme operations involving permanent disfigurement,Ā 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 societyās most vulnerable young people.
I encourage theĀ Globe and MailĀ 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 forwardāby meeting your own journalistic standardsāso that the public receives balanced, correct, and reliable information on this vital topic.
Trustworthy journalism is a cornerstone of public healthāand on the issue of paediatric gender medicine, the stakes could not be higher.
Sincerely,
Mia Hughes
Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Author ofĀ 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 DāSouza, 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 letterās June 9 submission to theĀ 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
ByĀ Maureen McCall
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.
āI was born in ā79,ā Poilievre said. āand 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.ā
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 ā build alliances with other provinces with mutual interests, and he emphasized the importance of advocating for provincial needs.
āLetās 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 arenāt interested in having anyone in Ottawa cap how much they can produce. Letās 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.ā
Poilievre heavily criticized the federal governmentās 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.
āThe Governmentās 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.ā
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.
āBy 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 missionā¦a full government takeover of our economy. Thereās 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.ā
Poilievre also said he plans to oppose any ban on gas-powered vehicles, saying, āYou should be in the driverās seat and have the freedom to decide.ā This is in reference to the Trudeau-era plan to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035, which the Carney government hasĀ saidĀ they have no intention to change, even though automakers areĀ indicatingĀ 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 āOnline Harms Act,ā also known as Bill C-63. Poilievre closed with rallying thoughts that had a distinctive Western flavour.
āFighting for these values is never easy. Change, as weāve seen, is not easy. Nothing worth doing is easy⦠Making Alberta was hard. Making Canada, the country we love, was even harder. But we donāt back down, and we donāt run away. When things get hard, we dust ourselves off, we get back in the saddle, and we gallop forward to the fight.ā
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
-
Alberta2 days ago
Alberta and Ontario sign agreements to drive oil and gas pipelines, energy corridors, and repeal investment blocking federal policies
-
Crime1 day ago
āThis is a total fucking disasterā
-
International2 days ago
Chicago suburb purchases childhood home of Pope Leo XIV
-
Fraser Institute1 day ago
Before Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
Blackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
-
MAiD1 day ago
Canadaās euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. Itās about to get worse
-
Daily Caller2 days ago
āI Know How These People Operateā: Fmr CIA Officer Calls BS On FBIās New Epstein Intel