From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Data revealed that deaths by drugs in Alberta dropped to 72 in May after reaching a peak of 185 in March 2023.

Deaths related to opioid and other drug overdoses in the Canadian province of Alberta have fallen to their lowest levels in years after the Conservative government began to focus on helping addicts via a recovery-based approach instead of the Liberal-minded, so-called “safe-supply” method.

According to data released by the United Conservative Party (UCP) government via its “Alberta substance use surveillance system,” which was updated in August, there was a 55 percent decrease in opioid-related deaths in May 2024 compared with May 2023.

The data revealed that deaths by deadly drugs fell to 72 in May, which was the lowest reported since March 2020 when 71 deaths were reported.

At their peak, opioid-related deaths spiked at 185 in March 2023. Since that time, deaths have been on the decline.

Dan Williams, who serves as Alberta’s mental health and addictions minister, noted to the media in a recent statement that it is his view that a recovery-based approach to dealing and helping addicts is the right way to go as opposed to giving out free drugs, which is done in British Columbia.

He said that, in his view, he is “cautiously optimistic” that the declining deaths are due to focusing on a recovery-based model when dealing with the rampant abuse of illicit drugs.

Williams said that the UCP government believes that for people suffering from “the disease of addiction, recovery is possible.”

“We are turning words into action and giving people an opportunity to pursue recovery,” he said.

The Alberta government’s recovery-based approach specifically focuses on prevention and the treatment of addicts as well as a long-term recovery support model.

The federal government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claims their “safer supply” program is good because it is “providing prescribed medications as a safer alternative to the toxic illegal drug supply to people who are at high risk of overdose.”

However, studies have shown that these programs often lead to an excess of deaths from overdose in areas where they are allowed.

In British Columbia and Ontario, the so-called “safer supply” model has been in use and promoted by current and former governments. However, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, as reported by LifeSiteNews recently, said he wants to end safer “supply” in his province. He said Trudeau’s continued push for lax drug policies has effectively turned the federal government into “the biggest drug dealer in the entire country.”

Williams observed that the “safer supply” model is not something Alberta will be doing, and instead will focus on “expanding access to the treatment and recovery services we know save lives.”

While drug overdose deaths have dipped slightly in British Columbia and Ontario, they are still extremely high, with 185 deaths alone in June just in British Columbia.

The NDP provincial government of British Columbia and the Trudeau feds are proponents of legalizing some hard drugs. Alberta is opposed to such a policy.

While many of the Trudeau government’s lax drug policies continue, it has been forced to backpedal on some of its most extreme actions.

After his federal government allowed the province of British Columbia to decriminalize the possession of hard drugs, including heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, meth and MDMA beginning on January 1, 2023, reports of overdoses and chaos began skyrocketing, leading the province to request that Trudeau re-criminalize drugs in public spaces.

A week later, the Trudeau government relented and accepted British Columbia’s request.

Protesters demonstrating against COVID-19 mandates and restrictions gather as a truck convoy blocks the highway at the Canada-U.S. border crossing in Coutts, Alta., on Feb. 2, 2022. The Canadian Press/Jeff McIntosh

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ray McGinnis

Imagine spending over two years behind bars, only to be told the evidence never supported the charges against you.

On Aug. 2, a Lethbridge jury found Chris Carbert and Tony Olienick not guilty of the most serious charge of conspiracy to commit murder of police officers. However, though they were declared innocent, the conspiracy charge was the basis for their being held in remand for at least 925 days. They were denied bail based on this charge.

The sentencing hearing for other charges against Carbert and Olienick is taking place this week.

Granting Bail Typical for Serious Offences

In Canada, when someone is charged with committing a crime, they’re released on bail. This includes those charged with murder. For example, in September 2021, 31-year-old Umar Zameer was released on bail after being charged with the first-degree murder of Toronto Police Constable Jeffrey Northrup.

A case of double murder in the city of Mission in B.C.’s Fraser Valley concerned the deaths of Lisa Dudley and her boyfriend Guthrie McKay. Tom Holden, accused of first-degree murder in the case, was released on bail.

Conditions for not Granting Bail

Why do we release people from custody after being charged with a crime? Why don’t we hold people indefinitely? It’s been a Canadian tradition that there’s a process in place to which we adhere. Does the person charged with a crime seem to present a risk of repeating an offence? Carbert and Olienick hadn’t previously committed the offence(s) they were charged with. They didn’t have any criminal records for any violence. So, the likelihood of repetition of offence didn’t apply.

Another reason for denying bail is flight risk. But the Crown agreed neither of these men posed a flight risk. If you’re not clear about the identity of the person you’ve arrested, you can hold them in custody. But the Crown and the RCMP were certain of the identity of these men.

How about denying bail for evidence protection? If let go, was it possible the Crown or RCMP would lose evidence, and they needed to keep Carbert and Olienick in remand? No.

Were Carbert or Olienick considered a danger to the public? No. They had no past history of committing violent crimes, so in the case of the Coutts Two this was not a reason to deny bail.

The Crown insisted the pair be denied bail because their release would undermine confidence in the judicial system. Due to the seriousness of the offences the pair were charged with, releasing them would put the legal system into disrepute. But this is a circular argument. In authoritarian countries, police may arrest citizens on serious charges they’re not guilty of and leave them in prison indefinitely.

Granting Bail Goes Back to Magna Carta

Since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215, western judicial institutions have allowed those charged with a crime to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. With that provision comes the right to bail and a speedy trial. When citizens are accused of a crime and left to rot in prison without having their day in court, their spirits can be broken and persuaded to agree to plead guilty even when they are innocent.

Unindicted Co-conspirators Never Interviewed

During the trial, the Crown repeatedly named a list of unindicted co-conspirators. Each had a licence to carry a weapon in public for years. None of them were ever searched. None of them were ever interviewed. None of the alleged co-conspirators received any communication from the RCMP, or other authorities, about their possible connection to a conspiracy to murder police officers. However, the list of names provided for some legal theatre in the court added to the ominous scale of the supposed conspiracy to murder police officers.

Intelligence

Former career police officer Vincent Gircys had standing in the Justice Mosley decision. The judge ruled in January 2024 that the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act in February 2022 to end the convoy protests was unconstitutional.

After the Coutts Two verdict, Gircys was concerned about the intelligence. There was a disconnect between the conspiracy charge and the evidence the Crown brought to trial. Gircys stated, “It’s really important to find where that disconnect is. Because of faulty intelligence? False intelligence? Fabricated intelligence? The evidence that they (RCMP) do have would all be logged, gathered, and time-lined. And that goes to what evidence was not gathered? … How could that information have been laid in the first place? How could the Crown have proceeded with this case to begin with?”

The Coutts Two were found not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. But by the time they are sentenced on the other charges this week, they will have spent at least 925 days in custody. What does this mean for innocent until proven guilty?

Ray McGinnis is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. His forthcoming book is “Unjustified: The Emergencies Act and the Inquiry that Got It Wrong.”