Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Clear Answers Required

Published

5 minute read

Clear Answers Required

Of all the discouraging messages inundating the worldwide sports arena these days, it’s entirely likely that the most lamentable — about Canadian football, at least —  was issued this week by Alberta Golden Bears head coach Chris Morris. “The CFL’s probably not going to have a season,” he said.

Other qualified observers have said similar things, quite often, but Morris’s words carried a little extra weight because they were also tied directly to the long- and short-term future of young athletes who normally would be chomping at the bit for this season, or the next one, to get under way.
His comments came quickly when he was asked about the surprising decision by USports decision-makers to solidify their stand against allowing 25-year-old players to compete if and when there is a 2021 season in national university football. No explanation has been made by this same group when asked why the regulation caused by COVID-19 will apply only to gridders and not to those who play volleyball, basketball or any other sport at that level, but the favoured.status of these younger competitors is better to be discussed at another time and in another space.
The bar that has been placed against the planning, commitment and potential professional development of Golden Bears, Calgary Dinos and similar athletes on campuses across the nation must be discussed promptly.
Essential in the Morris words was his reference to about 300 athletes who will have their careers ended immediately, along with more than 1,000 others who almost surely will have their planned university careers shortened by at least one year.
Severe budget realities are almost a clear declaration certain that some universities will be forced to erase programs due to the coronavirus pandemic. When and if such a decision is required, some players would of course have no team to join (or rejoin) for the anticipated 2021 season.
Morris has pointed out that the anti-25-year-old was devised to prevent abuse of rules that vary between Canada’s university leagues, including the powerful Canada West that links rivals and allies from Manitoba to British Columbia.
His last formal act as president of the Canadian University Football Coaches Association was to sign an open letter under the CUFCA banner which “strongly denounces the ruling.”
Another unfortunate message was delivered to members of the Edmonton Huskies Alumni Society by veteran administrator Mike Eurchuk, who attended a scheduled meeting of Prairie Football Conference officials. One of the major issues, yet again, was the difficulty of practicing at this highly-combative junior level when only 50 individuals are allowed on the field at one time.
“Not 50 players,” Eurchuk pointed out. “Fifty individuals, coaches, trainers, equipment people.”
As part of an “action plan” required by concerned government officials, “showers would be a definite no-no.” Assuming equipment could be kept in satisfactory anti-COVID condition, “we still can’t get on the field and actually knock heads with another team” because the 50-person limit would be seriously exceeded.
Two other major issues exist, said Eurchuk: transportation and different provincial rules: “only 22 riders can be permitted on a team bus — “To take our normal contingent, we would need four buses to transport us anyplace; (in addition), “Saskatchewan and Manitoba health departments probably wouldn’t allow (Edmonton Huskies, Edmonton Wildcats, Calgary Colts) to play in their provinces.”
At one point, the WFC now admits, consideration was given to seven- or nine-man football. This plan has been nixed.
At this point, key league meetings are scheduled for the first week in August. The possibility of a Canadian Bowl for the national junior crown will be debated in September. A modified season (perhaps six games) could be started, hypothetically, in mid-October.
In his lengthy note, Eurchuk found an apt summary of the entire situation: “At this point, there is no certainty on anything.” It seems certain that Golden Bears coach Martin and others throughout Canadian football, could be comfortable saying exactly the same thing.

Alberta

ASIRT investigations concluded on fatal officer-involved shooting involving the RCMP.

Published on

Incident investigation report from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

Introduction

On December 22, 2022, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Police Act to investigate a then non-fatal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting. The shooting of the affected person (AP) was reported to have happened during an interaction with him, as a result of him being a suspect in a complaint of a man with a gun.

While AP initially survived, he died of complications from the shooting the following day.

ASIRT’s Investigation

ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols and principles relating to Major Case Management. Information from civilian witnesses, the subject and a witness officers, and importantly video recordings provided sufficient information to determine whether the force used by the subject officer during this incident was reasonable.

Circumstances Surrounding the Officer-Involved Shooting

On December 01, 2022, Maskwacis RCMP received a call reporting that a male [AP] had been drinking and left the caller’s house with a gun. AP was shooting the gun in the country (believed to be the area around the residence). Two RCMP officers responded.

Witness officer (WO) located AP walking on the road with a rifle. AP walked toward WO’s marked police vehicle with the rifle pointed at the vehicle/WO, while WO was seated in the driver’s seat. WO then exited his vehicle with his carbine rifle and moved to the rear of his vehicle while AP kept the rifle pointed at the police vehicle. The subject officer (SO) arrived on scene, but came from the opposite direction. AP turned around and walked toward SO with the barrel of the rifle pointed upwards. SO exited his police vehicle with his service pistol drawn and walked toward AP while he
repeatedly provided verbal direction to AP to drop the firearm. AP and SO were walking toward each other; at that time AP still had the barrel of the rifle pointed upward. As SO and AP got within approximately five meters of each other, AP lowered the barrel of the rifle and pointed it directly at SO. SO fired multiple rounds and struck AP with four rounds causing AP to stumble, drop the rifle and fall to the ground. AP initially survived the shooting and was transported to an Edmonton hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery. The following day, AP succumbed to his injuries.

Analysis

The subject officer was lawfully placed and acting in the execution of his duties in dealing with AP as a person who was the subject of a complaint about him being in possession of a firearm and shooting it off.

The Use of Force

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for the execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection.

A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight.

With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently. That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses.

Proportionate Response

Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds. Here, the subject officers were faced with an individual that was armed with a gun and pointing it in their direction. As such, the response by the subject officers in using their respective firearms to shoot AP was proportionate to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm that he reasonably posed to both of them.

Reasonably Necessary

As set out previously in this report, AP presented as a lethal threat to both SO and WO given his actions in pointing his rifle at them. While WO did not shoot during this incident that does not impact the analysis of SO’s actions. Under the circumstances as then faced by SO, no other use of force options were reasonably available for attempted use. The use by SO of his firearm to incapacitate this lethal threat was reasonably necessary. Given the above, the defence available to SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code would apply.

Conclusion

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code a police officer is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so. Force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm is justified if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the force was necessary to prevent the death or grievous bodily harm of the officer and/or any other person. The analysis under s.34 of the Criminal Code leads to a similar finding that subject officer’s actions were lawfully permitted.

After a thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officers, it is my opinion that they were lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of their duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that any officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. The force used was proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta requests more control over provincial immigration system

Published on

Alberta is requesting more control over its provincial immigration to address its skilled workforce shortage, including increasing Ukrainian evacuee participation in the job market.

Premier Danielle Smith has written a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asking him to re-evaluate his government’s decision limiting the number of allocations for Alberta’s provincial nominee program in 2024. Last week, the federal government informed the province it would only receive 9,750 such allotments – which is the same number of allocations Alberta received in 2023 and is less than the 10,140 for 2024 the federal government had originally allocated.

As of February 2024, Alberta accounts for just under 12 per cent of Canada’s population, but it leads the nation in net employment growth, with 42.8 per cent of the country’s employment gains between January and February 2024. By not providing the requested increase to Alberta’s provincial nominee allocations, the federal government is restricting the province’s ability to keep up with its growing labour market demands, especially as it relates to integrating Ukrainian evacuees into Alberta’s job market.

“Alberta is growing and that is good news. Since January 2023, more than 100,000 new jobs have been created in our province and our employment rate has led the country even longer. At the same time, we continue to experience labour shortages that could be resolved by welcoming skilled workers from around the world, including evacuees from Ukraine, many of whom have the exact skills that our job market most needs. Alberta has long been the economic engine of Canada and we are once again requesting Ottawa respect section 95 of the Constitution and let us welcome the skilled individuals we need into our province on our terms.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

With Alberta’s population growth at levels not seen in four decades, Alberta’s Provincial Nominee Program is best placed to address the province’s unique immigration and economic goals.

Part of Alberta’s population growth has resulted from Russia’s invasion in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Since that time, Alberta has welcomed a significant number of Ukrainian evacuees to the province. While it is anticipated that many will return to Ukraine following the war, Alberta is also expecting a number of families to apply for permanent residency via the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. An increase in the number of allocations from the federal government would assist these new Albertans to fill positions in the province’s workforce.

“Immigration is key to Alberta’s ability to address labour shortages and to grow our economy. This limitation imposed by the federal government on our provincial nominee program will be a very difficult pill to swallow, not only for businesses that need this skilled labour but also to the many Ukrainian evacuees who have the skills we need and wish to stay permanently in Alberta.”

Muhammad Yaseen, Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism

Quick facts

  • The federal government through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada sets provincial immigration nomination limits. It also approves all permanent resident applications.
  • Alberta maximized its 9,750 nomination allocations in 2023, with a total of 10,029 nominations issued within the federal government administrative buffer.

Related information

Continue Reading

Trending

X