Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has delivered a new version of why she engaged in a controversial phone call with a Calgary street pastor in which they discussed his upcoming criminal case related to COVID-19 public health measures.
Smith told her weekly phone-in radio show Saturday that she took the call from Artur Pawlowski because she thought it was going to be in the context of his role as the leader of another political party.
She said when the discussion veered into Pawlowski’s court case, she simply reminded the former head of the Alberta Independence Party that she had tried to gain amnesty for COVID accused but was told by justice officials the cases must play out independently, and that she accepted that advice.
She also said she disagrees strongly with Pawlowski’s “extreme views.”
“When we talked, I thought we were talking in the context of him being a political party leader because [Pawlowski] was at the time the head of the Independence Party,” Smith told her Corus radio audience on her show Your Province Your Premier in response to a question from the host.
“It turned into a discussion about what I was doing with COVID amnesty.
“And I’ve been very clear about what I was trying to do with COVID amnesty. I campaigned [for the party leadership] on it. I said I would look into ways in which we might be able to address the non-violent, non-firearms-related, non-contempt-of-court-related charges.”
Pawlowski was contacted by the premier in a since-leaked phone call prior to his trial date. (Artur Pawlowski/Facebook)
The 11-minute phone call took place in early January, weeks before Pawlowski went on trial on charges related to the 2022 protest at the U.S. border at Coutts, Alta., over COVID restrictions.
He was charged with breaching a release order and mischief for allegedly inciting people to block public property at the border crossing.
He was also charged under the Alberta Critical Infrastructure Defence Act with willfully damaging or destroying essential infrastructure.
The trial has ended but the judge has yet to render a verdict.
NDP justice critic responds
A recording of the pre-trial phone call was obtained by the Alberta New Democrats and played for media on March 29.
In response to the account Smith offered on Saturday, NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir wondered why politics never came up if the phone call was ostensibly to discuss politics.
“The entire call between Pawlowski and Smith is her describing her efforts to block these charges, either by weekly calls to prosecutors or her expressing her dissatisfaction to the attorney general and deputy attorney general,” said Sabir.
“This is yet another desperate move from Danielle Smith to distract from her attempt to block the prosecution of Pawlowski and others at Coutts.”
Alberta NDP justice critic Irfan Sabir renewed calls for an internal investigation. (CBC)
Sabir repeated a call for an expedited internal probe into the matter before Albertans go to the polls on May 29 for a provincial election.
Smith first publicly acknowledged that she had spoken with Pawlowski on Feb. 9 when asked about it at a news conference.
She answered at that time she had engaged in discussions with those facing COVID-related charges to tell them she had explored amnesty and that it was not possible. She did not say the Pawlowski discussion was supposed to have been about politics or that she had expected to be talking to him in his role as a party leader.
Considering defamation action
When the NDP released the call recording seven weeks later, Smith announced she would not discuss the issue publicly because she was considering defamation action and was acting on the advice of her lawyer.
Saturday’s explanation comes two days after reporters asked Smith whether the call with Pawlowski means her government has changed policy and that politicians were free to discuss active criminal cases with the accused.
Smith said there has been no policy change. She said it remains offside for politicians to discuss active court cases with accused, but her call with Pawlowski passed muster because it’s her job as an elected official to listen and act on concerns from members of the public.
Smith speaks at the Canada Strong and Free Network in Ottawa on March 23. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)
Legal experts say the call was a clear violation of the firewall between politicians and the justice system to prevent politicians from getting a say in who gets charged and how.
They note while Smith is heard on the call reminding Pawlowski she can’t intervene directly, she also confides in him that she is questioning justice officials “almost weekly” about the cases.
On the call, Smith is also heard sharing details of an internal disagreement over Crown case strategy with Pawlowski. She promises to make inquiries on Pawlowski’s behalf and report back to him while also telling him the charges against him were politically motivated.
Controversial figure
She commiserates with Pawlowski when he accuses the Crown prosecutor in his case of a last-minute “document dump” of files which he said was aimed at frustrating his defence.
Legal experts have also said regardless of the context, Smith at the very least should have ended the call when Pawlowski raised the issue of his case.
Pawlowski is a controversial figure in Alberta for his high-profile, disruptive demonstrations against the LGBTQ community and COVID-19 health rules.
The Alberta Independence party announced it was parting ways with Pawlowski as leader late last month, saying their values no longer aligned.
On the January call, Smith is heard telling Pawlowski, “I’ve been watching your public advocacy for many years so it’s nice to connect with you.”
She struck a different tone on Saturday’s radio show.
“Obviously, Mr. Pawlowski holds some very extreme views that I disagree with completely,” she said.
Smith has faced questions about her involvement with prosecutors since telling the media in mid-January she regularly reminds Crown lawyers the cases can only be pursued if they are winnable and in the public interest.
She later walked those comments back, saying she didn’t talk to front-line prosecutors but only senior justice officials, as is proper. Her assertion is backed up by the Justice Department.
A vehicle towing a sign in support of Pawlowski sits parked just around the corner from the Lethbridge Courthouse where Pawlowski was being tried in relation to the Coutts border blockade. (Ose Irete/CBC)
Since then, Smith has offered multiple, at times conflicting, explanations on who she talked to, what was discussed and when. She has said the talks were only about broad prosecution principles but has also said they were about issues related to the cases. She has stated the talks were ongoing and that the talks had ended.
On April 2, lawyers representing Smith sent a notice of defamation letter calling on the CBC to retract and apologize for a January story. The article alleged a member of her staff sent emails to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service challenging how it was handling court cases from the Coutts blockade.
While the CBC says it stands by its reporting, Smith has said a review found no evidence of contact between her office and the prosecution service.
That review has also featured conflicting statements from the Justice Department on how far back the search went on any emails between the department and Smith’s office.
Smith said her United Conservative Party, not the government, is paying for the lawsuit. Smith’s office and the party have declined to say why the party is paying.
Smith has long been critical of COVID-19 masking, gathering and vaccine mandate rules, questioning if they were needed to fight the pandemic. She has called them intolerable violations of personal freedoms.
NEW YORK (AP) — In a new video posted early Election Day, Beyoncé channels Pamela Anderson in the television program “Baywatch” – red one-piece swimsuit and all – and asks viewers to vote.
In the two-and-a-half-minute clip, set to most of “Bodyguard,” a four-minute cut from her 2024 country album “Cowboy Carter,” Beyoncé cosplays as Anderson’s character before concluding with a simple message, written in white text: “Happy Beylloween,” followed by “Vote.”
At a rally for Donald Trump in Pittsburgh on Monday night, the former president spoke dismissively about Beyoncé’s appearance at a Kamala Harris rally in Houston in October, drawing boos for the megastar from his supporters.
“Beyoncé would come in. Everyone’s expecting a couple of songs. There were no songs. There was no happiness,” Trump said.
She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland – but she endorsed Harris and gave a moving speech, initially joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland.
“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said.
“A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said at the rally in Houston, her hometown.
“Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”
Harris used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.
Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.
Outside of sports and a “Cold front coming down from Canada,” American news media only report on Canadian events that they believe are, or will be, influential to the US. Therefore, when Justin Trudeau’s announcement, having finally read the room, that Canada will be reducing the number of permanent residents admitted by more than 20 percent and temporary residents like skilled workers and college students will be cut by more than half made news south of the border, I knew the American media felt Trudeau’s about-face on immigration was newsworthy because many Americans would relate to Trudeau realizing Canada was accepting more immigrants than it could manage and are hoping their next POTUS will follow Trudeau’s playbook.
Canada, with lots of space and lacking convenient geographical ways for illegal immigrants to enter the country, though still many do, has a global reputation for being incredibly accepting of immigrants. On the surface, Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver appear to be multicultural havens. However, as the saying goes, “Too much of a good thing is never good,” resulting in a sharp rise in anti-immigrant sentiment, which you can almost taste in the air. A growing number of Canadians, regardless of their political affiliation, are blaming recent immigrants for causing the housing affordability crises, inflation, rise in crime and unemployment/stagnant wages.
Throughout history, populations have engulfed themselves in a tribal frenzy, a psychological state where people identify strongly with their own group, often leading to a ‘us versus them’ mentality. This has led to quick shifts from complacency to panic and finger-pointing at groups outside their tribe, a phenomenon that is not unique to any particular culture or time period.
My take on why the American news media found Trudeau’s blatantly obvious attempt to save his political career, balancing appeasement between the pitchfork crowd, who want a halt to immigration until Canada gets its house in order, and immigrant voters, who traditionally vote Liberal, newsworthy; the American news media, as do I, believe immigration fatigue is why Kamala Harris is going to lose on November 5th.
Because they frequently get the outcome wrong, I don’t take polls seriously. According to polls in 2014, Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives and Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals were in a dead heat in Ontario, yet Wynne won with more than twice as many seats. In the 2018 Quebec election, most polls had the Coalition Avenir Québec with a 1-to-5-point lead over the governing Liberals. The result: The Coalition Avenir Québec enjoyed a landslide victory, winning 74 of 125 seats. Then there’s how the 2016 US election polls showing Donald Trump didn’t have a chance of winning against Hillary Clinton were ridiculously way off, highlighting the importance of the election day poll and, applicable in this election as it was in 2016, not to discount ‘shy Trump supporters;’ voters who support Trump but are hesitant to express their views publicly due to social or political pressure.
My distrust in polls aside, polls indicate Harris is leading by a few points. One would think that Trump’s many over-the-top shenanigans, which would be entertaining were he not the POTUS or again seeking the Oval Office, would have him far down in the polls. Trump is toe-to-toe with Harris in the polls because his approach to the economy—middle-class Americans are nostalgic for the relatively strong economic performance during Trump’s first three years in office—and immigration, which Americans are hyper-focused on right now, appeals to many Americans. In his quest to win votes, Trump is doing what anyone seeking political office needs to do: telling the people what they want to hear, strategically using populism—populism that serves your best interests is good populism—to evoke emotional responses. Harris isn’t doing herself any favours, nor moving voters, by going the “But, but… the orange man is bad!” route, while Trump cultivates support from “weird” marginal voting groups.
To Harris’s credit, things could have fallen apart when Biden abruptly stepped aside. Instead, Harris quickly clinched the nomination and had a strong first few weeks, erasing the deficit Biden had given her. The Democratic convention was a success, as was her acceptance speech. Her performance at the September 10th debate with Donald Trump was first-rate.
Harris’ Achilles heel is she’s now making promises she could have made and implemented while VP, making immigration and the economy Harris’ liabilities, especially since she’s been sitting next to Biden, watching the US turn into the circus it has become. These liabilities, basically her only liabilities, negate her stance on abortion, democracy, healthcare, a long-winning issue for Democrats, and Trump’s character. All Harris has offered voters is “feel-good vibes” over substance. In contrast, Trump offers the tangible political tornado (read: steamroll the problems Americans are facing) many Americans seek. With Trump, there’s no doubt that change, admittedly in a messy fashion, will happen. If enough Americans believe the changes he’ll implement will benefit them and their country…
The case against Harris on immigration, at a time when there’s a huge global backlash to immigration, even as the American news media are pointing out, in famously immigrant-friendly Canada, is relatively straightforward: During the first three years of the Biden-Harris administration, illegal Southern border crossings increased significantly.
The words illegal immigration, to put it mildly, irks most Americans. On the legal immigration front, according to Forbes, most billion-dollar startups were founded by immigrants. Google, Microsoft, and Oracle, to name three, have immigrants as CEOs. Immigrants, with tech skills and an entrepreneurial thirst, have kept America leading the world. I like to think that Americans and Canadians understand the best immigration policy is to strategically let enough of these immigrants in who’ll increase GDP and tax base and not rely on social programs. In other words, Americans and Canadians, and arguably citizens of European countries, expect their governments to be more strategic about immigration.
The days of the words on a bronze plaque mounted inside the Statue of Liberty pedestal’s lower level, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…” are no longer tolerated. Americans only want immigrants who’ll benefit America.
Does Trump demagogue the immigration issue with xenophobic and racist tropes, many of which are outright lies, such as claiming Haitian immigrants in Ohio are abducting and eating pets? Absolutely. However, such unhinged talk signals to Americans who are worried about the steady influx of illegal immigrants into their country that Trump can handle immigration so that it’s beneficial to the country as opposed to being an issue of economic stress.
In many ways, if polls are to be believed, Harris is paying the price for Biden and her lax policies early in their term. Yes, stimulus spending quickly rebuilt the job market, but at the cost of higher inflation. Loosen border policies at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was increasing was a gross miscalculation, much like Trudeau’s immigration quota increase, and Biden indulging himself in running for re-election should never have happened.
If Trump wins, Democrats will proclaim that everyone is sexist, racist and misogynous, not to mention a likely White Supremacist, and for good measure, they’ll beat the “voter suppression” button. If Harris wins, Trump supporters will repeat voter fraud—since July, Elon Musk has tweeted on Twitter at least 22 times about voters being “imported” from abroad—being widespread.
Regardless of who wins tomorrow, Americans need to cool down; and give the divisive rhetoric a long overdue break. The right to an opinion belongs to everyone. Someone whose opinion differs from yours is not by default sexist, racist, a fascist or anything else; they simply disagree with you. Americans adopting the respectful mindset to agree to disagree would be the best thing they could do for the United States of America.
PHOENIX (AP) — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent proponent of debunked public health claims whom Donald Trump has promised to put in charge of health initiatives, said Saturday that Trump would push to remove fluoride from drinking water on his first day in office if elected president.
Fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by replacing minerals lost during normal wear and tear, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The addition of low levels of fluoride to drinking water has long been considered one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century.
Kennedy made the declaration Saturday on the social media platform X alongside a variety of claims about the heath effects of fluoride.
“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. Trump and his wife, Melania Trump, “want to Make America Healthy Again,” he added, repeating a phrase Trump often uses and links to Kennedy.
Trump told NBC News on Sunday that he had not spoken to Kennedy about fluoride yet, “but it sounds OK to me. You know it’s possible.”
The former president declined to say whether he would seek a Cabinet role for Kennedy, a job that would require Senate confirmation, but added, “He’s going to have a big role in the administration.”
Asked whether banning certain vaccines would be on the table, Trump said he would talk to Kennedy and others about that. Trump described Kennedy as “a very talented guy and has strong views.”
The sudden and unexpected weekend social media post evoked the chaotic policymaking that defined Trump’s White House tenure, when he would issue policy declarations on Twitter at virtually all hours. It also underscored the concerns many experts have about Kennedy, who has long promoted debunked theories about vaccine safety, having influence over U.S. public health.
In 1950, federal officials endorsed water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, and continued to promote it even after fluoride toothpaste brands hit the market several years later. Though fluoride can come from a number of sources, drinking water is the main source for Americans, researchers say.
Officials lowered their recommendation for drinking water fluoride levels in 2015 to address a tooth condition called fluorosis, that can cause splotches on teeth and was becoming more common in U.S. kids.
In August, a federal agency determined “with moderate confidence” that there is a link between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower IQ in kids. The National Toxicology Program based its conclusion on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water.
A federal judge later cited that study in ordering the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to further regulate fluoride in drinking water. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen cautioned that it’s not certain that the amount of fluoride typically added to water is causing lower IQ in kids, but he concluded that mounting research points to an unreasonable risk that it could be. He ordered the EPA to take steps to lower that risk, but didn’t say what those measures should be.
In his X post Saturday, Kennedy tagged Michael Connett, the lead attorney representing the plaintiff in that lawsuit, the environmental advocacy group Food & Water Watch.
Kennedy’s anti-vaccine organization has a lawsuit pending against news organizations including The Associated Press, accusing them of violating antitrust laws by taking action to identify misinformation, including about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines. Kennedy is on leave from the group but is listed as one of its attorneys in the lawsuit.
What role Kennedy might hold if Trump wins on Tuesday remains unclear. Kennedy recently told NewsNation that Trump asked him to “reorganize” agencies including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and some agencies under the Department of Agriculture.
But for now, the former independent presidential candidate has become one of Trump’s top surrogates. Trump frequently mentions having the support of Kennedy, a scion of a Democratic dynasty and the son of former Attorney General Robert Kennedy and nephew of President John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy traveled with Trump Friday and spoke at his rallies in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Trump said Saturday that he told Kennedy: “You can work on food, you can work on anything you want” except oil policy.
“He wants health, he wants women’s health, he wants men’s health, he wants kids, he wants everything,” Trump added.
