Alberta
In his own words: Why Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro is rejecting the federal government’s firearm confiscation
OP/ED submitted to Todayville by Alberta Justice Minister Shandro
Challenging the federal firearms ban
Last month, the federal minister responsible for the RCMP wrote to me to request that Alberta provide resources starting this fall to begin confiscating an estimated 30,000 legally acquired firearms from Albertans. We have rejected their request and will not offer any resources.
The firearms that they are seeking to confiscate were part of a list of over 1500 models that were banned by the federal Liberals in 2020. An amnesty is currently in effect until October 2023, after which time they will be prohibited to possess.
The list of banned models were all previously non-restricted and restricted firearms, including hunting rifles and shotguns as well as historical artifacts almost a hundred years old. Why ban these firearms? A committee of federal bureaucrats decided that these firearms look scary – which is why they describe them as “assault-style.” In reality, we know these firearms, no matter how they may be styled, are in no way materially different from more familiar looking rifles and shotguns.
To challenge this ban, Alberta will apply to intervene in six ongoing lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the prohibition.
I have also been advised that the Commanding Officer of K Division does not support using provincial police resources to administer the federal government’s confiscation program. Despite this, we have been told that the Federal Liberals intend to conscript provincial RCMP officers into acting as confiscation agents.
Alberta taxpayers pay over $750 million per-year for the RCMP and we will not tolerate taking officers off the streets in order to confiscate the property of law-abiding firearms owners.
To take action, I have used the authorities that we have as a province to identify the confiscation program as an activity that is not appropriate for the RCMP to be used for. Should the federal government proceed with their plan, I will launch a formal dispute under the Provincial Police Service Agreement.
However, because the RCMP is a federal entity, we believe that the Federal Liberals will again interfere in police operations – just as they did when they politicized the mass shooting in Nova Scotia in order to bolster their case for the same pending firearms ban – and order that the RCMP act as confiscation agents.
If this happens, we will consider all options at our disposal to protect Albertans and the property rights that they are entitled to.
Tyler Shandro
Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Alberta
New pipeline from Alberta would benefit all Canadians—despite claims from B.C. premier
From the Fraser Institute
The pending Memorandum of Understanding between the Carney government and the Alberta governments will reportedly support a new oil pipeline from Alberta’s oilsands to British Columbia’s tidewater. But B.C. Premier David Eby continues his increasingly strident—and factually challenged—opposition to the whole idea.
Eby’s arguments against a new pipeline are simply illogical and technically incorrect.
First, he argues that any pipeline would pose unmitigated risks to B.C.’s coastal environment, but this is wrong for several reasons. The history of oil transport off of Canada’s coasts is one of incredible safety, whether of Canadian or foreign origin, long predating federal Bill C-48’s tanker ban. New pipelines and additional transport of oil from (and along) B.C. coastal waters is likely very low environmental risk. In the meantime, a regular stream of oil tankers and large fuel-capacity ships have been cruising up and down the B.C. coast between Alaska and U.S. west coast ports for decades with great safety records.
Next, Eby argues that B.C.’s First Nations people oppose any such pipeline and will torpedo energy projects in B.C. But in reality, based on the history of the recently completed Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline, First Nations opposition is quite contingent. The TMX project had signed 43 mutual benefit/participation agreements with Indigenous groups along its route by 2018, 33 of which were in B.C. As of March 2023, the project had signed agreements with 81 out of 129 Indigenous community groups along the route worth $657 million, and the project had resulted in more than $4.8 billion in contracts with Indigenous businesses.
Back in 2019, another proposed energy project garnered serious interest among First Nations groups. The First Nations-proposed Eagle Spirit Energy Corridor, aimed to connect Alberta’s oilpatch to a port in Kitimat, B.C. (and ultimately overseas markets) had the buy-in of 35 First Nations groups along the proposed corridor, with equity-sharing agreements floated with 400 others. Energy Spirit, unfortunately, died in regulatory strangulation in the Trudeau government’s revised environmental assessment process, and with the passage of the B.C. tanker ban.
Premier Eby is perfectly free to opine and oppose the very thought of oil pipelines crossing B.C. But the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled in a case about the TMX pipeline that B.C. does not have the authority to block infrastructure of national importance such as pipelines.
And it’s unreasonable and corrosive to public policy in Canada for leading government figures to adopt positions on important elements of public policy that are simply false, in blatant contradiction to recorded history and fact. Fact—if the energy industry is allowed to move oil reserves to markets other than the United States, this would be in the economic interest of all Canadians including those in B.C.
It must be repeated. Premier Eby’s objections to another Alberta pipeline are rooted in fallacy, not fact, and should be discounted by the federal government as it plans an agreement that would enable a project of national importance.
Alberta
Premier Danielle Smith says attacks on Alberta’s pro-family laws ‘show we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways’
From LifeSiteNews
Recent legislation to dial back ‘woke progressivism’ is intended to protect the rights of parents and children despite opposition from the left.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith took a shot at “woke progressivism” and detractors of her recent pro-family laws, noting that because wokeness went “too far,” the “dial” has turned in favor of parental rights and “no one” wants their “kid to transition behind their back.”
“We know that things went a little bit too far with woke progressivism on so many fronts and we’re trying to get back to the center, trying to get them back to the middle,” Smith said in a recent video message posted on the ruling United Conservative Party’s (UCP) official X account.
Smith, who has been battling the leftist opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) attacks on her recent pro-family legislation, noted how “we’ve succeeded in a lot of ways.”
“I think we have moved the dial on protecting children and the right of girls and women to participate in sports without having to face born male athletes,” mentioning that the Olympics just announced gender-confused athletes are not allowed to compete in male or female categories.
“I think we’re moving the dial on parental rights to make sure that they know what’s going on with their kids. No one wants their kid to be transitioned behind their back and not know. I mean, it doesn’t matter what your background is, you want to know what’s going on with your child.”
Smith also highlighted how conservatives have “changed the entire energy conversation in the country, we now have we now have more than 70 percent of Canadians saying they believe we should build pipelines, and that we should be an energy superpower.’
As reported by LifeSiteNews, Smith recently said her government will use a rare constitutional tool, the notwithstanding clause, to ensure three bills passed this year – a ban on transgender surgery for minors, stopping men from competing in women’s sports, and protecting kids from extreme aspects of the LGBT agenda – remain law after legal attacks from extremist activists.
Bill 26 was passed in December 2024, amending the Health Act to “prohibit regulated health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.”
Last year, Smith’s government also passed Bill 27, a law banning schools from hiding a child’s pronoun changes at school that will help protect kids from the extreme aspects of the LGBT agenda.
Bill 27 will also empower the education minister to, in effect, stop the spread of extreme forms of pro-LGBT ideology or anything else allowed to be taught in schools via third parties.
Bill 29, which became law last December, bans gender-confused men from competing in women’s sports, the first legislation of its kind in Canada. The law applies to all school boards, universities, and provincial sports organizations.
Alberta’s notwithstanding clause is like all other provinces’ clauses and was a condition Alberta agreed to before it signed onto the nation’s 1982 constitution.
-
Alberta2 days agoPremier Smith explains how private clinics will be introduced in Alberta
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta introducing dual practice health care model to increase options and shorten wait times while promising protection for publicly funded services
-
Business2 days agoUS Supreme Court may end ‘emergency’ tariffs, but that won’t stop the President
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days agoWe’re all “settlers”
-
Indigenous1 day agoIndigenous activist wins landmark court ruling for financial transparency
-
International2 days ago“The Largest Funder of Al-Shabaab Is the Minnesota Taxpayer”
-
Alberta1 day agoRed Deer’s Jason Stephan calls for citizen-led referendum on late-term abortion ban in Alberta
-
espionage1 day agoSoros family has been working with State Department for 50 years, WikiLeaks shows
