Alberta
‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial
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.
Alberta
Carney’s pipeline deal hits a wall in B.C.
This article supplied by Troy Media.
Carney’s attempt to ease Canada’s dependence on the U.S. stirs a backlash in B.C., raises Indigenous concerns and rattles his own party
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has opened a political hornet’s nest, exposing deep divisions within the Liberal Party and forcing a national debate that has been avoided for years.
Carney was under mounting pressure to respond to U.S. tariffs that threaten to carve billions out of Canada’s economy. The United States buys more than 95 per cent of Canada’s oil exports, leaving the country highly exposed to U.S. policy decisions. That pressure is now driving his push for a route to the Pacific, a project that could change Canada’s economic future but also destabilize his already fragile minority government.
Carney knows the political risk. His government could fall at any time, which only raises the stakes. Even so, he has pressed ahead. The agreement with Alberta lays early groundwork for a new pipeline to the Pacific. It would expand the oil sands, ease some environmental obligations and revive a proposal industry leaders have pushed for years.
The route is far from settled, but it is expected to run to B.C.’s northern coast and open access to Asian buyers. A Pacific route would finally give Canada a direct path into Asian energy markets, where demand remains strong and prices are often higher than in the United States.
If Carney expected broad support, he did not get it, especially in British Columbia. Because B.C. is the only province with a deep-water port capable of handling large crude carriers, it is the only path a west-coast pipeline can take. The province is now the central battleground, and whether the project succeeds will depend on what happens there.
B.C. Premier David Eby criticized the lack of consultation. “It would have been good for B.C. to be at the table,” he said, warning that the project risks undermining Indigenous support for the province’s liquefied natural gas plans. He also noted that the pipeline has no private backer and no commitments from First Nations, two obstacles that have tripped up projects before.
The backlash quickly spread to Ottawa. Steven Guilbeault, the former environment minister and the most prominent environmentalist ever to serve in a federal cabinet, resigned from cabinet in direct response to the MOU. He said the proposed pipeline “would have major environmental impacts”. Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said his departure “dashes the last hope that Mark Carney is going to have a good climate record ever.”
Several B.C. Liberal MPs echoed concerns about the political cost. CBC News reported anger inside the caucus, with some MPs “seething” over the agreement and worried about losing climate-focused voters.
The voters those MPs fear may not be as opposed as they think. An October Angus Reid Institute survey found that a solid majority of Canadians support a pipeline from northern Alberta to the northwest B.C. coast. In British Columbia, support outweighs opposition by a wide margin. That challenges Eby’s claim that the project lacks public backing. Carney may have more room to manoeuvre than his critics admit.
The most significant challenge, however, comes from Indigenous leaders. British Columbia is the only province that has formally adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) into law, giving First Nations a stronger legal position in major project decisions. Court rulings over the past two decades have affirmed a duty to consult and, in some cases, accommodate Indigenous communities, giving them major influence over large projects.
A group representing Coastal First Nations in B.C. said the pipeline “will never happen”. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs said it is “loudly objecting” to the MOU, arguing it was drafted without involvement from coastal First Nations and does not meet consultation standards outlined in UNDRIP. “The answer is still no and always will be,” said UBCIC Grand Chief Stewart Phillip. He also said lifting the crude oil tanker ban would amount to bulldozing First Nation rights. Without Indigenous consent, the project cannot proceed, and Carney knows this is the single largest barrier he faces.
Carney’s reasoning is straightforward. The long-term danger of relying on one market outweighs the short-term turbulence created by the pipeline fight. The MOU suggests Ottawa is prepared to reconsider projects once thought politically impossible in order to protect Canada’s economic future. He is betting that doing nothing is the bigger risk.
Whether this pipeline moves forward is uncertain, and the obstacles are real. One fact, however, remains clear. Canada cannot keep betting its stability on a single market.
Toronto-based Rashid Husain Syed is a highly regarded analyst specializing in energy and politics, particularly in the Middle East. In addition to his contributions to local and international newspapers, Rashid frequently lends his expertise as a speaker at global conferences. Organizations such as the Department of Energy in Washington and the International Energy Agency in Paris have sought his insights on global energy matters.
Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.
Alberta
This new Canada–Alberta pipeline agreement will cost you more than you think

Canada and Alberta’s new net-zero energy deal is being promoted as progress, but it also brings rising costs. In this video, I break down the increase to Alberta’s industrial carbon price, how those costs can raise fuel, heating, and grocery prices, and why taxpayer-funded carbon-capture projects and potential pipeline delays could add even more. Here’s what this agreement could mean for Canadians.
Watch Nataliya Bankert’s latest video.
-
Business1 day agoRecent price declines don’t solve Toronto’s housing affordability crisis
-
Artificial Intelligence2 days agoThe Emptiness Inside: Why Large Language Models Can’t Think – and Never Will
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTech Mogul Gives $6 Billion To 25 Million Kids To Boost Trump Investment Accounts
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day agoA Democracy That Can’t Take A Joke Won’t Tolerate Dissent
-
Business1 day agoCanada’s future prosperity runs through the northwest coast
-
Automotive17 hours agoPower Struggle: Governments start quietly backing away from EV mandates
-
Business1 day agoOttawa’s gun ‘buyback’ program will cost billions—and for no good reason
-
MAiD8 hours agoFrom Exception to Routine. Why Canada’s State-Assisted Suicide Regime Demands a Human-Rights Review



