Alberta
Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms challenges AMA to debate Alberta COVID-19 Review
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/733f0/733f0eecc1c1f65c3de2fd388de16fad5644be6b" alt=""
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
Alberta Income Tax cut is great but balanced budgets are needed
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/46c02/46c02f7f76cc890e9215428c42d1b937433b5151" alt=""
By Kris Sims
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is applauding the Alberta government for giving Albertans a huge income tax cut in Budget 2025, but is strongly warning against its dive into debt by running a deficit.
“Premier Danielle Smith keeping her promise to cut Alberta’s income tax is great news, because it means huge savings for most working families,” said Kris Sims, CTF Alberta Director. “Families are fighting to afford basics right now, and if they can save more than $1,500 per year thanks to this big tax cut, that would cover a month’s rent or more than a month’s worth of groceries.”
Finance Minister Nate Horner announced, effective this fiscal year, Alberta will drop its lowest income tax rate to eight per cent, down from 10 per cent, for the first $60,000 of earnings.
The government estimates this income tax cut will save the average Alberta worker about $750 per year, or more than $1,500 per year for a two-person working family.
Albertans earning less than $60,000 a year will see a 20 per cent reduction to their annual provincial income tax bill.
The budget also contained some bad news.
The province is running a $5.2 billion deficit in 2025-26 and the government is planning to keep running deficits for two more years.
Total spending has gone up from $73.1 billion from last budget to $79.3 billion this year, an increase of 8.4 per cent.
“If the government had frozen spending at last year’s budget level, the province could have a $1 billion surplus and still cut the income tax,” said Sims. “The debt is going up over the next few years, but we caught a lucky break with interest rates dropping this past year, so we aren’t paying as much in interest payments on the debt.”
The province’s debt is now estimated to be $82.8 billion for 2025-26.
Interest payments on the provincial debt are costing taxpayers about $2.9 billion, about a 12 per cent decrease from last year.
Alberta
Alberta 2025 Budget Review from the Alberta Institute
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/561b2/561b2647514c27c2f8d28c99a9443111774d32c6" alt=""
The government has just tabled its budget in the Legislature.
We were invited to the government’s advance briefing, which gave us a few hours to review the documents, ask questions, and analyze the numbers before the official release.
Now that the embargo has been lifted, we can share our thoughts with you.
However, this is just our preliminary analysis – we’ll have a more in-depth breakdown for you next week.
*****
The 2025/26 Budget is a projection for the next year – what the government expects will happen from April 1st, 2025 to March 31st, 2026.
It represents the government’s best estimate of future revenue and its plan for expenditures.
In the budget (and in this email) this type of figure is referred to as a Budget figure.
*****
The actual final figures won’t be known until the 2025/26 Annual Report is released in the middle of next year.
Of course, as we’ve seen in the past, things don’t always go according to plan.
In the budget (and in this email) this type of figure is referred to as an Actual figure.
Importantly, this means that the 2024/25 Annual Report isn’t ready yet, either.
*****
Therefore, in the meantime, the Q3 2025/26 Fiscal Update, which has figures up to December 31st, 2024, provides a forecast for the 2024/25 year.
The government looks at the actual results three quarters of the way through the previous year, and uses those figures to get the most accurate forecast on what will be the final result in the annual report, to help with estimating the 2025-26 year.
In the budget (and in this email) this type of figure is referred to as a Forecast figure.
*****
Accurately estimating, and tracking these three types of figures is a key part of good budgeting.
Sometimes, the economy performs better than expected, oil prices could be higher than initially forecast, or more revenue may come in from other sources.
But, other times, there’s a recession or a drop in oil prices, leading to lower-than-expected revenue.
On the spending side, governments sometimes find savings, keeping expenses lower than planned.
Alternatively, unexpected costs, disasters, or just governments being governments can also drive spending higher than budgeted.
The best way to manage this uncertainty is:
- Be conservative in estimating revenue.
- Only plan to spend what is reasonably expected to come in.
- Stick to that spending plan to avoid overspending.
By following these principles, the risk of an unexpected deficit is minimized.
And if revenue exceeds expectations or expenses come in lower, the surplus can be used to pay down debt or be returned to taxpayers.
On these three measures, this year’s budget gets a mixed grade.
*****
On the first point, the government has indeed made some pretty conservative estimates of revenue – including assuming an oil price several dollars below where it currently stands, and well below the previous year’s predictions.
The government has also assumed there will be some significant (though not catastrophic) effects from a potential trade war.
If oil prices end up higher, or Canada avoids a trade war with the US, then revenue could be significantly higher than planned.
Interestingly, this year’s budget looks very different depending on whether you compare it to last year’s budget, or the latest forecast.
This year’s budget revenue is $6.6 billion lower than what actually happened in last year’s forecast revenue.
But, this year’s budget revenue is actually $600 million higher than what was expected to happen in last year’s budget revenue.
In other words, if you compare this year’s budget to what the government expected to happen last year, revenue is up a small amount, but when you compare this year’s budget to what actually happened last year, revenue is down a lot.
*****
On the second point, unfortunately, the government doesn’t score so well.
Expenses are up quite a bit, even though revenue is expected to drop.
According to some measurements, expenditures are increasing slower than the combined rate of population growth and inflation – which is the goal the government set for itself in 2023.
But, when other expenses like contingencies for emergencies are included, or when expenses are measured in other ways, spending is increasing faster than that benchmark.
This year’s budget expenses are $4.4 billion higher than what was actually spent in last year’s forecast expenses.
But, this year’s budget expenses are $6.1 billion higher than what was expected to happen in last year’s budget expenses.
Perhaps the bigger question is why is expenditure increasing at all when revenue is expected to drop?
If there’s less money coming in, the government should really be using this as an opportunity to reduce overall expenditures.
*****
On the third point, we will – of course – have to wait and see what the final accounts look like next year!
*****
Before we wrap up this initial analysis, there’s one aspect of the budget that is likely to receive significant attention, and that is a tax cut.
Originally planned to be phased in over the next few years, a tax cut will now be back-dated to January 1st of this year.
Previously, any income below about $150,000 was subject to a 10% provincial tax, while incomes above $150,000 attract higher and higher tax rates of 12%, 13%, 14%, and 15% as incomes increase.
Under the new tax plan, incomes under $60,000 would only be taxed at 8%, with incomes between $60,000 and $150,000 still paying 10%, and incomes above $150,000 still paying 12%, 13%, 14%, and 15%, as before.
Some commentators are likely to question the wisdom of a tax cut that reduces revenue when the budget is going to be in deficit.
But, the reality is that this tax cut doesn’t actually cost much.
We’ll have the exact figures for you by next week, but suffice to say that it’s a pretty small portion of the overall deficit, and there’s a deficit because spending is up a lot, not because of a small tax cut.
In general, lower taxes are good, but we would have preferred the government work towards a lower, flatter tax instead.
The Alberta Advantage was built on Alberta’s unique flat tax system where everyone paid the same low flat tax (not the same amount, the same percentage!) and so wasn’t punished for succeeding.
Alberta needs a plan to get back to a low flat tax, and we will continue to advocate for this at the Alberta Institute.
Maybe we can do better than just returning to the old 10% flat tax, though?
Maybe we should aim for a flat tax of 8%, instead?
That’s it for today’s quick initial analysis.
In next week’s analysis, we’ll break down the pros and cons of these decisions and outline where we might have taken a different approach.
In the meantime, if you appreciate our work and want to support more of this kind of independent analysis of Alberta’s finances, please consider making a donation here:
-
Courageous Discourse15 hours ago
Zelensky Met with Dems Before He Met President Trump
-
International15 hours ago
DataRepublican Exposes the Shadow Government’s Darkest Secrets
-
Energy2 days ago
The Next Canadian Federal Election Will Also be a Crucial Energy Issues Election
-
Business6 hours ago
Trump’s USAID shutdown is a win for America and a blow to the globalist agenda
-
illegal immigration1 day ago
“The Invasion of our Country is OVER”: Trump reports lowest illegal crossings in history
-
Energy1 day ago
Trial underway in energy company’s lawsuit against Greenpeace
-
Business1 day ago
Federal government could save $10.7 billion this fiscal year by eliminating eight ineffective spending programs
-
Courageous Discourse15 hours ago
Does Europe Yearn for Another General Bloodletting?