What Was The Dangerous Purpose?

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

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

Up Next

Kamala Harris Would Be A Total Disaster For American Energy

Don't Miss

Why You Shouldn’t Fret Much Over Russian Election Interference

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Tucker Carlson: Longtime source says porn sites controlled by intelligence agencies for blackmail

conflict / 3 hours ago

Russia has sent the West a message: Don’t provoke us into escalating the war

illegal immigration / 3 hours ago

Texas offers land for use for Trump deportations

Alberta

Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes

Published on November 22, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.

On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.

“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal.

During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.

Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.

Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.

Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.

However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form.

When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.

Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.

“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.

Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children.

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.”

Alberta

Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn

Published on November 21, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Tegan Hill

According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.

The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.

For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).

And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.

In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.

This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.

Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.

Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.

Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.

When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.

According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.