Alberta
‘Coutts Two’ Verdict: Bail and Mischief
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.”
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.
Author:
Better, faster, more affordable auto insurance
Alberta’s government is introducing a new auto insurance system that will provide better and faster services to Albertans while reducing auto insurance premiums.
After hearing from more than 16,000 Albertans through an online survey about their priorities for auto insurance policies, Alberta’s government is introducing a new privately delivered, care-focused auto insurance system.
Right now, insurance in the province is not affordable or care focused. Despite high premiums, Albertans injured in collisions do not get the timely medical care and income support they need in a system that is complex to navigate. When fully implemented, Alberta’s new auto insurance system will deliver better and faster care for those involved in collisions, and Albertans will see cost savings up to $400 per year.
“Albertans have been clear they need an auto insurance system that provides better, faster care and is more affordable. When it’s implemented, our new privately delivered, care-centred insurance system will put the focus on Albertans’ recovery, providing more effective support and will deliver lower rates.”
“High auto insurance rates put strain on Albertans. By shifting to a system that offers improved benefits and support, we are providing better and faster care to Albertans, with lower costs.”
Albertans who suffer injuries due to a collision currently wait months for a simple claim to be resolved and can wait years for claims related to more serious and life-changing injuries to addressed. Additionally, the medical and financial benefits they receive often expire before they’re fully recovered.
Under the new system, Albertans who suffer catastrophic injuries will receive treatment and care for the rest of their lives. Those who sustain serious injuries will receive treatment until they are fully recovered. These changes mirror and build upon the Saskatchewan insurance model, where at-fault drivers can be sued for pain and suffering damages if they are convicted of a criminal offence, such as impaired driving or dangerous driving, or conviction of certain offenses under the Traffic Safety Act.
Work on this new auto insurance system will require legislation in the spring of 2025. In order to reconfigure auto insurance policies for 3.4 million Albertans, auto insurance companies need time to create and implement the new system. Alberta’s government expects the new system to be fully implemented by January 2027.
In the interim, starting in January 2025, the good driver rate cap will be adjusted to a 7.5% increase due to high legal costs, increasing vehicle damage repair costs and natural disaster costs. This protects good drivers from significant rate increases while ensuring that auto insurance providers remain financially viable in Alberta.
Albertans have been clear that they still want premiums to be based on risk. Bad drivers will continue to pay higher premiums than good drivers.
By providing significantly enhanced medical, rehabilitation and income support benefits, this system supports Albertans injured in collisions while reducing the impact of litigation costs on the amount that Albertans pay for their insurance.
“Keeping more money in Albertans’ pockets is one of the best ways to address the rising cost of living. This shift to a care-first automobile insurance system will do just that by helping lower premiums for people across the province.”
Quick facts
- Alberta’s government commissioned two auto insurance reports, which showed that legal fees and litigation costs tied to the province’s current system significantly increase premiums.
- A 2023 report by MNP shows
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
Ottawa’s avalanche of spending hasn’t helped First Nations
Five Government Programs That Musk’s Government Efficiency Agency Could Put On The Chopping Block
It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones
Trudeau government to roll out another digital border crossing app by 2026
The Revolution of 2024: A Rare Victory for Anti-Establishment Fury
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
-
conflict1 day agoUS and UK authorize missile strikes into Russia, but are we really in danger of World War III?
-
Alberta2 days agoProvince considering new Red Deer River reservoir east of Red Deer
-
John Stossel2 days agoGreen Energy Needs Minerals, Yet America Blocks New Mines
-
Alberta1 day agoEarly Success: 33 Nurse Practitioners already working independently across Alberta
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day agoToronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
armed forces1 day agoJudge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
ESG2 days agoCan’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
International24 hours agoElon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy Outline Sweeping Plan to Cut Federal Regulations And Staffing