Latest news with #UofC
Time of India
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
What is the Free Alberta Strategy that is fueling separatism from Canada? Could Alberta become a new country?
Danielle Smith's push for Alberta separation is deeply rooted in oil politics, not just alienation- In the days following Mark Carney's election as Canada's new prime minister, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith wasted no time in rolling out dramatic political changes. Among the most striking? Making it easier to hold a referendum — a move that could open the door for a vote on Alberta's separation from Canada. Smith says this is about 'alienation.' But look closer, and it's clear the driving force is Alberta's oil and gas industry — and a political strategy built years ago around protecting it. That strategy, known as the Free Alberta Strategy, is now at the core of Smith's rhetoric. And it's shaping Alberta's relationship with the rest of Canada in ways that could carry serious consequences. Is Alberta's separation debate really about oil, not national unity? The idea that Alberta is being unfairly treated by Ottawa isn't new. But this time, the movement comes with an organized, oil-driven political plan. The Free Alberta Strategy, co-written by Smith's chief of staff Rob Anderson, U of C professor Barry Cooper, and lawyer Derek From, calls on the province to take major steps to reduce its ties to the federal government. That includes creating its own police force, leaving the Canada Pension Plan, and opting out of any federal program seen as interfering with Alberta's control over its resources. Continue to video 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Top 10 Most Beautiful Women In The World OMGIFacts Undo Anderson and his co-authors claimed in 2021 that Alberta's treatment within Canada had become 'intolerable,' blaming Ottawa for launching an 'assault' on Alberta's most valuable sector — oil and gas. Smith, a long-time ally of Anderson, brought this strategy with her into power and has been following it closely ever since. What is the Free Alberta Strategy, and how is it shaping policy? The Free Alberta Strategy isn't just an idea — it's a working plan. Its first priority was the Alberta Sovereignty Act, which Smith introduced as her very first legislative move. That was only the beginning. Live Events The next steps in the plan included pulling Alberta out of the Canada Pension Plan, creating a provincial police force, and challenging federal control over everything from environmental regulations to education. While the pension plan idea hasn't gained traction and the police force plan is moving slowly, the UCP government has made it clear that the fight is focused on energy. A key example is Alberta's Critical Infrastructure Defence Act, which has been amended to try and block federal employees from entering facilities that track emissions data — even if those facilities are privately owned. Alberta has also taken the federal government to court over clean electricity rules and is demanding major rollbacks on federal climate and energy laws — including a complete overhaul of the equalization system, which Alberta ties closely to its oil wealth. Why is Danielle Smith blaming Ottawa for Alberta's energy struggles? Oil and gas still drive Alberta's economy. A $1 shift in the price of oil can mean a swing of $750 million in the province's budget. Smith knows this — and she's leaning heavily on that fact to justify her political stance. Smith argues that Ottawa is holding Alberta back through laws like the Impact Assessment Act, carbon tax policies, and the oil tanker ban on the B.C. coast. She's called on the Carney government to roll back nine federal laws and regulations, all of which affect oil and gas development. Her list includes: Repealing federal environmental assessments Removing the B.C. tanker ban Scrapping the federal clean electricity plan Ending the proposed emissions cap for oil and gas Eliminating net-zero mandates for vehicles Returning carbon tax control to the provinces Removing the 'toxic' label from plastics Protecting pipelines through guaranteed economic corridors Ending what she called 'federal censorship of energy companies' Almost every demand is tied to Alberta's oil and gas sector. Could Alberta separation efforts backfire on the oil industry? Danielle Smith's government insists this is about protecting Alberta's prosperity. But experts say the move could backfire — especially if Alberta were to seriously pursue separation. In a May 5 speech, Smith criticized Canada's current energy policies, saying: 'We have the most abundant and accessible natural resources of any country on Earth, and yet we landlock them... while enabling polluting dictatorships to eat our lunch.' But if Alberta actually separates from Canada, the problem of being landlocked could get even worse. The province would no longer have access to the national infrastructure or interprovincial support it needs to move oil and gas to other markets. It might even become more reliant on the U.S. — the 'single customer' Smith herself criticized. As political scientist Jared Wesley pointed out, Smith's list of demands doesn't reflect a national consensus. Instead, they could stir up deeper frustrations, especially if they fail — making separation talk even more volatile. Who is behind Alberta's separation talk, and where does Smith stand? Alberta's frustrations with Ottawa go back over a century. But what's different now is the level of support those feelings are getting from the provincial government. Smith succeeded Jason Kenney, a federalist who helped create the United Conservative Party but was later pushed out by more hardline elements. Smith and her advisor Rob Anderson belong to that outer flank — the side of the party that sees Ottawa as hostile and believes in taking extreme measures to protect Alberta's energy wealth. In a recent post, University of Calgary political scientist Lisa Young described today's Alberta separatists in three groups: True believers who want Alberta to become an independent conservative haven Instrumentalists who use separation threats to win concessions — similar to Quebec Skeptics who are loyal to Canada but see the debate as a negotiating tactic The Free Alberta Strategy dismisses that last group as 'well-meaning and sincere,' but says they 'have not learned from history.' Where does Smith fall? It's not clear if she truly wants to separate or is using the threat to pressure the federal government. Either way, the stakes are high, and the timing — during a growing trade war with the U.S. — adds even more uncertainty. What's next for Alberta as it doubles down on oil? Smith's government continues to shift Alberta's energy priorities. The province is scaling back support for renewable energy, pushing for more natural gas use, and reviewing its industrial carbon tax. These changes go beyond resisting Ottawa — they represent a complete shift in how Alberta wants to power its future. But at what cost? In her address, Smith warned of those who would try to 'divide' Albertans. Yet her government's approach suggests there's only one vision for Alberta, one that centers on oil and gas. Disagree with it, and you're seen as part of the problem. Smith summed up her view with one line: 'Albertans are more of an 'actions speak louder than words' kind of people.' So far, her government's actions — and the direction of the Free Alberta Strategy — speak louder than any speech. FAQs: Q1: What is Danielle Smith's main goal with the Free Alberta Strategy? To protect Alberta's oil and gas industry from federal climate and energy policies. Q2: Why is Alberta threatening separation from Canada? Alberta feels Ottawa is hurting its economy, especially oil and gas, and wants more control.
Ottawa Citizen
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Ottawa Citizen
Braid: Carney snubbed Calgary by passing up a brilliant choice for cabinet
Prime Minister Mark Carney, a hockey zealot, refused to pass the puck to Calgary. Article content Hogan seemed certain to get in. He's one of only two Liberal MPs elected in the province. Article content But, no, not a whiff. Article content Maybe that's not surprising from a PM who grew up in Edmonton and gets to skate with the Oilers. Article content Article content Article content He has been vice-president of communications at U of C and has served in senior roles with the Alberta government. Article content Carney could have lopped off part of her large portfolio — maybe prairie development — and given it to Hogan as a junior minister. Article content Liberals will say it's all our fault because we don't generally elect Liberals. Article content That's exactly right. It's also exactly why a Liberal who does manage to get elected in Calgary should get a cabinet post. Article content George Chahal, defeated in the recent election, was permanently barred from cabinet after his doorstep violation of campaign rules in 2021. Article content Article content Kent Hehr made cabinet after the Justin Trudeau victory in 2015. Article content Before that, there hadn't been a Liberal minister from Calgary since Pat Mahoney in 1972. Article content Nobody disputes that Edmonton deserves a full minister. But in this prime minister's mind, Calgary does not. Article content He had a chance to break the city's drought and simply ignored it. Article content Another Liberal with a background somewhat similar to Hogan's is Evan Solomon, the former CBC host. Article content He becomes minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, and minister for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Article content His riding? Toronto Centre, which also serves as the centre of the universe for the Liberal party.
Calgary Herald
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
Braid: Carney snubbed Calgary by passing up a brilliant choice for cabinet
Prime Minister Mark Carney, a hockey zealot, refused to pass the puck to Calgary. Article content Article content He denied Calgary Confederation MP Cory Hogan a cabinet post. Article content Hogan seemed certain to get in. He's one of only two Liberal MPs elected in the province. Article content But, no, not a whiff. Article content Article content Article content He has been vice-president of communications at U of C and has served in senior roles with the Alberta government. Article content Carney could have lopped off part of her large portfolio — maybe prairie development — and given it to Hogan as a junior minister. Article content Liberals will say it's all our fault because we don't generally elect Liberals. Article content That's exactly right. It's also exactly why a Liberal who does manage to get elected in Calgary should get a cabinet post. Article content George Chahal, defeated in the recent election, was permanently barred from cabinet after his doorstep violation of campaign rules in 2021. Article content Article content Kent Hehr made cabinet after the Justin Trudeau victory in 2015. Article content Before that, there hadn't been a Liberal minister from Calgary since Pat Mahoney in 1972. Article content Nobody disputes that Edmonton deserves a full minister. But in this prime minister's mind, Calgary does not. Article content He had a chance to break the city's drought and simply ignored it. Article content Another Liberal with a background somewhat similar to Hogan's is Evan Solomon, the former CBC host. Article content He becomes minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation, and minister for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario. Article content His riding? Toronto Centre, which also serves as the centre of the universe for the Liberal party.
Calgary Herald
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Calgary Herald
Calgary's lone Liberal MP-elect Corey Hogan reflects on 'bittersweet' election win
The Liberals have one Calgary bastion after Monday's federal election, but not where some had expected. Article content Corey Hogan, a podcaster and vice-president of communications and community engagement at the U of C, won Calgary Confederation for the Liberals after a neck-and-neck race. Article content Conservative Jeremy Nixon trailed by 1,248 votes, according to final tallies on Tuesday. Nixon was unavailable for comment. Article content Article content Article content Confederation was among those in the city considered to be a toss-up by some political analysts. Other ridings considered at play for the Liberals were Calgary Centre, Skyview and McKnight — all of which went Conservative blue. Article content Liberal Lindsay Luhnau lost Centre to Conservative Greg McLean, while Conservative Amanpreet S. Gill won Skyview against Liberal Hafeez Malik by several thousand votes. Article content Article content Article content 'People were ready for change, and I'm glad they let me be the vehicle for change,' Hogan told reporters after Monday night's win. Article content Article content An event for his campaign team — made up of about 400 volunteers — was held at The Banquet in northwest Calgary. Article content A cheerful tone echoed throughout the evening, as the Liberals gained ground in numerous other ridings across the country.
CBC
19-04-2025
- Health
- CBC
Q&A: What are the pros and cons of Alberta's plan for involuntary addiction treatment?
A potential new law introducing involuntary drug treatment in Alberta would become the first of its kind in the country. Premier Danielle Smith says the point of the proposed Compassionate Intervention Act is to help severely addicted people who are at risk of hurting themselves or someone else. Some parents who have watched their child struggle with addiction want involuntary treatment legalized, while critics of the bill question whether it will be effective and what exactly should be done if a person cannot give informed consent to get treated. Psychiatrist Dr. Rob Tanguay is the interim senior medical lead for compassionate intervention with Recovery Alberta and is the doctor overseeing this potential new law for the province. He's also a psychiatrist, teaches at the University of Calgary and he's a clinician who treats people with addictions. Dr. David Crockford is a clinical professor at the U of C, and is also a practising psychiatrist treating people with addictions. Tanguay and Crockford joined Alberta at Noon host Ted Henley on Thursday to discuss the nuances of involuntary treatment for addictions. The following discussion has been edited for length and clarity. CBC: As an example, [let's say] I am a person who wants to exercise the Compassionate Intervention Act when it becomes law. How would it work? Dr. Rob Tanguay: First of all, the goal is to access voluntary services. There's areas in this province that significantly lack access points to treatment, there's areas in this province where we have absolute access on demand for individuals. The first thing that occurs is: an application is submitted, and that application — which is done by an adult family member, a guardian, a health-care professional, police or peace officer — is then reviewed by a statutory director and delegated team. So you know, you can't April Fools your buddy into this kind of program. The application will be fully reviewed, and then within 72 hours, an assessment will be done to determine if the application and the individual even meet that criteria. If they are met, a commission member issues an apprehension order and an assessment order. And if not, the application is dismissed and the applicant will be provided with information on alternative care plans. After the apprehension and conveyance, the police would locate and transport them to the compassionate intervention centre, where they would be assessed. Patients are under the care of a medical treatment team, they will receive full medical support for withdrawal or detox, they will be initiated and receive stabilization, treatment, screening, physical examination, psychiatric examinations — really to determine what's going on for that individual. That information will be gathered, the statutory director and the delegated team will compile all supporting documentation as well as police records, health records and impact statements. Then there's a commission hearing. This is a three-person commission panel that's independent from the treating team, which will include a lawyer, a physician and a member of the public. They will review everything, they're going to determine if the patient is even eligible. If they are someone who would require this treatment, they will go into two treatment plans — either a secure care plan, which is up to three months inside of the compassionate intervention centre, or the community care plan which is up to six months in a community-based setting. And then from there goes into aftercare. The failure of addiction treatment is often no follow-up and we're very aware of that. Dr. Crockford, what's wrong here then, with the program that's been outlaid by the province? Dr. David Crockford: There's a few concerns with it. They put out criteria which are attempting to identify the most severe [cases], the criteria are a little bit vague. It's hard to actually spell it out entirely, they're quite broad. It won't be clear for families, health-care providers or police as to who meets the threshold for severity for apprehension. It's going to require a certain amount of testing and they probably will have to develop an information sheet for people, so that way they get a sense as to who will meet these kinds of thresholds. They're going to be very different. The most severe are probably going to go to a compassionate intervention site. The problem with that, is that the most severe will tend to have the most treatment-resistant conditions and the highest levels of comorbidities or complexity or other problems — they're gonna have lots of cognitive problems, they're gonna have lots of psychiatric problems, they're gonna have lots of medical problems. The facility will have to almost function like a forensic facility, there's gonna have to be high observation security because there's gonna be severe aggression risk and potential suicide risk, and then be able to manage complex psychiatric and medical issues in people with addiction. So, the devil's gonna be in the details, I think, with a lot of it. Another potential concern is, addiction is a chronic disorder. I think Dr. Tanguay spoke about this — people aren't gonna leave compassionate intervention without some sort of a plan, and there needs to be some sort of opiate-agonist therapy if their primary drug of use is an opioid. The problem is, we don't have a lot of medications for all the other substances. There's some oral medications for alcohol, some oral medications for tobacco, but that's it. A lot of the problems that we're seeing in the streets right now with aggression and violence is methamphetamine. And there's no evidence-based medications for this, they generally tend to be much more talk therapies, and trying to do talk therapy with a person who's unwilling is kind of like taking a horse to water, right? You can have Evian in there, but the horse isn't going to necessarily drink. So that's gonna be the hard group, in particular, to try and treat. You have to be a minor under the age of 18, unconscious or mentally incapable of making decisions, that's the criteria where you can give treatment to someone, even if they say no. Can you speak to that Dr. Tanguay? When in an addiction is somebody considered mentally incapable of making a decision for themselves? RT: That's a complex answer. I mean, look, if they're intoxicated and unwell, there's Step 1. If they're in a frank psychosis — where one of the country's leading experts is Dr. Crockford — that is another one. But when we're talking about somebody whose addiction has taken over absolutely everything in their life, where everything is about getting their next opportunity to not get sick or to get high — in many cases these individuals don't get high anymore, they're just really not getting sick — then we have to really look at, is this person making decisions that someone of so-called sound mind would make? But, it gets really tricky and complex, and the health-care system does this all the time. People like to think that our Mental Health Act is nice, cut and dry — it's not. A lot of it comes down to the assessment of the psychiatrist in house, the balance of risks and harms of admitting versus discharging, even if they're suicidal or using drugs or unwell, we discharge a lot of people. And it would be great to admit every single person, but if you come in due to a substance, you will be discharged, and that is a problem. And even if we don't have capacity, we'll just keep you overnight until the substance is worn off a bit, then we'll discharge you, even though everyone around you is saying 'this person is going to die.' When somebody has regained what we call recovery capital, which is, they've regained all aspects of their life that makes sense, from their social connections to their emotional functioning to their financial capacities, all of these aspects come into play. The last thing this is about is keeping someone under some sort of treatment for the rest of their lives. Dr. Crockford, what do you see is the biggest risk here, or challenge, of making someone go to receive treatment for their addiction? DC: I think at the beginning, when a person often lacks capacity, as Dr. Tanguay was describing, when they're acutely intoxicated or when they're in withdrawal, the early stages, the addiction is essentially making the decisions and the person less so. The tricky part is going to be within a few days, few weeks when they are clear and they have the capacity to make decisions. The legislation is proposing that people can be held either in secure care for three months or bed-based in the community for up to six months. It does get reviewed every six weeks, the care plan, which is good, but you're gonna have a bunch of people who will clear, will say the right thing, because they do have the capacity, but then go back to what they were doing. It's going to be very challenging to balance rights with the need for treatment, and I don't think there's a great answer. I know people will be going to a commission, and the commission is a lawyer, a person from the public and an addiction medicine physician who will be making treatment decisions or saying where they need to go for treatment. The only problem with that is, that only one of them actually has training, and then you'll have one person's opinion, which might not be the best and there might be more oversight which is required. It's a very complicated issue, and unfortunately people tend to look at involuntary treatment as being 'OK, we can fix it.' And it's like, well, it's not gonna necessarily fix it, it's a component of care. The treatment of addiction is always to focus on the four pillars, which, enforcement is one of them, which this largely represents. But treatment as well as prevention as well as harm reduction all have to be equally addressed. Dr. Tanguay, why mandate treatment when we could just improve access to voluntary treatment? RT: We need both. We are the hub for the community in Calgary, but other cities in Alberta don't have that. And so while here, if you're struggling or you want to talk to someone or you want to talk to someone about your loved one, you can walk in and get support. It may not happen in Lethbridge, it may not happen in Edmonton, it may not happen in Milk River. Proof of concept has already occurred in Calgary, we've expanded it now to Red Deer. We'll look at seeing it throughout the province. And I agree with everything Dr. Crockford just said about capacity, but we have more than 500 beds coming online in the next two years, brand new beds, eight new recovery facilities to support someone for one year. We're making it easy for individuals, making it easy for the emergency doctor to refer, making it easy for the family doctor to refer so that we're not just giving people pamphlets and saying 'good luck.' Imagine showing up to emerge and your chest hurts, and the emerge doc gave you a pamphlet and said, 'there's some cardiologists on there, good luck.' That's how addiction has been treated in this country for many, many decades. Calgary was the first to truly turn this around and we'll see it throughout the province. Dr. Crockford, just picking up on that 'needing both' notion. Why not have the involuntary treatment option running parallel to the voluntary options out there? DC: I think it's a component, much like the Mental Health Act for people with severe and persistent mental illness. It does parallel a lot of that. The nice thing about some of the treatments for mental illness is that we do have a little bit more resources and we do have a little bit more treatments that we can provide. Whereas with addiction, often there's limited medications that we can offer, and those medications have their pros and cons. I don't disagree that there probably is a role for some people. I think the challenge will be in anticipating potential hurdles and troubles that may come with matters, particularly if a person all of a sudden has a very negative experience and they just don't want to seek care. A lot of the people that we see don't have a lot of trust in the health system, don't have a lot of trust in our government. If they feel like their rights are taken away, that'll just be reinforced and they won't accept care thereafter. Trying to figure out how this involuntary care also applies to community-based programs or non bed-based programs. How you continue to — for lack of a better word — capture those people, because I don't know how it will be implemented. I know they've tried that in different jurisdictions as far as mandating it as part of people's probation and people will tick the box, but it doesn't necessarily alter outcomes. Again, the devil is in the details of how this is rolled out.
