Claresholm NDP

10/18/2026

As Canadian as Hockey? As Canadian as Maple Syrup?

10/17/2026

Alberta Lawyers and Retired Judges Sound the Alarm
Prairies Exposed
Oct 17
As Albertans prepare to vote in the province’s October 19, 2026 referendum, an open letter signed on behalf of Alberta lawyers and retired judges has raised serious concerns about Question 6, the proposal to transfer responsibility for selecting judges for Alberta’s Court of King’s Bench and Court of Appeal from the federal government to provincial governments.

The letter goes well beyond a disagreement over administrative responsibility. Its authors warn that the proposal risks politicizing judicial appointments, undermining confidence in Alberta’s courts and weakening the institutional safeguards that protect citizens from the arbitrary exercise of government power.

Their conclusion is unequivocal: they oppose Question 6 and urge a “NO” vote.
Referendum Question 6 asks:

“Do you support the Government of Alberta working with the governments of other willing provinces to amend the Canadian Constitution to have provincial governments, and not the federal government, select the justices appointed to provincial King’s Bench and Appeal courts?”

The proposal concerns Alberta’s two superior courts: the Court of King’s Bench and the Court of Appeal. These courts handle significant civil and criminal matters, appeals and constitutional disputes, including cases that can involve the provincial government itself.

Under the existing constitutional framework, superior-court judges are appointed federally under section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Alberta already appoints judges to the Alberta Court of Justice, which hears a substantial volume of matters across the province.

The distinction matters. Alberta does not currently lack a provincial role in its justice system. The proposed change would alter who holds constitutional responsibility for selecting judges to the province’s superior courts.

A referendum vote alone would not accomplish that transfer. A constitutional amendment would be required, ordinarily under the general amending formula involving approval by the federal Parliament and at least seven provinces representing at least 50 per cent of Canada’s population.

The practical consequences would depend on the constitutional amendment and the appointment arrangements ultimately adopted.

That leaves a fundamental question for voters: what specific system would replace the current one, and what safeguards would guarantee that judicial appointments remain independent of partisan considerations?

10/16/2026

(written by Rob Miller on Linked In)
I "voted" today in Alberta's costly and unnecessary referendum. The ten questions were leading (like most of the UCPs public consultations) and in case you couldn't figure out the answer that the questions were designed to make you choose, the Alberta government paid to send a pamphlet to every household in the province explaining how you should answer their question.
Well I gave my answers🖕
Now I have a dozen questions I want answered.
1. Let's start by answering this Doctor's questions about your goals to privatize healthcare.
2. Why did you intentionally kill $35 billion in clean energy investment in the province?
3. Why are you ramming through coal mines on the eastern slopes when Albertans clearly don't want them? And part B, why did you fraudulently reject Corb Lund's petition that would've put the coal mining question on the referendum?
4. Why did you suppress the Alberta teacher's union's legal right to strike and then use the notwithstanding clause to suppress their legal challenge of your back to work order?
5. Why did you reject the Alberta Boundary Commission's recommendations for the riding boundaries in the upcoming election then assign your people to redraw the boundaries? And Part B, do you think gerrymandering is one of the most awesome things about the US electoral system?
6. What is your relationship with Sam Mraiche and why is he connected with several scandalous government contracts?
7. Why did you scuttle the best plan for Calgary's Greenline transit expansion?
8. Why are you going to allow Suncor and other tar sands corporations to dump their "treated" toxic effluent from tailings ponds into the Athabasca water shed?
9. What backroom deal was made with Australian billionaire Gina Rineheart that involved an out of court settlement for $100 million dollars and approval for the development of her Grassy Mountain coal mine? (The coal mine that was already rejected due to strong opposition across the province.)
10. Have you ever ridden a bicycle and why do you hate bike lanes so much that you want to put the lives of cyclists at risk to score points with your separatist base?
11. Why did you create municipal parties to try and make Calgary and Edmonton city councils less progressive then turn around and force Edmonton to repeal their zoning bylaws when your UCP municipal takeover plan didn't work there?
12. When are you going to call an election?
For the majority of Albertans, question 12 can't be answered soon enough.

10/15/2026

Be Careful What You Wish For!

Alberta wants more power over Ottawa. Fair enough. But what if the constitutional weapon designed to give Alberta the upper hand ends up handing British Columbia the perfect excuse to throw a wrench into Alberta’s own pipeline plans?

That is the ironic paradox behind Question Nine of Alberta’s October 19, 2026, referendum.

Constitutional law professor Dwight Newman of the University of Saskatchewan and economist Andrew Leach have raised concerns about a proposal that could have consequences far beyond what its supporters might intend.

Here’s the problem.

Under Canada’s current constitutional framework, federal and provincial governments have different areas of authority. When valid federal and provincial laws conflict, the doctrine of federal paramountcy generally means that federal law takes precedence.

That principle matters. It helps prevent a province from using its own laws to frustrate a valid federal initiative.

But Alberta’s United Conservative Party (UCP) government wants to change the rules. It wants Albertans to give Premier Danielle Smith a mandate to pursue a constitutional amendment that would give provincial laws supremacy over federal laws in areas of conflicting jurisdiction.

The pitch? More provincial power. Less Ottawa calling the shots.

Sounds great—until you follow the logic across the provincial border.

Here comes the plot twist.

If Alberta wants its provincial decisions to trump conflicting federal decisions, what happens when another province gets the same advantage?

Imagine the proposed West Coast Pacific Link pipeline receives federal approval. Now imagine it needs to pass through Burnaby, British Columbia, where the city introduces a bylaw restricting tree removal along the proposed route. If the pipeline cannot proceed without cutting those trees, the bylaw could create a legal obstacle to construction.

Under the current constitutional framework, federal law can take precedence when a valid municipal or provincial rule conflicts with a valid federal decision, depending on the circumstances.

But if Alberta succeeds in changing the Constitution to give provincial laws greater power over conflicting federal decisions, other provinces could seek to use that same principle to their advantage. That could create new legal obstacles for pipelines crossing their territory.

In other words, Alberta’s attempt to gain more control over its own energy projects could give other provinces new grounds to challenge projects Alberta wants to build.

And that is the paradox.

Economist Andrew Leach captures the underlying logic with a pointed comparison: “If an Alberta oilsands mine approval can override a federal fisheries permit, then a B.C. tree-cutting permit can override a federal pipeline approval.”

Think about that for a moment.

Alberta wants the power to say, “Our decision takes precedence.”

But B.C. could turn around and say, “Fine. So does ours.”

Suddenly, the constitutional sword Alberta wants to wield could become a weapon pointed straight at its own energy ambitions. A proposal intended to strengthen provincial control could introduce another layer of uncertainty for projects that cross provincial boundaries.

And pipelines, by their very nature, do exactly that.

Of course, there is an important caveat: a “Yes” vote on Question Nine would not automatically change Canadian law or give municipalities an immediate veto over federally approved pipelines. It would direct the provincial government to pursue negotiations with the other nine provinces for a constitutional amendment—a formidable undertaking that would face significant legal and political hurdles.

There is no guarantee that such an amendment would be negotiated, adopted, or interpreted in the way critics fear.

But that does not make the underlying question any less important.

Before Albertans vote, they deserve to know not just what greater provincial power might accomplish, but also how that power could be used by governments and municipalities they disagree with.

Because constitutional powers do not come with a label saying “For Alberta’s use only.”

The bottom line?

You cannot demand a constitutional system in which provincial governments can override federal decisions when it suits you, then assume that only your side will ever benefit from the new rules.

If Alberta wants to change the constitutional game, it needs to think beyond the next political victory—and beyond its own provincial borders.

After all, the last thing Alberta needs is to fight Ottawa for control over its energy future, only to discover that the new rules have handed its pipeline opponents another card to play.

Sometimes, the biggest political own goal is winning the power you asked for—only to discover that everyone else gets to use it.

💭 Could Question Nine accidentally kill Alberta's own pipelines? What’s your take?

10/14/2026

10/14/2026

ALBERTA'S LAW SOCIETY IN CRISIS: WHEN THE GUARDIANS OF JUSTICE START LOSING FAITH IN THEIR OWN INSTITUTION
Prairies Exposed
Oct 12
On October 9, 2026, Moira Rose Váně, KC, announced that she was resigning as an elected Bencher of the Law Society of Alberta. Her words were unmistakable: “The rule of law is under vicious attack in this province.” She went further, declaring that when an institution remains silent in the face of what is happening, “that silence is complicity.” These are not the words of someone quietly moving on from a voluntary position. They are the words of a lawyer who says she has lost faith in the institution she was elected to help govern.

Váně accused the Law Society of dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives developed over several years in response to the political ideology of Alberta’s current government. She argued that an institution’s commitment to principles means little if those principles disappear the moment defending them becomes politically inconvenient.

Her resignation statement is a direct challenge to the Law Society’s leadership. It also raises a larger question for Albertans: what happens when the people entrusted with protecting the integrity of the legal profession begin to believe that their own institution is failing to fulfil its purpose?

Source: Moira Váně’s resignation statement, reported on LinkedIn, October 2026.

An elected Bencher resigns, an entire legal foundation’s staff walks out, diversity and reconciliation initiatives are dismantled, and the government rewrites the rules governing professional regulators. Alberta’s legal establishment insists it remains committed to the public interest. But when those responsible for protecting the integrity of the justice system begin questioning the institutions they serve, Albertans deserve more than reassurances. They deserve answers.

There is something deeply troubling about the sequence of events unfolding around Alberta’s legal institutions.

It is not simply a disagreement over diversity, equity and inclusion, nor is it merely a dispute between a provincial government and a professional regulator. It is a growing confrontation over institutional independence, accountability and the meaning of the rule of law in a province where the government has undertaken significant changes to the bodies responsible for regulating professional conduct and supporting access to justice.
e legal profession begin to believe that their own institution is failing to fulfil its purpose?

A RESIGNATION THAT DID NOT COME OUT OF NOWHERE
To understand why Váně’s departure matters, it is necessary to look beyond the announcement itself and examine the developments that preceded it.

The Law Society of Alberta is not a government department, a political advocacy organization or an ordinary professional association. It is the independent regulator responsible for overseeing Alberta’s lawyers, their professional conduct and their obligations to the public. Its authority comes from provincial legislation, but its regulatory responsibilities require it to operate independently of the government of the day.

That independence is not a decorative feature. It is fundamental to public confidence in the justice system.

The Law Society’s own public statements emphasize that its purpose is to protect the public interest and ensure that competent, qualified lawyers serve Albertans. Its president, Bud Melnyk, reaffirmed that commitment in a July 2026 letter discussing the government’s legislative changes and the Society’s response.

Yet the events of the past year have created a difficult contradiction. The government has changed the rules governing professional regulation, the Law Society has revised its programming in response, and at least one elected Bencher has now publicly declared that the institution is no longer fulfilling its purpose.

The question is not whether the Law Society is entitled to disagree with government policy. The question is whether it can preserve its independence and public-interest responsibilities while adapting to legislation that has significantly altered the boundaries of professional regulation.

Source: Law Society of Alberta, President Bud Melnyk’s July 9, 2026 letter.

THE ALBERTA LAW FOUNDATION: FOURTEEN STAFF AND AN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GONE
If Váně’s resignation is a warning about confidence within the Law Society’s own governance, the events at the Alberta Law Foundation earlier this year provide another troubling chapter in the wider story.

In January 2026, the foundation announced that its executive director, Byron Chan, and all its staff had resigned their positions and left the organization. The foundation appointed consulting firm Optimus SBR to administer its operations during the transition.

This followed the Law Society’s decision to replace two of its representatives on the foundation’s board: Váně and Paul Chiswell. Their replacements were former Law Society president Ken Warren, KC, and Ron Sorokin, KC.

The timing was significant. The foundation had been at the center of a dispute over provincial legislation that expanded the Justice Minister’s authority over its finances and governance.According to CityNews’ January 17 report, Bill 39 gave the Justice Minister a role in approving grants above $250,000. Bill 14 expanded ministerial oversight of the foundation’s bylaws and allowed the minister to make, amend or repeal bylaws under the legislation.

The foundation had argued that these changes represented a fundamental shift in how legal services would be funded in Alberta. Its funding comes primarily from interest earned on lawyers’ pooled trust accounts, and a substantial portion supports Legal Aid Alberta and community legal services.

The foundation’s published figures showed that it awarded 126 grants worth $65.8 million during the 2024–2025 fiscal year. This is not an obscure administrative body with inconsequential responsibilities. Its funding decisions affect organizations that provide legal assistance to people who might otherwise struggle to access the justice system.

The government defended its intervention by pointing to concerns about governance safeguards, bylaws and financial oversight. Its position deserves to be recorded. But it does not erase the significance of what followed: two board representatives were replaced, and the executive director and all staff departed.