Connect with us


JOHNSTON: Reefer Madness and the undoing of Andrew Scheer

After fighting against marijuana legalization, Scheer expects voters to believe he’s really a libertarian on social policy. They don’t.




In the October election, Andrew Scheer did what every conservative does when they get into trouble on social issues: pretend to be a libertarian. Wounded culture warriors on the right routinely take refuge in this kinder, gentler brand when under siege by the progressive left. But authenticity matters, and voters aren’t buying it.

When pressed on his opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion in a post-election interview, Scheer argued: “…you can have a personal view and you can acknowledge that, in Canada, the prime minister does not impose a particular viewpoint on Canadians.”

I like it.

It’s a perfectly reasonable position that reflects an understanding that 1) the state must be limited in both size and scope so that no citizen is subject to the capricious personal preferences of the political class, and that 2) culture should be allowed to develop organically in the private sphere. When market forces are allowed to work in the cultural arena, the best and most adaptive values and traditions are adopted, and the worst and least adaptive values and traditions fall away. Engineering a culture – like engineering an economy – doesn’t work and allows the government to pick winners and losers. That’s the theory anyway.

Millennial Libertarian Party supporter (Photo source: Matthew Johnston)

“I believe that Canadians understand that any number of people can have a different point of view on these issues. What’s important to them is to know whether a prime minister will make changes or seek to make changes,” Scheer said. “And my assurances to Canadians was that as prime minister, these types of debates would not be reopened.”

Again, sounds good.

Scheer is outlining what is essentially a culturally conservative and politically libertarian fusionist worldview. It’s a view held by many libertarians who, in their personal lives, adhere to traditional conservative values and believe that a free society is the best protection against infringements on the exercise of these values. There is also a school of thought in libertarianism that posits that traditional conservative values would grow in popularity with the declining influence of the state in both social and economic affairs. The paradox of this view is that libertarians would resist any attempt by government to criminalize behaviours – prostitution and drug use, for example – they themselves might agree are socially destructive. Andrew Scheer is not one of these people.

Despite his desperate assurances during the election that he has no interest in pursuing a socially conservative political agenda, voters didn’t trust him, and had no reason to.

The only major social reform coming out of the federal government since same-sex marriage in 2005 has been marijuana policy reform, an initiative intended to reduce the harm associated with the illicit marijuana drug trade and to end the unjust criminalization of its users. While it’s clear now that Trudeau’s legalization scheme has pleased neither the marijuana activists – who have demanded reforms for decades – nor the licensed commercial cannabis growers drowning in red tape, marijuana legalization was a good idea badly executed.

You can believe both that marijuana is a social problem and that prohibition makes that problem worse within the logical confines of a culturally conservative/politically libertarian worldview. But Scheer doesn’t hold this view. Scheer is personally opposed to marijuana use and did not hesitate to attempt to “impose a particular viewpoint” on the rest of Canadians, even if that meant putting peaceful marijuana users in jail. He failed to separate his personal views from his political views and hoped nobody would remember when he provided assurances of his live-and-let-live approach to social policy.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer

Since the Conservative leadership race, Scheer has led a campaign against marijuana policy reform. It started with a fundraising email sent to party supporters during the 2017 leadership contest in which Scheer warned of the Liberal “hidden agenda when it comes to illegal drugs: decriminalize them all.” And during debates on marijuana policy reform in parliament under his leadership, the Tories adopted a 1950s “Reefer Madness” hysteria to compliment their avalanche of bad social and economic arguments against drug policy reform.

Only after tremendous backlash to his hinting that a government under his leadership would re-criminalize marijuana did the drug war rhetoric ease up. Not because Scheer thought his critics were right, but because he thought it politically expedient not to say anything that might destabilize a growing commercial cannabis industry.

The Angus Reid Institute noted that “the vast majority of Canadians support legalizing marijuana, though they’re divided on whether using the drug is “acceptable.” In other words, the vast majority of Canadians are able to separate their personal views on marijuana from their political views. But not Scheer.

Seeking cover under the libertarian brand didn’t work for Scheer because he had already let voters know he was no friend of social freedoms. The move lacked both credibility and authenticity – and smacked of desperation. Had Scheer ignored the manufactured media outrage over his social views and defended an authentic conservatism, he may very well have done better. At the very least, he would have been carried off the field of battle on his shield as a hero to grassroots conservatives. Instead, social conservatives now think he’s weak and progressive conservatives think he’s a liability.

In the final analysis of the election loss, many Conservative partisans are insisting that it is no longer possible to elect someone who doesn’t march in Pride events or disavow his or her Christian views. This is bigoted nonsense. Scheer’s promise to keep his personal views separate from his political views was the right strategy. The problem was that voters who may be been persuaded by this argument remembered the Reefer Madness rhetoric and had no reason to trust him.

Matthew Johnston is the Opinion Editor of the Western Standard. mjohnston@westernstandonline.com


MORGAN: It’s time for Joe to go

Cory Morgan writes that other politicians have been driven from office for much, much less than what Joe did.




With news that the Calgary Police Service has asked the RCMP to begin an independent investigation into Councilor Joe Magliocca’s expense scandal, it becomes clear that it is time for Mr. Magliocca to step aside from his council seat.

Citizens have little patience for well-heeled politicians abusing expense accounts on the backs of taxpayers. In 2012, a $16 glass of orange juice expensed by Conservative cabinet minister MP Bev Oda caused such outrage that Oda eventually resigned in disgrace. It may have been small peanuts and the controversy overblown, but it was a symbol of disrespect to taxpayers, rightly or wrongly. Magliocca’s abuse of his expense account is much worse than anything Oda did.

This wasn’t a one-off – or even an accident – for Joe. A forensic audit concluded that there has been a pattern of personal expense abuse carried out by Magliocca for years. From room upgrades to luxury hotels, to airline seat upgrades, to what appears to be the outright fraudulent efforts to cover up the event hosting expenses by falsely adding names of attendees who were never there, it is clear that Magliocca has a serious and ongoing problem with abusing the taxpayer’s trust. Any private organization would have fired Magliocca years ago.

Conservatives are few and far between on Calgary’s city council. Councilor Joe Magliocca had been considered one of them. That makes Magliocca’s repeated and flagrant abuse of taxpayer’s dollars for his personal benefit all the more odious and damaging. Nothing undercuts calls for fiscal restraint more effectively than hypocrisy. How could or would anybody take Magliocca’s calls for the city to tighten it’s fiscal belt when he has so brazenly gorged on the taxpayer’s flesh himself?

It’s not as if Magliocca wasn’t paid enough as a counselor to begin with. With a base salary of $113,416 plus benefits and pension, along with an already generous expense policy, there was no excuse for Maglioca’s abuse his expense account so flagrantly. It is a slap in the face to taxpayers who are currently wondering how they are going to make their mortgage payments in light of ceaseless city tax increases and who can’t afford to go on vacations, much less lavish ones fully expensed by their employers.

So far Magliocca has been silent and keeping a low profile. Yes, he paid back a few thousand dollars, but that was of course only after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Joe knows he can’t justify this, so I am guessing that he hopes that if he keeps his head low that this will blow over. This is not going to blow over.

At this point, the only acceptable response from Joe Magliocca should be his immediate resignation as a city councilor. This may even serve Joe’s interests in a sense, because if there does indeed turn out to be criminal wrongdoing found and he is convicted, at least some evidence of remorse will have been shown prior to sentencing.

The next best thing at least would be for Magliocca to openly announce that he will not be running in the next election. His brand is befouled and there is no way he could win his seat on council again. It would leave Joe as a lame-duck councillor, but at least the path would be cleared for for principled candidates to begin campaigning to replace him in 2021.

If Magliocca does run again, he could cause damage to the entire outcome of the election. Joe could split the vote with a real conservative and put yet another free-spending councilor at the table at a time when Calgary can least afford one. Magliocca’s presence in the election would likely turn into a sideshow where his ill-behavior is used to try and discredit conservatives running in other wards or even for Mayor.

Joe Magliocca’s political reputation is irreparably damaged even if he doesn’t know it yet. The best thing Joe can do for the city of Calgary now is to step aside. This election is much too important and we can’t allow this circus to keep us all from finally getting the fiscally responsible mayor and council that we so desperately need.

Politicians have been driven from office for much, much less than what Joe did. It’s time for Councilor Magliocca to do the right thing.

Cory Morgan and a columnist for the Western Standard and a business owner in Priddis, Alberta.

Continue Reading


BARNES: Albertans deserve the right to make the big decisions in referenda law

Guest column from Drew Barnes says that Alberta’s referendum law should be expanded to allow votes on big constitutional issues.




Guest opinion column from Alberta MLA Drew Barnes

“I am and I will remain a populist, because those who listen to the people are doing their job.” Matteo Salvini.

At its core the word populism is the action that government policies should be determined by the will of the people, not the will of the elite. Direct democracy is the institutional populism in action.

There is debate over whether populism should be termed as a movement or an ideology. Since the actions of populist engagement can transcend the ideological spectrum, I believe it should be viewed as a movement, that can sometimes manifest itself ideologically. As a movement, populist participation can take place on all points of the spectrum. Ultimately, that is what is wanted from a democratic society – engagement from all points of the spectrum.

Now more than ever, we need a new grassroots-populist approach to politics. Grassroots politics by its nature suggests that it is a movement that is sparked from the bottom-up. Politicians who came from grassroots movements must never forget where they came from, or lose sight of what they came to do. We need more of the bottom-up approach to politics, and make listening to the people that elected us a priority.

This is taking place in some measure here in Alberta. Political party policy processes allow for constituency associations to generate policy proposals for conventions, where they are voted on by the membership. Every party in Alberta – with the exception of the NDP – uses a ‘one member, one vote’ system.

Another grassroots/populist tool is referenda, that when used the right way are a valuable democratic tool. Referendums however, must stay true to their purpose, and the process for bringing them forward must allow for citizens to craft their own – fair – wording on a question. This is not to say that any question – however subjectively worded – that anyone wants to ask should be put to a referendum. Therefore, the rules on the use of referendums must not be overly onerous, nor overly temperate.

Switzerland is a prime example of a country that takes full advantage of referendums, including citizens’ initiative. In their democratic system, referendums can occur up to four times annually. All citizens registered to vote can cast their ballot on issues affecting decisions within both their federal government and their cantons (autonomous provinces). Before each vote, all registered voters receive a package of booklets in the mail which provide details on the coming referendums. Since these referendums began in 1848, just under half of the referendum proposals have passed. Even if they don’t always pass, the process is crucial to starting conversations and keeping citizens involved in debate. Referendums also force political parties to reach beyond partisan lines to reach consensus.

Alberta’s legislature recently passed a bill that guides referendums on non-constitutional matters. While this is a positive step forward, there are issues in this bill that need improvement. 

For example, Albertans initiating a referendum might go through the process of collecting hundreds of thousands of signatures, only to have the cabinet alter the wording the question. While fair wording of the question is critical to the integrity of direct democracy, that issue is not best dealt with by politicians who may have a stake in the result. Instead, clear guidelines should be established in law on question wording, and left to non-partisan officials at Elections Alberta. 

And while the new referendum legislation is a big step forward over the status quo (that is, nothing), it deliberately bans citizens-initiated referendums on constitutional questions. This means that if Albertans wished to force a vote on adding property rights to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that they would not be allowed. Similarly, Albertans are barred from forcing a vote on reforming the Senate, equalization, or internal free trade. Ominously, Albertans have no right to force a vote over the heads of the legislature on independence or other forms of sovereignty. 

I believe that Albertans can be trusted with the right of citizens’ initiative on all questions, both constitutional and non-constitutional. 

We trust the people to elect a government to run our systems, so why can’t we trust them to bring their own questions forward? 

Drew Barnes is the UCP MLA for Cypress-Medicine Hat

Continue Reading


LETTER: Erin O’Toole isn’t “woke” enough to beat Trudeau in the East

A reader says that Erin O’Toole isn’t “woke” enough to beat Trudeau in the East.




In this ‘Era of Wokeness” along with the ascension of Black Lives Matter into the public consciousness, I believe that it would be detrimental to the Conservative Party of Canada to have Erin O’Toole as
it’s leader.

Mr O’Toole recently refused to use the word ‘racism’ and did not answer clearly when pressed on whether he believes it even exists. Erin O’Toole will hand the Trudeau Liberals an easy victory during the next election, should he become Tory leader. Canada cannot afford another four years of Justin Trudeau. 

Like it or not, most people in Ontario and Quebec (where all federal elections are ultimately decided owing to their number of allotted seats), are very much ‘woke’ on the issue of racism, as well as
sexism, homophobia, ect. In my experience, this also includes most Conservative Party of Canada voters in Eastern Canada.

Right-wing populism and social conservatism does well in Western Canada – but centrist Red Toryism is all they are prepared to accept in most of Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. CPC members in Western Canada need to keep this in mind when voting for their next leader. 

CPC members need to be sensible and realistic if they want to win the next federal election. 

Gila Kibner 
Edmonton, Alberta

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field


Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.