Skip to main content

Profile: Danielle Smith

An open envelope containing a letter with the text "Dear Premier Smith" is displayed against a background of splashing water.

Premier Smith pressed for answers on Grassy Mountain coal plans

Written on . Posted in Uncategorized.

In a strongly-worded letter to Premier Danielle Smith, Chris Spearman, spokesman for the Water for Food Group, outlines pressing concerns about the proposed Grass Mountain Coal Project and the broader implications of coal development in southwestern Alberta.

With water security, land use and economic priorities at stake, the letter challenges the government to provide clear answers on its coal strategy and ensure meaningful public consultation.

The letter outlines serious inconsistencies in government statements, a lack of public consultation and the potential environmental and economic risks associated with the project.

It raises eight key questions about government transparency, environmental protection, regulatory oversight and the economic trade-offs between short-term coal industry gains and the long-term sustainability of Alberta’s agrifood sector.

Below is the full letter, urging the premier to clarify her government’s position and commit to protecting the province’s land, water and long-term economic interests.

An older couple smiles while leaning on a wooden railing outdoors, above text describing their $879 profit share from Vision Credit Union and a website link.

Dear Premier Smith,

Albertans expect transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of our natural resources. As stewards of the province’s coal reserves, your government has a duty to ensure that any decision made regarding coal mining protects our land, our water, our communities, and our long-term economic prosperity.

We are writing to seek immediate clarification on serious contradictions in your government’s statements regarding the Grassy Mountain Coal Project and the proposed Coal Industry Modernization Initiative (CIMI).

1. What Type of Mining Will Actually Take Place at Grassy Mountain?

Your government has issued contradictory statements about the mining method proposed for Grassy Mountain.

• On December 20, 2024, at a media conference, Energy Minister Brian Jean confirmed it would be an open-pit mine.

• On January 25, 2025, on your weekly radio show, you stated it would not be an open-pit mine.

Which statement is correct? If it is not open-pit mining, what specific method will be used?

The industry has floated buzzwords like “high wall mining” and “CIMI technology”, which appear to be little more than rebranded open-pit mining with the same risks of selenium contamination, windborne coal dust, and long-term land degradation.

If this mining method is truly different, why hasn’t Northback Resources been transparent about it? They have refused to answer public concerns for over eight months.

Get Stuff’d meat and seafood shop sign, located at 214 13th St. in Fort Macleod, open Thursday through Saturday from 12 noon to 6 p.m., phone 368-996-1968, follow us on Facebook at Get Stuff’d.

2. Can the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) Be Trusted to Protect Our Water?

Your government has stated that AER monitoring will ensure environmental safety. However:

• Five Alberta government studies confirm that selenium contamination is inevitable from coal mining in this region.

• The Globe and Mail (January 6, 2025) reported that AER’s monitoring is understaffed, under-resourced, and ineffective.

• Alberta has no enforceable regulations for selenium pollution – only vague “guidelines” that fail to require meaningful action.

No conservative-minded government should tolerate a regulatory system that is both toothless and ineffective.

If AER cannot stop contamination before it happens, how can we trust it to clean up the mess afterward?

3. Why Are Albertans Being Excluded from Coal Policy Consultations?

Your government has made it clear that consultations on Alberta’s new coal policy will be limited to coal companies.

• Why are farmers, ranchers, municipalities, and Indigenous communities being excluded?

• Why are foreign-owned coal companies being prioritized over the Albertans who own these resources?

Historically, over 70 percent of Albertans have opposed coal mining in the Rockies. Albertans have fought this battle before – and won.

If this project is truly in Alberta’s best interest, why avoid consulting the people most affected by it?

4. Why Is Grassy Mountain Being Treated as an “Advanced Project” When It Was Rejected?

Grassy Mountain was already rejected in June 2021 by a joint federal-provincial review panel because its risks outweighed its benefits.

Northback Resources then challenged the ruling in court three times – and lost every time.

Despite this, Minister Jean now falsely claims that Grassy Mountain is an “advanced project”.

The reality:

• The Alberta government still lists the project as “terminated”

• Northback itself has publicly stated that the project is cancelled.

How is a project that was rejected, lost in court, and declared terminated now considered “advanced”?

This undermines the rule of law and due process—principles that conservatives should stand for.

Ad for Blinds and More Fall Sale: 40% off Alta Blinds from Sept 15 to Nov 30, 2026. Living room with large windows covered by wood blinds. Contact info and locations listed.

5. Why Is Your Government Opening All of the Eastern Slopes to Coal Mining?

Your government claims this decision avoids legal action from coal companies.

Yet Alberta law already provides the legal power to block coal mining in the public interest under the Mines and Minerals Act (Section 8).

Why, then, is your government choosing to sacrifice Alberta’s Eastern Slopes rather than stand up to foreign coal companies?

6. The Business Case for Grassy Mountain Doesn’t Hold Up

The proposed mine would create only 400 jobs for just 23-25 years, but at the expense of a $multi-billion agrifood industry that supports over 200,000 Albertans in the Oldman River Basin.

This is not a trade-off Albertans can afford.

7. Where Will the Water Come From?

Southern Alberta already faces chronic drought and strict water allocations. Coal mines require massive amounts of water, yet:

• Your government has not explained how much water will be diverted from agricultural use.

• Once contaminated, selenium cannot be removed from drinking water with current technology.

Can you confirm where Grassy Mountain will source its water, and how much will be taken from Alberta farmers and municipalities?

Event poster for a Secondhand Dreamcar concert at the Empress Theatre on November 20, 2026, at 7:30 PM, featuring a photo of the band members.

8. What Mandate Do You Have to Reintroduce Coal Mining?

In 2019, the UCP did not campaign on opening the Rockies to coal mining. When they attempted to do so, Albertans rejected it overwhelmingly.

Now, in 2025, you are again moving forward without a mandate from the people. If coal mining is truly a priority for your government, then:

• Take it to an election.

• Let Albertans decide.

Conclusion

Premier Smith, the Grassy Mountain Coal Project, and coal mining in the Alberta Rockies are the wrong decisions for Alberta.

This is not a right vs. left issue.

This is a right vs. wrong issue.

Your government is making decisions against public will, against scientific evidence, and against Alberta’s long-term interests, for the short-term gain of foreign coal companies.

We demand clear, public answers to these concerns. Albertans deserve to know:

• What mining method will be used at Grassy Mountain?

• How will AER enforce protections with no real regulations?

• Why are foreign coal companies being prioritized over Albertans?

• Why is your government overriding past legal decisions?

• Where will the water come from?

• Will you take this decision to an election?

Until these questions are answered: Grassy Mountain must not proceed.

Sincerely,

Chris Spearman

Spokesperson, Water for Food Group

 

Alberta | AB, Alberta Agriculture, Alberta Agrifood, Alberta Energy Regulator, Brian Jean, Chris Spearman – Pincher Creek | Lethbridge, Coal Mining, Coal Policy, Crowsnest Pass – Alberta, Environment, MD Ranchlands, Oldman River Basin, Resource Development, Selenium contamination, Water For Food – Alberta, Water Security

UCP folds ‘war room’ into government department

Written on . Posted in Civic & Government.

Controversial ‘energy war room’ shut down: money and mandate to go elsewhere

The Alberta government has dissolved the Canadian Energy Centre, also known as the “energy war room,” and has reintegrated its mandate into the Intergovernmental Relations department. The NDP is now calling for an investigation into this reorganization. 

The CEC was created in 2019 by the UCP government to address misinformation about Alberta’s energy industry. It was a publicly funded provincial corporation that was heavily criticized by the Opposition party. 

In the 2023 CEC budget, the centre was given $31,789,000 in government funding, according to a published financial report. 

“The CEC is an important advocate for Canada and Alberta’s long-term position as a safe, clean and responsible energy supplier and will continue to increase the public’s understanding of the role oil and gas plays globally in a secure energy future,” said Premier Danielle Smith in an emailed statement to Shootin’ the Breeze.

“We’re in a time where the federal government is attempting to make the promotion of Alberta’s energy industry illegal with Bill C-59 and a proposed emissions cap that would cripple Canada’s largest industry employing hundreds of thousands of Canadians.”

Federal Bill C-59 is a budget bill that recently completed Senate committee consideration, and will be up for third and final reading soon. It contains controversial amendments passed by the House of Commons that require oil and gas companies to provide evidence of environmental claims made, to prevent alleged “greenwashing.”

“The Government of Alberta will continue our fight to promote the energy sector,” said Smith. “Resources such as CEC assets, intellectual property and researchers will now be supporting IGR in order to seamlessly continue this important work without interference by the federal government — something that the CEC may not have been able to do under C-59.”

To the NDP, this shutdown is not a clever workaround for upcoming federal legislation but rather an indication of this project’s failure.

Nagwan Al-Guneid, Alberta NDP critic for energy and climate, has submitted a letter to the auditor general, calling for an investigation into this shutdown.

“There have been no measurable benefits to Albertans or Alberta’s energy sector from this failed experiment,” said Al-Guneid in a media release.

“Albertans deserve to know exactly how many taxpayer dollars the UCP government wasted in the creation of this partisan war room, how much money the government plans to put into this new entity once it operates under executive council, and how this move generates value for Albertans in accordance with the mandate of Intergovernmental Relations.”

“The government wasted over $66 million dollars of taxpayer money on an international embarrassment,” he said.

‘The war room is dead’

In an exclusive interview with Shootin’ the Breeze, NDP leadership candidate and previous energy and climate critic Kathleen Ganley described the CEC as a “political vehicle for the UCP” and a “$30-million slush fund.”

“I think that the way the war room was designed was intended to very much create that ‘You’re either with us or against us’ narrative,” she said.

According to the CEC, its mission was to “tell Canada’s energy story,” rejecting what is false and promoting what is true. While recognizing the need to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint, the CEC is primarily an advocate for the country’s — and notably Alberta’s — oil and gas sector, and against campaigns opposing the industry. 

“It has accomplished nothing,” said Ganley, pointing to its most famous acts of attacking a children’s movie and allegedly plagiarizing two different iterations of its logo.

In 2021, the CEC launched a letter-writing campaign against the Netflix children’s movie Bigfoot Family, which portrayed an oil tycoon as a villain seeking to destroy the Alaskan environment. Then-premier Jason Kenney dubbed it a defamation attempt in “the most vicious way possible,” given that the content was geared at children.

“It’s been a waste of money from beginning to end,” said Ganley. “But its purpose, let’s be clear, was a $30-million slush fund for the UCP to spend on their past projects and political projects.”

Now that it is being moved into Intergovernmental Relations, Ganley says the “mandate” will no longer be possible. 

“We live in an age where probably our biggest crisis is disinformation. And in that age, the war room, which is exempt from [Freedom of Information provisions], not only attacked journalists, but impersonated them. It pretended to be the media, which is highly problematic in a number of ways.”

Ganley said the war room also added polarization around the energy interest more than anything else, and that the increased division on issues like this puts citizens off of the political process.

“There’s a political advantage in claiming that you can either support oil and gas or you can support renewables,” she said. “There’s a political advantage for them in claiming that action on climate change is an economy killer.”

To Ganley, this agency was bad for the country, bad for the province and bad for its residents.

“They’re using public money to forward the cause of right-wing parties that have an interest in not taking action on climate change, which is at the end of the day to the detriment of all Albertans.”

There is a way to run strategic communications to support provincial industries and create jobs, but according to Ganley, a war room is not the right approach.

“I think that the war room is dead,” she said. “Hopefully it means that they will take that money and reinvest it into something that will actually help Albertans.”

The office of Energy Minister Brian Jean did not respond to questions emailed by Shootin’ the Breeze.

 

 

Alberta | AB

Government of Alberta word logo as heading for provincial statements

Rebranding the carbon tax won’t fix a failure

Written on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Premier Danielle Smith and Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Rebecca Schulz issued the following joint statement on the rebranding of the federal carbon tax:

“The federal government, in its flawed environmental activism, imposed a punitive carbon tax that did not reduce emissions, but instead, raised the cost of everything.

“Now, five years later, the federal carbon tax is universally known as a resounding failure. The carbon tax has punished Canadians while failing to reduce emissions.

“Canadians are struggling to pay a carbon tax on top of the federal government’s self-inflicted inflation crisis. We know that the carbon tax is costing Alberta families hundreds of dollars each year.

“In an act of desperation, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have the audacity to try and ‘rebrand’ the carbon tax – a cynical and desperate ploy that will fail.

“No ‘rebrand’ will save the federal government from its dwindling poll numbers. No speeches or sound bites will make a difference.

“Canadians will see it for what it is: a tax on the fuel they use to drive their kids to school, a tax on the food they buy, a tax on the businesses that they run, a tax on everything.

“Alberta’s government has a plan to achieve a carbon-neutral economy by 2050. We are confident this can be done without a consumer carbon tax, and we’ll continue to call on Minister Guilbeault to end his relentless pursuit of a more expensive Canada and to work with us instead.”

 

 

Alberta | AB, Carbon Tax, Rebecca Schulz – Government of Alberta

Canada Pension cheque with loonies on top of it.

Province seeking input on proposed APP

Written on . Posted in Uncategorized.

The provincial government is giving Albertans another way to weigh in on its idea to introduce a provincially based pension plan, but it will be done virtually, by phone.

Premier Danielle Smith, during a press conference last month, said Albertans would pay substantially less and receive higher benefits under a potential Alberta Pension Plan.

A recent government-commissioned report said the province would have $334 billion at its disposal if it were to take over payments and benefits currently handled by the Canada Pension Plan.

“Now that the LifeWorks report is out for discussion, our panel has been tasked with listening to Albertans and hearing their thoughts, views and concerns,” said Jim Dinning, who chairs the engagement panel, in an Oct. 12 government statement.

“For something this big, Albertans deserve the benefit of a rational, adult conversation.”

The provincial Opposition, meanwhile, doesn’t share the same opinion, calling the APP concept destructive and dangerous.

Shannon Phillips, NDP critic for finance, insurance and premiums, reiterated the party’s stance, questioning why there are no in-person town hall sessions planned.

“Danielle Smith is in hiding while trying to gamble away Albertans’ pensions,” Phillips said in a release Oct. 14. “The premier is afraid of Albertans.”

The first of five “telephone town halls” took place on Monday, Oct. 16, for northern Albertans.

A second such event is set for southern Alberta residents, including the southwest, Tuesday, Oct. 24, from 6:30 p.m. until 8 p.m.

Three more sessions are scheduled in November for the Calgary region, Edmonton and area, and central Alberta.

Participation details are available online at albertapensionplan.ca/engagement.

The province had already established a web-based survey component. Respondents have until Dec. 10 to take the 10-minute survey, which can be found at bit.ly/45wj65M.

A panel report is due out in May of next year.

 

 

Alberta | AB, Alberta Pension Plan, APP telephone town halls, Canada Pension Plann, Jim Dinning, LifeWorks, Shannon Phillips

UCP candidate Chelsae Petrovic – smiling woman with long, straight, light-brown hair, wearing a grey sweater

United Conservative Party candidate Chelsea Petrovic

Written on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Six candidates are vying for your vote on May 29, hoping to be Livingstone-Macleod’s next MLA. All were invited to submit a piece outlining their election platform for publication in Shootin’ the Breeze.

The people of Livingstone-Macleod deserve conservative representation that truly understands and values their needs. We have unique challenges, from growing our economy to preserving our precious natural spaces. Our access to health care and education must improve, and we need strong advocates who genuinely care. It’s crucial that we elect a government focused on the well-being of Albertans in Livingstone-Macleod.

This upcoming election is one of the most pivotal moments in Alberta’s history. The UCP and Danielle Smith are unwavering in their commitment to moving Alberta forward by fostering economic growth and further diversification. This means more jobs, more prosperity.

We will safeguard the services and values dear to Albertans, unlike the NDP who would drag us backward. We cannot risk their failed ideological policies that have already hurt so many Albertans before.

As a nurse, charity worker and mayor, my experience has prepared me to serve you, my fellow citizens, as an MLA. I intimately understand the importance of health care, economic development and community support. I firmly believe that a good job is the best social program. Through my volunteer work, I’ve witnessed first-hand the significance of caring for the vulnerable and fostering a sense of unity among us. I will be the elected official and public servant you deserve.

I humbly ask for your votes, my neighbours in Livingstone-Macleod, so that together we can be part of a government that truly helps and uplifts our community.

Today, Alberta proudly leads the nation in economic growth, and all indicators predict a continued upward trajectory. This accomplishment is the result of the UCP’s diligent efforts, and it’s crucial that they remain in government to build upon this success.

We are witnessing a historic influx of new Albertans, as families from across Canada embrace the renewed Alberta Advantage. The UCP made this possible, while under the NDP, people were leaving our province. With the UCP at the helm, major international companies have invested in Alberta, propelling us forward.

Electing the NDP puts all of these achievements at risk.

This is why we must re-elect a United Conservative government to continue the remarkable progress we’ve made. Alberta must remain the economic engine of our great country, ensuring that our hard-working citizens thrive. Together, we’ll preserve Alberta as a beacon of opportunity for generations to come.

I humbly ask for your vote and your support.

 

Albertans head to the polls Monday, May 29.

Advanced voting is open May 23 to 27.

For voter information, including polling stations, see pages 9 to 11.

View Crowsnest Pass election forum videos here: Part 1, Part 2

Individual candidate statements:

Dylin Hauser – Alberta Liberal Party

Kevin Van Tighem – Alberta New Democratic Party

Kevin Todd – Alberta Party

Erik Abildgaard – Independent

Corrie Toone – Independence Party of Alberta

Chelsae Petrovic – United Conservative Party

Related articles:

Livingstone-Macleod Candidates Make Last Appeals At Crowsnest Pass Forum

‘Not Notley’ Sign To Come Down, Says MD Of Pincher Creek

Scheduling Conflicts Derail Livingstone-Macleod Election Forum In Pincher Creek

Pincher Creek Health-Care Forum Draws Large Audience

UCP Candidate Calls Out Heart Attack Survivors

Claresholm Politician Enters UCP Nomination Race For Livingstone-Macleod

Read more Livingstone-Macleod articles

 

 

Alberta | AB, Alberta Advantage

NDP candidate Kevin Van Tighem – smiling white man with short grey hair wearing a grey dress shirt

Alberta NDP candidate Kevin Van Tighem

Written on . Posted in Alberta.

Six candidates are vying for your vote on May 29, hoping to be Livingstone-Macleod’s next MLA. All were invited to submit a piece outlining their election platform for publication in Shootin’ the Breeze.

Until last year, I was always non-partisan and was never involved with politics.

But that ended when I saw what the UCP was doing to the province I love and call home. 

I started my campaign about a month before being appointed as the NDP candidate for Livingstone-Macleod at a nomination meeting last November.

Since then, I’ve had conversations with people on over 2,000 doorsteps in Coleman, Fort Macleod, Beaver Mines, Pincher Creek, Blackie and High River. When counting the conversations volunteers on our team have had, we’re well past 5,000 doors.

Each conversation has been fascinating, meaningful, and even heartbreaking. After more than three decades of working with neighbours on what matters here, I thought I knew Livingstone-Macleod.

I now realize I had barely scratched the surface.

I’ve talked to people who’ve lost their family doctor and can’t get primary care. The severe challenges facing rural health care under the UCP have forced people to turn to emergency rooms instead of walk-in clinics or doctors’ offices.

I’ve heard about expectant mothers driving to Calgary on winter roads for maternity care because Fort Macleod and Pincher Creek can no longer have it.

On the other side, doctors have told me they are burnt out and frustrated. They’re too busy to take on more patients. A nurse told me she and her whole team are in counselling after three years of constant work, overtime and pressure — all while the UCP government disrespects them.

I spoke with an elderly woman who has to stretch her pension further to keep up with her rising mortgage and utility bills. Now, she has to rely on the food bank. She used to donate before the UCP took the caps off utility rates. Now she’s a client. 

Doorway after doorway, I’ve learned of our communities’ challenges. It’s been sobering. It’s also been inspiring.

I’m more determined than ever to represent the people in my community and make sure a trustworthy government hears these concerns and acts.

Politics has to be about more than partisanship and political games; it has to be a sincere offer and commitment to deliver a better future.

That’s why my team and I have been to every community in our riding. It’s why we started hosting meet-and-greet sessions in the winter and have gone to school meetings, health workshops, trade fairs and countless other gatherings. 

We are in this for our neighbours and their families.

And what we’re seeing is more Alberta NDP supporters. Almost a third have told me they are conservatives but cannot vote, in good conscience, for what the UCP has become under Danielle Smith’s chaotic leadership. 

Last November, I chose to fight for a better future for Alberta by stepping out of retirement to run for the party that puts people first: the Alberta NDP. I am running with a real leader who cares and who’s focused on what matters to Albertans: Rachel Notley.

I want people to know I’ve done my homework, and you can rely on me. I am in this for Livingstone-Macleod and the families, communities and land we all cherish.

Albertans head to the polls Monday, May 29.

Advanced voting is open May 23 to 27.

For voter information, including polling stations, see pages 9 to 11.

View Crowsnest Pass election forum videos here: Part 1, Part 2

Individual candidate statements:

Dylin Hauser – Alberta Liberal Party

Kevin Van Tighem – Alberta New Democratic Party

Kevin Todd – Alberta Party

Erik Abildgaard – Independent

Corrie Toone – Independence Party of Alberta

Chelsae Petrovic – United Conservative Party

Related articles:

Livingstone-Macleod Candidates Make Last Appeals At Crowsnest Pass Forum

‘Not Notley’ Sign To Come Down, Says MD Of Pincher Creek

Scheduling Conflicts Derail Livingstone-Macleod Election Forum In Pincher Creek

Pincher Creek Health-Care Forum Draws Large Audience

UCP Candidate Calls Out Heart Attack Survivors

Claresholm Politician Enters UCP Nomination Race For Livingstone-Macleod

Read more Livingstone-Macleod articles

 

 

Alberta | AB, Elections | Referendums, Kevin Van Tighem, New Democratic Party, Rachel Notley

RMA convention a success, says president McLauchlin

Written on . Posted in Uncategorized.

Members generally approved of the province’s new funding formula for rural municipalities, although McLauchlin said there was room for improvement. 

Premier Danielle Smith, who addressed the convention March 22, was especially well received. 

“Her speech was very good. Our members were pleasantly surprised,” McLauchlin told Shootin’ the Breeze after the convention wrapped up. 

In her speech, Smith said the 2023 provincial budget would deliver over $2 billion in capital investments to rural municipalities over three years. Her government was working hard to cut ambulance wait times and had signed agreements to bring in doctors from outside Alberta, one of whom is now working full time in Blairmore, she said.

In particular, McLauchlin said budgetary adjustments to rural municipalities’ provincial funding streams show a more genuine partnership between RMA members and the province. 

If passed, budget 2023 will tweak Edmonton’s funding formula for rural municipalities by fully indexing rural funding in a given year to provincial revenue from three years earlier, whereas the outgoing formula had indexed funding to half of provincial revenue.   

“It’s pegging municipal funding to [Alberta’s] prosperity. We’re fully in agreement with the core concept,” McLauchlin said.

In practice, the president said, baseline funding for rural municipalities under the outgoing Municipal Sustainability Initiative was much more robust three years ago than what members can initially expect from the incoming Local Government Fiscal Framework, which takes hold in 2024. 

The RMA remains at loggerheads with the province over the province’s recent “downloading” of financial obligations onto municipalities, including policing costs. Members also want to see orphaned oil and gas wells reclaimed at the industry’s expense, whereas the latest version of the province’s Liability Management Incentive Program (formerly RStar) would subtract companies’ reclamation costs from their provincial royalty payments on non-renewable resources. 

To that point, McLauchlin said Energy Minister Peter Guthrie assured RMA members at the convention that the province hopes to consult more with rural municipalities. 

“On the whole, this was probably one of the better conventions we’ve had in a while. We feel that we’re being heard,” McLauchlin said. 

Scott Johnston, press secretary for Alberta Health, later explained that the Blairmore doctor mentioned in Smith’s speech joined the Crowsnest Pass Health Clinic in late January, having signed a three-year service agreement under the province’s Rural Education Supplement and Integrated Doctor Experience program. The new doctor came from British Columbia and now runs a family practice at the health clinic.

 

 

Alberta | AB, Liability Management Incentive Program, Municipal Councils | Governments, Paul McLauchlin, Peter Guthrie – Government of Alberta, RMA Convention, Scott Johnston

Reader opposes Sovereignty Act

Written on . Posted in Opinions.

If adopted, the Sovereignty Act will forever change how Alberta functions inside or outside of Canada.

There has been a lot of press coverage of the Sovereignty Act over the past few months. It was a major plank in Danielle Smith’s campaign to become leader of the UCP.

As we all know, Danielle won with just over 60,000 votes, in a province with more than four million citizens. With that as a mandate, she took over as premier, and has embarked on a program that will fundamentally alter the relationship of Alberta with the rest of Canada.

The premier had repeatedly asked that the Sovereignty Act not be judged until it had been tabled in the legislature. That happened last week, and there were some surprises in the package the government submitted.

Taking the premier at her word, I read the act carefully, and was surprised. I am not a lawyer, but I cannot help but think most members of the cabinet must have skipped the high school classes on how our democracy works.

The first and most important point is that you rarely get everything you want. You have to be gracious when you win, and accept it when there are outcomes you are unhappy with.

Canada and its laws are not a smorgasbord. You do not get to pick and choose the laws that you like, and ignore the ones you do not like.

If you believe a law, any law, is wrong, there are ways to express your views. The most serious is to take the law to court, and to abide by the ruling.

If we adopt a pick-and-choose approach, things start to fall apart. If the provincial government can ignore certain laws, why couldn’t a city do the same thing to provincial laws? Indeed, why would a private citizen be required to follow a law that disadvantaged them?

The situation gets even more complex when you note that Bill 1 would allow the provincial government to rule against things that have not even happened. The language in the bill allows government to act against any perceived intention by the federal government to do something.

A basic aspect of our laws is that we cannot be convicted for simply thinking about doing something illegal. Even talking about doing something is not usually a crime. In Bill 1, that assumption of innocence seems to have been forgotten.

Our system also requires that the legislature have an opportunity to debate changes to laws. Bill 1, as written, will allow cabinet to make laws and proclaim them, without any debate in the legislature. Those laws are in force for up to two years, and can then be renewed without legislature debate for a further two years.

There are news reports that the bill will now be amended to remove the lawmaking portions. This raises the question of why the bill was introduced with that language in it. Do the politicians not read their own legislation? Or was it a power grab that they hoped no one would notice?

Neither option is reassuring. In one reading, they are just incompetent. In the other, they are dictators-in-waiting.

So, we have a bill that will allow a small number of legislators to try and cancel a national law. It further allows cabinet to direct a large number of other bodies, including your local hospital, police force and the whole educational system, to also ignore federal law.

There appears to be no consideration of the degree to which at least some of those bodies must interact with the federal government, and that interaction requires the bodies to follow federal rules.

I find it disturbing that there does not appear to have been consideration of what the federal response to Bill 1 might be. There seems to be an assumption that the federal response will be either a legal challenge or nothing. However, that may be incorrect, as there are many actions that Ottawa could take that would have dramatic impacts on Alberta.

The premier has been loud in her demands that the Canadian government stay out of areas of provincial jurisdiction. Exactly what that might mean has not been spelled out, but there are some obvious areas where dramatic change might happen.

Health care is a provincial responsibility under our Constitution. Despite that, there are multiple shared-cost programs, where the provinces receive federal dollars to help deliver programs. If Ottawa stopped their cost-share, Alberta would lose several billion from the health budget.

The UCP government has vigorously promoted a provincial police force. They admit that would cost tens of millions of dollars more than the current arrangement. They also note that it would take several years to set up a completely new force. But, the current contract allows either party to cancel on two years’ notice. If Ottawa simply exercised that option, Alberta might have a very hard time replacing the RCMP by 2025.

Many students receive scholarships and similar support from federal bodies, especially at the university level. The universities and such also receive large sums from the federal government. If Ottawa decided that since education is a provincial responsibility they would stop their financial contributions, many students and institutions would be in serious trouble.

There will also be economic impacts. No large company is likely to start or expand operations where two levels of government are in a fierce battle. If there is an alternative place to invest, they will likely avoid Alberta until things are sorted out.

In short, this bill, if adopted, will forever change how Alberta functions inside or outside of Canada. If Ms. Smith really wants to make such sweeping changes, she should at least wait until after we have an election.

Alan Garbutt
Resident of Cowley, Alberta

 

Shootin’ the Breeze welcomes submissions about local issues and activities. Personal views expressed in Mailbox articles are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect views of Shootin’ the Breeze management and staff. 

 

 

Alberta | AB, Alberta Sovereignty Act, Bill 1, federal laws, UCP

Man blowing nose into handkerchief while woman wearing non-medical mask has hands in the air fending off germs

Respiratory illness outbreak at MHHS

Written on . Posted in Community Life.

A “respiratory illness outbreak” was announced at Matthew Halton High School in Pincher Creek on Tuesday, Nov. 22, according to Darryl Seguin, superintendent at Livingstone Range School Division. 

The outbreak came into effect at MHHS after at least 10 per cent of the 278 students stayed home with respiratory symptoms.

Schools are asked to notify Alberta Health Services’ Co-ordinated Early Identification and Response team whenever absenteeism due to respiratory illness hits 10 per cent or when there’s an unusual number of individuals (off sick) with similar symptoms.

Tuesday’s announcement came one day after an outbreak was declared at Pincher Creek’s Canyon School.

No further outbreaks were reported within LRSD as of Wednesday afternoon. A prior outbreak had been announced at the school division’s early-learning program at the Horace Allen School in Coleman. 

Seguin didn’t say if LRSD has the authority to impose masking mandates. Premier Danielle Smith announced earlier this month that “Our government will not permit any further masking mandates of children in Alberta’s K-12 education system.” 

A Court of King’s Bench judge had previously ruled that a health order to this effect by Dr. Deena Hinshaw, formerly Alberta’s chief medical officer, “was made for improper purposes.”

Justice G.S. Dunlop ruled that the chief medical officer has the authority to mandate school health measures, but that Hinshaw had based her order on a political decision by cabinet.

Custodial staff at Canyon and MHHS are taking extra care to clean surfaces, while teachers are being encouraged to rearrange classrooms to allow for more social distancing, Seguin said. 

The outbreak seems to have spared teachers at MHHS, with Seguin saying staff absences due to illness have been normal for this point in the school year.

The division is home to about 3,750 kids in K-12.

 

 

Alberta | AB, Canyon School, chief medical officer of health, Children/Youth, Co-ordinated Early Identification and Response, Darryl Seguin, Dr. Deena Hinshaw, Horace Allen School, Justice G.S. Dunlop, Matthew Halton High School, MHHS, respiratory illness