Emails obtained by LWC have revealed new details about how the Government of Alberta was pressuring the City of Calgary to accept an alternative alignment ahead of the Minister’s letter threatening funding on Sept. 3.

Those emails were obtained through a Freedom of Information request to the government, also outlined how the province was looking at using underground tunnels built but never used for the CTrain under Calgary City Hall.

In a chain of emails regarding meetings the province had with the City of Calgary and Green Line officials, Bryce Stewart, Deputy Minister of Transportation and Economic Corridors writing to Minister Devin Dreeshen, outlined what the province’s preferred position was on the Green Line alignment.

Writing to the minister, Stewart said that ahead of that Aug. 28 meeting, that material for what he understood the province’s preferred at-grade/elevated alignment through downtown Calgary would be provided.

Among those documents referenced were two PDFs for above ground alignments, and a word document outlining alternative alignments and positions, along with a Q&A document. The contents of those documents were not provided in the FOIP.

Stewart also said that the proposal aligned with what another party had proposed, but the identity of that party was redacted by the government.

“There is a two pager that lays out the current Green Line alignment (for context), the alignment the province would like to see and associated risks and mitigations. There are also some KMs that provide a narrative that could be used to frame what the province is asking the City to adopt,” wrote Stewart.

“The last attachment includes some proposed Q&As and also some proposed responses to positions that the City could reasonably take.”

Stewart said that a key outcome from that Aug. 28 meeting would be the City of Calgary and the Green Line come back with a plan on how they would execute on the province’s preferred alignment.

“The plan would include cost estimates, including how far south they can get with the existing budget and expected costs incurred from the change [REDACTED under 24(1)(a)].”

In a second email sent by Stewart to then Deputy Minister of Executive Council Ray Gilmour, and Deputy Minister of Infrastructure Mary Persson, he said that there were implications for the federal government’s Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP), and relations with Calgary.

“Mary, depending on how this evolves there could be implications for ICIP. Brandy, keeping you in the loop given the municipal relationship,” the email read.

City of Calgary resisted attempts by province to change already approved alignment

In a third email sent about the meeting, Stewart outlined the City of Calgary’s response to Gilmour, highlighting the number of concerns that were had with the province’s proposal.

“At the meeting this afternoon, the City of Calgary was resistant to considering other alignments. They highlighted the sunk costs, feasibility from a technical perspective, and legal liability of shifting the downtown underground alignment,” Stewart wrote.

“The Mayor also raised the review that the province did of the Green Line back in 2020 and then the review of the above grade solution proposed by the [REDACTED due to no response]. Basically, they pointed out that the province reviewed alternate alignments previously and did not raise any issues that have not already been dealt with.”

Stewart said that the outcome of the meeting was to be discussed between Minister Dreeshen and Premier Danielle Smith.

“We are preparing a short Statement of Work that they can discuss with the Premier to get her perspective on whether the province should do a review of an above grade alignment for the Green Line through downtown Calgary and also conduct independent due diligence of the City’s claims regarding the costs of changing the alignment at this stage.”

The outcome of that discussion was redacted by the province, as outlined by Stewart on Aug. 29, under section 24(1)(a) of the FOIP act, which governs how advice given by government officials can be declined to be disclosed to the public.

Although other emails outlined some of the impacts identified from the province’s preferred alignment, following that Aug. 28 meeting.

In a second email chain, started by Robert Quinton, the Executive Director for Strategic Procurement and Grants in the transportation ministry, to Stewart, with a redacted subject line, Quinton indicated that there were identified issues with the Plus 15 network.

“Attached is a draft one pager for your consideration. l’ve included a couple of options with possible mitigations/ways forward and possible recommendations. Please excuse the map. As the Calgary Plus 15 network will impact any elevated alignment, I thought I would try to include a map showing the impacts with the two potential alignments.”

Province sought to massage messaging away from ‘review’ label

Ahead of the Aug. 28 meeting, emails showed how provincial officials sought to head off questions from the City of Calgary, and potentially the public.

In an email sent between Stewart to Assistant Deputy Minister of Infrastructure Paul C. Smith, and Quinton, he outlined how he created a two-page document with responses based on what the City of Calgary asked for.

Quinton’s response to that email chain was in part commentary on the Q&A, but also an updated map that more closely aligned to the City of Calgary approved option.

Mike Long, Director of Communications with the Ministry of Transportation and Economic Corridors, also provided draft messaging for the province ahead of the outcome of that meeting with the City of Calgary.

By Aug. 30, however, Stewart made it clear that the communications surrounding the Green Line in the coming days ahead of Minister Dreeshen sending his letter to Mayor Gondek and Calgary City Council would be one that shied away from calling any delays to the Green Line a review.

“I’ve made it less about a review and more about developing an alternative alignment. I’ve also made the alignment piece less specific,” Stewart wrote.

Parts of how Stewart was changing the messaging was redacted by the province under sections 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b).

“l’ve left the validates more general at this stage. We don’t need to know who they are, they just need to be in place before meeting with the City. I assume we will want them to take a look at the SoW or ToR and confirm that we aren’t missing any crazy big risks in undertaking this work,” the email read.

“The formal SoW/ToR will be the big next step but I think this gives Minister Dreeshen something substantive to chew on over the weekend.”

In that same email, Stewart wrote that he was “copying in Mike from a comms perspective on the critical path and his thoughts on how the magic would unfold next week.”

“Copying in Vivian (acting for David Goodburn) as we will need Justice to identify any major legal risks to the province in undertaking the development of an alternate alignment. If there are material risks to the province from our actions (not just the City), we will need to include that as we have not previously raised that as a consideration.”

A response from Long to Stewart and Smith, outlined how he thought the province would need to make an announcement immediately after meeting with the City of Calgary.

“The risk of the information leaking before the announcement if we waited an extra day would be too great. I would bet that we would have an hour or two before the news leaked after the meeting SO I would recommend that our announcement should follow right after the meeting.”

As part of LiveWire Calgary’s commitment to transparency, and to our community funders, the entire FOIP document provided by the Government of Alberta is provided below.