From Drones to Dignity in Death: How the UCP is Setting the Terms
Armed conflicts in the Middle East are not typically where Alberta’s economic development diversification strategies get validated. But earlier this month, that’s exactly what happened.
Iranian drone strikes on Amazon Web Services (AWS) infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain caused structural damage, fires, power loss, and prolonged service disruptions. AWS warned customers to migrate workloads and described the regional operating environment as “unpredictable.” Banking platforms, enterprise software, and government services were knocked offline.
For the first time, commercial cloud infrastructure was physically targeted by military action.
As professor of technology policy at Aalto University, Vili Lehdonvirta, puts it, hyperscale data centres have quietly become “attractive targets” in modern conflict. They’re concentrated, high-value infrastructure underpinning both civilian econo mies and, increasingly, military and intelligence capabilities. The cloud has now become a network of physical assets exposed to violent geopolitical risk.
Alberta’s Technology and Innovation Minister Nate Glubish moved quickly to frame the moment. In a Substack column, Glubish cast it as a proof point that data infrastructure is no longer just a technical asset, but a strategic one.
The framing is deliberate. For several years, the UCP has been trying to position the province as a destination for large-scale data infrastructure, pitching a familiar mix of advantages: abundant natural gas, a cold climate that reduces cooling costs, and a regulatory environment designed to accelerate project timelines. None of that is new. What is new is Glubish’s emphasis on geopolitical security.
Glubish frames Alberta less as a low-cost jurisdiction and more as a low-risk one. The logic is straightforward. Data centres are physical assets located in specific jurisdictions where they’re subject to the actions of local regimes, political stability, and military risk. In that context, Alberta’s selling point shifts. NATO alignment, domestic stability, and distance from geopolitical flashpoints become key parts of the value proposition, alongside utility prices and permitting timelines.
But if the global case for Alberta is becoming clearer, the local reality is more complicated. Earlier this month, the Alberta Utilities Commission rejected a proposal to build a 1.4 gigawatt natural gas plant intended to power what was billed as the largest data centre complex in Olds. The regulator cited deficiencies in the application, ranging from incomplete environ mental analysis to gaps in public consultation. The decision also surfaced a factor all governments are sensitive to: community resistance.
Residents raised concerns about noise, water use, and the scale of the project, with some saying they first heard of the development through government announcements rather than local engagement. Even with the application rejected on technical grounds, opposition remains organized, and the proponent is expected to return.
While Glubish is attempting to position Alberta as a secure, strategic jurisdiction for global data infrastructure, the massive energy demand, industrial-scale facilities, and long timelines are contributing to local friction.
Legislative changes allowing data centre operators to bring their own power supply, combined with efforts to shorten approval timelines, are about signaling that Alberta can move quickly to capture demand that may be re-evaluating location risk in real time.
But speed does not resolve local tension. Strategic infrastructure may be framed as a national or even geopolitical asset, but it is still built in specific communities with localized impacts that can slow or reshape projects.
Glubish’s column leans heavily into the concept of “sovereign compute” – the idea that control over data storage and processing is increasingly a matter of national security, not just economic efficiency. While that argument is not unique to Alberta, the province does have an opportunity now to position itself as a jurisdiction where Canadian (and allied) data can be stored under domestic legal authority, outside the reach of foreign regimes.
The security framing elevates what might otherwise be a nice infrastructure play into something closer to strategic policy, while also opening the door to a broader market: governments and enterprises aren’t just looking for cheaper operations, but for politically and legally secure environments.
Whether that market materializes remains an open question, but military action in the Middle East has introduced a new variable that policymakers like Glubish are clearly intent on amplifying. The challenge will be translating that narrative into real projects that clear both global scrutiny and local resistance.
Medical Assistance in Dying
If the debate about data centres is about economic and security considerations, the debate over Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) is about something far more politically volatile: how governments define dignity, vulnerability, and the limits of choice. The UCP has moved quickly to define that terrain.
Through Bill 18, the UCP is attempting to set new boundaries on MAID in Alberta, positioning the legislation as a necessary correction to a regime that has expanded beyond its original intent. The core message, repeated in both public statements and the Legislature, is that assisted dying should be limited to end-of-life circumstances, not extended into areas where recovery remains possible.
In a member’s statement, Grande Prairie-Wapiti MLA Ron Wiebe described a system that has “rapidly expanded” in recent years, pointing to rising MAID deaths as evidence that the current framework is moving beyond its original intent.
Camrose MLA Jackie Lovely’s questions to Justice Minister Mickey Amery during question period focused on MAID being introduced as a last resort, which has revealed “blatant gaps where vulnerable people are not protected.” She pointed to the planned federal expansion to include mental illness and invoked international concerns, asking what Alberta is doing to “introduce strong protections” and “keep patients safe.”
Minister Amery’s response built directly on that line of questioning. MAID deaths, he argues, are growing at an “alarming” rate, with non-end-of-life cases increasing sharply since 2021. He framed Bill 18 as a direct response that prohibits access where mental illness is the sole condition, and ensures minors are excluded.
Beyond just access to MAID is the issue of exposure, whether patients are being pressured or whether physicians should be allowed to raise MAID, and whether safeguards are sufficient to prevent coercion. This concern is central to the govern ment’s message that MAID should never be presented as an option unless explicitly requested, and the system must prioritize “hope over despair.”
Despite the issue’s sensitivity, the NDP has so far declined to engage directly during question period. The avoidance is understandable. This is a politically hazardous issue. It cuts across ideological lines, engages medical, religious, and disability communities, and carries significant reputational risks.
However, the UCP is already establishing a clear narrative that the system is moving too far, too fast, and that the govern ment has a duty to intervene. Without a competing frame, that premise becomes the launching point for debate. And once established, it is difficult to dislodge.
The longer the NDP remains silent, the more political questions and public perception risk being defined by the UCP. And in politics, the side that defines the framing rarely needs to win the argument outright, they only need to ensure it is argued on their terms.