Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Parent and gender dysphoria groups granted intervenor status in New Brunswick school policy case

Published

6 minute read

News release from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is pleased to announce that two groups, Gender Dysphoria Alliance and Our Duty Canada, have been jointly granted intervenor status in a constitutional challenge to a New Brunswick education policy. The policy requires that parents be notified when their child intends to undergo a gender transition by using a different name and pronouns at school.

On August 17, 2020, the New Brunswick government created Policy 713, which prohibited teachers from informing parents that their child had adopted a new name or pronouns at school (unless the child consented to such disclosure).

On June 8, 2023, the government changed the policy to require that parents of students under 16 years of age be notified by the school before the formal use of a different name or pronoun. “Formal” refers to the use of names and pronouns in the classroom and in school records.

The change to Policy 713 brought a firestorm of criticism and media coverage because it was the first of its kind in Canada to support parental rights on this issue. New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs stated that he believes he has the support of parents in the province on this issue.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) brought a constitutional challenge against the Province of New Brunswick as represented by the Minister of Education and Early Childhood Development, on September 6, 2023. The CCLA argues that Policy 713 infringes the students’ rights to freedom of expression, to equality, and to life, liberty and security of the person.

“The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has filed a court challenge against the right of parents to be fully informed about what is happening with their own children at school,” stated John Carpay, President of the Justice Centre.

“The Supreme Court of Canada explained in B.(R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto that the parental interest in bringing up, nurturing and caring for a child, including medical care and moral upbringing, is an individual interest of fundamental importance to our society,” continued John Carpay.

On May 2, 2024, Justice Richard Petrie of the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench granted intervener status to two groups: Gender Dysphoria Alliance is comprised of transsexual adults who seek to promote an evidence-based approach to gender dysphoria. Our Duty Canada is a peer support network for parents of children struggling with gender dysphoria and transgender ideation. As intervenors, they now have the right to present evidence to the court. The Justice Centre is providing for the legal representation of both groups, which seek to uphold the constitutionality of the amended Policy 713.

Prior to granting intervenor status, on March 5, 2024, Justice Petrie ordered that any proposed intervenors file the evidence they intend to present.

Gender Dysphoria Alliance and Our Duty Canada submitted the following testimonies as evidence:

  • The written testimony of a New Brunswick mother whose child underwent a social transition in school, about which she was not informed;
  • The written testimony of a young woman from Alberta who began to adopt new pronouns at school without her parents’ knowledge; she ultimately reversed course (detransitioned) after her parents became aware of her situation and were able to assist her;
  • The written testimony of the young woman’s father.

Karin Litzcke of Our Duty Canada says, “[Our] members are pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the development of jurisprudence in this area. What has happened to us could happen to any parents under policies that promote secrecy from families. We are grateful to the Justice Centre for its assistance in advocating for the interests of children and parents in court.”

Speaking on behalf of Gender Dysphoria Alliance, Aaron Kimberly says, “The Gender Dysphoria Alliance is pleased with the decision to grant us intervention status in this case. We believe New Brunswick’s policy is an important safeguarding measure for children experiencing gender incongruence, since we know that most kids with this experience turn out to be gay or lesbian, not trans. Prematurely labelling kids “trans” and socially transitioning them is a psychosocial intervention that risks putting pre-gay kids onto an unnecessary medical pathway.”

Hatim Kheir, lawyer for both groups, says, “The Supreme Court has affirmed that parents in Canada have the right to guide the moral upbringing of their children. This case provides an opportunity for the Court to apply those rights to issues surrounding gender which are becoming increasingly relevant in our society.”

Alberta

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

Alberta

‘Fireworks’ As Defence Opens Case In Coutts Two Trial

Published on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending

X