CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M BIG PHARMA

GSK, Pfizer, Sanofi fend off thousands of U.S. lawsuits over alleged Zantac cancer link

Story by By Brendan Pierson • Yesterday 

A bottle of Zantac heartburn drug is seen in this picture illustration© Thomson Reuters

(Reuters) - Drugmakers GSK Plc, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi SA and Boehringer Ingelheim on Tuesday were spared thousands of U.S. lawsuits claiming that the heartburn drug Zantac caused cancer, as a judge found the claims were not backed by sound science.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach, Florida, knocks out about 50,000 claims in federal court, though it does not directly affect tens of thousands of similar cases pending in state courts around the country.

"We are extremely surprised by this miscarriage of justice," and "fully expect" the ruling will be reversed on appeal, lawyers for the plaintiffs said in a joint statement.

A Sanofi spokesperson said the decision "significantly decreases the scope of the litigation potentially by over 50%," with the remaining litigation being only in state court.

A spokesperson for GSK said the company welcomed the decision and Pfizer said it was pleased by the outcome.

Privately-held German drugmaker Boehringer said in a statement that it looked forward to "continuing our vigorous defense of the remaining cases in state courts."

All the drugmakers have denied that Zantac causes cancer.

Zantac, first approved in 1983, became the world's best selling medicine in 1988 and one of the first-ever drugs to top $1 billion in annual sales. Originally marketed by a forerunner of GSK, it was later sold successively to Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim and finally Sanofi.

Numerous generic drugmakers also launched versions of the medicine, but none are defendants in the cases in federal court.

In 2019, some manufacturers and pharmacies halted sales of the drug over concerns that its active ingredient, ranitidine, degraded over time to form a chemical called NDMA. While NDMA is found in low levels in food and water, it is known to cause cancer in larger amounts.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2020 pulled all remaining brand name Zantac and generic versions off the market, citing research showing the amount of NDMA in the products increases the longer the drug is stored and could potentially become unsafe.

Lawsuits began piling up soon after the recalls began from people who said they developed cancer after taking Zantac. Plaintiffs said the companies knew, or should have known, that ranitidine posed a cancer risk and that they failed to warn consumers.

The litigation initially included claims of over 10 types of cancer allegedly linked to the medicine, but were later narrowed to five - bladder, esophageal, gastrointestinal, liver and pancreatic. Some claims involving other cancers remain in state courts.

All of the cases filed in federal courts nationwide were consolidated before Rosenberg in Florida.

In Tuesday's order, she found that expert witnesses the plaintiffs planned to use to establish that Zantac can cause cancer could not be admitted in court because they "systemically utilized unreliable methodologies" and showed "a lack of internally consistent, objective, science-based standards for the evenhanded evaluation of data."

State court judges will also have to rule on whether to allow plaintiffs' experts on Zantac's alleged cancer risks before state cases can go to trial.

The legal standards for evaluating experts in many states are similar to the federal standard used by Rosenberg, but state judges could rule differently.

The first state trial is currently scheduled to begin in February in California.

(Reporting by Brendan Pierson in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis, Bill Berkrot and Alexia Garamfalvi)

Walmart CEO warns company will close stores if theft doesn't slow down

IT'S CONSUMPTION COVERED BY INSURANCE

Story by btobin@insider.com (Ben Tobin) • Yesterday 


A Walmart store. AP© Provided by Business Insider

Doug McMillon told CNBC that theft is 'higher than what it has historically been' at stores
He said that along with stores closing if theft doesn't slow down, prices could be higher.
Reuters previously reported that Walmart loses roughly $3 billion in theft each year.

Walmart CEO Doug McMillon issued a stark warning Tuesday: If theft does not slow down, the retailer will close stores across the country.

"Theft is an issue," he told CNBC. "It is higher than what it has historically been."

He added: "If that's not corrected over time, prices will be higher, and/or stores will close."

McMillon did not say during the interview how much money Walmart has lost in stolen items this year. Walmart did not immediately reply to an Insider request for that number.

But the world's largest retailer likely loses about 1% of its US revenue — or roughly $3 billion every year — to stealing by customers and employees, Reuters reported in 2015.

McMillon said the key to reducing theft is Walmart working with local law enforcement agencies and ensuring that those agencies are fully staffed.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retail giant is not the only retailer that has recently sounded the alarm on theft.

Missing inventory has reduced Target's gross margin by more than $400 million in 2022 compared with last year, and Target expects those profit losses to grow to $600 million by the end of the fiscal year, Target CFO Michael Fiddelke said in November during a company earnings call.

Target predominantly blamed the inventory shrink on organized crime.

"Along with other retailers, we've seen a significant increase in theft and organized retail crime across our business," Target CEO Brian Cornell said during the earnings call.

The U.S. consumer is still stressed and under inflation pressure, says Walmart CEO Doug McMillon

Duration 5:01   View on Watch

Black men death rates from gun violence spurs talk of major health crisis

Yesterday 

Gun violence: An American epidemic?
View on Watch
Duration 11:16

There's been a substantial increase in firearm-related deaths in the United States over the past three decades and Black men are the most affected, according to new research from a team of emergency room doctors. They're 23 times more likely to experience firearm-related homicide than white men, the study showed.

"Gun violence is an incredible scourge in our country. Gun violence affects everybody, and that's an important thing to recognize. However, it affects certain groups far more than others. Black men speak to one of the greatest disparities, if not the greatest disparity," co-author Eric Fleegler, associate professor of pediatrics and emergency physician at Harvard Medical School, said in a statement.MORE: Guns in America

In a study published in the Journal of American Medical Association, Fleegler and colleagues analyzed disparities in firearm-related deaths between 1990 and 2021. They showed firearm-related homicides are greatest among Black men between 20 and 40 years of age. Firearm-related violence for Black men is at a 28-year high, the analysis found.


FILE - Semi-automatic rifles are displayed at Coastal Trading and Pawn, July 18, 2022, in Auburn, Maine.© Robert F. Bukaty/AP, FILE

"There are these hotspots where firearm fatalities are happening more frequently, and interventions need to be catered to where those are happening. We're seeing huge rates of firearm-related homicides among young Black and African American males -- that's the population where we may need to think about implementing violence prevention strategies," said co-author Chris Rees, an assistant professor of Pediatrics and Emergency medicine at Emory University School of Medicine.

To reframe firearm violence as a public health crisis, the American Medical Association, one of the nation's largest doctor associations, established the first taskforce on firearm violence prevention in November.

"We cannot continue to live this way…In movie theaters, houses of worship, hospitals, big cities and small towns, firearm violence has shattered any sense of security and taken lives. As physicians, we are committed to ending firearm violence by advocating for common-sense, evidence-based solutions, and this task force will be key to that ongoing effort," Jack Resneck Jr. president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement at the launch of the taskforce.

Experts say there's a range of factors contributing to the high rates of gun deaths among Black men.

"Weak gun laws cause more damage in places that have been subjected to systemic racial inequalities," said Jeffrey Gardere, a clinical psychologist, and an associate professor at Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine.


FILE - A collection of illegal guns is displayed during a gun buyback event, May 22, 2021 in the Brooklyn borough of New York.© Bebeto Matthews/AP, FILE

Medical associations like the AMA have called for more gun laws over the years to combat firearm violence -- but there was no governmental action until this past June, when Congress passed the first gun law in 30 years.

But gun laws alone will not solve the societal issues that contribute to firearm violence among Black males.

MORE: What some lifelong gun owners say about AR-15s

In places where unemployment rates are higher, where there isn't equal access to safe housing, and where public infrastructure is neglected, people may be more exposed to dangerous behavior, Gardere said. Addressing those issues "would help Black and Brown people, especially males, be able to avert gun violence -- whether as victims or as perpetrators," he said.

Reframing firearm violence as a public health issue means affected communities need to be at the table as vocal members of any taskforce.

MORE: Biden signs bipartisan gun safety package into law

"The next step I'd like to see is addressing things at the community level and taking into account what communities think is feasible. I don't think any community wants to see higher rates of firearm fatalities," said Rees.

All hands are needed to solve this continually escalating problem.

"Unfortunately, in our country, the firearm epidemic is getting worse at an accelerating pace," Fleegler said.


Faith Crittenden, MD MPH is a resident physician in pediatrics from Yale–New Haven Children's Hospital and contributing correspondent of the ABC News Medical Unit.

Carey Price Doubled Down On His Pro-Gun Stance After The Montreal Canadiens Apologized For Him

Story by Sofia Misenheimer • Yesterday 

ISSUED ON DEC 6  ANNIVERSARY

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE MASSACRE 

BY MACHO MISOGYNIST  JOCK


Carey Price Doubled Down On His Pro-Gun Stance After The Montreal Canadiens Apologized For Him© Provided by MTL Blog

Montreal Canadiens goalie Carey Price is standing firm on his pro-gun statement posted days before the anniversary of the Polytechnique shooting.

While Price apologized to "those impacted most by the events here in 1989," he said he did "know about the tragedy" before his original post, partly refuting an official apology issued on his behalf by the NHL team the day before.

The original and follow-up posts have prompted a massive debate in public forums and on social media, with heated discussions about proposed government gun legislation (as well as the timing of Price's remarks and the legislation itself), but also about Indigenous rights, colonialism and government's reach.

On December 4, Price shared an Instagram photo holding a shotgun and decked out in camo. The caption read: "I love my family, I love my country and I care for my neighbour. I am not a criminal or a threat to society. What Justin Trudeau is trying to do is unjust. I support the CCFR to keep my hunting tools. Thank you for listening to my opinion."

Price was voicing his position on proposed federal bill C-21, which would ban handguns — along with some weapons used by hunters, according to the CBC.

Some fans and anti-gun groups have since questioned the assertion that hunting gear would be impacted by the bill and called out the timing of the goalie's post so close to the 33rd anniversary of the École Polytechnique shooting, which they say has overshadowed the commemoration of the 14 young women killed by a gunman.

Price has also been critiqued for supporting the pro-gun Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights (CCFR), especially after the lobby group offered the discount code 'POLY' for store merch. The group later claimed that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

Price acknowledged the uncomfortable timing of his post on Tuesday and said Montrealers know he would never "intentionally cause pain to those impacted by gun violence."

A story on Carey Price's Instagram account.@cp0031 | Instagram

"Despite a previous statement released, I did in fact know about the tragedy… I acknowledge that amplifying the conversation around guns this week may have upset some of those impacted most by the events here in 1989 and to them I apologize," he wrote.

The goalie's follow-up statement counters part of an official apology by the Montreal Canadiens, released on December 5, which stated that Price "was not aware of the tragic events of Dec. 6, 1989."

Price's stance has sparked significant debate about the federal government's implementation of the C-21 bill, which is set to go into effect at midnight on December 6.

Many against the bill argue that its release on the anniversary of a national tragedy has stymied debate on gun rights in Canada, while proponents say it's the most appropriate way to honour the Polytechnique victims and prevent a similar mass shooting.

JEWS ARE NOT WASP'S
America can no longer remain silent about its antisemitism problem

Opinion by Joseph Chamie, opinion contributor •The Hill 

Yesterday 

 
The recent dinner featuring former president Trump, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and antisemitic entertainer Kanye “Ye” West — followed by the largely silent responses of many Republican officials and leaders, including some seeking the presidential office — highlights the need for all Americans to acknowledge and object to antisemitism in the nation.

Following the dinner, Trump attempted to distance himself from West by saying he met with him to “help a seriously troubled man” and from Fuentes by saying he didn’t know him and wasn’t familiar with his work when they met.

However, the repeated behavior and words of the former president, including his response to the Charlottesville tragedy in 2017, and the tepid reactions to antisemitism by many of his supporters, can be viewed as legitimizing the animosity expressed toward Jewish Americans.

The former president and his various enablers have minimized and dismissed antisemitism in the United States, including assaults and killings. Those failures to address the antisemitism facing America are inexcusable, disgraceful and dangerous.

The U.S. Jewish population is a relatively small proportion of the country. In 2022, Jewish Americans are estimated to represent slightly more than two percent of America’s population of 333 million inhabitants.

Despite their comparatively small proportion of the population, the number of antisemitic incidents across the country in 2021 in the U.S. reached an all-time high of 2,717: more than seven incidents per day, and nearly triple the level in 2015.

The reprehensible incidents took place across America, including in places of worship, community centers, schools and colleges. The motivations for the antisemitism are not always evident as they typically lack a single identifiable ideology or belief system.

One notable exception, however, is the “great replacement” theory being promoted by U.S. white supremacist groups. They believe in the conspiracy that white Christians are being intentionally replaced in the population by individuals of other races through immigration and other means. In their various demonstrations and gatherings, including Charlottesville in 2017, the neo-Nazi marchers often chant out such hateful antisemitic nonsense as ”Jews will not replace us.”

Related video: ‘The community feels very vulnerable right now’: Experts show concern about normalization of hate speech and antisemitism

Duration 4:46

View on Watch

In the American Jewish Committee’s “The State of Antisemitism in America 2021” report, an estimated 60 percent of Americans indicated that antisemitism is a problem for the country. However, approximately one-quarter of the respondents in the same report felt that antisemitism wasn’t a problem in the United States.

In contrast, some 90 percent of Jewish Americans in the report indicated that antisemitism is a problem for the country and approximately three-quarters believe that there is more antisemitism in the country today than there was about five years ago. A majority of Jewish Americans, 53 percent, report feeling personally less safe than they did in 2015.

Contributing to America’s antisemitism is the apparent self-induced amnesia among some extremist groups regarding the methodical persecution followed by the horrendous events that were committed against Europe’s Jews approximately eight decades ago. The Holocaust resulted in the murder of approximately 6 million European Jews, or roughly 63 percent of Europe’s Jewish population at the time.

Sadly, antisemitism was also evident in America’s refugee policy with respect to European Jews seeking asylum from their persecution in Nazi Germany. Perhaps the most memorable single event reflecting its ignoble refugee policy in the past is the refusal of the U.S. government in 1939 to grant entry to about 900 Jewish refugees seeking asylum aboard the USS St. Louis that had reached Miami. The ship was forced to return to Europe, where nearly one-third of its passengers were murdered in the Holocaust.

America too often chooses to ignore its troubling antisemitic past and the many popular figures who were openly antisemitic in their public attacks on the character and patriotism of Jewish Americans, including Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, Coco Chanel and Louis Farrakhan.

Furthermore, besides facing educational quotas at major universities in the 1920s, including Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Columbia, Jewish Americans experienced discrimination among the major professions and restrictions on residential housing. They were also denied membership to most clubs, resorts and associations, with some hotel advertisements explicitly excluding Jewish Americans.

While that recent tragic history remains beyond doubt, many of America’s antisemitic white supremacists, including Fuentes and West, continue to deny the existence of the Holocaust, express hateful rhetoric and discriminate against Jewish Americans. They attempt to negate the historical facts of the Nazi genocide, promote the false claim that the Holocaust was invented or greatly exaggerated in order to promote Jewish interests, and display the Nazi swastika flag and make the “Heil Hitler” gesture.

America’s antisemitism in the past also fueled vocal criticism and opposition to political leaders who attempted to address the discrimination against Jewish Americans. For example, at a conference of some 20,000 people at Madison Square Garden in 1939, Fritz Kuhn, leader of the German American Bund, mocked President Roosevelt as “Frank D. Rosenfeld,” referred to the New Deal as the “Jew Deal,” and declared Jews to be enemies of the United States.

No matter the place, occasion or time, the U.S. cannot tolerate or support those who promote, permit or condone antisemitism. In particular, the nation’s elected and appointed government officials must be held accountable for their words and actions.

Antisemitic behavior and remarks cannot continue to be swept under the rug, unethically edited for political television consumption or ignored in hopes that they will go away. They cannot be excused as insignificant or meaningless events that have been blown out of proportion by the news media. Nor can they be simply deflected, diminished or explained away with references to irrelevant overseas diversions.

Based on the tragic lessons of the recent past, addressing antisemitism requires every American to step up boldly, speak out unequivocally and react defiantly against discrimination against Jewish Americans. Tolerating antisemitism is not only categorically un-American but also poses a moral threat to U.S. democracy, as well as to the nation’s prospects in the 21st century.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”

KINSELLA: Poilievre smart to abandon convoy protesters
Opinion by Warren Kinsella •
Toronto Sun Yesterday 

Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre speaks to news media outside the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Sept. 13, 2022.© Provided by Toronto Sun

Spare a thought and a prayer, if you will, for the convoy types. Because they are sad and lonely these days.

Their suitor and champion has abandoned them, you see. Pierre Poilievre has ghosted the convoy folk.

It’s no small thing. Poilievre won his Conservative Party’s leadership in a landslide – not despite the convoy folk, but partly because of them. During happier times, Poilievre marched with the convoy enthusiasts, he sang their praises, he brought them coffee and posed for selfies.

And then, the Tory leader became invisible during the convoy cabal’s time of need. Poof! He was gone. Poilievre dumped them, much like Brad Pitt dumped Jennifer Aniston for Angelina Jolie, except with much more skill and a lot less drama.

The inquiry into the use of the Emergencies Act was a lot like a criminal prosecution, even if it will make no finding of criminal culpability. But it had all the trappings of one: a judge, a witness stand, court reporters, and an army of lawyers, stacked up like cordwood.

The Public Order Emergency Commission, as it was more formally known, conducted court-like hearings at the federal Library and Archives on Wellington Street. No media reports can be found to describe what would happen when the doors would open there.

Did the convoy leaders turn around in their seats, like in Hollywood movies, expecting Poilievre to stride in, and take over the conduct of the defence? Did they expect him to arrive like Perry Mason, and free them all from the chains of Trudeau-stan oppression?

Well, he didn’t. In fact, he said nothing as the hearings got going. He did not utter a word – not one, single solitary word – about his relationship with the convoy gang.

And, in so doing, he revealed – to this writer, at least – that he’s a lot smarter than we thought he was.

Consider the evidence, because there was a lot of it. For six weeks, more than 70 witnesses appeared at the inquiry. Hundreds of thousands of documents were submitted. Videos were played. Examinations and cross-examinations took place.

The evidence, for the convoy types – those who occupied Ottawa for weeks, those who blocked border crossings from B.C.’s Pacific Highway to Windsor’s Ambassador Bridge – was very, very bad. Vandalizing the statue of Terry Fox. Desecrating the War Memorial. Defecating and urinating in public. Yelling abuse at masked Ottawa residents, many of whom had not slept in weeks because of truckers leaning on their horns – which is 115 decibels, several times over.

Oh, and the waving of swastika flags. Ironically, it was the convoy folks’ top-notch lawyer who repeatedly tried to make that into an issue. No one else.

And through it all, with the convoy types getting hammered for day after day, where was Poilievre? Gone, baby, gone. Oh, sure, on an early November B.C. trip, he said he’d have something to say when all the evidence was in – except, the evidence is all in, and he still hasn’t said anything to defend the convoy-ers.

The Conservative leader did say one thing that was interesting, however, when touring the Left Coast. Poilievre said he “condemned” anyone who “broke laws, behaved badly, or blockaded critical infrastructure.”

“Behaved badly.” Which, of course, was pretty much all of them. You don’t get to hold a major city hostage for weeks in the name of “freedom” and then get a gold star, boys and girls. Ditto crippling border trade, or any of the other clearly-bad behaviour.

So, why was Poilievre smart to abandon Tamara Lich and her bridesmaids – Chris Barber, Pat King, James Bauder and Benjamin Dichter – at the altar? Well, Nanos has the answer.

KINSELLA: Alberta Premier Danielle Smith picking fight with Canada to get re-elected

KINSELLA: Trudeau, Poilievre score wins at Emergencies Act inquiry

The pollster did a poll, released this week, and found that nearly 70 per cent of Canadians fully supported the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act. Fifty per cent said the inquiry left them with an even worse impression of the convoy participants.

And the Poilievre Conservatives’ lead in the polls? Gone. Evaporated. Disappeared. As Nanos top guy, Nik Nanos, put it in an understatement for the ages: “If there continues to be a focus on the convoy … it could be a potential risk for Pierre Poilievre.”

No kidding. And you know who knows that most of all? Poilievre.

Which is why he’s ghosted the convoy folks. Which is why he’s kept quiet. Which is why he’s not dumb.

And which is why the convoy types are feeling sad and lonely, these days.

UCP AUSTERITY

Majority of Alberta teachers see increase in class sizes: ATA survey

Story by Anna Junker • Yesterday 

Alberta Teachers’ Association president Jason Schilling.© Shaughn Butts


Alberta teachers are seeing an increase in class sizes with greater levels of complexity and diversity of student needs, according to a new survey.

The seventh Pulse Rapid Research Study from the Alberta Teachers’ Association surveyed 1,085 teachers and 165 school leaders between September and October and found 64 per cent of teachers saw an increase in their classroom size, while about 36 per cent of teachers identified they have 30 to 40 students, or more, in their classes.

The largest class size growth was found in Grades 4 to 6, high school science and math, and junior high math and English language arts.

Eighty-five per cent of teachers also reported an increase in the complexity and diversity of student needs compared to last year. The top three complexities were identified as social/emotional, cognitive, and behavioural.

Jason Schilling, ATA president, said the results of the survey are “extremely concerning.”

“We need government to listen to teachers and school leaders and focus on the needs of our students and the government needs to start that work today. Just as teachers and schools have had an agile response to the public emergency health orders during the pandemic, government and school boards must react to the mounting issues in Alberta schools before things get worse.”

In an emailed statement, Education Minister Adriana LaGrange said the province is working closely with school boards to alleviate pressures on teachers by addressing enrollment growth, pandemic learning disruptions, class complexity and access to behavioural assessments.

She said the government is also providing additional funding through a new supplemental enrolment growth grant for school authorities growing by more than two per cent over the previous year and working on strategies to increase educational assistants in classrooms.

“I greatly value and appreciate the work teachers do to support our students and will continue to work with school authorities, the Alberta Teachers’ Association, and other education stakeholders to ensure we address the needs of our school system,” LaGrange said.

Related
‘Stand for public education’: Albertans pack legislature grounds for rally

Danielle Smith met with jeers from some Alberta teachers at UCP leadership forum

The survey found there was also a decline in support for students with exceptionalities, 56 per cent of survey respondents said. Thirty-one per cent of teachers estimated the timelines for speech, occupational therapy, physical therapy and psycho-educational assessments for students would take six months to one year, while 26 per cent believed it would not be completed at all within this school year.

The study also explored the impacts of COVID-19 and the curriculum. Eighty-six per cent of respondents indicated students are struggling with learning and have experienced significant gaps in their curriculum during the pandemic.

Schilling said these findings were identified across all jurisdictions in the province — large urban centres, small urban centres, and rural centres.

“Teachers across this province from border to border are seeing these complexities needs increasing from the pandemic and a lack of support for those,” he said.

“I can’t imagine having a student in my class that needs an assessment in order to provide them support so that they can move forward and be successful at school and not be able to get that assessment within the school year. That’s unacceptable.”

The study also found teachers and school leaders reported compassion stress, compassion fatigue, and unsustainable levels of moral distress.

ajunker@postmedia.com

UCP FASCISM 

Alberta premier rejects suggestion she erred with bill giving her sweeping powers

Yesterday 

EDMONTON — Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is rejecting suggestions she made a mistake when she introduced a bill that would give her cabinet sweeping powers to rewrite laws outside the legislative process.


Alberta premier rejects suggestion she erred with bill giving her sweeping powers© Provided by The Canadian Press

Smith says the changes being made to her sovereignty act reversing that authority simply reflect the normal process of honing and clarifying legislation.

“The sovereignty act wasn’t perfect in its wording. That’s why it’s being amended,” Smith told reporters Tuesday. “There are a couple of clarifications that we needed to make.

“I just look at this as part of the process. You introduce bills with three readings for a reason."

Smith has been widely criticized for introducing those unchecked powers in her sovereignty act as part of a broader plan to fight what she deems federal intrusion in areas of provincial responsibility.

After accusations last week that the bill gave her those powers, Smith reversed course on the weekend and said there would be amendments to fix it.

Her comments echoed those made by Justice Minister Tyler Shandro on Monday, when he told reporters: "I'm not going to characterize it as a mistake.”

Neither Smith nor Shandro have explained how the powers ended up in the bill if they were not supposed to be there.

Shandro pushed back Monday on reporters, who suggested he and the other members of Smiths United Conservative government didn’t understand that the bill contained the sweeping powers provision.

“Of course, the bill was understood,” said Shandro.

Asked if he was fine with the way the original bill was worded, Shandro, a lawyer, said he has given legal advice to cabinet "about what the options are, and what the advantages and disadvantages are for the various different decision points."

"I’m one member of (cabinet) who votes on it," he said. "I’m not going to speak specifically about one particular decision point and what my advice was on that. I think that would be breaching cabinet confidentiality."

The Opposition NDP says Smith either got caught trying to make an end-run power grab or is so incompetent she introduced an authoritarian bill without knowing she was doing it.

On Tuesday, NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir called on Smith during question period to waive cabinet confidentiality so Shandro could explain to Albertans what legal advice he delivered.

“This bill was a poorly drafted attempt at giving extreme power to the cabinet at the expense of the democratic rights of Albertans," Sabir said. "Albertans deserve to know how such a disaster was created."

Smith rejected Sabir’s assertion, saying she has been open about the legal process.

“The reason why we’re putting this legislation forward is to make sure that we are enforcing our rights under the Constitution," she said. "That is the beginning and the end of it."

The bill is in second reading. The next stage, committee of the whole, is when the bill is to be debated in greater detail, and that is when amendments are expected.

On Monday, UCP caucus members said they would forward two amendments.

The first change would clarify that any changes cabinet makes to laws under the sovereignty act can't be done in secret, but must instead come back to the house for the normal process of debate and approval.

The caucus also voted to propose an amendment to spell out when cabinet can take action.

Under the bill, cabinet has wide latitude to respond to whatever federal law policy or program it deems harmful to Alberta's interests.

With the amendment, harm would be defined as anything a majority of the legislature deems to be an unconstitutional federal intrusion in provincial areas of responsibility.

The bill has been criticized by political scientists and legal experts as constitutionally questionable and a threat to the checks and balances of democracy.

There is also concern that the legislature is usurping the role of the courts by deciding on its own under the bill what is constitutional and what is not.

Criticism is coming from all sides of the political spectrum.

Kory Teneycke, manager of the recent Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario election campaign, told CBC's "Power and Politics" program on Monday that the bill offends conservatism.

“I don’t see how you can fix this bill or why you would want to,” said Teneycke, who was also the director of communications for prime minister Stephen Harper.

“The UCP and Albertans are on the right track in saying the federal government has overreached on a number of issues around the resource sector, where they’re acting in an unconstitutional and heavy-handed way – but the solution to unconstitutionality is not more unconstitutionality,” he said.

“I think this is going to go down in history as one of the most ill-conceived pieces of policy and legislation. And frankly, as a conservative, it’s profoundly unconservative.”

Business groups, including the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, warn the legal uncertainty surrounding the bill is not good for investment.

Indigenous leaders have come out against it, saying it tramples on treaty rights.

Indigenous Relations Minister Rick Wilson told reporters he has spoken to leaders, has heard their concerns and has urged them to propose amendments if they wish.

“I said, ‘Put something together and I’ll be willing to take it forward on your behalf,’” Wilson said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 6, 2022.

Dean Bennett, The Canadian Press

City solicitor sees no positives for Calgary in proposed Alberta sovereignty act

Story by Brodie Thomas • Yesterday 

City hall on Thursday, October 14, 2021.© Provided by Calgary Herald

A solicitor for the city of Calgary suggested the province’s proposed sovereignty act could create problems for the municipality, including forcing council to defy some laws against its will.

Deputy city solicitor Denise Jakal spoke about the legislation, touted by the governing UCP as a means of protecting provincial jurisdiction against federal overreach, in response to a question from Coun. Peter Demong during question period at Tuesday’s council meeting.

“I realize that they’re still in the process of amending the act, but I was hoping that you could describe what the proposed sovereignty act means for us as a municipality from a best-case scenario to a worst-case point of view,” said the Ward 14 councillor.

Jakal said the best-case scenario would be if the province didn’t use the act at all, since there remain many questions about its potential effects.

She said in the worst-case scenario, it could have a significant effect on the city.

“For example, if there was a suggestion of lack of constitutionality or potential harm to the province of Alberta, there could be directives that might interfere with arrangements we have with the federal government,” said Jakal.

“Another example might be we would be directed not to abide by certain laws that perhaps the municipality would be interested in abiding by.”

Related
Five things to know about the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act

UCP caucus votes to propose changes to Alberta's controversial sovereignty act

'This could cause us problems': Alberta's sovereignty bill could scare off investment, says Calgary chamber

She said there is still a high level of speculation about what is coming.

“I just want to assure council that intergovernmental affairs and the law department are watching very, very closely with respect to any new developments on this particular file.”

A recent Leger poll showed only about one-third of provincial respondents felt the sovereignty act is necessary .

When asked about this at a news conference on Tuesday, Premier Danielle Smith said she thinks Albertans are keeping an open mind on the legislation.

“People want us to fight Ottawa when they interfere in our areas of jurisdiction,” said Smith. “We got a 62 per cent mandate to push back against Ottawa and their unfair levying of equalization, and so we need to put the tools in place to push Ottawa back into its own lane.”

Smith cited a Canadian Taxpayers Federation report that suggested once the carbon tax is fully implemented, Albertans will pay an extra 37 cents per litre at the pumps while Quebec drivers will pay only 23 cents per litre.

“It’s absurd to me that SUV drivers in Quebec are going to have cheaper gasoline and diesel prices than Alberta where we produce the product and refine it. These are the kinds of things the federal government does all the time and, in my view, I don’t think that’s constitutional,” said Smith. She said the sovereignty act will give the province the tools to challenge Ottawa.

“I think it’s an important part of the process because this is going to change the relationship with the rest of the country. We are putting up a shield and we are not going to allow the federal government to interfere in our areas of jurisdiction. They’ve got to follow the Constitution.”

brthomas@postmedia.com

Rahim Mohamed: Danielle Smith's Alberta Sovereignty Act pretty awkward for the RCMP

Opinion by Rahim Mohamed • Yesterday 

After months of speculation, the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act (Bill 1) was finally unveiled last week. For those expecting a bombshell, Bill 1 didn’t disappoint, sending shockwaves through the country.


Premier Danielle Smith looks into the gallery as the Fourth Session of the 30th Legislature opens on Nov. 29 at the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton. Smith's new Sovereignty Act could pose problems for the RCMP, writes Rahim Mohamed.© Provided by National Post

Reactions to the bill have run the gamut from outrage to bafflement . Legal experts are divided on the question of its constitutionality .

Much of the analysis so far has focused on the so-called King Henry VIII powers delegated to the members of Alberta’s cabinet under the act. The act in its current form empowers cabinet ministers to issue and amend regulations through orders in council, essentially allowing them to bypass the province’s legislature. (Smith announced over the weekend that she’ll rewrite parts of the bill to scale back the lawmaking powers it grants to cabinet members).

A less scrutinized, but potentially even more far-reaching dimension of the act involves its implications for the future of policing in the province.

At present, Alberta is home to a patchwork system of policing, where the RCMP — a federal agency under contract with the Alberta government — shares jurisdiction with a handful of municipal and regional police services. Policing in Alberta is community-based , with the provincial government, oversight bodies, and cities each playing a role in its administration.

Bill 1, which doesn’t mention the RCMP by name, designates both municipal and regional police services as “ provincial entities ” that must comply with cabinet edicts to not enforce federal laws and policies that run afoul of the Sovereignty Act. This language appears to place the Alberta government on a collision course with the Trudeau government over its controversial mandatory gun buyback program .

Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro has already said that he will direct the province’s police agencies, including the RCMP, to not enforce the buyback program, which empowers RCMP officers to seize over 1,500 different models of prohibited firearms. Shandro has argued that he has the legal authority to do this under the Alberta-RCMP provincial police service agreement and has precedent to point to in British Columbia’s non-enforcement of some federal drug laws . The Alberta Sovereignty Act nevertheless changes the dynamic of this impasse.

For one thing, a public spat over the buyback program could be a “win-win” for both Premier Danielle Smith and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

For Smith, the dispute would play extraordinarily well in rural Alberta without hurting the UCP too much in urban areas, where handguns are the bigger threat to public safety . Further, it would give Smith an opportunity to use the Sovereignty Act without jeopardizing foreign investment (oil and gas investors who are anxious about gun crime in Alberta can always try their luck in Texas ).
Tasha Kheiriddin: Liberals using gun-ban overreach as a wedge against Conservatives
Alberta hasn't been 'ignored' Danielle Smith, quite the opposite

For Trudeau, taking a public stand against assault weapons (and Smith) would be a vote winner in the perennial electoral battleground of southern Ontario, especially with homicide rates trending upwards . It would also give him a chance to turn the page from the rather sordid affair in Nova Scotia .

But where would this leave the RCMP? It’s one thing for Canada’s federal police agency to abide by the terms of its contract with Alberta, and quite another to comply (or be seen to be complying) with a provincial edict to not enforce federal criminal legislation. (The creation and modification of criminal law is, of course, unambiguously a federal power under Canada’s Constitution).

The use of the Alberta Sovereignty Act to rebuff Trudeau’s gun buyback program would put the RCMP in a jurisdictional no-man’s land. This may be just what Smith wants.

Smith has already unveiled a plan to replace the RCMP with a provincial police force, but has had difficulty building public support for the initiative, which will cost Alberta taxpayers an additional $235 million per year (plus $366 million in startup costs). Using the Sovereignty Act to drive a wedge between the RCMP and Alberta’s other police agencies is one way for Smith to give the proposal for a provincial police force a shot in the arm.

None of this is to say that Smith is playing some sort of elaborate game of 4D chess with the RCMP — frankly, I’m not sure she even knows what she’s having for breakfast tomorrow morning. Smith, who as The Line’s Jen Gerson has pointed out is one of Canada’s luckiest politicians , has nevertheless been handed a yet another gift with Trudeau’s overreaching gun buyback program and could use it to kill two birds with one stone.

Premier Smith, the proverbial dog chasing a car, finally has her long-awaited Alberta Sovereignty Act. The question now is what to do with it? Weaponizing the act at the expense of the Trudeau gun buyback program would be a way for everybody to win.

Except, of course, the RCMP.

National Post

Rahim Mohamed is a master’s student at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. His writing has appeared in The Line, The Hub, and CBC News Calgary.

AFRAID OF PROTESTS
Alberta looks at arming legislature security guards as part of justice amendments

Yesterday 

EDMONTON — Alberta's justice minister has introduced legislation that would arm security officers at the legislature, make it easier to enforce spousal and child support in other jurisdictions and increase the limit on civil claims at the provincial court level.


Alberta looks at arming legislature security guards as part of justice amendments© Provided by The Canadian Press

Tyler Shandro, the minister of justice and attorney general, introduced the Justice Statutes Amendment Act on Tuesday.

The sergeant-at-arms and the speaker of the legislative assembly reviewed security after the shooting on Parliament Hill in 2014 and a suicide at the Alberta legislature in 2019

The review concluded that members of the Legislative Assembly Security Service should be allowed to carry firearms in the legislature building and surrounding area.

"This is something that has been studied going back to 2014. This is a long time coming, I think. It's been studied to death," Shandro said in an interview with The Canadian Press last month.

"I think that's one of the concerns that the speaker has and the sergeant-at-arms. I am aware that they do have concerns and have been looking for these changes for many years."

Shandro said there are already armed sheriffs at the legislature, but most of the security officials have law enforcement experience that would give another level of protection.

"Providing these officers with the tools they need, including firearms, (would) protect all of those who occupy this building."


An amendment to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act would also make it easier for people to collect child and spousal support from ex-partners and spouses who live across the country.

It would allow the electronic exchange of certified documents to support interjurisdictional support orders.

British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Nova Scotia have made similar legislative changes.

"Given Legal Aid Alberta assists individuals who have partners and parents in many other areas of the country, this amendment … will help enhance the ability of our clients to collect critical child and spousal support payments in a more timely and efficient manner, putting money in the hands who need it most," John Panusa, president and CEO of Legal Aid Alberta, said in a statement.

An update to the Provincial Court Act would allow more civil claims to be dealt with at the provincial court level. The process at the lower court level is simpler and more cost-effective, but the limit is $50,000 and was last updated in 2014.

Amendments would allow government to adjust the limit up to $200,000.

"This increase in jurisdictional limits will enhance the court's ability to fulfil its mission to provide fair, accessible and timely justice for Albertans," said Provincial Court of Alberta Chief Judge Derek Redman.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 6, 2022.

The Canadian Press

YANKEE IMPERIALI$M
Mosaic temporarily curtails potash production at Canadian mine


By Rod Nickel

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - Fertilizer producer Mosaic Co said on Tuesday that it has temporarily curtailed potash production at its Colonsay, Saskatchewan, mine in Canada, citing slower-than-expected demand.

Mosaic said in a statement that its inventories are adequate to meet demand in the short term. The company had restarted Colonsay in August 2021 after idling it for two years.

Potash prices spiked this year due to sanctions against Russia and Belarus, the world's second- and third-biggest producers after Canada.

Prices have since declined, however.

Mosaic's decision to curtail production is short-term and longer-term fundamentals look positive, said Chief Executive Joc O'Rourke. The Florida-based company expects to restart both of Colonsay's mills in early 2023.

Colonsay was producing at a rate of 1.3 million tonnes annually, and plans an expansion to raise output to between 1.8 million and 2 million tonnes by late next year.

Rival Nutrien Ltd is carrying out a potash expansion of its own in Saskatchewan.

(Reporting by Rod Nickel in Winnipeg; editing by Jonathan Oatis and Sandra Maler)