Alberta
Province twinning David Thompson Highway (#11) from Sylvan Lake to Rocky Mountain House
From the Province of AlbertaImproving David Thompson Highway and creating jobsThe Government of Alberta will twin a 66-kilometre stretch of the David Thompson Highway between Sylvan Lake and Rocky Mountain House.This $120-million project is part of Alberta’s Recovery Plan and will create about 582 jobs, while upgrading the highway and improving traffic flow along this important recreation corridor.
The David Thompson Highway project is part of the more than $10 billion infrastructure spending announced as part of Alberta’s Recovery Plan. This spending includes: $6.9 billion Budget 2020 capital spending, $980 million accelerated for Capital Maintenance and Renewal, $200 million for Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Program and water infrastructure projects, $600 million in strategic infrastructure projects, $500 million in municipal infrastructure and $1.5 billion for Keystone XL.
Alberta’s government is helping create more than 50,000 good jobs for Albertans by building schools, roads and other core infrastructure that benefits Albertans and communities. It will further diversify our economy by helping sectors grow and succeed and return investment to our province by ensuring we have the most competitive tax environment in Canada Quick facts
|
From LifeSiteNews
A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the ‘freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.’
The United Conservative Party government of the province of Alberta is anticipated to soon introduce a new “Bill of Rights,” a current draft of which includes a provision that would cement parental rights as “God-given.”
LifeSiteNews was recently provided exclusive access to a draft version of the “Alberta Bill of Rights” from a source well connected with the ruling United Conservative Party (UCP).
Included in the draft bill is a section titled, “Freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.”
The text of the draft version, which is still subject to change, reads that the “Government of Alberta, on behalf of its citizens,” must acknowledge that the “freedom of parents to raise their children is sui generis – independent from legislation, not flowing from it – it precedes government.”
“It is a government’s duty to respect that familial boundary until children reach the age of majority. Parents have an obligation to provide for the basic health, education, and welfare of their child as they exercise custody and authority,” reads the bill.
The text then reads that the “state shall not target parents nor interfere with parental rights on the basis of religious or social standing, nor on the basis of fiscal status provided that parents are demonstrably providing for the necessities of their children.”
“No officer or agency of the government, including any subdivisions, shall infringe on a parent’s freedoms except as demonstrably necessary on a case-by-case basis as provided by law, such steps to be narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means,” it states.
“Remedial provisions shall be provided for the intentional interference of parental freedoms by governments, organizations or individuals.”
The text concludes with a sentence affirming that “Family is in the best interests of a child.”
It is expected that the UCP government in Alberta will introduce its new “Bill of Rights” this fall. The bill contains a slew of pro-freedom proposals, including, as reported by LifeSiteNews, enshrining the “right to life” into law, including from “conception, gestation in the womb.”
The bill also includes, as reported by LifeSiteNews, a section that guarantees each citizen has the “right” to medical “informed consent” as well as the “right” to “refuse vaccinations.”
While the UCP source told LifeSiteNews that the draft version of the bill is subject to change, the source also said it is hoped by all of those who worked on it that the final version will not include many changes.
According to the source, the draft version of the Alberta Bill of Rights was created by a “small group writing it in secret and consulting with lawyers” as well as elected MLAs and cabinet members of the UCP government.
It is not yet clear just how much of the bill has the support of Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, leader of the UCP. She promised last year, as reported by LifeSiteNews, to enshrine into “law” protections for people in her province who choose not to be vaccinated as well as strengthen gun rights and safeguard speech by beefing up the provincial Bill of Rights.
She has also said that parents should be primary caregivers of their children, and earlier this year announced what is the strongest pro-family legislation in Canada, protecting kids from life-altering so-called “top and bottom” surgeries as well as other forms of transgender ideology.
However, Smith’s view on the traditional nuclear family is at odds with the views of many conservatives, including many who support the UCP. As reported by LifeSiteNews last month, Smith noted, in a wide-ranging interview with Jordan Peterson, that conservatives should “modernize” their view of what the nuclear family looks like, including homosexuals “couples” seeking to obtain children.
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Ray McGinnis
During the trial, RCMP officers described what they found as “pipe bombs” in the Tony Olienick’s Claresholm, AB, property after his arrest. They alleged that these were to be used for a dangerous purpose. During the Coutts Blockade, the “explosive” device remained on Olienick’s property, a two-hour drive away.
On August 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, both were found guilty of possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose.”
After the verdict, Newsweek reported “documents obtained under an Access to Information and Privacy Act request showed that the RCMP had been profiling protesters by running license plates through databases, then focusing in on those who possessed federal gun licenses.”
Possession of a Weapon for a Dangerous Purpose
Olienick’s lawyer, Marilyn Burns told this reporter of the charge, “I have not found a case where the charge of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose has not been twinned with an act of murder, violence.” This section of the Canadian Criminal Code, she explained, “has two categories: “dangerous purpose for the public peace” or for “another criminal act.” The charge brought by the Crown against Carbert and Olienick was for “possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose” being “dangerous for the public peace.”
Tony Olienick didn’t have any weapons while he was standing outside of Smugglers Saloon at the time he was arrested. He had a rifle and a 22, and had moved them from his truck to the trailer. There were several guns in the trailer Chris Carbert was sleeping in at the time of his arrest. However, when he came out of the trailer to be arrested, he was unarmed. During the trial, it was confirmed it’s not illegal to have firearms in your camper trailer. It’s legal to have firearms for self-defence in your camper trailer to defend yourself against a civilian intruder. No guns were seen in public. Carbert, Olienick (and Lysak) snuck the guns into the trailer when no one saw them to make it safe – so nothing would happen accidentally to someone in view.
What was the Dangerous Purpose?
Chris Carbert’s lawyer, Katherin Beyak, summarized, “The evidence wasn’t there for Chris needing to have a firearm for self-defence at the blockade, that evidence just didn’t come forward. That’s why I’m trying to figure out what the dangerous purpose was. Other than, perhaps, the jury didn’t think there was a valid purpose for having a firearm at the protest. I don’t know, and we can’t ask them (the jury).” Asked about the jury decision, Beyak said the jury decision may have been “more of a statement that this was supposed to be peaceful, and you shouldn’t have had firearms there.”
The message from this verdict to Canadians may mean even if you are unarmed, you shouldn’t have firearms in the vicinity of a municipality where there is a protest.
Explosive Witness Testimony
The jury also found Tony Olienick guilty of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.
Brian Lambert, a sandstone quarry owner and colleague of Olienick, testified at the trial. He described an explosive device, nicknamed “firecrackers” in the business, he observed Olienick use years ago. Lambert testified Tony Olienick use these “firecrackers” to dislodge stone that would get sold and repurposed for construction. Olienick’s father served as a peacekeeper in the Canadian Armed Forces in Cypress. A stone quarry in southern Alberta occasionally got drill bits stuck in the stone. Olienick’s father created an explosive device with plumbing pipe, ordinary gunpowder, and a fuse that can be purchased at a hobby store. It was used to dislodge drill bits from a stone. After he died, the “firecracker” device was gathered up by Tony Olienick along with other items from his father’s estate. The son moved it onto his property. While the late Mr. Olienick had a permit to use the device, his son didn’t renew the permit for the explosive device.
Marilyn Burns, lawyer for Tony Olienick, relates the RCMP went through everything to find that device in a pile of other belongings of her client’s late father. During the trial, RCMP officers described what they found as “pipe bombs” in the Tony Olienick’s Claresholm, AB, property after his arrest. They alleged that these were to be used for a dangerous purpose. During the Coutts Blockade, the “explosive” device remained on Olienick’s property, a two-hour drive away.
A Warning
One takeaway from the jury verdict: if you go to a protest, make sure any explosive device you have at your property has a permit. Otherwise, even if the device in question is a two-hour drive away, you could be found guilty of possession of explosives for a dangerous purpose.
This commentary is second of a three part series. Read part one here, and three here.
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
-
Energy2 days agoBC should revisit nuclear energy to address BC Hydro shortages
-
CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency2 days agoRF Kennedy Jr and Political Realignment
-
Health2 days agoIntegrative Approaches For Cancer
-
Addictions2 days agoDrug-related deaths fall in Alberta after province adopts recovery-based program over ‘safe supply’
-
Addictions1 day agoHarm reduction projects in Nelson are fraying the city’s social fabric, residents say
-
Education2 days agoRethinking Public Education
-
Automotive1 day agoOttawa’s tariffs undercut Ottawa’s EV mandate
-
Business2 days agoJudge allows Elon Musk’s ‘thermonuclear’ lawsuit against Media Matters to proceed