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
Red Deer Justice Centre Grand Opening: Building access to justice for Albertans

The new Red Deer Justice Centre will help Albertans resolve their legal matters faster.
Albertans deserve to have access to a fair, accessible and transparent justice system. Modernizing Alberta’s courthouse infrastructure will help make sure Alberta’s justice system runs efficiently and meets the needs of the province’s growing population.
Alberta’s government has invested $191 million to build the new Red Deer Justice Centre, increasing the number of courtrooms from eight to 12, allowing more cases to be heard at one time.
“Modern, accessible courthouses and streamlined services not only strengthen our justice
system – they build safer, stronger communities across the province. Investing in the new Red Deer Justice Centre is vital to helping our justice system operate more efficiently, and will give people in Red Deer and across central Alberta better access to justice.”

Government of Alberta and Judiciary representatives with special guests at the Red Deer Justice Centre plaque unveiling event April 22, 2025.
On March 3, all court services in Red Deer began operating out of the new justice centre. The new justice centre has 12 courtrooms fully built and equipped with video-conference equipment to allow witnesses to attend remotely if they cannot travel, and vulnerable witnesses to testify from outside the courtroom.
The new justice centre also has spaces for people taking alternative approaches to the traditional courtroom trial process, with the three new suites for judicial dispute resolution services, a specific suite for other dispute resolution services, such as family mediation and civil mediation, and a new Indigenous courtroom with dedicated venting for smudging purposes.
“We are very excited about this new courthouse for central Alberta. Investing in the places where people seek justice shows respect for the rights of all Albertans. The Red Deer Justice Centre fills a significant infrastructure need for this rapidly growing part of the province. It is also an important symbol of the rule of law, meaning that none of us are above the law, and there is an independent judiciary to decide disputes. This is essential for a healthy functioning democracy.”
“Public safety and access to justice go hand in hand. With this investment in the new Red Deer Justice Centre, Alberta’s government is ensuring that communities are safer, legal matters are resolved more efficiently and all Albertans get the support they need.”
“This state-of-the-art facility will serve the people of Red Deer and surrounding communities for generations. Our team at Infrastructure is incredibly proud of the work done to plan, design and build this project. I want to thank everyone, at all levels, who helped make this project a reality.”
Budget 2025 is meeting the challenge faced by Alberta with continued investments in education and health, lower taxes for families and a focus on the economy.
Quick facts
- The new Red Deer Justice Centre is 312,000 sq ft (29,000 m2). (The old courthouse is 98,780 sq ft (9,177 m2)).
- The approved project funding for the Red Deer Justice Centre is about $191 million.
Alberta
CPP another example of Albertans’ outsized contribution to Canada

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
Amid the economic uncertainty fuelled by Trump’s trade war, its perhaps more important than ever to understand Alberta’s crucial role in the federation and its outsized contribution to programs such as the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
From 1981 to 2022, Albertan’s net contribution to the CPP—meaning the amount Albertans paid into the program over and above what retirees in Alberta received in CPP payments—was $53.6 billion. In 2022 (the latest year of available data), Albertans’ net contribution to the CPP was $3.0 billion.
During that same period (1981 to 2022), British Columbia was the only other province where residents paid more into the CPP than retirees received in benefits—and Alberta’s contribution was six times greater than B.C.’s contribution. Put differently, residents in seven out of the nine provinces that participate in the CPP (Quebec has its own plan) receive more back in benefits than they contribute to the program.
Albertans pay an outsized contribution to federal and national programs, including the CPP because of the province’s relatively high rates of employment, higher average incomes and younger population (i.e. more workers pay into the CPP and less retirees take from it).
Put simply, Albertan workers have been helping fund the retirement of Canadians from coast to coast for decades, and without Alberta, the CPP would look much different.
How different?
If Alberta withdrew from the CPP and established its own standalone provincial pension plan, Alberta workers would receive the same retirement benefits but at a lower cost (i.e. lower CPP contribution rate deducted from our paycheques) than other Canadians, while the contribution rate—essentially the CPP tax rate—to fund the program would likely need to increase for the rest of the country to maintain the same benefits.
And given current demographic projections, immigration patterns and Alberta’s long history of leading the provinces in economic growth, Albertan workers will likely continue to pay more into the CPP than Albertan retirees get back from it.
Therefore, considering Alberta’s crucial role in national programs, the next federal government—whoever that may be—should undo and prevent policies that negatively impact the province and Albertans ability to contribute to Canada. Think of Bill C-69 (which imposes complex, uncertain and onerous review requirements on major energy projects), Bill C-48 (which bans large oil tankers off B.C.’s northern coast and limits access to Asian markets), an arbitrary cap on oil and gas emissions, numerous other “net-zero” targets, and so on.
Canada faces serious economic challenges, including a trade war with the United States. In times like this, it’s important to remember Alberta’s crucial role in the federation and the outsized contributions of Alberta workers to the wellbeing of Canadians across the country.
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Trump Has Driven Canadians Crazy. This Is How Crazy.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Carney’s Hidden Climate Finance Agenda
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
The Anhui Convergence: Chinese United Front Network Surfaces in Australian and Canadian Elections
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution
-
Automotive13 hours ago
Hyundai moves SUV production to U.S.
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Conservatives promise to ban firing of Canadian federal workers based on COVID jab status
-
International2 days ago
Pope Francis Got Canadian History Wrong
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
When it comes to pipelines, Carney’s words flow both ways