DOWN HWY 93

Banff council given extension to decide on emergency response plan in Kootenay National Park

Google map shows location of Highway 93 in Kootenay National Park.

Story by Olivia Condon • Yesterday - Calgary Herald

The Town of Banff will have more time to decide what type of emergency response service — if any — it will offer along Highway 93 S. in Kootenay National Park, after Parks Canada granted an extension on a contract it had previously terminated a year early.

At a Monday meeting, Banff council heard they’ll have until Dec. 31, 2023, to decide if and how the Banff Fire Department will respond to emergencies on the highway when the current contract with Parks Canada ends.

The contract, signed in 2014 between the town and Parks Canada, was set to expire at the end of next year. Earlier this month, Parks notified the town the contract would be terminated a year early, only to walk that back and grant an extension to the original end date.

Banff’s fire chief and protective services director Silvio Adamo told council Monday that before signing the contract in 2014, the department has been providing emergency services along that stretch of highway in partnership with the Town of Invermere since as long as the organization has existed, without any formal agreement or compensation.

In the past nearly nine years, the department has been compensated by the federal government to provide response services for road rescues and medical emergencies, as well as fire and hazardous material incidents.

One option is to enter an agreement with Emergency Management British Columbia (EMBC), Adamo said, adding he has concerns with this choice because of the specific and restrictive nature of EMBC’s response strategy and compensation.

“EMBC will not compensate a municipality or an agency for responding for medical emergencies, hazmat, fires, and the one thing that dictates their compensation is if someone is entrapped or needs extrication out of a vehicle or structure,” he said.

EMBC will pay $360 an hour only if someone needs to be extricated from a vehicle, regardless of how many apparatus the fire department brings to the scene or the time of day.

“When we set the pagers off for our membership during the day, it costs us somewhere between $1,000 to $1,200 to do that, and after the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. it’s double that,” he said. “So as far as cost recovery, it doesn’t come even close, and again there’s a large gap in what they will compensate for and what we normally respond to in emergencies.”

The Town of Invermere is also concerned about having to pick up the slack if the Banff Fire Department elects not to enter an agreement with EMBC once the contract expires, after which it will have no legal obligation to respond to emergencies in Kootenay National Park.

Adamo said the choice is between moral responsibility and cost.

“Obviously, we always want to do the right thing, that’s the business we’re in is helping people and we want to do the right thing regardless, but we are doing it at the expense of our ratepayers and it will increase that expense as we move forward outside of this contract and if we enter into an EMBC contract,” Adamo said.

Coun. Chip Olver said Monday that the issue is putting the fire department and the town in an uncomfortable situation.

“I’m concerned for the people on that highway when this contract ends, that if their vehicle is squashed enough that they need to be extricated that they will get a certain level of response but for other situations they won’t, and I think it’s a busy highway and it’s unfortunate that this is changing. Really unfortunate,” she said.

The moral effect of the situation is one Mayor Corrie DiManno said she’s relieved council doesn’t have to make right now, but acknowledged it will ultimately have to be made.

“There’s a real sense of a moral obligation to try and do our best to respond to incidents on that section of highway,” DiManno said. “Those could be visitors to Banff, those could be residents of Banff, and that’s where that sense of moral obligation really comes from.”

Further discussions with EMBC and the town of Invermere are in the works before council will hear back from administration to make a final decision no later than the third quarter of 2023.

ocondon@postmedia.com

‘Silent pandemic’: Antimicrobial resistance a growing threat to Canadians, experts say

Story by Teresa Wright • Yesterday 

Jean Lee, a PhD student at Melbourne's Doherty Institute, inspects the superbug Staphylcocus epidermidis on an agar plate in Melbourne on September 4, 2018.

© WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images

Rachel Sears was only 17 years old when a simple blemish on her face became a terrifying, painful ‘superbug’ overnight.

She had been working as a cashier at a grocery store and it’s there her doctors told her she must have picked up the antibiotic-resistant bacteria, possibly from some cash handled by an infected person.

She likely scratched or simply rubbed the blemish on her forehead - nothing out of the ordinary - and inadvertently infected herself, she said.

Read more:
Superbugs to kill nearly 400,000 Canadians by 2050, report predicts

“I remember thinking, ‘Oh, it has a weird, swelling feeling.’ And I went to bed like nothing,” Sears said, recalling the hours after her shift.

“I woke up the next morning and it was so swollen. It was humongous.”

She immediately went to the hospital where, 12 hours later, physicians determined it was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and she was placed on intravenous antibiotics, used for infections that are resistant to oral antibiotics.

Sears, now 32, says the experience was “traumatic,” as she was only a teen at the time.

“My mom was like, ‘What's happening? This is my baby.’ These are like big, scary words,” she recalled.

“Then you do some Googling after and you think, 'what if it didn't work? What if antibiotics didn't work? Then what?' Then I'm screwed because they used the most potent antibiotics,” she said.

“So, that was scary.”

Unfortunately, it was not to be her last time contracting an antibiotic-resistant infection.

Read more:
How antibiotic resistance has an impact on future diseases

Sears says she contracted at least two staph infections from routine abrasions, such as cuts from shaving, in the ensuing years. Then, a year after her son was born, she was diagnosed with the intestinal superbug Clostridioides difficile, better known as C. difficile.

Eventually, she turned to help from naturopathic doctor, which she says has resulted in a marked improvement in her health.

“I just can't help but think that it goes back to contracting that first superbug and then those antibiotics,” she said.

The rising threat of so-called superbugs, or antibiotic-resistant infections, is just one of a number of concerns in what some experts say is a dangerous worldwide increase in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) – a phenomenon that occurs when bacteria, viruses, fungi and parasites no longer respond to antimicrobial agents like antibiotics, fungicides, antiviral agents and parasiticides.

It’s a problem that may not receive regular attention in the public or the media, but concerns about this growing phenomenon have become so prevalent, it is being called a “silent pandemic” that is contributing to millions of deaths every year, according to global infectious diseases specialists.

A large group of researchers looking at the burden of AMR worldwide in 2019 estimated that antimicrobial resistance in bacteria caused an estimated 1.27 million deaths in that year, according to their study, published in The Lancet.

Dr. Susan Poutanen, a medical microbiologist and infectious disease physician at the University Health Network and Sinai Health, says in Canada, an estimated 14,000 deaths every year are associated in some way with antimicrobial resistance.

“This is somewhat of an unrecognized, quiet or silent pandemic,” Poutanen said.

“Every year there's increasing resistance, and yet there's not the same face to the problem as you might have with, say, cancer or with heart attacks and strokes and the amazing public campaigns and awareness (of those health risks).”

This lack of public awareness means not only that Canadians are left in the dark about the threats of AMR, but also that investments and research into solutions are also not getting priority treatment, she added.

Read more:
Antibiotic-resistant ‘superbugs’ killed over 1.2M globally in one year: study

The main driver of antimicrobial resistance is the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, both in human disease management and in industrial agriculture and food production, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

And the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the problem of overprescription and overuse of antibiotics, experts say.

Early on in the outbreak, many patients admitted to hospitals with SARS-CoV-2 were given antibiotics, even when it was not clear that a bacterial infection was present, Poutanen said.

Antibiotics are not effective against viruses and should only be used in cases of bacterial infections, she noted.

“We know when someone presents with what's most likely a viral illness from the best judgment of a clinician, there's still often a, 'Well, what if? It may not be,' reaction of giving an antimicrobial, even if it's predominantly likely not a bacterial infection,” she said.

“We've certainly learned since some of that data was shared with clinicians that there's very few (COVID-19 patients) that are coming in with a bacterial infection, and that certainly improved some of that empiric choice of using antibacterials.”

But the current surge in respiratory illness across Canada is now also likely sparking “increased use and an overuse” of antibiotics, which only stands to heighten the concerns and prevalence of drug-resistance, she added.

The overuse of antibiotics in Canada is not limited to health care. Producers of major crops like citrus and rice often make heavy use of antimicrobial sprays; antibiotics are often used as growth promoters and given proactively to prevent infection in livestock and antifungals used by the tulip industry and other agriculture crops are also contributing to a growing resistance to fungal infections, says Dr. John Conly, an infectious disease physician and professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Calgary, who has been working in the field of antimicrobial resistance for the last 25 years.

“We're seeing this huge over-usage of antibiotics and we're seeing ever-increasing rates of resistant organisms,” he said.

For example, in Canada, about 26 per cent of infections that occur are resistant to first line antibiotics, he noted. Experts in this field predict this resistance could grow exponentially in the coming years, with some estimates at anywhere from 40 to 100 per cent resistance to first line antibiotics and antifungals by 2050, Conly said.

Read more:
McMaster researchers want Canada to expedite approval of ‘newer’ antibiotics

“That's a major concern.”

That’s why specialists and leaders from around the globe have been increasingly trying to shine a light on this issue, with the help of the WHO.

Last week, the WHO held its third global "high-level ministerial conference on antimicrobial resistance," where a manifesto was created that set three global targets to tackle this challenge.

The targets include: reducing the total amount of antimicrobials used in agrifood systems by at least 30-50 per cent by 2030; ending the use of medically-important antimicrobials for growth promotion in animals; and ensuring a specific category of 48 antibiotics that are affordable, safe and have a low AMR risk (known as ‘access group antibiotics’) represent at least 60 per cent of overall antibiotic consumption in humans by 2030.

Read more:
Drug-resistant superbugs are the other thing keeping researchers up at night

Conly says more rapid diagnostics in clinical settings – to reduce over-testing and preemptive prescription of antibiotics – as well as digital guidelines on the use of antibiotics in health care would also help to curb the progression of antimicrobial resistance.

Ultimately, if more is not done to address this problem, more superbugs will spread more widely, leading to more preventable illness and death in Canada and around the world, he said.

“It's like a tsunami that's emerging, but it's far out to sea and you don't see it,” Conly said. “And then one day it's just suddenly going to emerge and we're going to say, ‘Did we not see this coming?’”

'Catastrophe of homelessness': Three dead at makeshift Edmonton shelters in early November

Story by Anna Junker • Yesterday - Edmonton Journal

A homeless encampment taken on Sunday, Nov. 20, 2022 in Edmonton

Three homeless Edmontonians died at separate encampments in the city in the first two weeks of November, say police and fire officials.

But outreach workers wonder if the number is even higher due to no official government body publicly tracking how and why the province’s homeless die.

The deaths are heartbreaking and outrageous, said Jim Gurnett, of the Edmonton Coalition on Housing and Homelessness.

“It’s beyond tragic because it’s so preventable,” he said.

The three November deaths were only confirmed by police and fire officials.

In the first case, on Nov. 3, the victim was found dead after a tent fire near 106 Avenue and 95 Street, said city police and Edmonton Fire Rescue Services (EFRS).

Five days later, on Nov. 8, Alberta Health Services responded to the death of a person in a tent, however, a spokesperson could not provide a location.

Then, on Nov. 9, Edmonton police attended a sudden death at an encampment near 106 Avenue and 95 Street. City councillors were later told that on that day, shelters reached 98 per cent capacity when temperatures dropped to -26 C overnight.


Edmonton police and EFRS also responded to a death on Oct. 12 after a tent fire near 157 Avenue and 95 Street.

In attempts to confirm the homeless deaths, Postmedia reached out to the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (OCME) to determine whether a medical examiner attended in each case.

But in response, Ethan Lecavalier-Kidney, press secretary for the justice ministry, would only say that the death of any homeless person is a tragedy.

“Our thoughts are with those who may be struggling to find a home or shelter during the cold winter months,” he said.

In a follow-up email, Lecavalier-Kidney added “due to privacy legislation, the OCME is not able to share information, including cause and manner of death, about specific cases it might be, is, or was investigating to anyone except for the next of kin, and, in certain circumstances, third parties such as the police or hospitals.”

Gurnett, meanwhile, says that ECOHH does its best to track such deaths itself, gathering names from organizations that identify individuals they believe died due to not having decent housing for an extended period of time. Gurnett said the group cross-checks the names among people and other organizations to remove duplications.

“In the end, we come up with what we think is a minimal list of people that would probably still be alive if it wasn’t for the effect of homelessness,” he said.

Gurnett said when people die, different conditions can be put on a death certificate, including diabetes, exposure, or an untreated infection. But the underlying point is that homelessness killed those people.

“What they die of in some ways is incidental to that,” said Gurnett. “We believe that most of the people we identify each year who die with homelessness as a major issue in their lives would have lived longer if they had had decent housing. That’s the bottom line.”

Related
West Edmonton eyed for 209-bed, $7.5M winter shelter by council

Clash in Edmonton's homeless, transit security and social disorder goals come to a head this winter

Elliott Tanti, spokesman for Boyle Street Community Services, said when someone dies on the street, they fall in that gap between municipal and provincial health authorities. The lack of data shows those deaths aren’t a priority.

He likens it to the information available for the COVID-19 pandemic, including deaths, which helped make public health decisions.

“If we aren’t even able at this point to get accurate numbers on how many people have died, how can we be making appropriate public health decisions at all?” he said.

Officially tracking deaths could help Boyle Street adjust its services during severe weather, create new programs to help people and show what is working.

“It’s incredibly vital information for an organization that’s looking to find solutions to chronic homelessness like we are,” Tanti said.

Toronto, in partnership with Toronto Public Health, began publicly tracking homeless deaths inside and outside of shelters in 2017. Tanti said if other jurisdictions can do it, it’s “incumbent” on Edmonton to do it, too.

“Our provincial health authority and the city of Edmonton need to be coming together as a sector to be thinking about this challenge so that ultimately we’re using good solid information that’s driving policy decisions,” he said.

In a statement, spokeswoman Noor Al-Henedy said the city’s support focuses on providing supportive and affordable housing. The city does not track deaths or assign cause of death, as health statistics and medical determinations are provincial responsibilities.

“If Alberta Health Services or Alberta Health created a process for collecting this data and sharing it with the city, we would consider making it accessible on our Open Data system or other reporting dashboards,” she said.

Hours after deadline, Chris Bourdeau, spokesman for Alberta Health said the province does not specifically monitor deaths among homeless Albertans and only tracks the cause and circumstances of death.

“Information may be recorded on the death registration such as ‘homeless’, ‘no fixed address’, or address of a homeless shelter,” he said. “However, it is not possible to validate the information for accuracy or guarantee that all homelessness cases will be captured.”

Bourdeau said the province supports a coordinated response with partners like the City of Edmonton, as reflected in the Coordinated Community Response to Homelessness Task Force, where data was a theme from the task force’s findings.

On Wednesday, City Council will debate whether to use $7.5 million from the financial stabilization reserve to fund an additional 209 temporary shelter spaces at a former west-end hotel. The additional shelter space proposal is a partnership between the Tallcree Nation and Jasper Place Wellness Centre.

A total of 1,072 shelter spaces are currently available this winter, but according to Homeward Trust’s By Name List , 1,250 of the 2,650 people experiencing homelessness in the city self-identified as sleeping in shelters or outdoors.

This leaves a gap in available spaces and raises concerns more deaths will occur once temperatures drop.

Gurnett said it’s a good move to increase shelter spaces, but it won’t end people dying from homelessness and is only a bandage.

“We need to do it. I totally support it,” he said. “But don’t let anybody try to tell you that an investment of a few million dollars in shelter space is doing anything about the catastrophe of homelessness.”

— With files from Lauren Boothby

ajunker@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/JunkerAnna

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to clarify that the motion city council will debate is connected to new shelter spaces at a west-end hotel and to add comment from Alberta Health, which responded after deadline.

West Edmonton $7.5M winter shelter gets unanimous council approval

Story by Lauren Boothby • Yesterday - Edmonton Journal

A temporary winter shelter in west Edmonton got unanimous approval from council on Wednesday as temperatures plummeted and snow fell on the city.


A homeless encampment is seen in central Edmonton on Nov. 20, 2022. Another 209 shelter spaces could soon open up in west Edmonton after city council finalized on Wednesday.© Provided by Edmonton Journal

Councillors finalized $7.5 million in funding for the 209 emergency shelter spaces operated by the Jasper Place Wellness Centre just before 4:30 p.m. after being hauled up at city hall for the third and final day of public hearings on the next four-year capital and operating budgets.

After unanimous support from the five-member executive committee last week , city manager Andre Corbould said he would start work on the shelter immediately, which would take about a month to set up.

Once opened, there will be around 1,280 shelter beds this winter, including the 450 spaces funded by the province — some of which aren’t yet operational.

Shelters nearly full capacity

Illustrating the need for shelter spaces, Corbould showed council data on shelter use — full nearly to capacity on extremely cold nights this month. On Nov. 9, capacity hit 98 per cent with a low of -26 C degrees. The same night, 408 people were kicked out of transit stations at closing time.

Corbould told councillors 274 people were evicted from transit stations at closing on Tuesday night. Of these people, 156 took advantage of the free warming shuttle to shelters, but 118 refused.

Giving people more options, and putting the city’s minimum shelter standards in place, would make it more likely more people get the help they need, he said.

“I think we have to have different shelters. I think Hope Mission serves a very good purpose but I think we need alternatives,” he said, adding he thinks the west Edmonton shelter should be appealing.

At least three people died in encampments this month.

Mayor Amarjeet Sohi said the city is in a crisis, and there is a critical need for emergency shelter spaces, and permanent supportive housing.

This also impacts businesses in the city’s core, and transit, because people are finding themselves desperate in -20 C or -30 C temperatures, and may be breaking into cars or buildings to stay alive, Sohi said.

“People don’t have a place to go and they’re dying on our streets, and they’re dying in the encampments without any support available. These are our neighbours, these are our fellow Edmontonians and they deserve to live and they deserve dignity,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

City council will need to dip into its rainy-day funds, the financial stabilization reserve, to pay for the new shelter spaces. Although it isn’t the municipality’s responsibility, Sohi said in the absence of action from the province they need to intervene.

“We should not be looking at 11th-hour solutions to these critical situations, and we see this every winter. This problem is not going to go away. We’re not going to end houselessness in the next year or two years, and we have houseless population doubled during the pandemic, so we will always be in need of dignified shelter spaces and we need more,” the mayor said.

During the meeting, Sohi asked Corbould how they prevent running into this same situation next winter again.

Corbould said the city has good data on the number of people who need help and the spaces, and that impressing these numbers on the government may help.

“We tried to do that this year. I think we did better this year than last year, because the gap we were facing in terms of space was much greater than 209 (in 2021),” he responded. “I think we have to keep on hammering the data.”

Council also unanimously voted to request an emergency meeting with the province on the “winter shelter crisis and shelter space gap in Edmonton.”

According to the motion, the letter will impress that the province needs to act immediately because there are more than 1,250 people sleeping outdoors, 182 cases of shigella primarily in the unhoused community as of Nov. 30, shelter capacity is consistently over 95 per cent on cold nights, inequity between Calgary and Edmonton in the number of spaces, and people are dying in encampments.

Community wants investment in Chinatown

Meanwhile, representatives for Chinatown Transformation Collaborative urged council during public hearings earlier in the day to follow through on the Chinatown strategy approved years ago.

Chair Hon Leong said they have been building their organization up over the past four years and they’re ready for action now, when there is a sense of hope and investment is returning.

He and his group spoke at city hall Tuesday evening and returned the next morning to answer council’s questions. In his opening remarks, Leong said the city needs to show fiscal restraint by separating wants from needs.

“Chinatown needs to change, it needs to be revitalized, and Edmonton needs to support foundational communities, or it will be lost,” he said Tuesday evening.

“Chinatown has been waiting for 20 years. Multiple budget cycles have passed us over. Our alleys, our sidewalks and park, and capital investment in our community is lacking.”

In particular, the group wants upgrades to 97 Street — such as adding new street lighting, temporary festive lanterns, and public art built into the sidewalks — and the underpass, 107A Avenue, and upgrades to Mary Burlie Park. Installing Harbin Gate is already included capital budget draft.

On Wednesday, Leong acknowledged that social issues like mental illness, addictions, drug poisoning, and homelessness are the root causes, but he said his group’s ask now is for council to invest in improving their community through work already identified and approved years ago in the Chinatown strategy.

Other members of the group said some community members and business owners don’t feel safe, but they are trying to change the narrative around what Chinatown is — others see it as a family-friendly place — and greater investment will improve how people experience the neighbourhood.

lboothby@postmedia.com

Organization that works with homeless Edmontonians hearing more bigoted, hateful rhetoric lately

Story by Phil Heidenreich • Yesterday - Global News

]
Boyle Street Community Services (BSCS) shared an angry and hateful voicemail it recently received to the media on Wednesday and said it is an example of what the organization describes as an increase in hateful and bigoted comments it's received from Edmontonians in recent weeks.


Boyle Street Community Services.

© Chris Chacon Global News

The voicemail, which BSCS said it received on Nov. 11, uses coarse language and calls on Indigenous people and the BSCS itself to leave Edmonton, suggesting they go to a First Nation west of the city. The BSCS, which works to help homeless Edmontonians, said it has reported the voicemail to the Edmonton Police Service.

"We reported it to EPS as a hate incident," said Elliott Tanti, the senior manager of communications and engagement at BSCS. "Boyle Street Community Services is disgusted by this abhorrent message.

"I think it demonstrates quite clearly the discrimination that many of our Indigenous folks face in our community. But what's particularly appalling is that this individual levelled these words at the most marginalized in our society, and they did it through an organization that exists to help people... I think that's ultimately what's most troubling about this voicemail that we received."

Global News has reached out to EPS for comment on the voicemail and to ask if the police department is investigating. A spokesperson for EPS declined to confirm if police are investigating but said the recording was brought forward to them and police are "following up." They added it was too early to comment further.

Tanti said discrimination is unfortunately something that is commonly seen in his line of work but said the brazenness of allowing such comments to be recorded in a voicemail, and the recent upswing in such sentiments, is particularly disturbing.

According to Tanti, the increase BSCS has seen in such rhetoric has been noticeable since the organization began community consultations a year ago on a proposal to move BSCS to a new building in the city's core.

Video: City of Edmonton hears appeal of new Boyle Street Community Services building

The organization had been planning a move from 105 Avenue by Rogers Place to a building on the corner of 101 Street and 107A Avenue near Victoria School of the Arts, but the move faced some vocal public opposition.

READ MORE: Boyle Street Community Services' plans for new Edmonton location facing opposition

Last week, the city's subdivision appeal board revoked BSCS' development permit.

BSCS has said its current building is "literally crumbling" and not accessible for all so it needs to move so it can continue to serve the nearly 3,000 homeless people who live in Edmonton.

READ MORE: Edmonton homeless aid centre loses development permit after appeal hearing

Tanti said during consultations with Edmontonians, BSCS has noticed evident discrimination coming up in discussions.

"We don't think this is reflective of the city we live in, but it certainly is reflective of some of the sentiments we've received as an organization over the last two weeks," he said.

"We want to make sure that people are feeling welcome, are feeling heard, they have an opportunity to discuss this discrimination."

--With files from Stephanie Swensrude, 630 CHED

FREEDOM CONVOY INSURRECTIONISTS

Some Coutts protesters wanted to alter Canada's political system, court documents say

Story by Kevin Martin • Yesterday 30/11/22

Protesters involved in the Coutts border blockade discussed “altering Canada’s political, justice and medical systems,” information uncovered during an RCMP investigation says.


Trucks at the Coutts international border crossing on Feb. 3, 2022.© Provided by Calgary Herald

In a sworn Information To Obtain (ITO) affidavit in support of an application for a warrant to seize remand phone records of four named accused, Const. Trevor Checkley outlined where the Mounties’ investigation was as of May 4.

The search warrant requests targeted Anthony Olienick, Chris Carbert, Christopher Lysak and Jerry Morin, who are each charged with conspiracy to murder RCMP officers during their involvement with the blockade.

All four were arrested in February.

In the ITO, a redacted version of which was released Wednesday by Lethbridge provincial court Judge Kristin Ailsby, Checkley outlined police concerns about the protest.

“Carbert received a text message from (a redacted name) and was told to share a message with non-mainstream media and on social media,” Checkley wrote

“The message and a related followup text from (redacted name) stated the protest was not just about ending vaccine and public health mandates but altering Canada’s political, justice and medical systems, including the elimination of a group of people referred to as the professional political class,” he said.

“(Redacted name) also shared the above message from (redacted name) in a group text chat with Carbert, Lysak and Olienick.”

Checkley noted undercover officers who infiltrated the protest had been present when Olienick and Carbert met with Morin regarding the delivery of a heavy package believed to be guns.

“When (an undercover officer) later asked Olienick if everything was delivered, referring to the delivery of firearms, Olienick said not everything made it,” Checkley wrote.

“Olienick told the UCOs if the RCMP came in with force they would be met with greater force and that the RCMP were the enemy. Olienick also said he was willing to die for the cause.”

During a Feb. 14 raid on three trailers in Coutts, Mounties uncovered multiple firearms, ammunition and tactical vests.


Photo supplied by RCMP on Monday, Feb. 14, 2022, shows a large assortment of weapons and ammunition seized near Coutts during a crackdown near the Canada/U.S. border.© Supplied by RCMP

In a subsequent search of Olienick’s rural southern Alberta residence, “police located firearms, over 36,000 rounds of ammunition, tactical gear and two pipe bombs.”

“Olienick described Lysak as a hitman, sniper and gun-fighter,” Checkley said.

“Police seized a handgun registered to Lysak from the trailer where Lysak was staying in Coutts . . . and a rifle with a scope and a range finder from Lysak’s truck parked near the Coutts blockade site.”

The officer said he believed Olienick, Carbert and Lysak, who were arrested with others in the border community, “went to Coutts with the support of (redacted names) to affect political change, as they believed that the Coutts blockade would lead to conflict and were preparing for armed conflict with police.

“For the reasons outlined above, I have reasonable grounds to believe Olienick, Carbert, Lysak and Jerry Morin possessed weapons near the Coutts blockade protest site with the intention of using those weapons against police.”

Related
Coutts mayor says village besieged by 'domestic terrorists' during border blockade: Emergencies Act inquiry

Coutts border blockade grew organically to open communication with Alberta, Fort Macleod councillor testifies

Police feared they were targets of guns at Coutts border blockade, court documents show

Checkley also reviewed police interviews of the four accused following their arrests.

“Olienick believed the government wanted to destroy the middle class and the economy was going to collapse,” he wrote.

He also expected a totalitarian communist regime would be installed in Canada “and there would be executions and gas chambers.”

“Carbert said he was trying to prevent a war and that people can only be pushed so far,” Checkley said.

“The whole point was to get (Prime Minister Justin) Trudeau and (then-premier Jason) Kenney to step down.”

Lysak questioned the validity of COVID-19 vaccines, the officer wrote.

“Lysak . . . said that it was 900 times more deadly for kids to get vaccinated than to get (COVID).”

And Morin expressed contempt for the government, Checkley said.

“Morin said it was World War Three and that stripping freedoms and making everyone slaves was warfare,” he said.

All four, who remain in custody, are set to stand trial next June.

KMartin@postmedia.com

Twitter: @KMartinCourts

FASCISM IN ALBERTA ACT

Alberta government attempts clarification as NDP calls sovereignty act anti-democratic

Story by Lisa Johnson , Matthew Black • Yesterday 30/11/2022

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s sovereignty act is drawing fire over the new power it grants to cabinet and is forcing the government to suggest it’s been misrepresented.


Alberta NDP Opposition Leader Rachel Notley.© Provided by Edmonton Journal

If passed, Bill 1 — the Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act — would assert the province’s power to direct provincial agencies to act against federal laws it considers unconstitutional or harmful to Albertans.

It would also grant Smith’s cabinet a new power to change provincial laws outside of the house.

In a Wednesday morning news release attempting to clarify, the justice ministry claimed cabinet is only authorized to amend existing legislation as specifically outlined in a resolution brought under the act.

That doesn’t line up with the language of the bill itself, which doesn’t make resolutions binding, and requires they include measures government “should consider.”

NDP Leader Rachel Notley told reporters Wednesday the proposed bill attacks the democratic rights of Albertans by allowing the premier to sidestep the legislative assembly.

“There is nothing in the bill that compels the government to limit the options of cabinet in the resolution. And there is basically nothing in the bill that would limit the government’s ability to act once a resolution is passed,” she said, calling for it to be withdrawn.

She added the government’s talking points contradict what department officials told the Opposition the proposed bill would do.

In her first question period as premier and leader of the UCP, Danielle Smith defended her flagship legislation, denying that it represented an abuse of authority.

“Every decision that is going to be made has to first get the validation from this assembly,” said Smith.

Speaking to reporters on her way into the house, Trade, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Rajan Sawhney urged Albertans to read the bill to understand its procedure .

“We need to do some more communications around this because it’s not what has been depicted,” said Sawhney.

In question period, Justice Minister Tyler Shandro also emphasized the advance permission of the legislature.

“In this framework, cabinet cannot amend legislation without the specific direction provided by the MLAs in this assembly — cabinet can only work within those perimeters,” said Shandro.

Finance Minister Travis Toews, who once was highly critical of Smith’s earlier sovereignty act proposal, told reporters the bill as introduced addresses all of his previous concerns, including that it could create economic uncertainty.

“I’m supporting this bill because I believe those issues have been addressed,” he said, including that it be constitutional and respect the rule of law.

Toews’ comments come after the Calgary Chamber of Commerce warned the proposed act threatens to scare off investors and throw cold water on the province’s plans for economic growth.

‘Fights with the federal government don’t come close to that threshold’: expert

Eric Adams, a University of Alberta law professor and constitutional law scholar, said the policy aims of the legislation are constitutionally problematic and vulnerable.

Related video: Controversial sovereignty bill introduced in Alberta
Duration 4:04
View on Watch


Adams said it’s unjustifiable for the proposed bill to grant cabinet new power to change legislation outside the legislature.

“We should be, as a democratic society, suspicious and and wary of the basic premise that the executive has the unilateral power to amend legislation,” said Adams, noting that the democratic process evaporates without transparent, public debate over changes to law in the legislature.

Adams noted that such power could be justified in emergency circumstances: when there may be a need for a nimble response, perhaps in order to save lives or protect property.

In 2020 at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the UCP under then-premier Jason Kenney faced a constitutional challenge over a bill that changed the Public Health Act to gave cabinet the ability to unilaterally change laws. His government walked back parts of that bill a year later.

Adams said the province has the power to direct the provincial entities listed in the act, including universities, school boards and municipalities, but it’s another matter to say that includes directing entities to ignore or resist federal law.

“No provincial government has ever done that,” said Adams, adding that it’s a matter for courts to weigh in on.

The proposed bill also shortens the timeline to challenge the law in court to 30 days from the typical six months, and elevates the standard of legal review to “patently unreasonable.”

“It’s effectively placing government decisions in this area beyond the capacity of challenge,” said Adams.

Notley called the details draconian.

“What that standard does is it limits the role of the courts,” she said.

While the government asserts that the bill will fully respect Indigenous and treaty rights, it continues to be criticized by some Alberta First Nation communities.

In a statement Tuesday , Treaty Six Chiefs reiterated their opposition to the proposed Bill 1, and noted that there was a lack of prior consultation on it.

“As Indigenous Peoples, we understand individual freedom as something that can only exist in the context of good relations with others, including our ancestors and the generations to come. We believe the proposed Act is self-centred, short-sighted, and in opposition to these principles,” they wrote.

University of Calgary political scientist Lisa Young said while the new bill will appeal to right-leaning Albertans and those who feel alienated by current political institutions, it also may turn off more moderate voters that the UCP would likely need to win the upcoming general election planned for the spring.

“There isn’t anything in this legislation to appeal to them, or to signal to them that Smith plans to govern as a centrist. There’s no sense that she is a moderate political figure who can have a big-tent party from this,” she said.

“For those who are concerned that Danielle Smith is a radical or an extremist, this legislation might confirm their suspicions.”

Young added the bill could be a stumbling block for the NDP, who could face the dilemma of voting against any use of the act even if it were used to oppose a federal policy considered unpopular by Albertans.

“They can simply say that the sovereignty act is unconstitutional, undemocratic, and they can never vote for anything that comes under the authority of this act,” she said.

“For those who are inclined to be suspicious of Notley and the NDP, I’m not sure that that inoculation is necessarily going to be enough.”

Trudeau ‘not looking for a fight’ on Sovereignty Act

On his way into a Wednesday morning caucus meeting, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the federal government will take a wait-and-see approach.

“I’m not going to take anything off the table, but I’m also not looking for a fight. We want to continue to be there to deliver for Albertans,” he said, adding he knows many people in Alberta are also concerned about the powers in the legislation.

“We know that the exceptional powers that the premier is choosing to give the Alberta government in bypassing the Alberta legislature is causing a lot of eyebrows to raise in Alberta and we’re going to see how this plays out,” Trudeau said.

Clarifying a comment earlier Wednesday the NDP said was the result of a miscommunication, Notley said in a statement to Postmedia Alberta doesn’t need Ottawa’s involvement.

“I’m not asking the federal government to intervene. I am calling on the members of the UCP to do the right thing and clean up this mess. Albertans need to get loud and put a stop to this legislation. This is about protecting our economic future.”

— With files from Ryan Tumilty and the Canadian Press

Politicians clash over whether sovereignty act would give province unchecked powers

Story by Janet French • Yesterday CBC

Premier Danielle Smith says the government's proposed sovereignty act would not give the provincial cabinet unchecked powers to rewrite laws, while critics say the premier's signature bill would do just that.


Alberta Premier Danielle Smith says the sovereignty act wouldn't give Alberta's cabinet unchecked law-changing powers. A law professor says it's not that straightforward.

© Jason Franson/The Canadian Press

"It gives unprecedented ability to a brand new premier to overwhelm and sidestep the legislative assembly of this province and it is an attack on the democratic rights of Albertans, and through that, an attack on the stability of our economy," NDP Leader Rachel Notley said on her way into the legislative chamber Wednesday.

In question period and in scrums, members of the Smith government denied the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act allows cabinet to change, add or suspend laws without the oversight of the legislature.

Smith said she looked forward to educating Notley, who is a lawyer, on the contents of the 12-page Bill 1.

"We know that Albertans want us to act on this," Smith said.

If passed, the bill would allow the legislature to pass a motion identifying an area where it believes the federal government has acted unconstitutionally or in a way that harms Alberta.

That motion would empower cabinet to amend laws or regulations to resist perceived federal incursions into provincial jurisdiction, and could require other provincially controlled public bodies to also disregard the offending federal law.

At a news conference Tuesday, Justice Minister Tyler Shandro acknowledged that once empowered by the act, cabinet's decision to change a law would not have to return to the legislature for a vote — the kind of power that is usually granted to governments temporarily during emergencies.

However, the province's justice ministry issued a clarification on Wednesday saying any proposed legal changes made by cabinet must first be included in a resolution approved by the legislature.

University of Alberta law Prof. Eric Adams said it's not that simple. The bill wanders into uncharted territory in Canadian law, and could be open to interpretation by courts, he said.

Legislatures don't usually make laws by passing a motion, he said. A motion comes with a lesser degree of public scrutiny and debate than introducing, debating and voting on legislation, he said.

"The idea that the democratic legitimacy of whatever the cabinet does can be traced back to and authorized by a simple vote on a motion is fundamentally flawed reasoning," Adams said in an interview.

Notley said it's clear the bill isn't ready, and the government should withdraw it before it causes economic damage. She says even talk of the legislation during the nearly-five month UCP leadership campaign spooked investors.

Cabinet ministers change their tunes

Also defending the act Wednesday were three cabinet ministers who panned the idea during this summer's United Conservative Party leadership race.

In September, leadership candidate Travis Toews called it a "false bill of goods." Brian Jean said Smith was "deceiving UCP members about reality" by making unachievable promises with the act. Rajan Sawhney called it a "Pandora's box" and urged Smith to call a general election before introducing the bill.

All three are now cabinet ministers in Smith's government. They said on Wednesday the premier listened to feedback from caucus and cabinet, and made changes to the proposed legislation that quelled their concerns.

Jean, now minister of jobs, economy and northern development, said it's "not the case at all" the act would give cabinet unchecked law-making power.

BRIAN JEAN ON THE LEFT

"It says specifically that we're going to have more democracy in this place than anywhere else in Canada, because nothing can happen without us voting on it first, which is unlike what's been happening in the past," Jean told reporters.

The bill has raised questions — even by the Alberta government — about whether Canada's governor general could use the power of disallowance to forbid a provincial law that could enable Alberta to ignore federal laws the province says are harmful or unconstitutional.

In Ottawa Wednesday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he wasn't ruling any options out, but wasn't looking for a fight.

"We know that the exceptional powers that the premier is choosing to give the Alberta government in bypassing the Alberta legislature is causing a lot of eyebrows to raise in Alberta, and we're going to see how this plays out," he said.

BUILD THE POPULAR FRONT AGAINST BILL 1

Alberta Sovereignty act a resource grab, violates Indigenous rights by its very existence, say First Nations leaders

Yesterday 

First Nations leaders in Alberta are slamming Premier Danielle Smith on the province’s first piece of legislation under her leadership.

Yesterday, the premier introduced Bill 1, Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act.

The proposed legislation, she said, “is designed to be a constitutional shield to protect Albertans from unconstitutional federal laws and policies that harm our province’s economy or violate Alberta's provincial rights.”

“Nothing in this Act,” reads the bill, “is to be construed as…abrogating or derogating from any existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada that are recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

The act by its existence has already done that, said Treaty 6, 7 and 8 leaders, pointing out that they were not consulted prior to the act being drafted.

“The lack of prior consultation with Indigenous Peoples about this proposed Act indicates that Reconciliation is not a priority for this premier or this government,” said the Confederacy of Treaty Six Nations in a statement issued yesterday.

First Nation leaders have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in opposition to Smith’s campaign promise of a sovereignty act since she was elected in October by her party members as the new leader of the United Conservative Party (UCP). By default, she became premier of Alberta without seeking a general election, which is scheduled for May 2023. Smith did win a by-election earlier this month to take a seat in the legislature.

The sovereignty act allows Cabinet to bring forward resolutions to the assembly on “federal initiatives” deemed to be unconstitutional or Cabinet anticipates will “cause harm” to Albertans.

High on its priority list, said Smith, is regulating and controlling Alberta’s natural resources and economic development and battling Bill C-69.

Bill C-69 is federal environmental legislation that includes enhanced Indigenous consultation for projects that require federal impact assessments and certain federal regulatory approvals and permits. Impacts on Indigenous peoples and their asserted and established Aboriginal or treaty rights must be considered in making decisions on projects. Bill C-69 stresses the need for free, prior and informed consent.

“We understand the proposed Act as a ploy to access resources and extract them at an unrestricted rate, leaving the land unprotected,” said Treaty 6, 7 and 8 sovereign chiefs in a joint statement prior to the bill’s introduction.

“The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act is just another unlawful attempt to continue the province’s deliberate abuse and exploitation of our peoples, lands, territories, and resources,” said Treaty 8 Grand Chief Arthur Noskey in a statement that followed the introduction of Bill 1.

Noskey went a step further saying Treaty 8 would manage their territory, including their resources, themselves. He invited industry with interests in Treaty 8 territory to meet directly with them at their governance table.

“If you want certainty, come to the table of the rights holders!” he said.

Smith’s legislation proposes to give Cabinet sweeping powers that go unchecked by the rest of the assembly. Although a resolution, introduced by her or her Cabinet, needs to receive approval from the legislative assembly initially, it does not need to return to the assembly for a further vote even though ministers can “suspend or modify the application or operation of all or part” of that resolution.

A clarification offered Nov. 30 from the Alberta Justice department states that Cabinet is only authorized to amend existing legislation as specifically outlined in a resolution brought under the act.

“If there is any dispute as to whether or not cabinet amended legislation outside of the specific recommendations contained in the resolution, including any amendments by the legislative assembly to the resolution, such actions would still be subject to both judicial review as well as review by the legislative assembly itself,” says the statement.

According to the sovereignty bill, a judicial review may be filed within 30 days of a resolution or action being taken. A constitutional court challenge can be made at any time so, “the constitutionality of each resolution brought under the Act will have to be carefully drafted and reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure the resolutions are constitutionally defensible,” says the government.

A resolution remains in place until it is rescinded by the legislative assembly or for two years. However, an additional two years may be approved by the assembly.

Directives imposed by the resolution must be followed by all provincial entities, which includes Crown corporations, such as the Alberta Indigenous Opportunities Corporation; public agencies; health authorities; school boards; municipal governments; municipal and regional police forces, including the RCMP as it has a contract with the province; and more.

However, the bill does not set out what measures can be or will be taken if those directives are not followed.

Smith has said that when this legislation is in place, it will be the federal government’s responsibility to move forward with any constitutional challenges.

As for the sovereignty bill itself, the provincial government says, “As written, it is likely to be found constitutional if challenged.”

Noskey disagrees. He calls the legislation unconstitutional, saying Smith and her government are “in dishonor of Treaty No. 8 (which)…supersedes the Canadian Constitution and provincial legislations.”

While they are still reviewing the act, the Confederacy of Treaty Six Nations say, “As Indigenous Peoples, we understand individual freedom as something that can only exist in the context of good relations with others, including our ancestors and the generations to come.”

They believe “the proposed Act is self-centred, short-sighted and in opposition to these principles.”

Also yesterday, former UCP leader Jason Kenney resigned his Calgary Lougheed seat immediately after the act was introduced. Kenney, who had been voted out by his party members as leader, had been critical of Smith’s sovereignty act while she was campaigning.

Kenney did not link his resignation directly to the introduction of Bill 1, but said in a statement, “…I am concerned that our democratic life is veering away from ordinary prudential debate toward a polarization that undermines our bedrock institutions and principles.”

He criticized the far right for “a vengeful anger and toxic cynicism” and the far left for dividing “society dangerously along identity lines.”

Bill 1 can be viewed here: https://www.assembly.ab.ca/assembly-business/bills/bill?billinfoid=11984&from=bills

Windspeaker.com

By Shari Narine, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Windspeaker.com

Alta. sovereignty act damaging to business: Calgary Chamber of Commerce

CALGARY — Alberta's proposed sovereignty act threatens to scare off investors and talent and derail the province's plans for economic growth, a prominent business group warned Wednesday.


Alta. sovereignty act damaging to business: Calgary Chamber of Commerce

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The Calgary Chamber of Commerce pushed back against the United Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, one day after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith introduced her flagship bill in the legislature.

“There’s no shred of evidence that this act will lead to economic growth," Chamber president and CEO Deborah Yedlin said in an interview.

“You can’t tell me this is going to support economic growth and support continued economic diversification in this province.”

The Chamber had expressed its opposition to the idea of a sovereignty act, which was a key plank of Smith's successful race to replace former premier Jason Kenney as leader of Alberta's United Conservative Party.

But Yedlin said the details of the proposed legislation, as revealed Tuesday, have "gone further" than even what the business group expected.

Under the proposed legislation, cabinet would have the power to direct provincial entities — including Crown-controlled organizations, police, health authorities, municipalities, school boards — to not use provincial money to enforce federal rules deemed harmful to Alberta's interests.

Smith has said the bill is needed to reset Alberta's relationship with Ottawa and would be used to push back on issues including fertilizer restrictions, firearms, energy and health care.

The UCP government has said any resolution brought under the act must first be introduced, debated, voted on and passed by the legislative assembly. However, critics have said the proposed bill appears to give Smith and her cabinet the power to rewrite provincial laws behind closed doors.

“It could be perceived as being undemocratic," Yedlin said, adding Alberta has a labour shortage right now and anything that negatively impacts the province's image will interfere with employers' ability to entice young workers from other jurisdictions.

"For people wanting to come and build a new life in this province and take advantage of the opportunities that are here, the views that are being presented right now are not necessarily supporting the attraction of the talent that we need."

She said it will also make it harder for the province's energy sector to work collaboratively with the federal government. The oilsands industry, for example, through its Pathways Alliance industry group, is currently seeking federal support for its proposed multi-billion-dollar carbon capture and storage network.

"This (bill) will cause transactional friction, which will cause companies to rethink their investment plans," Yedlin said.

Alberta has clashed with Ottawa many times in recent years over federal initiatives the province believes has hurt its economy, and in particular, its largest industry, the oil and gas sector. Under Kenney, the province launched a legal challenge against federal Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, which Alberta saw as being anti-oil and damaging to its economic interests.

Smith has said her proposed legislation will give Alberta a way to fight back against federal initiatives that are harmful to the province's interests or infringe on the division of powers in the Constitution.

But even some of Smith's cabinet ministers have expressed their concern for what this type of legislation could mean for Alberta businesses.

Provincial Environment Minister Sonya Savage, who had the Energy portfolio under Kenney, wrote in an op-ed in September that she was hearing from international investors concerned about the possibility of a sovereignty act.

"I can tell you, for certain, that the sovereignty act is not the solution. Implementing the Sovereignty Act would create instability and chaos," Savage wrote at the time.

Kenney, who resigned his seat in the legislature Tuesday, has been a staunch critic of the legislation. In September, he said it would turn Alberta into a "banana republic" and drive away investment and job creation.

On Wednesday, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said it is still reviewing the text of the legislation, but added that as an oil and gas lobby organization, it needs to be able to work with all governments and parties.

"We are concerned about any government policy that has the potential to create uncertainty for investors," said CAPP president and CEO Lisa Baiton in an emailed statement.

Not all business groups in Alberta have been as vocal as the Calgary Chamber has been on the bill. On Wednesday, the Business Council of Alberta — whose membership includes the CEOs of some of the province's largest companies — said it doesn't have a position on the proposal yet and is still consulting with members and legal partners to assess its implications.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 30, 2022.

Amanda Stephenson, The Canadian Press

Legal experts say Ottawa unlikely to be 'main combatant' in Alberta sovereignty fight

CALGARY — Constitutional law experts say it's unlikely Ottawa will rush to fight Alberta over a proposed sovereignty bill that would give the provincial government new powers to resist what it considers federal intrusion.


Legal experts say Ottawa unlikely to be 'main combatant' in Alberta sovereignty fight© Provided by The Canadian Press

Eric Adams, a constitutional law expert at the University of Alberta, calls the legislation "unprecedented" and an attempt to "rewrite the basic rules of federalism."

But he doesn't expect the federal government will engage.

"I think the more likely scenario here is that calm and cool heads will dictate that the federal response should be mostly a passive one — at least in the early days — and that they'll be eager to wait for this matter to get in front of the courts and then they'll decide how deeply involved they become," he said Wednesday.

"My strong suspicion is they don't want to be the main combatant."

The proposed Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act introduced Tuesday would grant Premier Danielle Smith and her cabinet broad powers to rewrite provincial laws behind closed doors if a resolution passes in the house identifying a federal matter deemed unconstitutional or harmful to Alberta.

It would allow cabinet to direct Crown-controlled organizations, municipalities, school boards, municipal police forces and other entities to not use funds to enforce federal rules.

Smith said past efforts to work with the federal government haven't worked and Ottawa continues to interfere in constitutionally protected areas of provincial responsibility from energy to health care.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau briefly addressed the proposed legislation Wednesday.

"I'm not going to take anything off the table,'' he said in Ottawa. "I'm also not looking for a fight."

Adams said the federal government would be playing into Smith's hands if it was seen to be singling out Alberta for different treatment given the largely hands-off approach it has used in its dealings with Quebec.

He said a case might be made before the courts that the bill is constitutional, but he doesn't expect that will happen.

"I think it goes too far in suggesting that provinces have the authority to order entities within the province to refuse federal laws," Adams said.

He said it also might make sense for Ottawa to wait until Alberta's scheduled provincial election in May.

"The other possibility is this is legislation that is not long lived. Certainly, the NDP has indicated that they don't support the bill and I imagine this will be one of the wedge issues in the election campaign to come."

Martin Olszynski, an associate law professor at the University of Calgary who focuses on energy, environment and natural resources, called the proposed legislation "extraordinary."

"And when people make extraordinary claims they should require extraordinary proof," he said.

"The premier would have us believe that in order to be successful in her fight with Ottawa she needs to kneecap democratic accountability in the province of Alberta and I find that really hard to accept."

Olszynski said it's unlikely the bill, if passed, would give Alberta an advantage when it comes to natural resource development, since most federal resource laws apply directly to companies operating in the province.

"If you're Suncor and you want to build an oilsands mine, there's no scope there for the provincial government to say we're not going to enforce this legislation," he said.

"It applies to you directly and you have a federal bureaucracy that you deal with. The same is true for our oil and gas emissions cap. The same is true for the carbon price."

Olszynski expects the sovereignty act will go to the courts in Alberta, but it will be driven by individuals and groups within the province.

"(Smith is) asking the legislature to give her an extraordinary power for her and her colleagues so I think there are going to be Albertans who looking at that situation aren't convinced that is a good way to go."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 30, 2022.

Bill Graveland, The Canadian Press

List of areas the Alberta government accuses Ottawa of overreaching


EDMONTON — When the Alberta legislature resumed sitting Tuesday, the first bill introduced by the United Conservative Party government was one aimed at shielding the province from federal laws it deems harmful to its interests.

The Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act was a key promise from Premier Danielle Smith when she was running for the leadership of the party, replacing Jason Kenney.

Smith said Tuesday that past efforts to work with the federal government have not worked and Ottawa continues to interfere in constitutionally protected areas of provincial responsibility.

Here are four areas Alberta has accused the federal government of overreaching:

CARBON PRICING

Last year, Kenney said that he hoped the Supreme Court of Canada decision upholding Ottawa’s right to levy a carbon tax on provinces wouldn't open the door to federal overreach in other areas.

Alberta, along with Ontario and Saskatchewan, challenged the federal carbon pricing rules.

In its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that climate change is a critical threat to the globe and that Canada cannot effectively combat it if each province can go its own way on greenhouse gas emissions.

Kenney’s government campaigned and won the 2019 election around a centrepiece promise to scrap the Alberta NDP consumer carbon tax and that was his first bill as premier, prompting Ottawa to impose its own levy at the start of 2020.

Smith, who was sworn in as premier last month, has said her government is planing another challenge.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT ACT

The Alberta government, calling it a Trojan Horse, challenged the federal act and was supported by Saskatchewan and Ontario.

The Impact Assessment Act, given royal assent in 2019, lists activities that trigger an impact review and allows Ottawa to consider the effects of new resource projects on a range of environmental and social issues, including climate change.

Alberta asked its Appeal Court for a reference, or an opinion, which is not a binding decision and is used to guide governments in determining a law’s meaning or constitutionality.

In May, the Alberta Court of Appeal said the act is an "existential threat" to the division of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.

FIREARMS

In September, the Alberta government said it was taking steps to oppose federal firearms prohibition legislation and the potential seizure of thousands of assault-style weapons.

Since May 2020, Ottawa has prohibited more than 1,500 different models of assault-style firearms from being used or sold in Canada. It has committed to establishing a buyback program to remove those firearms from communities.

Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro said the province will not agree to have RCMP officers act as "confiscation agents" and will protest any such move under the provincial-federal agreement that governs policing.

Alberta also plans to seek intervener status in six ongoing judicial review applications challenging the constitutionality of the legislation.

FERTILIZER

The Alberta government, along with Saskatchewan, said in July that it was disappointed with Ottawa’s fertilizer emissions reduction target.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau has said reducing those emissions by nearly a third by 2030 is ambitious but must be accomplished.

In a news release at the time, the provinces said the commitment to future consultations is only to determine how to meet the target “unilaterally imposed” on the industry, not to consult on what is achievable or attainable.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 30, 2022.

Smith introduces flagship Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, giving cabinet new power

Story by Lisa Johnson , Matthew Black • Tuesday 29/11/22
Edmonton Journal

Premier Danielle Smith looks into the gallery as the Fourth Session of the 30th Legislature opens with the Speech from the Throne delivered by Lieutenant Governor Salma Lakhani on Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2022 at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton. 

Greg Southam-Postmedia© Provided by Edmonton Journal


Following months of anticipation, Premier Danielle Smith introduced her much-maligned signature law in the Alberta legislature Tuesday, one that grants her cabinet a new power to change laws without house approval.

The Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act pledges to give Alberta the power to direct provincial agencies to act against federal laws it considers unconstitutional or harmful to Albertans, delivering on much of what Smith promised throughout the leadership campaign under the previously dubbed Alberta sovereignty act.

“This legislation is designed to be a constitutional shield to protect Albertans from unconstitutional federal laws and policies that harm our province’s economy or violate Alberta’s provincial rights,” Smith said as she introduced the bill.

The act, tabled as Bill 1, endeavours to shift the onus of constitutionality to the federal government, inviting Ottawa to challenge applications of the new law in court, rather than the province taking the federal government to court over laws it doesn’t agree with.

It also relies on the opinion of Alberta MLAs to characterize federal initiatives as unconstitutional, harmful to Albertans, or both. The bill doesn’t include a definition of “harmful” to Albertans.

Using those categories, a minister would propose a motion identifying a specific federal policy or piece of legislation and explaining how it runs contrary to the constitution or is detrimental to the province.

The legislative assembly would then debate and vote on that motion. If passed, the resolution would authorize cabinet to undertake a number of actions.

Related
Alberta Lt.-Gov. Salma Lakhani delivers Throne Speech focused on affordability, health-care reform, jobs, and fighting Ottawa

Alberta on track to hit $12.3 billion surplus as oil prices soften and spending ramps up

Those include giving directives to “provincial entities,” like a health authority, school board, police service, crown-controlled organization, publicly funded service provider, or provincial agency.

The act also gives cabinet the unusual power to change legislation with an order in council, typically a power reserved only for regulatory changes. It’s akin to the temporary emergency powers the UCP government gave cabinet to suspend legislation at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

‘I hope we never have to use this bill’: Smith

At a news conference following the introduction of the bill, Justice Minister Tyler Shandro emphasized that cabinet unilaterally amending laws would only happen “after an open and democratic debate and vote in the legislative assembly first.”

When asked how far cabinet could go beyond the resolutions, Shandro said it’s up to the assembly to hold cabinet to account.

Smith said the bill is intended to be democratic and transparent.

When asked by a reporter why it was necessary to give cabinet what is normally an emergency power, Smith said Alberta’s previous efforts to fight back against the federal government have failed, and the province needs the power to reset its relationship with Ottawa.

“Because we’ve been ignored,” said Smith, who added she’s hopeful the federal government is starting to recognize that natural resources fall under provincial jurisdiction.

“I hope we never have to use this bill. I hope that we’ve sent a message to Ottawa that we will vigorously defend our constitutional areas of jurisdiction and they should just butt out,” said Smith.

The legislation would not give the government the power to direct private citizens or businesses to violate federal law.

The bill also provides protection to provincial entities from civil liability when they are acting in good faith under a directive issued under the bill, government officials said.

The government, in its briefing materials, added it will “defend its provincial jurisdiction” while fully respecting Indigenous and treaty rights, Canada’s Constitution and the courts. It’s unclear if the government has done consultations yet on Indigenous rights; in recent weeks, chiefs from Alberta’s First Nation communities have spoken out against the bill.

The province also addressed the fear that the federal government may utilize the constitutional power of disallowance — one that hasn’t been used since the 1940s — to essentially veto the legislation.

“If the federal government were to use the disallowance power against the act, they would provoke an unprecedented constitutional crisis. While we do not know for certain, we believe this scenario is unlikely,” the government said.

Smith has told her ministers to prepare special resolutions under the proposed act for the spring legislative session to push back on federal Bill C-69, any potential mandatory fertilizer cuts and emissions reductions, firearm confiscation, or strings-attached funding in health care and education.

While those were examples given, it’s as yet unclear how that would happen. Notably, the RCMP — which polices much of rural and small-town Alberta — is not directly captured by the legislation, although Mounties could be subject to ministerial orders, government officials said.

‘It is certainly anti-democratic’: NDP

All present members of the Opposition NDP voted against the bill Tuesday, with deputy party leader Sarah Hoffman saying the act gave Smith’s government “dictatorial powers” to rewrite laws behind closed doors after passing a motion in the house.

“It is certainly anti-democratic. It is incredibly bad for the economy — we’ve already seen a chilling effect from even simply talking about the sovereignty act in the investor community,” said Hoffman.

An order made under the act would last for up to two years but could be extended for another two years.

There is no appeal mechanism set out in the bill. It could be challenged in court, but the legislation sets out a 30-day time limit for bringing a judicial review application, instead of the typical six months.

Smith’s original leadership campaign proposal was modelled off a proposal last year from the Free Alberta Strategy, and it was criticized throughout the UCP leadership race among many members of the UCP caucus, including most of Smith’s leadership rivals.

Critics, including former premier Jason Kenney, who dismissed it as “ cockamamie,” warned it would be illegal and would scare investors from the province.

Legal scholars have previously said the proposal would be unconstitutional , incompatible with the rule of law , and go against the separation of powers between different levels of government.

‘Provincial entities’ as defined in the act include:

– a provincial public agency,

– a provincial Crown-controlled organization,

– an entity that carries out a power, duty or function under a provincial enactment,

– an entity that receives a grant or other public funds from the provincial government that is contingent on the provision of a public service,

– a regional health authority,

– a public post-secondary institution,

– a school board,

– a municipality,

– a municipal or regional police service, and

– any other similar provincially regulated entity set out in the regulations.

SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/11/not-since-bible-bill-aberhardt-has.html