Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has positioned herself as a protector of children rather than their adversary, despite mounting criticism from political opponents and activists. In a controversial move that has ignited intense debate across Canada, Smith introduced Bill 9 this week, invoking the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to shield three pieces of legislation from legal challenges.
What Bill 9 Implements
The legislation being upheld through this measure establishes several key restrictions regarding gender identity and youth. The new rules prohibit biological males from participating in female sports and mandate that schools must obtain parental consent before using different names or pronouns for students or teaching gender ideology. Most significantly, the bill bans puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and gender-reassignment surgeries for minors throughout Alberta.
During a press conference, Smith directly addressed young Albertans navigating identity questions. "You deserve dignity, understanding and support," she stated. "You belong in Alberta. We firmly believe that. We also believe it's our duty to protect you. This legislation is about your future, so when the time comes you have every opportunity to make the adult decisions that are rightfully yours, and yours alone."
Heated Reactions and Defense
The political response to Bill 9 has been immediate and passionate. Edmonton NDP MP Heather McPherson released a video statement condemning the legislation as "hateful, hateful legislation" that "attacks trans kids" and "takes away human rights." McPherson further accused Smith of using transgender-identifying youth to mobilize far-right supporters.
Author Amy Hamm, whose commentary appeared in the National Post on November 21, 2025, vigorously defends Smith's position. Hamm argues that preventing underage girls from receiving double mastectomies and testosterone injections represents responsible governance rather than discrimination. She questions what she describes as the "metaphysical belief in the unproven concept of 'gender identity'" and characterizes pediatric gender transition as having "little to no evidence" to support it.
Broader Implications
The debate extends beyond provincial borders, touching on constitutional questions about the appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. Supporters of Bill 9 maintain that protecting children from what they term "the largest medical scandal of our era" justifies this extraordinary legislative measure. They point to other countries that have moved away from pediatric gender transition treatments as evidence that Alberta is following a sensible path.
Critics, however, see the legislation as an unacceptable infringement on human rights and medical autonomy. They argue that the government is interfering in private medical decisions and denying necessary care to vulnerable youth. The invocation of the notwithstanding clause to preempt constitutional challenges has particularly alarmed legal experts and civil liberties advocates.
As the controversy continues to unfold, Alberta finds itself at the center of a national conversation about children's rights, parental authority, and the limits of government intervention in healthcare decisions affecting minors.
