Danielle Smith promises to strengthen Alberta’s laws to protect speech, vaccine free, gun owners

‘I believe in freedom’

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised to enshrine into “law” protections for people in her province who choose not to be vaccinated as well as strengthen gun rights and safeguard free speech by beefing up the provincial Bill of Rights.

“I can give you my commitment that no one is going to be forced to make a medical choice that they don’t want to,” Smith told local blogger Shaun Newman on his regular “Podcast” show on Monday.

“I just don’t believe that that is the direction that Albertans want to go. I believe in freedom, and so until I can get that enshrined in law, you have my commitment, no one’s going to be forced to be vaccinated.”

Premier Danielle Smith https://t.co/Wg6KaWVfYO

— Shaun Newman Podcast (@SNewmanPodcast) December 18, 2023

Last month, a panel convened by Smith to investigate the previous government’s COVID governance released its findings, recommending many pro-freedom policies be implemented, such as strengthening personal medical freedoms via legislation so that one does not lose their job for refusing a vaccine as well as concluding that Albertans’ rights were indeed infringed on.

The panel was tasked to review “legislation and governance practices used by the Government of Alberta during the management of the COVID-19 public health emergency.”

Notable highlights from the report show a list of what are considered fundamental rights of Albertans that the report recommends the government take steps to protect via the Alberta Bill of Rights.

Newman asked Smith about the panel’s findings and what her government would do with the recommendations. She responded by saying that some work has already been done to ensure that “unelected” health officials do not have sole decision-making power in emergencies.

“We had a health act that essentially gave the exclusive power to one person to shut down our entire economy and if there was any attempt stepped in to moderate those views. That was the part that was considered illegal, which makes no sense,” Smith said.

Smith is not just talk, however, when it comes to making politicians accountable. She is looking to pass a new law, Bill 6, or the Public Health Amendment Act, that would hold politicians accountable in times of a health crisis by putting sole decision-making on them for health matters instead of unelected medical officers.

Even before Smith became premier, she was not shy in speaking out in favor of the rights of those who chose not to get the COVID shots.

She made headlines in October 2022 after promising she would look at pardoning Christian pastors who were jailed for violating so-called COVID policies while Kenney was premier.

Smith took over from Jason Kenney as leader of the United Conservative Party (UCP) on October 11, 2022, after winning the leadership of the party. Kenney was ousted due to low approval ratings and for reneging on promises not to lock Alberta down as well as enacting a vaccine passport.

Under Kenney, thousands of nurses, doctors, and other healthcare and government workers lost their jobs for choosing to not get the jabs, leading Smith to say – only minutes after being sworn in – that over the past year the “unvaccinated” were the “most discriminated against” group of people in her lifetime.

Smith promises to protect gun rights

When it comes to gun rights of Albertans, Smith pledged that she would do what she can to make sure the federal government stays “out” of its lane and keeps its hands off people’s legally purchased firearms.

“We now just have a bill that’s passed through the federal government, which is going to, presumably, start confiscating the firearms from people who purchased them legally or using them for legal purposes, and is that something that we should also be putting into the Bill of Rights,” Smith said.

“So, the discussion about opening the Bill of Rights began because of wanting to preserve medical choice, we’re seeing the need to expand in on the free speech front because free speech rights are under attack. But we also think that there might be other things that we need to look at.”

Smith noted that she has already had a conversation with one of the MLAs and asked him if he would be “willing to take on a consultation to make sure that when we do amend the Bill of Rights, which we will do, that we’re not missing anything.”

The Canadian federal government’s controversial gun grab bill C-21, which bans many types of guns, including handguns, and mandates a buyback program became law last week after Senators voted 60- 24 in favor of the bill.

In May, it passed in the House of Commons. After initially denying the bill would impact hunters, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau eventually admitted that C-21 would indeed ban certain types of hunting rifles.

Smith, along with premiers from no less than four additional provinces, are opposed to C-21.

Trudeau’s gun-grab was first announced after a deadly mass shooting in Nova Scotia in May 2020 in which Trudeau banned over 1,500 “military-style assault firearms” with a plan to begin buying them back from owners.

If the ban is enforced, legal gun owners in possession of the federally regulated Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) would be barred from buying, selling, transporting, and even importing a slew of guns the government has categorized as “assault-style” rifles.

Related Topics:#AnthonyMurdoch #FreeSpeech #LifeSiteNews #PremierDanielleSmith #PremierJasonKenney #ProvincialBillOfRights #ShaunNewman feature

Up Next

Reading and math scores plummet across Canada after COVID school closures

Don't Miss

RCMP charges Calgary resident for importing nearly $3 million in cocaine

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 9 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 10 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on July 26, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

To understand Ottawa’s negative impact on Alberta’s economy and living standards, juxtapose two recent pieces of data.

First, in July the Trudeau government made three separate “economic development” spending announcements in Alberta, totalling more than $80 million and affecting 37 different projects related to the “green economy,” clean technology and agriculture. And second, as noted in a new essay by Fraser Institute senior fellow Kenneth Green, inflation-adjusted business investment (excluding residential structures) in Canada’s extraction sector (mining, quarrying, oil and gas) fell 51.2 per cent from 2014 to 2022.

The productivity gains that raise living standards and improve economic conditions rely on business investment. But business investment in Canada has declined over the past decade and total economic growth per person (inflation-adjusted) from Q3-2015 through to Q1-2024 has been less than 1 per cent versus robust growth of nearly 16 per cent in the United States over the same period.

For Canada’s extraction sector, as Green documents, federal policies—new fuel regulations, extended review processes on major infrastructure projects, an effective ban on oil shipments on British Columbia’s northern coast, a hard greenhouse gas emissions cap targeting oil and gas, and other regulatory initiatives—are largely to blame for the massive decline in investment.

Meanwhile, as Ottawa impedes private investment, its latest bundle of economic development announcements underscores its strategy to have government take the lead in allocating economic resources, whether for infrastructure and public institutions or for corporate welfare to private companies.

Consider these federally-subsidized projects.

A gas cloud imaging company received $4.1 million from taxpayers to expand marketing, operations and product development. The Battery Metals Association of Canada received $850,000 to “support growth of the battery metals sector in Western Canada by enhancing collaboration and education stakeholders.” A food manufacturer in Lethbridge received $5.2 million to increase production of plant-based protein products. Ermineskin Cree Nation received nearly $400,000 for a feasibility study for a new solar farm. The Town of Coronation received almost $900,000 to renovate and retrofit two buildings into a business incubator. The Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada received $400,000 for marketing and other support to help boost clean technology product exports. And so on.

When the Trudeau government announced all this corporate welfare and spending, it naturally claimed it create economic growth and good jobs. But corporate welfare doesn’t create growth and good jobs, it only directs resources (including labour) to subsidized sectors and businesses and away from sectors and businesses that must be more heavily taxed to support the subsidies. The effect of government initiatives that reduce private investment and replace it with government spending is a net economic loss.

As 20th-century business and economics journalist Henry Hazlitt put it, the case for government directing investment (instead of the private sector) relies on politicians and bureaucrats—who did not earn the money and to whom the money does not belong—investing that money wisely and with almost perfect foresight. Of course, that’s preposterous.

Alas, this replacement of private-sector investment with public spending is happening not only in Alberta but across Canada today due to the Trudeau government’s fiscal policies. Lower productivity and lower living standards, the data show, are the unhappy results.

Author:

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on July 25, 2024

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Anthony Olienick and Chris Carbert are on trial for conspiracy to commit murder and firearms charges in relation to the Coutts Blockade into mid-February 2022. In opening her case before a Lethbridge, AB, jury on July 11, Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns stated “This is a political, criminal trial that is un Canadian.” She told the jury, “You will be shocked, and at the very least, disappointed with how Canada’s own RCMP conducted themselves during and after the Coutts protest,” as she summarized officers’ testimony during presentation of the Crown’s case. Burns also contended that “the conduct of Alberta’s provincial government and Canada’s federal government are entwined with the RCMP.” The arrests of the Coutts Four on the night of February 13 and noon hour of February 14, were key events in a decision by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Janice Charette, and the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Jody Thomas, to advise Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to invoke the Emergencies Act. Chief Justice Paul Rouleau, in submitting his Public Order Emergency Commission Report to Parliament on February 17, 2023, also cited events at the Coutts Blockade as key to his conclusion that the government was justified in invoking the Emergencies Act.

Justice David Labrenz cautioned attorney Burns regarding her language, after Crown prosecutor Stephen Johnson objected to some of the language in the opening statement of Olienick’s counsel. Futher discussion about the appropriateness of attorney Burns’ statement to the jury is behind a publication ban, as discussions occurred without the jury present.

Justice Labrenz told the jury on July 12, “I would remind you that the presumption of innocence means that both the accused are cloaked with that presumption, unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the charge(s).” He further clarified what should result if the jurors were uncertain about which narrative to believe: the account by the Crown, or the account from the accused lawyers. Labrenz stated that such ambivalence must lead to an acquittal; As such a degree of uncertainty regarding which case to trust in does not meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold for a conviction.”

On July 15, 2024, a Lethbridge jury heard evidence from a former employer of Olienicks’ named Brian Lambert. He stated that he had tasked Olienick run his sandstone quarry and mining business. He was a business partner with Olienick. In that capacity, Olienick made use of what Lambert referred to as “little firecrackers,” to quarry the sandstone and reduce it in size. Reducing the size of the stone renders it manageable to get refined and repurposed so it could be sold to buyers of stone for other uses (building construction, patio stones, etc.) Lambert explained that the “firecrackers” were “explosive devices” packaged within tubing and pipes that could also be used for plumbing. He detailed how “You make them out of ordinary plumbing pipe and use some kind of propellant like shotgun powder…” Lambert explained that the length of the pipe “…depended on how big a hole or how large a piece of stone you were going to crack. The one I saw was about six inches long … maybe an inch in diameter.”

One of Olienick’s charges is “unlawful possession of an explosive device for a dangerous purpose.” The principal evidence offered up by RCMP to the Crown is what the officers depicted as “pipe bombs” which they obtained at the residence of Anthony Olienick in Claresholm, Alberta, about a two-hour drive from Coutts. Officers entered his home after he was arrested the night of February 13, 2022. Lambert’s testimony offers a plausible common use for the “firecrackers” the RCMP referred to as “pipe bombs.” Lambert added, these “firecrackers” have a firecracker fuse, and in the world of “explosive” they are “no big deal.”

Fellow accused, Chris Carbert, is does not face the additional charge of unlawful possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose. This is the first full week of the case for the defence. The trial began on June 6 when the Crown began presenting its case.

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy who recently attended several days of testimony at the Coutts Two trial.