Connect with us


MOEN: Is Canada’s Libertarian Movement Dead?

Perhaps we have moved past the point of no return. Perhaps we’ve reached the tipping point where political catastrophe and conflict is inevitable caused by the feedback loop of overwhelming government leading to fear and anger, leading to a still larger government.




Canadians know something is wrong with their country but can’t agree on a diagnosis. Big oil, rising populism, social conservatives, Justin Trudeau, mainstream media, immigration, globalists, Laurentian elites, greedy Albertans, CONservatives, and LIEberals have all been proposed by various factions as the cause of all our problems. The country has likely never been more divided.

Peace, harmony, and e pluribus unum can only be built on a foundation of liberty where the role of government is restrained to protecting the individual rather than imposing a mandate, a cure for complex problems. Unrestrained government divides people by creating a zero sum game of winners and losers. If your faction isn’t pointing the guns of government at the people causing all the problems then you are likely to have the guns pointed at you. 

The root of the problem then it would seem is unrestrained government offering itself as a tool to Canadians who are afraid. There are three strategies to deal with this problem.

Strategy One: Form government and legislate more liberty. This is the strategy offered by the Conservative Party. The problem is that in order to form government you need a platform that reflects culture and is firmly in the center of the Overton window of opinion. The result is clear. Majority Conservative governments that are helpless to do anything but marginally slow the growth of government. As Michael Malice put it, “conservatism is progressivism driving the speed limit.”

People’s Party Leader Maxime Bernier and Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer (source: Wiki Commons)

Strategy Two: Win a few seats on a principled platform. The problem with this strategy is that most motivated voters will vote against their worst fears rather than for their highest value as the Peoples Party just found out. In order to even win one seat you need to have a sufficiently watered down platform so as not to appear too radical. One can’t exactly proclaim, “Taxation is theft” or “legalize all the drugs”. 

Once committed to this strategy its hard to imagine how it simply doesn’t devolve into Strategy One. We saw this happen with the Reform Party gaining some electoral success, then uniting with Progressive Conservatives as it became frustrated by its ability to win.

Strategy Three: Focus on shifting culture. If you believe that politics is downstream from culture, then the most productive thing you can do is persuade individuals to disavow statism and embrace the philosophy of liberty. This is the strategy offered by the Libertarian Party which measures success not by number of votes gained but by number of libertarians created. It is difficult measure how effective this is. One can point to the fact that Bernier almost won leadership of a major political party by establishing himself as a libertarian candidate as evidence of the success of this strategy. Research seems to support the idea that a small tipping point of committed individuals is what creates social and political change, but it is a grind and devoid of any short-term gratification.

Statism is the opiate of the masses. People chase the dragon of electoral success, hoping that the narcotic hit will relieve their existential angst but find a pit of despair instead. The problem with opiate addiction isn’t the supply; it’s the demand. 

For too long liberty activists – myself included – have been focusing on the demand for more government by proclaiming the evils of unrestrained statism. This has worked about as well as Nancy Reagans, “Just say no” campaign. Rather than focus on the negative effects of statism, perhaps we need to focus our efforts on the positive outcomes of personal responsibility and the beauty to be discovered in liberty.

Securing a culture of liberty across Canada is the only way to ensure our nation’s continuation. Imagine a Canada where the federal government was so restricted in its powers that it collected almost no income tax and therefore had no money to redistribute in the form of Equalization payments or special interest subsidies. Do you think separatist sentiment would be as high as it is in the West right now? Do you think politics would be so divisive if all the programs people fight about at the federal level were instead provided at the municipal level? Imagine if people could escape terrible public policy by simply moving one town over.

Perhaps we have moved past the point of no return. Perhaps we’ve reached the tipping point where political catastrophe and conflict is inevitable caused by the  feedback loop of overwhelming government leading to fear and anger, leading to a still larger government. If that is the case then Western independence is the better option.

It may be that an amicable divorce is better than staying in a one-sided, loveless marriage where differences are irreconcilable and domestic abuse is the norm. If this is the route that the liberty movement decides to take, I hope that rather than being born in anger and resentment it will be born in the love of liberty. Separatists need to paint a picture of a golden city on a hill, where individual liberty rules and where everybody who is willing to contribute and affirm their commitment to a culture of liberty is welcome.  Whether we are fighting for a Canada united in liberty or Wexit, one thing is clear to me; our movement needs to be firmly rooted in love, not hate.  


TURNBULL: Canada is not well prepared to come out the other side

These radical climate enthusiasts ultimately destroyed our ability to ride out the impending storm on the horizon.




As the world wrestles with the ongoing Covid-19 crisis, it is important not to lose sight of the dark horizon that’s coming at us in the shape of an ominous financial thunder storm.

There will be geopolitical, economic, social, and procedural changes that will need to be addressed in very short order. The necessary changes that are about to occur not only change the landscape of Canada, but the entire world. It’s virtually impossible to predict what the end result will look like. 

There are two ways we can deal with the impending change: actively work towards creating a constructive way forward (proactively) or ignore the lessons of the mistakes that have been made and act out of necessity when the time comes (reactively).

Canada does not have the economic capacity to absorb the extreme negative cash flow caused by the extraordinary financial stresses this economic shut down has created. People’s day to day needs and survival at this point must be our primary focus with the survival of small, medium and large businesses a close second. In order for recovery to even begin, the population will need to know where our governments have failed and how we got to where we are.

It’s funny how silence can do more harm than words, particularly when it comes to failure. Ignoring the past is a self-imposed sentence to repeat it, unless we take this lesson and put it to practical use. 

Canada has a blank slate that gives us the opportunity to redefine our economic and political future. That future can be a story of success or another chapter in a sad and dark tragedy. The choice is ours. The painful part is admitting that we made mistakes and understanding that others are also accountable for where things went drastically wrong.

Writing a success story requires an unbiased assessment of what actually happened based on the facts and not opinion. Hiding, denying or intentionally misinterpreting facts or intentions by suggesting racism or discrimination is denying the truth and sets the plot in the wrong frame of reference. How the story of our future is written is something that will have a profound impact on the lives of all Canadians – with no exceptions.

The radical green movement took a very short-sighted approach to affecting the change they were trying to achieve. They neglected to educate people on the unintended economic consequences that accompanies their policies. 

It is a common opinion amongst Albertans that the actions of the radical green movement have greatly contributed to the struggles of the Canadian energy industry. Through inflammatory rhetoric, organizations such as Greenpeace, the Tides Foundation and LeadNow crippled investor confidence in the Canadian energy markets.

These radical climate enthusiasts ultimately destroyed our ability to ride out the impending storm on the horizon. In order to avoid those potholes in the road, the Kenney government would be well-advised to invoke a mentality that sternly deals with illegal attempts to blockade in any way our road to economic recovery. 

The Trudeau government’s failure to react to the situation in a responsible fashion has contributed more to the storm clouds than any other factor. They failed to close our borders, trusted suspect information coming out of China early in January and they failed to assess the situation for threats – all acting as catalysts for an economic storm causing substantial damage to the mental health of all Canadians. 

Canada may have been blessed with an abundance of resources; however, we have also been burdened with governance that is far too lenient and tolerant of those who break the law in an attempt to disrupt our progress. Most Canadians believe that we should develop our resources intelligently and responsibly, but our leadership has failed to understand that it is their job to advocate to fulfill our wishes. 

An uncertain future awaits us all in the coming months, which means the time to start creating the narrative is now. 

It is time to come to grips with reality and make the story of our future a success story instead of the dark sad tale it has become.

Pat Turnbull is a former legislative staff member of the Wildrose Party

Continue Reading


NAVARRO-GENIE: Eco-ideologues at the ready to profit from crises

In real life, radical environmentalists similarly eclipse humanity behind the dreams of a soon-to-be-realised eco-nirvana.




When professors around the country were busy figuring ways to deliver their classes online, two faculty members at the University of Alberta wrote a letter and enlisted the endorsement of some 200 of their leisured colleagues at 33 universities in Canada. A crisis must not be wasted.

From the privileged positions of publicly paid jobs, the Alberta authors urge Ottawa to stall the COVID-19 help to the oil industry with an old idea minted in bureaucratic hell: they want the prime minister to start a new cycle of consultations.All other aid should be expedited. Only aid to oil companies need be trapped in nightmare. 

Their dream is to shut everything down that can be shut down in the oil patch, start an endless process of consultations while oil workers are sent to retrain. The recommendation does not include training camps for oil workers. 

It’s hard to imagine such a rushed petition from level-headed people during a national emergency. In what seems a lack of awareness of the consequences, they advise to get on it right away because “we have no time to lose.” The classic let’s-hurry-up-and-wait!

It is radical ideology at work. Ideologies are grids of interpretation (and we all use them). In radical cases, however, ideology descends into zealotry and induces the adopter into a self-inflicted disconnect from reality. There is no greater evidence of a mind infected with a radical ideology than when ideologues subordinate all things to their awaited goal, including human lives and their welfare. 

Radical ideologues are prepared to inflict pain and suffering for the sake of accelerating the advent of the future they expect to arrive soon. Some skilfully use crises to rush their goals. Typically, they see the misery they unleash in the process as the price to pay for the application of the ideas to create a new world, a new society, or a new natural equilibrium – in the case of eco-radicals.

The Twentieth Century is littered with examples of enlightened creatures who have unleashed unfathomable suffering upon more than 100 million people. 

Some great works of literature have depicted the inner workings of ideological systems. They make excellent quarantine reading.

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston and Julia fall victim to extraordinary indignities at the hand of the state apparatus, are subjected to constant surveillance, abuse and torture, to enforce a status quo of squalor and oppression that had long betrayed the society of equality and prosperity the enlightened revolutionaries once promised. 

In Darkness at Noon, Arthur Koestler depicts the experiences of Nicholas Rubashov, a Communist party official charged with enforcing ideological purity, until the repressive machine he helped to build turns toward him. Slowly, he becomes aware that the compassion he now hopes from others has been replaced by the conviction of ideas, discernment has been replaced by the dreams of the future, and decency thoroughly eroded by ideology. 

In both novels, people who belong to a group deemed politically or economically undesirable are sacrificed by the designs of a few enlightened figures, who claim to know and speak for the collective good of all. Only the final goal mattered.

In real life, radical environmentalists similarly eclipse humanity behind the dreams of a soon-to-be-realised eco-nirvana. Earth First!ers once relished the thought of millions of people dying of HIV, viewing people as parasites. Today, with similar impulses, Extinction Rebellion seeks to place environment ahead of all things and replace governments with eco-sensitive assemblies to rule over us.

It is not that concern for the environment is bad. It is no worse than the Communist concern for workers. But deep-ecology ideologues favour “Nature” to the detriment of human welfare (as though humans were not natural) in the same way that communists sacrifice workers to create a “New Man.”

To be clear, I am not suggesting UofA academics want oil patch workers exterminated. They only want oil workers’ job to disappear by incantation. But I am saying they want to use the COVD-19 crisis to push their agenda of ecological purity at the expense of human welfare in Alberta. Their position is radically ideological. It demonstrates three disconnects in certain corners of academe: an unusual disconnect with compassion, with the socio-economic realities of the present crisis, and with the sentiments of the common Albertan, who is wisely capable of simultaneously supporting environmental concerns and responsible energy extraction.

Marco Navarro-Génie is a columnist for the Western Standard, the President of the Haultain Research Institute and Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Continue Reading


MORGAN: Supply management is bad policy in good times. It’s terrible policy in bad times.

We can immediately reduce the food bills for all Canadians simply by ending our supply management system.




My wife grew up on a small farm near Rockyford, Alberta. Her father had a small dairy operation with a dozen cows. Cream would be separated from the produced milk and sold. Remaining milk would be used to feed the household and supplement livestock feed. There would still be a large amount of milk remaining every day as the family could only consume so much. That milk would be poured into a nearby ditch. 

Why would a farm family with limited income pour away a product which other families have to pay dearly to purchase? 

They had to. It is was, and still is the law. The family farm only had a government-issued quota to sell cream. It would have been illegal for my wife’s father to sell a single drop of milk. 

Welcome to Canada’s supply management system. 

As the world enters an unprecedented economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments are going to have to find ways to reduce the cost of living for struggling families. Canada’s Soviet-style supply management system on dairy and poultry products adds nearly $600 per year to the average family’s grocery bill in order to benefit a small number of producers, primarily in Quebec. It is time to examine why we are punishing consumers with this terrible system. 

The government controls the number of producers and the amount of product they may produce through a rigid quota system. If a farmer is found to have 301 chickens on their farm without having a state-issued quota for them, the farmer can be charged. The same applies to turkeys, geese, eggs and dairy products. 

It is not an exaggeration to compare this system to that of the former Soviet Union. This is exactly how the USSR managed their agriculture, with predictable results. 

Currently, Canada’s dairy farmers are pouring milk down the drain as the Coronavirus shutdown has decimated demand for dairy products, and it is illegal for them to drop their prices in order to adapt to the change in demand. Families are literally rationed in how much expensive milk they may purchase right now, while producers are not allowed to sell them more.

Just ask any senior citizen of Ukrainian descent how well a centralized food supply management system served them in the 1930s. Governments manage pretty much everything poorly. Food is one of the areas where we least need their intervention. 

A diverse local food production system with a myriad of producers throughout the nation is the best way that consumers can avoid price and supply shocks due to global market incidents. It is impossible for producers to diversify their production under the current supply-managed system. 

When dairy supply management began in 1971, there were approximately 145,000 dairy farms in Canada. Today there are less than 10,000 and it is dropping as large operations continue to buy up limited quotas and push their competitors out of business. The average dairy farmer has a net worth of over $5 million. It’s pretty easy to prosper when the government literally makes it illegal for people to compete with you. 

In shedding our archaic supply management system, we would give agricultural producers a means to diversify their outputs while solidifying a more localized food supply. It would provide opportunities for increased local employment on these farms and competition will spurn innovation which would lead to entirely new value-added products for agricultural producers to sell. 

Dairy and poultry cartels jealously protect their monopoly through aggressive and effective lobbying of federal politicians. It was embarrassing to watch Andrew Scheer groveling to the dairy cartels as he was obligated to due to their propping up his leadership bid for the Conservative Party of Canada. The cartels have their hooks deeply embedded into the flesh of politicians in every (major) federal party and it is going to take a strong public call for an end to supply management in order to break these politicians loose. 

Federal Liberals have even begun musing about extending supply management to other agricultural sectors, citing the present crisis as their excuse. The Tories would have few legs to stand on in opposing its expansion into other sectors, since they so vigorously support its mandatory application in dairy and poultry. 

New Zealand and Australia used to have supply management systems like ours. They shed those systems and producers prospered despite the fear-mongering of their local cartels. Our agricultural producers will flourish with the constraints of supply management lifted as well. 

We are entering difficult times as a nation. We need to examine every possible way to help citizens recover from the economic shock of the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown. Food is a need and it must be kept as affordable as possible for citizens. We can immediately reduce the food bills for all Canadians simply by ending our supply management system. The only question we should be asking ourselves is why we haven’t done this already.

Cory Morgan is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading


Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.