The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - 497. Alberta vs Ottawa: A New Vision of Health | Minister Dan Williams

Episode Date: November 11, 2024

Dr. Jordan B. Peterson sits down with Canada’s Minister of Mental Health and Addiction, Dan Williams. They discuss how Canada became the epicenter of the world’s opioid crisis, the federal approach that only enables further addiction, the demoralization of Canadians as the country’s future continues to destabilize, and the efforts needed to right the ship — before it is too late. Dan Williams was sworn in as the Minister of Mental Health and Addiction on June 9, 2023. He was first elected as the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Peace River on April 16, 2019, and was reelected on May 29, 2023. Minister Williams has been tasked with implementing Alberta’s mental health and addiction strategy, known as the Alberta Recovery Model. This policy model focuses on the fact that recovery is possible, no matter what addiction or mental health challenge someone may face. Under his leadership, Alberta is building 11 recovery communities across the province, a record-breaking expansion to long-term addiction treatment. He has connected with communities, First Nations, and families dealing with the addiction crisis. Alberta has now established a new mental health and addiction agency, Recovery Alberta, which is funded and overseen by the Minister of Mental Health and Addiction. The province, under Minister Williams, is also investing in mental health services, especially for children and youth. Partnerships with service providers are expanding services across the entire province and connecting families with the mental health support they need. This episode was filmed on October 31st, 2024.  | Links | For Minister Dan Williams: On X https://x.com/DanWilliamsAB On Youtube https://youtube.com/@danwilliamsab?si=b5IvXW7t-XHDo285 On Facebook https://m.facebook.com/DanWilliamsPeaceCountry/

Music So I had the pleasure today of speaking to Dan Williams, who's the Minister of Mental Health and Addiction in my home province, Alberta. And there was a variety of reasons why I had the conversation, why I wanted to pursue it, some of which I think are relevant to an international audience. The culture war that plagues the West is playing out very intensely in Canada,

perhaps more intensely than anywhere else, given that our prime minister is the poster boy for the progressive left. And I mean that in the most literal possible sense. And so the political drama in Canada is emblematic of the political drama that is characterizing the international scene in the developed world. And so it's very much worthwhile paying attention, oddly enough, to the Canadian political scene,

and the tension between the progressive left, let's say, the marginalized types who are trying to occupy the center, and the center itself is quite well demonstrated in Alberta in consequence of the tension between the federal government, run by the Trudeau liberals insofar as they're running anything, and the Alberta government, which is, what would you say, emblematic of the typical track of Canadian conservatism with an entrepreneurial bent that makes Alberta somewhat more like the United States. And so we talked about that dynamic as well, and the Canadian political dynamic. But also, because Alberta has an entrepreneurial flair,

there are policy movements in that province that are of, I think, compelling international interest. And one of those is the attempts made by the Alberta government to seriously address the problems of homelessness and addiction. And Dan helped elucidate the Alberta approach to that problem, which is practical, scalable, and by all, evidence, preliminary evidence still, because the programs are relatively new, much more effective than the foolish enabling policies of the radical Canadian left. So join us for a walk through the culture war, the way it's played out in Canada as an emblem of that, and a discussion of practical conservative solutions, let's say, to one of the biggest public health crisis that besets North America in particular today.

Let's begin with just an overview of the Canadian political structure. We have a lot of international viewers, and Canadians themselves could use a refresher. So, maybe start by outlining the provincial, federal government structure structure and then talk about your riding, how you're elected there, what it means to be a minister of the Crown and how the premier is, and well, the prime minister for that matter, is selected. So just give us a primer with regards to the Canadian political structure. Sure. Thanks, Jordan.

The start of the system starts with the British North America Act, which is effectively the basis of our constitution in Canada now. So it was established by an act of the legislature, Parliament in London, England in 1867, and that sets out the framework that the political structure of Canada hangs on. And so there is a federal government which meets in Ottawa and Parliament there. It has a House of Commons, House of Lords. The Prime Minister is the individual that can hold the confidence of the House of Commons. And then every single province, there are 10 of them, get to have their own legislature. And the Premier of each of those provinces is the one who holds the confidence

of that, meaning has the most votes in the legislature or the House of Commons. The reason that's so important is because in that British North America Act or Constitution, it delineates very clearly different areas of jurisdiction. So right from the very authority, the foundational document that sets up Canada, there are some areas of jurisdiction that are exclusively the responsibility of the federal government. There are other areas that are responsibility of each province, like in the United States,

like a state would have its own responsibility. So what happens is if you're talking about questions of education or healthcare or transportation, those are questions that the provinces get to decide themselves. And it's not as though the federal government has given us permission to do that. It's not devolved, the way you might see in the UK with, you know, the Welsh Senate or the Scottish Parliament. It's not the same at all. It is from the very start different sovereign authorities in those areas, established in our constitution. So that means Alberta, province I'm from, has authority in the constitution

to make decisions to do with, say, healthcare. I'm a minister of health with mental health and addictions. That's my responsibility. And then we can collaborate with other provinces, and sometimes the federal government has funding or initiatives that they might want to do, but it is within the four walls of the province of Alberta our responsibility to deliver that,

to set the policies and to move forward. And so the way that the political structure works is there is this natural division, and sometimes as a consequence natural tension, between the interests of a federal government in Ottawa and a provincial government in Alberta. And that sets up the framework in which we talk about the political divisions within Canada.

Okay, so we'll break that into two streams. So in Canada, people running for political office, either provincially or federally, are allied with a political party. And in Canada, there are basically three main parties. There's the liberals who rule federally most of the time. There's the various versions of the conservatives who've been around for a long time

and are the second most popular party, generally speaking, although more frequently than that on the provincial side. And then there's the NDP, the socialists. That's right. And that's been the case in Canada really since the early 1960s. And those parties with some variation operate at a provincial level and at a federal level.

And so if you're running provincially, what would be a typical campaign for you, for example, when you're attempting to gain your seat in the House in Alberta. Right, so before the general election campaign comes, where individuals would run for that seat to be a member of the legislature or perhaps federally member of parliament, there's first often a nomination. That nomination is an election within the political party to decide who's going to be our candidate that we put forward.

And so you need to be a member of that party to be able to vote in that. And then you would be able to, from there, if you're a member of that party, exercise your interest and say, I want to vote for Dan or I don't want to vote for Dan. If I win that sort of pre-election, the nomination, then it goes to a general election. And in Alberta, along with much of the prairies, so Western sort of prairie provinces, it's really a debate between the conservatives on one side in some form and the NDP, the New Democratic Party on the other.

And the NDP is, as you stated, they're self-defined as socialists in their own constitution. Interestingly, the roots of the conservatives within Alberta and all the Western provinces and the roots of the NDP come from the same place. This sort of populist, prairie populism movement, which doesn't have the same connection to populism that people associate with the rest of the world. It existed long before populism became a common sort of attack in public commentary, referring to Trump and others internationally. Prior to populism is what the socialists grew out of

with the CCF, which was actually formed at the Royal Canadian Legion in Calgary, from my understanding. And out of that branch also came a grassroots reform movement. It came as a social credit party earlier on in Alberta's history, and then eventually became sort of

the conservative articulation of populism. history and then eventually became sort of the conservative articulation of populism. Right, so there's a bottom-up, bubbling up of political sentiment that's very characteristic of Western Canada. That's exactly right. It makes itself manifest on the center-right and on the center-left and the socialists in Canada were really a working-class labor union party up until, what, 20 years ago, 15 years ago when things started to shift, something like that. That's right. Today's NDP is not your grandfather's NDP.

No, that's for sure. I mean, you come from the same part of Alberta I come from, where Grant Notley, who was a member of the legislature at the time for the Socialist Party, was elected in rural Alberta, which is as deep blue, i.e. as deep conservative as it gets in Canada. And so it's very, very different. You can even look at George Grant, who I think is one of Canada's greatest political authors and public commentators, who started off supporting the CCF and the NDP

and then quickly realized that this was not the brand that he wanted to get behind and became a big backer of Diefenbaker. And he wrote his famous book, Lament for a Nation, with the defeat of Diefenbaker in the 62 election. Right, so in Canada, for a reasonable amount of time, I think it was appropriate for the socialists, especially on the Labour Party end, to represent themselves as emblematic of working people. And the conservatives were more and regarded more as the party of large business enterprises.

And so, and that's shifted substantially in Canada now, both at the federal and the provincial level. Do you want to comment on that? Yeah, I'd say that it was really the liberals that were the corporatist party for the longest time within Canada. If you look at Deven Baker's campaign, you look at the NDP,

they both were fighting over a working class population with different values that inform it, but it was the liberals that were the corporatists more than anything else. And that changed with the West generally, whether you're looking at the UK, US, the entire Anglo sphere, you saw that conservative parties became more associated with corporate interests. That's not the historical roots of conservatism in Canada, right? It was, as you said, bubbling up grassroots, different versions of a blue-collar

interest that grew out of the same place within the prayers. It's similar in some ways to what's happening with the MAGA movement in the United States, although Americans are more dramatic and they have more of a flair for, well, for showmanship. So there's an over-the-top theatricality about American politics that has really been absent in Canada. We're much more sedate in our political operations. I think it's partly because as well, can you talk a little bit about the restrictions on campaigning in Canada? Yeah, so dollars and cents are much more limited within Canada. So the campaign that I would run, the provincial law limits to approximately $50,000 within my constituency, which is ample. I have to put up some signs and be able to host some coffees and be able to get around

the constituency, which is quite big. It's about a hundred thousand square kilometers, the same territory you're from. So it's the same size as the island of Newfoundland or I mean, I bet you I could find a half dozen American states that are smaller than my constituency. And so it's quite a large area, and that's where a lot of the dollars go. So the politics is different because of the limitations on dollars and cents, for sure. Yeah, well, and there's a duration limitation, too, right? So the intense campaigning is, what, 90 days, generally speaking? Yeah, well, the writ period is normally about 30 days.

That's what it is within Alberta law. As we move to a more of an American fixed election date, that is becoming less of an important distinction. Historically, with snap elections in the Westminster system, it's not like the American system, where we know every four years there's going to be an election in whatever, whether you're talking presidential or a Congress election on these four-year cycles. What instead happened in Canada and the UK and the Westminster system all across the Commonwealth

was you could have an election any time. So spending valuable campaign resources with an attempt to campaign before you know there's an election did not make sense. So the 30 day rip period really was effectively that official campaign and people largely stuck to it. Increasingly, there are more jurisdictions like Alberta that are going to a fixed election date. And so as people see that campaign coming, there are more and more use of campaign resources

happening before the campaign period even begins. I want to talk about a little bit or ask you a little bit about the situation of Alberta in relationship to the federal government and the drama that's playing out in Canada, because I think that what's happening in Canada is emblematic of what's happening in the West in general, especially on the energy side. Now, one of the things you pointed out is that the provinces and the federal government have very different jurisdictions of power. And we should be clear, just so everybody understands, that the jurisdictions of power that the provinces have in Canada are not trivial. Energy and resources, health, education, transportation, those three alone, really, what you could argue, take up the bulk of what might be considered normal, important politics. And so those are provincial jurisdictions.

Now there's a reasonable amount of tension in Canada at the moment between the provinces and also between the provinces, some of the provinces and the federal government. So let's talk about province to province tension at the moment. So one of the, so walk us through the equalization payment issue. So equalization is a wealth redistribution mechanism. In fact, it's a suite of different mechanisms that happen. And some of them are formalized under this idea of transfer payments. And some of them are informal, just in the way that the federal government collects taxes

and the way that they spend those taxes afterwards. But the way that it works is the idea is that some provinces at different times in history have been flush. They've been able to support their own residents because of natural resources, because of economic investment, of all sorts of different varieties.

And the idea is in spite of one province doing well, we want to make sure the entire country is able to manage. And I think most Albertans are big Canadians. They're big Westerners and they want to see the rest of the provinces succeed. But increasingly it's become really clear for Albertans for a long time now that Alberta's not getting its fair share.

That increasingly we see a huge transfer, the tune of billions of dollars leaving Alberta and not getting its fair share, that increasingly we see a huge transfer, the tune of billions of dollars, leaving Alberta and not returning. Collected in taxes because we have a younger population, higher employment rate with higher salaries, working in the resource industry that some neighboring provinces will collect those dollars in redistribution payments, but want to shut down the industry at the same time.

Yes, well, there's a variety of things here that are worth delving into. So I found out, for example, that Quebec, which is the province, the French-speaking province, primarily, to which the bulk of Albertan transfer payments go, and Quebec, I'm speaking, what would you say, generally here, but the sentiment in Quebec is quite strongly anti-energy development, and yet their economy depends on the transfer payments that come from Alberta. And even more to the point, Quebec has enough natural gas to supply itself for 200 years or the European economic block for 50 years. And they've decided for one reason or another not to develop those resources, which is a

very interesting decision, especially given that they import hundreds of millions of dollars worth of natural gas from the United States, which seems relatively insane given that it's sitting there right underneath the ground. And so this is something that actually gets my backup to quite a degree. And I don't know if I'm actually reasonable about it because it's one thing for Albertans to transfer billions of dollars to Quebec, let's say. It's a whole other thing to do so well the Quebec population moralizes about their superiority on the environmental front, while perfectly taking the money that the energy industry is capable of producing.

And it's not merely a parochial concern on my part, being in Albertan, let's say. I lived in Quebec. I loved Montreal. There's some great things about Quebec. Don't get me wrong. But their high-handed moralizing with regards to the energy industry is not one of the things that is good about Quebec. And it's also the case, you tell me what you think about this, most of the people who are bilingual in Canada come from Quebec. And you have to be bilingual, essentially, and correct me if I've got any of this wrong, to work in the civil service.

And so what that means, and I've never seen figures to lay this out statistically, is that the denizens of Quebec are radically overrepresented in Canada's version of the deep state. And that also doesn't strike me as particularly good for Alberta's interests. And so one of the things I'm curious about, and maybe this will be the most contentious part of the interview, is I don't understand why Alberta puts up with this. Like, if something radical was done, like I know this isn't going to happen, and I'm not saying it should happen, but if Alberta said, we're done with transfer payments, what

would happen? Well, I mean, the problem is we don't collect the taxes the federal government does. So there's only so many levers we hold. I think Albertans have said politically over and over again, we're done with being treated as second class citizens within our own country. We're a member of the confederation, we're a part of Canada, we're providing an economic engine so that Quebec can thrive so that when the fisheries shut down on the East Coast, we saw thousands upon thousands of folks from Newfoundland and other parts of the Maritimes and Eastern Canada come to Alberta to work in the oil sands in Northern Alberta and Fort McMurray

to work in the oil and gas and the energy industry. And they were welcomed. And very, I mean, I have a friend who married a friend out in the East Coast and there's this expression out in the East Coast where you're a CFA, a come from away. He's going to have grandkids that are going to own a cottage there and they're going to be CFA, a come from away. He's gonna have grandkids that are gonna own a cottage there and they're gonna be CFA's. Whereas in Alberta, you get a driver's license or a library card, you're from Alberta. It's just-

Yeah, it's a remarkably classless society. It is. And I knew Rex Murphy well, Canada's most famous Newfoundlander, and he and the people he knew, and I toured through Newfoundland with Rex, were extraordinarily grateful to Alberta for the welcome that the Newfies had when the cod fishery collapsed. And it was genuine. And I mean, I grew up at the height of the oil boom in Alberta, and I can remember the

influx of people from Newfoundland. And the only friction really that ever occurred, and it wasn't friction, people told Newfie jokes. But other than that, and they weren't harsh and they weren't mean, they were funny and Newfoundlanders have a great sense of humor by and large, so it wasn't a problem. But my experience was that Alberta really did welcome in the Newfies with open arms. Absolutely. There are many of them are just Albertans now and we happily consider them a part of

our culture and our heritage and who we are, that we're able to provide energy to so much of Canada jobs. It's not just an economic point. And I think as a conservative in Alberta, I need to make this clear. It's a social and a cultural point. This bound Canada together to have two different sides that had very few common experiences. I mean, I went to Newfoundland, I couldn't understand the weather report. But being able to connect through this economic engine of the oil and gas industry in Alberta allowed us to bond together with this distant far-flung

part of the country that we joined in 1949. So there is some utility in spreading the risk. Like you could think about the transfer payment structure if it was run fairly as a form of insurance long-term insurance Right, so when you're doing well, well, then you can afford to be generous when you're not doing so well Then maybe another like the manufacturing section might sector might be booming Alberta If I remember correctly was the recipient of transfer payments at some point. Yes. Yeah, I believe so. Yes Was also developed to some degree as a consequence of investment in the West by the Central County.

By McDonald and the CP rail line, of course. Yeah, so it can be a deal that works, but at the moment, like, well, there's a... It's the hypocrisy that's the issue. It's the idea that... And the money. The hypocrisy and the money. They go hand in hand, right? I mean, Brad Wall, a former premier of Saskatchewan said, maybe Quebec will accept a pipeline if we say we'll only deliver or transfer payments through a pipeline.

You can't have one without the other. The idea of moralizing about the energy industry that provides, again, not just an economy, but Rex Murphy made this point, it saved countless marriages. It saved countless families. The carnage that happens when an economy collapses, I mean, when you see the GDP of my province go down as the Minister of Mental Health and Addiction, I tragically see suicide rates go up.

And this is a corollary that happens universally across the world. I mean, it's not just an economic argument. It's about the fabric of who we are as Canadians. It's about the idea that there's fairness in our confederation. It's the idea that you can help someone out, not just economically, but help them be able to provide for their family, save a marriage. That is meaningful, meaningful collaboration.

Albertans have no axe to grind with that. So many of us come from other parts of the country initially. We have a problem with the very means in which we're enabling the rest of the country to succeed is being dumped on by them in the next breath. Well, we should take that apart a bit more too. So another thing that for everybody who's international watching and listening, another thing that makes Alberta of substantive interest is that Alberta has the third largest fossil fuel reserves in the world. And also the technology and the relatively strict environmental regulations to allow those resources to be used in the most environmentally friendly manner given the framework of fossil

fuel utilization. And so the truth of the matter is, the stark cold truth of the matter is, is that if we don't use Alberta fossil fuels, then China burns coal, for example, which they are at a substantial rate. And part of the reason that's happening is because we're saddled with a federal government who most insultingly put Guilbao, right?

What's his ministry? Environment. Right, right, right. And he's been an environmental activist since he was five. He was arrested, I think, with some sort of environmental activism with Greenpeace in the past. Yeah. Like it's just, it's surreal to Albertans that this is...

It's surreal. This is the way that Prime Minister Trudeau chooses to try and support our industries appointing the most radical activists against us to the Minister of the Crown who is responsible for overseeing this in the country. He couldn't have possibly chosen someone who would manifest more enmity to the basic economic structure of Western Canada. And all of Canada. Yes, and well, right, right.

Yes, definitely. I mean, that is the economic engine of things. Yes, and well, right, right. Yes, definitely. I mean, that is the economic engine of things. Well, and what's the consequence? So you know that the poorest state in the United States by GDP per capita is Mississippi. Yeah. Canadians in the richest province have lower GDP per capita than people in Mississippi, right?

And that divergence has occurred since Trudeau took office. So we're now at 60% of GDP per capita by American standards. Now the Europeans aren't doing much better, but in Canada it's particularly egregious because there's absolutely no reason at all that Canadians, we should be wealthier. We should be wealthier than the Americans

if we were governed by people who had even the least amount of sense, federally in particular. I think fundamentally it comes down to this recognition that what choices you make in government have consequences. It's not an abstraction. I think that the institutions of Canada have not been working. And we can go more into that because I think it's a heart of one of the problems that we faced here. But who we elect, the decisions we make are consequential. You don't believe me? Look at the history of Argentina since the 1920s.

There's no guarantee. Or even in the last year. And the reversal, right? So there is no guarantee that because you were prosperous and you could provide for the vulnerable, you could help those who are destitute. You could invest in infrastructure and in hospitals. No guarantee that you get to do that

indefinitely into the future. You need to manage responsibly in good governance, which is Canada's heritage, the gifts that we've received and in stewardship. And the Trudeau government has absolutely wasted the resources that we've had. And on top of the economic disaster, which again has social consequences,

that's families that are breaking apart, suicides tragically that increase. On top of that, they poured fuel on a fire and somehow flamed, fanned those flames. When we look at the social policy, when we talk about the addiction crisis in North America, they somehow found a way to take the addiction crisis of the 1990s and 2000s and make it worse.

And that is quite a feat. Well moralizing insanely. That's right and having exactly the opposite policy of what the data and the facts say you ought to never mind common sense. And that's just one example. You could go across the spectrum and you could go over and over again and look at what Canada has become. And I think part of it is the institutions that we rely upon.

Canadians built institutions. These institutions were strong. These institutions were what mitigated and sort of the common life that Canadians lived through, whether it's your schools or you're talking about recreation opportunities or the government itself, the courts, the media, the academia, these are institutions that mediated public life that Canadians lived through their interactions, not often directly with the Prime Minister's office, but instead through all these institutions. And whether you're talking about the Supreme Court, the Senate, or you're talking about the way local sport clubs are run, they're failing Canadians.

So, okay, so the, let's talk about some of Danielle Smith's new initiatives. Now, the conservatives 10 years ago, I would say, in Canada, had been set back on their heels on the moral front and tactically by the radical progressives. And my experience with the progressives at that time was that they were uncertain about how to proceed, not least because if they manifested any signs of social conservatism rather than economic conservatism, the progressives would isolate them one by one and take them

out. And so, but over the last 10 years, I've seen a new breed of conservative emerge in Canada, both Poliev and Danielle Smith, the premier of Alberta, I think are emblematic of that. And she's a tough cookie and she's smart. And she just made some modifications to the Alberta Human Rights Act. Human Rights Act is that?

Alberta Bill of Rights. Alberta Bill of Rights, right. Okay, so can you detail out that a bit Act, Human Rights Act? Alberta Bill of Rights. Alberta Bill of Rights, right. Yeah. Okay, so can you detail out that a bit and also explain why she did that? And people are going to be wondering too, including Albertans and other Canadians, it's like, well, how does Alberta have a Bill of Rights? So what's the relationship between that and the Canadian Charter of Rights? Right, so the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional document.

Pierre Trudeau, Trudeau Senior, Justin Trudeau, the current Prime Minister's father, repatriated the Constitution in 1982, which is just a way of saying that he said that the buck stops again with Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada rather than going back to London for a final say. And so part of that was also introducing a charter of rights and freedoms. Now when that charter was introduced the intention was to preserve Canadians' liberties and freedoms.

And it was meant to be... Hypothetically. Well, I think there's a lot of concern, and we can talk about the role of the Supreme Court, which I think is one of the more fascinating conversations that Canadians aren't having in relation to the elected parliaments and legislatures of Canada.

But the Alberta Bill of Rights was one that predates that term. Right, that's an important point. It predates it. Right. And it applies to provincial jurisdiction. Obviously, Alberta can't be making laws that apply to federal jurisdiction, and it's not constitutional in that sense. What it is, is a document that has sort of precedence

within our series of different bills and legislation that we have passed in Alberta that is meant to protect Alberta's rights. And it has not been updated for decades. And so the idea that Premier Smith had, especially coming out of what has been a turbulent time where lots of fraught debate had happened throughout COVID and much of our society with other crises saying,

we need to make sure this reflects the interests of Albertans. And so within Alberta jurisdiction, this bill is going to amend it and include different rights, right to property, gun ownership. That's an important one, because property rights in Canada are relatively weak. Yeah, that's right.

I mean, I'm a natural law theorist, so I would say that what law, positive law only reflects, so the laws that we pass can only reflect the fundamental laws that exist before us, right? And so the chart of rights and freedoms, when Section 7, its most famous section, protects the right to life, liberty and security of the person, it was great that Parliament and every single province in Canada reflected that and admits that, but it's not as though there wasn't a right to life, liberty and security of the person before it became a part of the Constitution. I mean, that's a fundamental assumption about the nature of how rights work. Another one is that-

And part of the English common law tradition. That's exactly right. A deep part. That's right. And that common law is based on a natural law that is reason, that exists independent of any positive articulation of it. And so this bill of rights is meant to be a reflection on the reality of those rights. And you could quote anyone from Locke to Pope Leo XIII in Rio Novarum, and you could talk about how rights and the rights of men predate the state, they pre-exist the state, and that's the nature of how rights work. And so, now, Smith and your government have fortified, for example, people's rights to bodily autonomy and integrity.

So if I understood correctly, this is probably the most media relevant portion of the transformation that Smith is introducing She's forbidding vaccine mandates. Yeah, I would say in effect Forbidding vaccine mandates. That's right because there is I would articulate it saying that because we have Intrinsic human dignity right that means that that dignity, when we're in possession of our faculties, when we can reasonably make our own decisions, when it comes to health care, we ought to, right?

You know, the Aussies are starting to apologize for the vaccine mandate, say, at the state level. Oh, interesting. Yeah, that happened this week. Interesting. Yeah, yeah. Well, the problem is, I think, and this is probably a conservative proclivity, but we could have a discussion about that. If your policy, maybe there's an exception for criminals, let's say that to begin with.

There's an exception for people who just will not play fair no matter what. Generally speaking, if your policy requires force, it's badly constituted. And so the vaccine policies required force and so they weren't invitational and they should have been invitational. And so that was a big mistake. And there are cascading consequences of that that are independent of whether or not the vaccines work or whether they produced side effects, independent of the vaccine debate per se, is that public trust in public health has plummeted. And the reason for that is that if you use force, even for the good, if you use force,

people aren't going to trust you. They're going to wonder what the hell you're up to, and rightly so. And so even if the vaccine program worked, and I don't think there's a shred of evidence for that, by the way, but I think you could have a debate about that. I think it's indisputable that the use of force has counter consequences. So for example, there's way more skepticism about vaccines in general, and perhaps some

of that is warranted. I mean, Robert Kennedy is certainly pushing that idea. But diluting the trust that people have in the institutions that had protected them for a long time is a very bad idea. So now Smith has also reduced the power of the regulatory boards, the colleges, the professional colleges, for example. And so that's welcome news to someone like me, of course, because I'm still in danger of being re-educated if the Ontario College of Psychologists and Behavioral Analysts can

ever get their act together, which is highly improbable given their previous behavior. But she's increased the protection for freedom of speech. I mean, the Supreme Court in Canada basically decided in my case that, as far as I could tell, my interpretation of their ruling, or their refusal to hear my appeal, was something approximating the professional regulatory boards can do anything they want that's reasonable. I don't know who determines that precisely.

And the charter be damned. And so that seems to me to be a very bad idea given that one in five Canadians are in a regulated profession. And I know I've talked to many, many people who are in regulated professions, and they are terrified to speak. And this is really bad. Like, it's really bad. So among psychologists, for example, you're basically mandated if a parent brings in an adolescent who's having gender dysphoria trouble, real or socially constructed, let's say.

You are mandated to affirm their choices. And I can't, I seriously can't think of anything more scandalous than that, that's occurred within the psychological community and the medical community in the last hundred years. It's absolutely barbaric, but no one is brave enough, virtually no one's brave enough to buck the tide. And it's not surprising, you know, because the consequences of telling the truth, this means that your psychologists, the ones that are actually, you know, genuinely educated and competent, and the same goes for physicians, they're mandated to lie to you about your children. They're mandated, the ones that are actually, you know, genuinely educated and competent, and the same goes for physicians. They're mandated to lie to you about your children.

They're mandated, for example, to swallow the lie that if you don't allow your child to transform themselves surgically into the sex they hypothetically are, that their suicide risk will be elevated, which is a complete bloody lie. There's not a shred of evidence for that, and there's plenty of evidence for the reverse. So what, let's say you stood up against that and you were reported to your college. The consequences are going to be first scandal, second tremendous expense because if there's a complaint against you, it's basically a legal case and it's very expensive to litigate and it takes forever. They've been chasing me for 10 years, right?

It's cost me more than half a million dollars to fight them off so far, as ineffectively as I've managed. And so, and then if you lose your license, or even if the scandal falls on you, because once there's a decision against you from the college, that's part of the public record and a little bit hard on you if you're trying to advertise your services, let's say. It's not surprising that physicians and psychologists and engineers and social workers and teachers won't say what they think. And then we're in a situation where professionals,

the professionals you rely on in a crisis can't say what they think when you need them to. That is not good. That's seriously not good. And Canadians are seriously asleep at the wheel. And you know, it's a weird thing because, how old are you? 37. Okay, so I'm a a weird thing because, how old are you? 37. Okay, so I'm a lot older than you,

you're 30 years. Well, you know, the Canada that I grew up in, all of the institutions were fundamentally trustworthy and trusted. All of them, all of them. The education system, K-12, the higher education system, the court system, the three-party political system, the media, yeah, CBC, I watched CBC all the time when I was a

kid while there were only two channels, you know, and so, and by and large, although it had a liberal tilt, I would say, no one presumed that CBC was bending the truth or advocating for the government, certainly no one assumed that to the point where they evinced skepticism about the coverage. I mean, we had a country that functioned extremely well, kind of without that showy entrepreneurial flair that the Americans have, which is really something to admire and emulate. Canada was a much more moderate place, a much more middle class place, but fundamentally rock solid. And even the debates between the political parties were never, everybody sort of stayed in their lane and we knew where the political parties stood. And I don't know what the hell's happened

in the last 15 years, but like that time seems to me to be, it's seriously over. God only knows what's going to replace it. I think what's happened is the institutions have fundamentally failed at their roles. And this is true of every institution you mentioned. And a good case to look at would be the file around addiction. And it's something we, a good segue for us to get into it. Yeah, good, good. If you look at the United States and Canada, we're uniquely positioned as the epicenter of the worldwide opioid addiction crisis.

It really is here. And it's because of the failure of institutions. And you could tell the story all the way through, starting with 1995 when the FDA in the United States approved, and I think an insane decision, oxycodone with Big Pharma, and they said that this would be good for public health. They said that there aren't risks of addiction. It's incredibly low. Oxycodone is twice as powerful as heroin, street heroin, right? It's also the case, by the way, and everyone who's listening should know this, that the

probability that you can produce a pharmacological compound that's analgesic and not addictive is very low, right? Because the mechanism of action of analgesic medications is the same mechanism that produces drug-related reward. And so it's very difficult to separate those. Now you get anti-inflammatories can reduce pain by indirect mechanisms, but if you're directly affecting the systems that cause pain psychopharmacologically, you're going to be using compounds that have a high

addictive addiction potential. Even cocaine, which isn't generally used as an analgesic, has analgesic properties because of its psychomotor stimulant properties and it seriously abuse what would you eliciting and dependency eliciting. So you know the pharmaceutical companies were lying with regards to the opiates on the most fundamental biological grounds imaginable. That's right and it was very well known. I mean what you're describing is not new science right? No, no, definitely not.

This is century old. Well, yes, the addiction properties for, well, longer than that even maybe, but the actual pharmacology at the neurological level, that's been pretty well established since I would say it's probably 50 years at the molecular level. And so what happened was, the reason it went the way it did was not because of new science and not because of evidence, that the mass opioid pandemic that we saw was because of marketing, fundamentally. And large amounts of dollars that

were being traded transactionally. And we saw our regulatory bodies, our colleges, or the oversight bodies for physicians. We saw our medical schools. We saw every single institution in the medical world be co-opted by this, and so easily as well. Now we should explain, just so everybody knows about these colleges, because the terminology is confusing because people typically think of a college as a university.

But there are professional colleges, and professional colleges are organizations of professionals within a given profession, say engineers or physicians or psychologists. And they're tasked with the responsibility of being self-governing. And the self-governing bodies, at least somewhat self-governing and self-regulating, and those bodies are tasked with the regulation of their professionals so that the public is well-served. And I would also say, no one heard anything about regulatory colleges.

That's only become an issue in the last 10 years. They operated fundamentally as administrative boards behind the scenes with no- No politics, no ideology. No, no media coverage. They basically dealt with professionals who had complaints levied against them, justified or not, by members of the general public and dealt with that in the appropriate

administrative manner. Now they're completely politicized. And that's especially true with the legal regulatory. And they would have standards of practice, say for example, for a medical professional regulatory body that would say, this is the best practice. And if you're not doing that for some reason, there could be some complaint against you. And then make sure that the public could know if you were a physician practicing in say Fairview, Alberta or Peace River, where we're from, then you could trust that person isn't out there some sort of quack. This is something that we know

the government says through this regulatory body has standards that they will meet. Because we want to make sure people can trust our professionals. And when it's not politicized, that's good, right? Now the government establishes these colleges through legislation.

And so we obviously have a responsibility to say if they're not working the way they ought to to protect the public interest, if instead they're protecting a political ideology, then we need to make sure we intervene, which is the legislation that you mentioned that Premier Daniel Smith is bringing forward. We're going to be debating this session of the legislature. Oh yeah, oh yeah.

And so that's when it's coming through. And so what's happening, what happened in, you know, the mid 90s and early 2000s was fundamentally a question of institutions that were meant to protect us. The government had established or self-regulatory bodies or medical schools, academia, the research wing of universities. They are there in many different functions to protect us and to guide us and help us. And instead of doing that, as oxycodone became widespread and prescribed over four times the rate that it used to be,

if you look at just 2012 alone, the end of this sort of mass prescription time of oxycodone, we saw there was about a quarter billion prescriptions in North America. That's enough for one prescription for every adult, right? So it was incredibly widespread. The consequence of that was what used to be a market for opioids in LA and New York, in Vancouver and Toronto, with organic heroin that maybe came from South Asia. Instead now there was every single

little town of Peace River and in Appalachia, Pennsylvania, and everywhere that had a physician that was told that this is safe, that this doesn't have public health consequences, that these are non-addictive, that this is the way in the future to treat pain, especially if you're blue collar, you got a prescription. Prescription for an opioid that's twice as powerful as heroin.

And any sort of defense they had, the idea there was lung acting, you crush up the pill. That's the issue there, that's yes, exactly. And so the technology wasn't as sold. And it's clear. So we should, just so people are clear about that, well there's two things. Tell everybody the nature of your ministry.

You're the minister of mental health and addiction. That's right. And so we're gonna delve into that, it was starting with the oxycodone story. And so, and that's why you have specialized knowledge in this domain. And Alberta has a recovery program. What's it called?

The Alberta Recovery Model. Alberta Recovery Model, right. And I talked to Jason Nixon, another minister of Smith's cabinet, about this to some degree about a year ago. And so this is a continuation of that discussion. The reason I'm having these discussions, by the way, for everybody who's watching and listening, is because I think that Alberta has a model for the homelessness drug addiction problem that is economically

justifiable and effective, and that could be duplicated widely, particularly in North America, and be duplicated effectively. And it contrasts very markedly, let's say, with the NDP's approach to the drug addiction problem in the province to the west of Alberta, right? British Columbia and the socialists, of course, won the election again, although much reduced in power. And so British Columbians are going to have to struggle through the same foolishness that they've been experiencing for the last eight years for another, well, we'll see. They didn't get much of a majority. Okay, so the Alberta recovery model is very promising, and I was impressed with Nixon

because he, well, he's been in that realm his whole life fundamentally because his parents were deeply involved with helping people out of addiction using extra governmental sources from the time he was a little kid. And so, you know, one of the things that struck me about what Alberta was doing was that you guys are not merely moving deck chairs on the Titanic, right? Like you've taken a very sophisticated and multidimensional approach to the redressing of the homeless crisis and the addiction crisis in Alberta, balancing quite nicely, balancing appropriate policing with

appropriate rehabilitation. Very difficult thing to do. Now it's my understanding, and correct me if this is wrong, tell me about the tent city situation in Alberta and how that's changed. Right, and so within Alberta, we've fundamentally decided to take a different tack from what Canada has offered as a policy when it comes to addiction and homelessness for the last, say, 20 or 25 years. If you have been to Canada, and it's true in many North American cities, but Canada, as we said off the start, seems to have found a way to aggravate it, to make it even worse than it naturally

would have gone on its own. Alberta said, we're taking a different approach because it's getting worse, not better. And so, ten cities are a function of homelessness and addiction and mental health all converging into a population that is vulnerable, that needs supports. And the only thing that the rest of Canada has been doing for decades is effectively facilitating more of that addiction. I went to a correction facility in Alberta, our largest one, and I asked- Went to a-

Pardon me? What facility? A corrections facility. Corrections facility. A jail. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And so that correction facility, I asked the warden, how many people passing through your door end up admitting to a serious addiction?

And they said, nine out of 10 indicate they have a serious addiction on their intake form and one out of 10 lie. They believe it is ubiquitous that the population that's going through are struggling with addiction. Now I'm not saying addiction necessarily leading to crime. I'm saying that people who end up in our corrections facility have lots of problems that pre-exist the criminality. And if our only plan...

Well, and there's some direct association, like alcohol, for example, and almost everybody who has a drug addiction problem also has an alcohol problem. They co-occur very, very tightly. Because if you're going to abuse cocaine, well, you might as well cut it with alcohol. And if you're going to abuse cocaine, you might as well abuse alcohol. And that sort of thing happens. Now, alcohol is notorious. It's a notorious drug. So it's the only drug we know of that reliably actually directly increases aggression.

It's implicated in 50%… half the people who murder are drunk and half the people who are killed are drunk and half the people who were killed are drunk, right? It's without alcohol. There would be almost no domestic violence, right alcohol is very bad It's very very very very serious contributor to crime and then the problem with the other forms of addiction of course is that as you become addicted and fall out of the Out of society and you still need to pay for your drugs you're you're going to there, the temptation to turn to crime to generate the proceeds necessary for you to get your next hit is going to loom large.

And that's catastrophic too, even from the economic perspective, because it's very hard for people to steal anything now that has any value. I mean, you steal a TV from someone's house and you pawn it off, there's no value in it at all. And so the cost of crime is much, much greater than the benefit to the criminal. And that's getting worse and worse. And so, okay, so there's a massive association

between addiction and mental health problems, broadly speaking, and criminality, and like active criminality, but also broadly speaking, and criminality, and like active criminality but also the kind of passive criminality that I think constitutes tent cities, for example. That's the breakdown of social norms, the occupation of public lands, the, what, the general decrease in the civility of common life that's associated with widespread despair and catastrophe on the streets,

especially in a place like Alberta that's so bloody bitterly cold. So, you know, how in the world do you live out in the streets through an Alberta winter? You can hardly live inside a house in an Alberta winter. So, okay, so you went to the corrections facility and we want to get back to the oxycodone story. Sure, and so I'll just make this point Bradley,

because you went down asking about the Alberta model and what it is. It fundamentally is an assumption that we need to address the addiction crisis seriously. To understand why it's been such a problem, we have to look at how oxycodone crisis turned into a second crisis within Canada that was propagated and aggravated by the federal government with their policies. We are fundamentally saying that addiction is a part of the crisis that individuals face. And if you try and do housing first, as Minister Nixon made the point, without addressing addiction,

right, you're going to end up in a very, very difficult spot, right? You need to say, I mean, the nature of an addiction, if we're talking about an opioid addiction, I mean, many people who are addicted to opioids lose a fifth to a quarter of their body weight because they don't have a desire to eat or drink because the dopamine hit you get is 200% increase from your baseline level when you do an opioid. I mean, imagine if this conversation was the best conversation we'd ever had,

the most stimulating ever. That would be 25% increase in their dopamine maybe, off our baseline, from what I understand. You're talking about something eight times as compelling. Of course no one's gonna wanna have a conversation or eat a burger or drink water or have sex or continue to hold down a paying job and be a part of society when you're still in active addiction.

That's particularly true if they're isolated and have already fallen out of society to some degree. So the rat literature indicated pretty convincingly that it was actually pretty hard to addict rats that were in their wild habitat to cocaine. But if you isolated them in a cage, you could get them addicted to cocaine to the point where they would only self-administer cocaine

and they wouldn't do anything else, barely drink, certainly not eat, certainly not be interested in sex. And so if you're dealing with people who are alienated, who aren't integrated into a community that allows them alternative forms of genuine reward, then the dopaminergic chemicals become that much more attractive. And if you wanna look at examples of that,

just look at Western society that atomizes everyone increasingly. And there are all sorts of benefits, the personal autonomy that we have in society, but increasingly we're more isolated than we've ever been. And COVID was part of the expression, that on steroids. It was so much more so this isolation that happened. And an addiction is fundamentally a disease of isolation.

And the antidote to that is recovery, which is a community relationship again, in some way. Yeah, community and purpose. That's way. Yeah, community and purpose. That's right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So let's get to that question around. Draw the line between the oxycodone over prescription and the government policies that facilitated

the development of the opioid crisis. Now, is that associated with the policies that say characterize Vancouver where drugs are distributed? What? Widely and easily and the most devastating of drugs. That is the understatement of the decade to say widely and easily. So the oxycodone crisis created a North American opioid pandemic.

The authority on this is a Stanford-Lancet commission written by Dr. Keith Humphreys, who is a professor, seenancet Commission written by Dr. Keith Humphreys, who is a professor, seen to be a universally accepted expert when it comes to the opioid crisis in North America. It's distinctly North American as a crisis. There are aspects of this that we see in other parts of the world, but we see the opioid crisis created a market

for opioid users that wasn't just that Toronto, Vancouver, LA, New York York for that heroin market that would have existed. Instead, everyone that had a prescription, i.e. everyone with a pharmacy, dispensary, and a family physician, and anyone who had pain in their life, there now was a market for that. And we saw a massive explosion.

And so one of the axiomatic truths of addiction broadly, and it is on full display with the late 90s and early 2000s, is if you increase supply to a market and you don't have barriers there, then you're going to increase harm. Addiction will come out of that. And it's just axiomatic. You can't get around it. So if you massively dump high-powered opioids twice as powerful as heroin into every single community and you start with a trusted institution prescribing these, your family physician passing them out en masse with huge amounts of diversion, which means to say the person who

has prescribed the opioid doesn't receive the opioid instead it gets traded or marketed to some other individual, you're creating a new addict. And the way that the addiction works, especially with opioids, is it continues to ratchet up and it escalates. And so you might become tolerant after a while of receiving heroin or twice as powerful oxycodone, so you take twice as many of those pills. And after a time, you saw a massive resurgence

of the heroin market across all of North America. And is that what opened the door to fentanyl? And so fentanyl is just a much, much more powerful version of heroin. So if you look at oxycodone, which is twice as powerful as heroin, thereabouts, fentanyl is about 100 to 200 times more powerful than that, right? And so as tolerance continues to escalate in a using population, there are very clever chemists and ill clever chemists, in the illicit chemists,

that are going to find a new high-powered opioid that will be able to satiate that desire. And so if you are using, over a long period of time, months and years, you no longer can get a high off of that lower-powered opioid, so you need to be seeking more and more. And fentanyl is one of them, but there's su-fentanyl and carf car fentanyl and some clever chemists that's going to

create something even more damaging afterwards. It's not just that the opioid gives you that dopamine hit and that high that we talked about. If that was all it was there would be all sorts of difficulties in managing that because of its addictive properties but the opioid also can access different receptors in the brain, as you well know, and one of those receptors are what depress your respiration. And so if you get a really powerful opioid, like say fentanyl, that's hundreds of times more powerful than heroin, then your breathing will stop to the point where you don't pump blood through your chest anymore and your veins don't deliver that oxygen and to your brain you will

have cerebral hypoxia which is akin to drowning in daylight. You're suffocating for air in your brain and that's what an opioid overdose is. And so... That's running rampant on the West Coast. And fentanyl is particularly bad at this, right? And so we had a few factors come together. The failure of the institutions that were meant to protect us, the academic institutions that train physicians, the colleges that regulate physicians, the regulatory bodies, the regulatory bodies that regulate the access to drugs themselves, and it went unchecked for over a decade and created a mass market. And this is like a slow moving freight train

towards our healthcare system and towards your family and your community members that end up hooked on an addiction to an opioid. And we know that that addiction will escalate. And that addiction run its course has only one of two ends. And if someone says otherwise, they're lying to you and maybe even to themselves. The addiction run its course, either ends in pain, misery,

and given enough time, death, through an overdose, or some other ancillary consequence, like not eating, or lacerations from living in a tent city, you name it. Carnage that happens, trauma lives in addiction.

The alternative to that, and it's the only alternative, given enough time, is treatment, recovery from your addiction, and that second secondly some life, to be a community member again, to be a brother or a mother. One of the reliable findings in the alcohol addiction treatment literature, virtually

no treatments for alcoholism work, but that doesn't mean that people don't recover. And one of the primary pathways to recovery, and this has been known, I would say, for seven or eight decades, is something approximating religious transformation. This has been well known among researchers who have no stake in the matter from a religious perspective. And there's a reason for that. The reason is is that the drugs of abuse,

like alcohol, if you're prone to it, have this dopaminergic kick that you're describing. So dopamine kicks in when you see yourself moving towards a valued goal. And so that feels good, but it also reinforces the development of the neural systems that underlie that movement. So if you do something and it works,

it makes you feel good, but the systems that you use to do that grow, and dopamine does both of those. Okay, so you experience a dopamine kick when you're moving towards a valued goal. And so that has some implications. One implication is if you have no valued goals, you have no access to dopamine kick. Right. So now if you're drinking or you're addicted, you're falsely stimulating these systems. Now you need that kick. Well, that's what people live for in many ways. It's part of what gives them the sense of purposeful action. Well, the substitution of a new purpose actually reduces the craving pharmacologically because it activates the same systems. And so you need, you can't just stop using a drug.

You have to stop using a drug and find something to do that's a replacement or better. Better would be best. Okay, now. Yeah, and that's exactly right, but it's worse than that in a way too because it's not just that it gives you a natural dopamine kick that you could have.

It gives you this synthetic, heightened, which drives an addiction to a way where nobody, even in the most fulfilled life that they could have of purpose with a family and children they're raising, thinks I don't wanna eat today because I want to spend more time with my family. It's not overriding. And so that dopamine kick is super problematic.

And so if you deal with that without replacing it with some purpose and without a sense of how you plan to treat it, you will just continue to escalate and the tolerance you get, because your body tells you there's too much dopamine going on. I need to react. So you're going to start shutting down some of those opioid receptors. you're not going to be able to get as big of a kick. Again, that's why it's so particularly dangerous when you talk about overdose deaths, is that the opioids will force you into a spot where you are risking life every single time. We had one individual in Alberta that overdosed 186 times that we know of last year.

Now an overdose means again, you're drowning in daylight, your brain can't get oxygen, you can't breathe, right? And so we doubt that that is all the times that person's overdosed, probably more because every time someone overdoses, there's not always a healthcare worker there saying, can I have your provincial healthcare number, please? There are many reversals with naloxone kits that happen all the time. So we see individuals like that that continue to escalate. That doesn't start overnight.

That happens because there's been no intervention. Because the state, the system, the wider culture just continues to facilitate the addiction. And the addiction, run its course, has got one, two ends. You end up in recovery, you end up dead. And so I don't wanna put my eggs in helping people continue the path of ending up dead. As a minister, I have a moral responsibility to support and then where I can intervene to get someone into recovery.

And that means building a very big healthcare system that is going to help people get into that state of recovery. Okay, so now when I talk to Jason Nixon, it was just a couple of months after Alberta had started to take down the tent cities. Okay, so it's been about a year. So tell me what the situation is with regards to taking down the tent cities. Okay, so it's been about a year. So tell me what the situation is with regards to taking down the tent cities and like is it what's the status of Alberta at the moment, Edmonton, Calgary,

Peace River, Grand Prairie with regards to homeless encampments and then walk us through what people who are in the throes of addiction would be offered or could expect as a consequence of this model. Just walk us through it step by step. I wanna get to that, but we haven't told the full story that got us to where we are. Yep, okay, fine.

And so I wanna get that first. Yes, okay. Because then before we get to the solution, we don't fully understand the problem. We had one failure so far around colleges and regulatory bodies, et cetera. That created the market, right? And then if we skip forward about a decade after 1995 when oxycodone started, you look

at the policy response in Canada. And this is what's beginning to develop as a response to the mass induction of uptake of opioids across the entire North American continent. And we look at Insight in 2003, which is known as a safe injection site or drug consumption site. And Vancouver, as you described, is very progressive, West Coast, left coast. And they came up with the idea of saying, we're going to create an exemption to the Criminal Code of Canada.

And we're going to establish a supervised drug consumption site. So HIV AIDS or other different communicable diseases we want to reduce, but importantly we want to be there to reverse overdoses. That idea didn't come out of nowhere. The end of the war on drugs happened across all of North America and that these drugs, cocaine and then increasingly opioids, are too dense and too potent and too valuable and profitable for us to really prohibit on the supply side. It was really difficult to stop these drugs from coming into our market. And the demand was there.

It was created, right? And so we saw resurgence of heroin, for example, massively across the entire continent. And this was paired with the harm reduction model, which says if people are going to use, we need to make sure we reduce the harmful outcomes that happen. So needle exchanges, needle cleanups, and it became articulated in Canada, especially in Vancouver initially, with exemptions to the criminal code for certain sites around drug consumption sites. And so this idea said, if people are using, let's help them do it safely. And from that point on, the literature was really clear

across all of Canada and the policies that governments set were also very clear across all of Canada. We need to facilitate the minimizing of harm. The problem is if you take that to its logical conclusion, you end up with what we're seeing in Canada now. For example, funded by the federal government in Ontario and in British Columbia, a program called Safer Supply, which I call unsafe supply. So we talked about oxycodone before as this mass high powered pharmaceutical grade opioid. Well, the new drug that's being handed out, which you referenced earlier, is called hydromorphone. It's five times as powerful as heroin. It's an incredibly impotent pharmaceutical grade opioid. And so the policy that they created said

the extension of harm reduction was harm reduction to say, if the problem is a bunch of overdoses from say fentanyl, because it has that really, really tragic outcome that fentanyl users are really at risk of overdose and potentially tragically death, then we have to stop the toxic drug supply. And they've framed it in this really, really nefarious way.

And I think this is fundamentally the problem. It's an abusive language that frames it across the entire country. And if you watch CBC or National Broadcast or any other outlet, or you look at academic research, they're trying to have us use really, really inorganic, inauthentic language to talk about the addiction crisis. They will say it's not an addiction crisis. The problem instead is a toxic drug supply. They say that if we just didn't have a toxic drug supply,

it'd be fine. So obviously, the problem is a toxic drug supply on one side, the solution is a safe drug supply on the other. So safe supply is where that term comes from. So they hand out this pharmaceutical grade, pure high powered, five times more powerful than heroin version of an opioid called hydromorphone. And in say Vancouver this last year, there was approximately 54 million eight milligram pills

that were passed out. Countrywide, we're approximately about 100 million pills mass distributed. This is- So half of them were distributed in this in Vancouver. Half of them. Yeah, there are many different sites.

In fact, any pharmacy can distribute them because you get a prescription from it. And the idea is it's unwitnessed, high-powered pharmaceutical-grade opioids in an attempt to say, if you're using fentanyl, we'd rather have you use the safe supply. Well, the problem is, as you well know, a fentanyl is 100 times more powerful than the hydromorphone. The high you get from fentanyl is the sun compared to a candle with a hydromorphone. It's nowhere near powerful enough.

It can barely even deal with withdrawal symptoms. And so instead of displacing the fentanyl use, what you've done is you've given a whole bunch of individuals who are an active opioid addiction, who have such a drive to continue seeking that dopamine kick, that they will take the high power grade safe supply, so called, and trade it to an illicit drug dealer, the drug cartels, and say, I still want my fentanyl. Now the drug cartels have tens or hundreds of millions of high power grade opioids that they can repurpose and sell themselves.

It used to be that hydromorphone before the safe supply program in 2020, that used to be approximately 15 to 20 dollars a pill. If you go to downtown East Hastings now, the latest media reports say that's about one dollar a pill. So you can see what it's done flooding the market with high-power grade opioids. The tragedy is is that the political activists on the progressive left and the academics who are trying to ratchet this up, they will admit that the opioid crisis began with oxycodone, with mass supply, unwitnessed and diverted access to tens of millions and hundreds of millions of pills across North America for a decade. And that created a whole bunch of new users

that as a slow freight train, as soon as you start an opioid, unless you get into recovery, it continues down this tragic end towards death. And so what has happened again, they've created those same circumstances, but instead of it being unwitting physicians who are told by the regulatory officers

and told by the academics that this is going to be safe. It's now the government funding it with tax dollars, pushing it into communities with mass diversion of high powered opioids. And so we've seen the movie before and we're witnessing it again. And we had the RCMP, the Canadian police force have drug seizures of tens of thousands of pills from safe supply, unsafe supply, that the drug cartels plan on repurposing for resale in British Columbia and in other neighboring provinces, which includes Alberta. And so

we now have this sort of aggravation of a devastating problem. They've poured fuel on a dumpster fire in a way that would have been difficult to have done intentionally much, much worse. It is probably one of the worst things you could do because the axiomatic rule that we know from the Stanford Lancet Commission and from research worldwide around addiction is if you increase supply without barriers and you have mass diversion of high-powered, high-grade pharmaceutical opioids in your community, that it will cause more harm, more addiction. And so that is a failure now of not just the regulatory bodies, but of the government, the elected officials themselves in the government in Ottawa, the federal government under Trudeau Liberals, and the BC NDP amongst others that are making it much, much worse. And

it's demonstrably true. If you leave Canada, there's not a country in the world that thinks that this is a good idea. And if you look at the research, whether you're talking to Harvard as I did last month or Connecticut where I went to talk to Yale, where you look at Stanford and the work being done by Keith Humphreys or a number of others internationally,

this is very well known. And so this entire set of policies of harm reduction started off with the best of intentions, but in the end, instead of it being harm reduction, it's become harm production when it gets to unsafe supply, when it gets to an expansion of drug consumption sites on every street corner. If you look at this,

it's a uniquely Canadian policy setting. And so Canada has more drug consumption sites than the rest of the world combined. And it is uniquely Canadian. It's been on offer across the world. California has looked at this and has implemented and reversed. It is not something that you see in Europe widespread. And if you do, it's places like Switzerland, which is witnessed and very, very different from what we see in Canada.

And so Canada was in desperate need of an alternate solution because the policy on offer was an utter disaster and getting worse and worse and worse. And it was getting worse in large part because of the policies the government was enacting to try and fix it. And if you look at the safe supply, the so-called safe supply policies now, B.C. Henry, the chief medical officer of health, of COVID fame in B.C., is pushing this unsafe supply. And one of her last reports- She's one of the most devoted ideologues in Canada,

I would say. She is really quite a piece of work. It is surreal because one of her last reports has finally admitted, and despite the fact that it was abundantly clear from the very start that diversion is and would be commonplace. Of course it would. We're talking about high powered opioids, unwitnessed, given to those inactive addiction, right?

There was going to be mass diversion and therefore many new individuals beginning onto this tragic opioid addiction. Her solution is, well, we need more powerful opioids because no one wants the hydromorphone. So her last report has, I'm not kidding, it is suggesting that we start handing out fentanyl. Well, the whole premise of this harebrained scheme was to displace fentanyl use.

So whether- So she's gonna hand out safe fentanyl. Well, and none of it's safe. There aren't safe opioids for recreational use. I mean, the science is clear on this. You could say this as a practitioner in the field that high-powered opioids recreationally are dangerous to you. Always, at any time a substance becomes addictive, it's dangerous to you.

Of course it is. Addiction is a life-threatening disease and it needs treatment. And so it's now gotten to the point where it does not matter whether it's a drug cartel or Justin Trudeau, whether it is the black market or Bonnie Henry, the chief medical officer of health in British Columbia, that is handing out the drugs. Physiologically, it has the same effect on you. It will have the same catastrophic carnage in your life, and it will destroy your community in the same way.

And Alberta, in that setting, is now starting to address the addiction crisis. Okay, so I think you should take us through the alternative model in some detail so that people who are listening, who are interested in this topically or on the policy side, have some sense of exactly how to do this. And so, do we start with the story of the tent cities and what you guys have been doing to help the people who have found themselves in that position or where's a good entry point? I mean, the place to start is an addiction anthropology.

It's assuming the nature of addiction. And if you get that right or you get that wrong, your policies will either be helpful when executed well or a complete and utter disaster. And so the addiction anthropology of the radical side of this, the radical activist says that it's not an addiction crisis at all. The anthropologies, it's simply a problem of an unsafe supply,

and we can facilitate addiction indefinitely, which is why ever increasing drug consumption sites and every street corner is a solution, along with drug unsafe supply being handed out by the government at taxpayer expense because addiction isn't really the problem in their mind they frame it completely inauthentically and cynically as nothing but a toxic drug supply problem. I do not care whether someone is addicted to an opioid or pornography it does not matter to me whether the crisis

is something that's generated from homelessness and a mental health issue or if it is somebody working in nine to five that got a prescribed Opioid because of a blue collar job works at injury. I want to be able to meet them where they're at and get them health care Ostensibly and this is a bold statement in Canada ostensibly health care should be about healing people and getting them healthy That is unfortunately in my neck of the woods, when it comes to mental health and addiction, not always been the first hack of the experts in the field. And that's a policy failure and an institutional failure of the academics. And so the nature of addiction is that it is a disease that is recoverable. And that's why the Alberta recovery model is the heart of what we're talking about.

And so as we see the factors in society of individual autonomy continuing as we move forward in the 21st century, as we saw tragedies like COVID isolate people even further, it's become abundantly clear that unless you bring some sort of antidote to that, purpose in life, a sense of community, relationship built again, you will continue to see addiction crises getting worse, especially when really addictive substances are handed up by the government en masse. And you can look at examples in British Columbia where you saw a 14-year-old underage girl die because she got addicted to unsafe supply. You can see that the BC Health Authority for a 12-year-old who recently passed away in British Columbia was given drug paraphernalia so that she could continue to use.

That was the state response to the addiction of minors. And Alberta has said instead the state response is addiction is rampant, it's widespread. And it's going to continue to be unless we give people an off-ramp out of addiction. And so whether we're talking about individuals who have zero recovery capital, people who are living intermittently homeless, maybe they're from an neck of the woods up northwestern Alberta, they might have an indigenous background, and they are maybe suffering from mental health crisis, maybe a psychosis brought on by the drug use or pre-exist it, maybe they're disposed to an addiction already, those individuals have next to no recovery capital.

They're not holding on a job, they don't have family, they've lost almost all connection to everyone else. There needs to be an intervention in those individuals' lives. And interventions come in all shapes and sizes, whether you're talking about a run-in with a justice system or you talk about a healthcare crisis they run into. There's gonna be an intervention of one form or another.

Of course. And families, I mean, if you look at, for example, the most successive addiction treatment programs, the literature shows it's industries like the airline industry that say if you are caught trying to fly a plane high or drunk or using some sort of mind mind altering substance, then the risk of your license being revoked is incredibly high. You have a mandatory treatment you must do afterwards at risk of being rejected from that employer and from the industry. And so an intervention can come in that form for some people with more recovery capital,

people who still have some capacity. The state needs to be there to support with the broader society individuals that don't have that ability, that institution, maybe that workplace environment to get them into the opportunity to recover as well. So you don't hold any kind of hope, a snowball chance in hell, of trying to help people through their crisis if you don't address that fundamental heart of a problem which is some sort of trauma, some sort of issue driving them to addiction. And so most of the addiction treatment we do after medical detox, it's one disease of

addiction, right? And it doesn't matter whether it's a process addiction like, you know, eye gaming, for example, or it's an opioid addiction. When you get through that medical detoxification, so much of it's social psychopathy. And how is that undertaken? How is the medical detoxification undertaken? So if you're taking people off the street, for example, if they're homeless, what's the first, and addicted,

what's the first step in the process? The first step is building a network of detox centers and stabilization across the province. So since we came into power in 2019, we've increased approximately 50% of our treatment capacity. That's about 10,000 spaces per annum that we have in Alberta. Per annum. Per annum.

And this is distributed in the major urban centers? It would be across the entire province. And the majority of those are detox spaces, because they're short episodes of stay. Detox is just the first step to moving towards that. So how long does that typically last? It could be a week perhaps less sometimes two weeks. That's medically supervised? Yeah medically supervised. In Alberta we have a license regime for this and so if it's talking about alcohol or benzos that is a much much more precarious situation.

There could be all sorts of really negative health outcomes if it's not done with appropriate medical supervision. But that could last, say, a couple of days to two weeks. Once that happens, we're building a network. We have now funded mass amounts of not-for-profits community-based treatment centers of all different varieties. Many of them are indigenous, some are faith-based, some are not. We have no particular predilection towards what that looks like beyond being about recovery and about trying to get people into health.

So you're experimenting with a variety of different approaches? We're allowing lots of different providers to come into the space. How do you evaluate the consequences? So we have my recovery plan, which is a metric we're using to talk about someone's recovery capital. So we're seeing, a, which is a metric we're using to talk about someone's recovery capital. So we're seeing a lot of it is subjective analysis of where you at now, where do you want to be. We have hard metrics as well that go into that analysis. And the idea is that as we build out this recovery continuum all along the way,

right from the very first time you get into detox all the way to a year later, when you look at the end of treatment in your post-recovery housing integrated community, are you seeing recovery capital continue? Because right now, tragically, the only metric really used across Canada, I'd say probably across all of North America, is overdose deaths, which obviously I want to see as few as possible. That's why I'm about the compassionate option of giving everyone a chance at recovery. But before, that's a latent indicator. You're talking about overdose reversals and overdose deaths. I mean, I want to be able to see before someone gets there, how are we doing? Are they

steering in the right direction? So you look at, so your indicators, you talk about, let's delve into the issue of recovery capital a bit. So, you know, you mentioned that people are homeless, family-less, with no economic ties and no friends. Okay, so they're not, they have no integration whatsoever into the community at any level. So part of what recovery capital sounds like in your formulation is assessment of what, their embeddedness in the social structure? Yeah, that's very right. It's their embeddedness in the social structure, it's relationships and connections to outside, it's a sense of purpose in their life,

and to a degree, an achievement of that in their life, right? Right. And you want to be able to measure that through subjective and objective measurements as much as you can. And much of the treatment, when it comes to addiction, as I mentioned, it is after that medical detox, it is social, it's psycho, it is relational.

And so it's really important that we're seeing our people heading in the right direction before they end up in an emergency room, an undead's door with an overdose, and cerebral hypoxia where they are drowning in daylight. That is a horrible way for a policymaker to start looking just to that metric. I need to be considering that as an end state of making sure we don't end there. Right, right. But also way before that,

and I'm not even talking about, you know, early intervention prevention, I'm talking about those in addiction. Can we steer their recovery capital to a positive earlier? And how are people signing up, so to speak? I mean, if I remember correctly, when I talked to Mr. Nixon

Some of those tent encampment Were actually being dismantled by the government and people were being bussed with their family with their dog to treatment center Multi-dimensional treatment center to a navigation center. Yeah, and so this navigation center was a hub and from there You could get a number of different supports I mean if maybe your're ID-less you need an ID but also if you were someone interested in detox then we are there to sort of intervene and say let's help you get to that space. It can be difficult to manage they don't know how. And the window that someone says look because of whatever circumstance maybe it's the

dismantling of the tent that they were living in, tent is too charitable. I mean these are open drug sites with drug cartels extorting individuals and violence. We shouldn't be talking about tents. It's not like going camping on the weekend. They're gang encampments. They're gang encampments, 100%. Yeah, run by brutal people.

With threats of rape, we've had instances of individuals being burnt in them, and tragically sometimes even death happens through this with extortion of paying taxes to these drug lords. Right, they're lawless encampments run by thugs. With minus 40 degrees Celsius, right, in the middle of winter. And so what happens is they get to this navigation center, it's meant to reroute them, and perhaps we've had a number of individuals that say, I want

to get treatment now. And the first step to that is going to one of those 10,000 spaces we created. Much of those are going to be detox. From there, we're going to be connecting them to a network of recovery communities and therapeutic living communities across the province. We even have inside our provincial correction facilities, our prisons, we have units that are dedicated to those who voluntarily want to take on recovery as an opportunity. And you go to these places and you have, I've never been more emotionally touched in my life, what the hard work these young men are taking to say, I could be

looking at porn and getting high in the rest of the facility, but I've decided instead, I want to reunite my family when I get out. I have an estranged family member, I have children I want to be able to see. I know between my crime and my addiction, this is going to be a disaster and it's just going to continue on. And they voluntarily say, I want into this therapeutic living unit. And we have them in Red Deer, we have them in Fort Saskatchewan. These are in the prisons. They're in the prisons.

And we have, for lack of a better expression, a captive audience, and we option, we give that opportunity for individuals to say, I want to start working on my addiction and inter recovery. How many people in that? Well we have about three open right now and there's anywhere from 11 in some other to 20 in others. And so that's an expanding program in principle. We're continuing to expand across the entire system. The idea is that across the whole continuum I want to give everyone an opportunity at recovery because the alternative to recovery is unconscionable. And there's a moral imperative we have.

This isn't just dollars and cents in economics. It's not simply a public safety question. It is because Canadians and Albertans deserve not to have to cross in front of the gentleman fencing with the wind with a used syringe, speedballing methamphetamine and fentanyl. Instead, they should be able to know that going into the Main Street shopping center or the recreation center for swimming lessons for little Jimmy or Sue should be absolutely a safe thing to do. But beyond that as well... Parks as well. Absolutely. Beyond that, I mean, informed by my principle as a Canadian, as an Albertan, and I'd say as a conservative, I believe in the dignity of every as a Canadian, as an Albertan, and I'd say

as a conservative, I believe in the dignity of every single life. And that's inalienable and cannot be divorced from someone no matter what actions they've taken. And it's society's job to help that. And one function of that in government is to say, let's build this capacity. So we're building 11 long-term, high-quality, free-access drug and addiction recovery treatment centers. For those who are inactive addiction, who have gone through detox, they start a very long phase of addiction, anywhere from months to up to one year.

And the data shows really clearly that if you can get, the more time you have in sobriety and where you have, say, opioid agonist therapy, which I'd be happy to talk more about the innovative program we have there, which is help for those who have addiction medically so that they can have reprieve from that desire to continue seeking the opioid high. What are you using? We're using, well, there's methadone,

but increasingly more we're using Sublicade. Sublicade is a buprenorphine product. It's an injectable subcutaneous, and it gives you 30 days of slow dispense all the way through. You don't need to show up at the dispensary daily. It continues 30 days because- And addictive potential for it? Is incredibly low, almost non-existent. You cannot get high on it.

And it's mostly a craving reaction? It reduces cravings, but it also protects, because the affinity in the opioid receptors is higher for the buprenorphine than it is for the opioid. Oh, so it's a blocker too. So it's a blocker, so you cannot continue, overdose is incredibly hard when you're on this. And for many individuals- And it's 30 days.

30 days. Oh yeah, that's- I mean, protection continues even past that, but 30 days I think is what the label requires. And so the value of that is it gives them a breath of fresh air. It allows those who have this physiological pull to continue seeking the addiction to say, not only do I have reprieve from the withdrawal symptoms, not only do I have reprieve from the desire to continue seeking the opioid, if I try, I can't even get high. I'm going to give this a good shot.

And so when you look at opioid agonist therapy and our data that we have at the Canadian Center of Recovery Excellence surrounding good outcomes with Sublicade is incredibly good. We're going to be publishing on it, partnering with institutions to do that. But when you pair that opioid agonist treatment, that medical treatment, along with social psychotherapy, it's incredibly good for outcomes. We see it like they just come together in this

synergy that allows much better outcomes. And so if we support individuals in detox and we get them on to the virtual opioid dependency program to give them a breath of fresh air with that medical treatment, and then we get them into one of our long-term recovery centers, and then we support them through Minister Nixon in long-term recovery housing, and then we support them through Minister Nixon in long-term recovery housing, you can get to 24 months. You see the rate of long-term recovery in the data is incredibly high by comparison.

You get to that two-year mark and you see long-term recovery is much, much, much more likely. And so a lot of... How likely? What kind of... What are you looking at now? I mean, look, we should preface this by saying that for most addictive treatment processes, the risk of relapse is overwhelming. People can go through detoxification, they can go through withdrawal.

They can even stay drug-free if they're away from the normative structures of their community, but as soon as you put them back in their community, they tend to relapse, right? And so, the reason I'm letting everybody know that structures of their community, but as soon as you put them back in their community, they tend to relapse. Yeah. Right? And so the reason I'm letting everybody know that is because I want to preface your description of the statistics with the observation that this is a very difficult thing to do. The probability of failure is extremely high.

And so what kind of success are you having? So our program's relatively new. We need to make a distinction between a single instance of recidivism versus long-term recovery, right? And so there could be instances, most people who live into long-term recovery will have multiple instances of recidivism before they really end up in that long-term period. So, over, I mean, data can show show and there's no example that has the full continuum of care that Alberta's building out, which is why our data collection and long-term longitudinal studies along with the Canadian Center

of Recovery Excellence is going to be so important to prove this out. Yeah. But I mean some data shows over 50%. If you look at a different instance, you look at maybe the original therapeutic living community in San Pantorano in Italy. I believe the data they showed me when I spoke to them from this study from the University of Bologna shows long-term recovery rates are at over 72 percent last time they studied. That's a three-year stay in a very long-term and very community-oriented living recovery community in Italy. So really good data when you have long periods of treatment. We haven't really seen this in North America to that degree yet. We're really,

the idea of therapeutic living communities is coming back in the literature as one of the most exciting opportunities to build recovery into an addiction treatment policy. Okay, so let's close this then with a discussion of pitfalls. Because one of the things that's rattling around in the back of my head is how do you reconcile this relatively interventionist strategy, let's say, with the minimalist approach to government intervention that often characterizes conservatism. And so you can see a philosophical conundrum there, but then you can also see a practical

conundrum because a conservative skeptic might say, well, what you're implementing is another bureaucratic growth community that's going to expand at the rate of 10% a year indefinitely with dubious outcome. Tell me how you reconcile that philosophically and then tell me what you think you guys have done to, what would you say, protect against the pitfalls that might accrue as a consequence of building another adjunct to the health care system. Right. So the health care system, fundamentally, the entire premise of peace, order, and good governance comes from the idea that each of us have dignity unto itself. Conservatism,

I would say, from my mind, is not a form of libertarianism. Conservatism is fundamentally an idea that people have intrinsic dignity that we should labor towards the common good. And so one of the lies that we've been told in addiction across North America, and it's really true when you look at this sort of radical activist claim on the progressive left, is that Canadians have a choice. You can either be compassionate towards those in addiction or have safe communities, right? And Canadians, as you said,

are level-minded, reasonable people that want to trust the institutions and want to trust the authorities. It's a part of the heritage that we grew out of as a part of a colony within the British Empire. The institutions we've built have largely worked up to now.

Of course we want to do that. And that is the lie. That is the false dichotomy that's there. In fact, caring for those who are an addiction and being compassionate towards them and having safe communities are one and the same. Because there's nothing compassionate about having the individual who is not

in any moral way a free agent, choosing to drink water or not the way you and I have today, choosing whether or not to vote for the conservatives or the liberals, there is no free agency in that same way for those who are suffering, who are in the worst articulations of active addiction.

And so, society needs to intervene in that sense because they're vulnerable, in the same way that we would want to protect anyone who is vulnerable, especially if we talked about those who are underage, we talked about those who who have been compromised and don't have the the agency and the capacity to make decisions for themselves. That is what a well-ordered state does and it does it through compassionate mechanisms. So first of all the lie has been put there in the first place, you have to choose between the two. But it's not enabling compassion.

Like, it's really important to distinguish between compassion and enabling. I mean, the psychoanalysts have been doing that for like a hundred years. If your brand of compassion is, okay, dear, you can do whatever terrible thing you want and I won't intervene because I don't want to hurt your feelings, that's not compassion.

That's, I don't even know how to describe that well. It's enabling, it's not compassion. I don't even know how to describe that. Well, it's enabling. It's a devouring form of enabling. And so, like the compassionate thing often to do with someone who's in real trouble is to use judgment, right? And to think, well, no, that's pretty much got to come to a stop. This is not acceptable and we need to do something about it. And so that's partly why I think the Alberta approach is so interesting.

Francis George, an American clergyman once said that, that fundamentally our society is one that permits and allows and encourages everything, but forgives nothing. And I think that there's something really transcendent about that, it's fully on display here. That fundamentally the idea of the addiction anthropology adopted by the left is that those in addiction, we need to sort of continue to paleate their addiction indefinitely with higher and higher

powered opioids. That's the most radical articulation of what was called harm reduction and in that state becomes a harm production, right? That's not the case. From my perspective is that instead of just saying everything's permitted, an important redress to addiction is that there are just saying everything's permitted, an important redress to addiction is that there are consequences for actions. Now, I'm not saying this as a minister of justice.

I don't want to criminalize this, but continuing to just destroy your life and cause threats and harm to your community, more broadly, shouldn't be permitted in society. And the consequence of that is going to be an intervention. Right, so that's the conservative edge of it, I would say, philosophically as well, is that these tent encampments, these gang encampments are threats to civil order.

Like fundamentally, on the criminal side, on the civil side, also with regard to their capacity to undermine our sense of a high trust society. And a high trust society is an incredibly valuable resource. And fleeting. Oh, and easy to trust society is an incredibly valuable resource. And fleeting. And easy to disrupt, like terribly easy to disrupt. And it's just not acceptable for the public landscape to be littered with, what would you say? With the evidence of systemic and civilizational collapse

in the form of homeless people who are completely overcome by their fentanyl induced pathology. And so there's nothing about that that's acceptable. That fentanyl induced pathology as you describe it, I would say as a public communicator that individual that overdosed 186 times, the 187th time might be death. Right? And so the alternative to treatment is tragedy. And those are our two options here, which is why I'm gonna be introducing legislation next spring.

Tragedy by omission, that's the complex thing. We can just let you die or help you die. Because we're talking about the candidate too. Well, I mean, that's the assumptions that they've said. There's no problem with just continuing to facilitate addiction as long as it's a safe drug, indefinitely. That's not my assumption. My assumption is instead that that they've said. There's no problem with just continuing to facilitate addiction as long as it's a safe drug indefinitely. That's not my assumption. My assumption is instead that that life is valuable. It has dignity. We ought to help it. We ought to help all individuals and healthcare should heal and not harm, which these assumptions

are radical. When you talk about the public health policies across all of Canada, for sure, I'm going to be introducing legislation called compassion intervention. And so if somebody is a danger to themselves or others due to their substance use or addiction within a reasonable amount of time are going to cause harm to themselves or others, then it's a society's responsibility to intervene. Because the alternative to that intervention is tragedy, it's death. It's also other forms of societal intervention.

Because those people are gonna come to the attention of the public health or the healthcare system at some point in the ER. Or they're gonna come to the attention of the police and the judicial authorities. There isn't an obvious no intervention pathway here. That's right.

It's earlier or later and I guess the- The intervention also needs to, right now if you tell someone struggling with an opioid addiction that after they get arrested because of a criminal act that they were pursuing and trying to seek for more opioids or you name it, and you say, well Jordan, about six months from now there's a 25% chance that a court might slap your wrist, right? And then you have effectively bail for zero consequences and you get to continue doing what you're doing.

What would you do if you're an opioid addict? Well, of course, you just continue what you're doing. That's future Jordan's problem. This Jordan today has got an issue where I need to find some fentanyl, right? And so instead of that, right, we need to have a system that has a true recourse to treatment and recovery. So the policy that I'm planning to introduce is say if you're dangerous to yourself or others and there are appropriate checks and balances to make sure it's not abused, then we have an obligation as a society, a moral obligation to say we will not let you continue to destroy your life that

187th time that you overdose and die. We will not let you 87th time that you overdose and die. We will not let you risk public safety because of erratic psychosis induced from the methamphetamines or name the drug that you're high on. We instead are going to help you through this intervention and it could come in less formal ways. It could come through an airline industry with standards and regulations that force this and say there's not a 40% chance six months from now. It could come from a law like the one I'm planning to introduce that says, instead of just turning you through a system that has no real recourse to help you or bring back confidence to our system

and our institutions in Canada, the recourse will have a consequence. The consequence is one that is charitable, one that is compassionate, one that brings long-term likelihood of success for you and for our communities. When are you introducing that? This spring.

Mm-hmm, okay, okay. Yeah, yeah, and at what point do you think that, I'm thinking about reevaluating this, say, at some point in the future, at what point do you think that the data that you're producing is going to be of sufficient quality and magnitude to review intelligently? I mean, you have some of it already.

We have some of it now. I would say we have some very good data now around the virtual opioid dependency program and others. When you're talking about the good, sufficient quality of data, you need longitudinal data. That's the nature of this problem. And some of the problem, if you look at the really, really bad sort of, I call them community college professors trying to torque this data and trying to argue for unsafe supply. And they position themselves as experts and authorities.

This is another institution that has failed dramatically. And Canadians in the West has a lot of blame to lay on academia. That's for sure. And the lies that they have pushed ideologically. So if you look at some of the data around unsafe supply, they don't distinguish between opioid agonist therapy and unsafe supply. And so they say they have the same outcomes of the good. They only track some of this data one or two weeks afterwards.

I mean, you don't need to know one or two weeks after an intervention. You need to know after, you know, if you're mass supplying a high powered opioid unwitnessed, how are they doing two years later? And so that's the data we need to collect. So I'd say within a few months, we're gonna have a lot more data on the early stages of our system,

but this is gonna continue to be proved out and we're gonna partner with institutions like Harvard and Yale and others to credibly and internationalize this because this incredible myopic view that we've seen in Canada of these community college professors and activists that have completely claimed the entire space and have not allowed a policy alternative and they bully and they degrade and they threaten in terms of how they position this academically and they condescend. That needs to stand up to true scrutiny. And if you go international, you see these policies have been unoffered and they don't want anything to do with it for right reason.

Canada has such opportunity and I think the conservatives, interestingly, are the group that's bringing forward compassionate social policy. And we're winning. We're winning in Alberta for the first time on an important social debate in decades. And we're going to continue to face the obstacles of institutions like academia that relegates us, the media that have guidance for using terms like safe supply rather than... Two billion dollar a year government subsidized media, those guys? We are going to continue and we're going to end up with challenges all the way through, including in the courts, where we see the Supreme Court, unfortunately, has become a

place of political activism that at least in the United States they've recognized, as Antonin Scalia said, the former Supreme Court Justice, that people will have their say. If they realize the decisions they care about are not being made in Congress and are being made at the Supreme Court, they will politicize those appointments. Unfortunately, the political left in Canada has recognized that, but the conservative right in Canada

has just sort of watched every single decision made, not through democratic will of the people, not through acts of parliament or legislatures, but instead by fiat and declaration of nine oligarchs in red and white robes in the Supreme Court made not through democratic will of the people, not through acts of parliament or legislatures, but instead by fiat and declaration of nine oligarchs in red and white robes in the Supreme Court, dismantle the institutions that we used to trust and continue to push the most radical and I mean that truly the most radical policies in the world and defend them. And we will continue to fight against the array of all these different institutions that have failed Canadians because fundamentally, one, the policy is right, it is working, and that

is demonstrably true. If you look at opioid overdoses over the last four months of our public reporting, in Alberta, we've seen anywhere from 42 to 50% decreases year over year. Whereas you look at BC, you don't see anything near that for obvious reason that it's starting to work, the culture of recovery is working. That's the number one reason we're going to keep doing it, right? That it's working. But secondly, not only is that common sense, not only is it working, it's the right thing

to do. And I think conservatives need to appreciate that we have a moral argument to make, that we care compassionately for those who are vulnerable, that when we want to do things- Yeah, the conservatives have got to get better at taking the moral upper hand away from the progressives, because they don't have the moral upper hand. No, they know how to moralize, but they do not come to the debate with any kind of monopoly on the space. And conservatives have abandoned it, and sometimes the conservatives, as a movement broadly across the West, have gotten it wrong.

I'm not defending every instance. What I'm saying is, you look at where we are now as a movement broadly across the West have gotten it wrong. I'm not defending every instance. What I'm saying is you look at where we are now as a society and it's completely different from your childhood in Canada. When I'm 37 and so you're 30 years older than me, you said. The world you grew up in is categorically different. And there's no reason to think that these radical activists that are completely consumed by this intersectional Marxist ideology

that populate whether it be our academic that are completely consumed by this inter-sectional Marxist ideology that that populate, whether it be our academic or our activist lobby groups or our courts, there's no way to think that they're going to take the foot off the gas because what they've done has won for so long. And so it's going to require a confidence. You're going to have to know what you're talking about, but you're going to have to also frame this in a moral language that we are doing what is best for those who are vulnerable. We truly care.

And the other side has not only abandoned them, it has made it just a carnage for those who are suffering from addiction. And this is true across almost every social policy that you look at that the left has controlled in Canada for the last 30, 40 years. And I think there's a wonderful opportunity. Pierre Poliev is doing a terrific job of articulating this federally. Danielle Smith is doing an incredible job. Just today announced even more policy when it comes to gender and protecting families and protecting young individuals.

Great. Oh, today should be a day. Yeah, announcement today. So there is, the wider population is just craving, not even hard carrying conservatives. Canadians broadly, Albertans broadly, they care about saying, this has gone too far. And this has pushed me into a spot where it seems unrecognizable. And so the policies that we have to adopt

need to be framed in a way that says, we care about the common good. We care about our communities. And we are not simply talking about it from a dollars and cents perspective. We care about the welfare of we are not simply talking about it from a dollars and cents perspective. We care about the welfare of those who are most vulnerable. We care about the success of our community broadly. And I think that's an exciting thing happening in Canadian politics and it's Alberta largely

and this is a great file to demonstrate that we're leading and we're winning. That's an excellent place to stop. So thank you very much for walking us through that. Thank you. Well, it would be very useful. It would be very useful. And I'll do what I can to facilitate it, to facilitate communication about these sorts of programs on the international side.

Because what you guys are doing in Alberta is interestingly practical. It's revolutionary in an interestingly practical sense. And it would be lovely to see it succeed and be adopted elsewhere. I would say that it is, Alberta is this wonderful place that is grounded in a place of heritage of who we are. It's a province and these values,

but we're willing to be entrepreneurial in that sense. And you have to give credit to Premier Daniel Smith for taking the lead on this and running with it. Incredible. And Jason Kenney as well before her. When it comes to this addiction file, it was an innovative policy that he spearheaded as well. So I think we've had terrific leadership in our province

that have allowed us to get to the spot where we're starting to see the fruits of this, where we see overdose deaths reducing. It's just credible to see those activists who oppose the policy, they have to explain why they're against 40 to 50% overdose deaths for opioids year over year in these last four months.

And it's incredible how obvious it puts squarely that this is ideology for them. They don't care about those who are suffering. Sadly, those activists are more committed to an ideology than they are to the dignity of the human person. They're more committed to their self-aggrandizement for bearing the standards of the ideology than anything else. Alright, sir, that was good. Very nice talking to you. Absolutely.

So we're going to continue this discussion on the Daily Wire side for another half an hour so that you can join us there. I think I'll talk a bit in a bit more detail about the Alberta and Canadian political landscape and the relationship between that and well, the international culture war, I suppose for lack of a better word. And I'll talk a little bit too about what we're doing on the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship front

to start to shift the cultural narrative in ways that are already starting to happen in places like Alberta and may happen much more broadly in Canada when Pierre Pauliev takes the helm, which is highly likely sometime in the next year, depending on how rapidly Mr. Trudeau continues to degenerate and perish. So all right, join us on the DataWire side.