fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

FILDEBRANDT: Rempel should run

Rempel-Garner would be well advised to take up the mantel of Maxime Bernier and run with a clear and principled platform on immigration reform, Western alienation, and scrapping supply management.

mm

Published

on

The federal Conservative leadership race has a massive vacuum as Peter Mackay moves down an open and easy road to the Tory crown. With Rona Ambrose and Brad Wall out, there is no big Westerner in the race. With Pierre Polievre out, there is no big conservative or libertarian in the race. Unless Erin O-Toole can reinvent himself as the standard bearer of both, the top job will be Mackay’s by default.

For a party with its core in the West and on the right, it’s more than a bit curious that there isn’t a major candidate from either. In this wide-open field, Michelle Rempel-Garner has a rare opportunity.

In the 2017 race, Rempel-Garner (then just Rempel) sat it out not just as a potential candidate, but refused to even endorse anyone. Since then, she has fashioned herself into a unique and adventagous position.

She has staked out clearly and unambiguously that she supports gay rights and has zero interest in re-litigating issues that even most social conservatives have moved past. But she has not pushed herself into social-justice warrior, social progressive territory. She has been a champion of gun rights, a more rational immigration policy, and most notably, the West.

Rempel-Garner has the opportunity to put herself forward as the libertarian candidate à la Maxime Bernier (who would be in pole position to win if he were still in the party). Like Bernier, she has the ability to be an open champion of gay rights without falling into the trap of condescendingly lecturing everyone with more traditional views.

That said, if this is her plan, she isn’t off to a great start.

Richard Décarie emerged from the wilderness in Quebec to proclaim on national television that being gay was a “choice,” and that “LGTBQ is a Liberal term.” Nobody outside of this man’s village had ever heard his name before, but he successfully managed to grab headlines with his best caveman impression.

Rempel-Garner rightfully came out against him, but went too far in calling for the party to ban him from even running as a candidate. As repugnant as his views might be to even many reasonable social conservatives, barring him from running is an authoritarian approach to a man best dealt with at the ballot box. A more democratic and libertarian approach would have been to declare that she will wipe the floor with him as a canidate. He likely wouldn’t exceed much more than one per cent of the vote in any case.

But this was all in one of Rempel-Garner’s famous Twitter rants, which are surprisingly unrehearsed and genuine. One can hold out hope that calling to ban him from running was more akin to one of Trump’s impulsive tweets than deliberately thought-out policy.

The gay rights quagmire aside, Rempel-Garner has built strong bridges with the firearms community. While most Canadians don’t own guns, Canada still has one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world, and they are overwhelmingly CPC and PPC voters.

Rempel-Garner would be well advised to take up the mantel of Bernier and run with a clear and principled platform on immigration reform, Western alienation, and scrapping supply management.

Bernier came within a hair of winning the 2017 leadership race, and earned nearly 300,000 votes nationally, despite fears of “vote splitting”. Voters in a general election do not translate one-for-one into voters in an internal party leadership race, but PPC voters were an unconventionally ideological electorate willing to risk the “vote-splitting” boogieman based on policy principles. With the PPC now in limbo after the election, a candidate serious about appealing to them could bring many into (and back into) the fold.

While Bernier did remarkably well in the West, he had a glass ceiling on account of being an accented Quebecer. Bernier became the first francophone since Sir Wilfred Laurier to win Alberta in a major electoral contest, but that glass ceiling stymied his ability to run up the score in compensation for his weaknesses elsewhere.

Rempel-Garner doesn’t face this. As the only notable Westerner in the race, she would have home field advantage from Victoria to Winnipeg. Bernier’s leadership campaign was the only one to champion Equalization reform with a direct eye to winning over Westerners. While that was seen as radical at the time, it is probably the bare minimum that many Westerners will demand from leadership candidates this time – if the race is competitive.

It’s difficult to name anyone elected in Ottawa right now who has spoken more passionately and openly about the Prairie fire of discontentment with federalism right now. With an ear close to the ground in her Calgary constituency, she knows that it will take more than politicians donning “I love Canadian Oil & Gas” sweatshirts to make Westerners feel at home in their own country right now.

Rempel-Garner has built considerable public profile and would be an instant big name, but a run as a conventional establishment Tory would most likely be fruitless. The race already has those. In the absence of a candidate able to energize the conservative, libertarian and Western wings of the party, Mackay will waltz to an easy victory.

Only Rempel-Garner knows what’s in her heart. If it aligns with the leadership vacuum, she should run. And she just might win.

Derek Fildebrandt is the Publisher of the Western Standard and President of Wildrose Media Corp.

Opinion

CAMERON: Canada has embraced medical authoritarianism

“We are a long way from a free and democratic society right now. There is nothing “democratic” about public health officials’ orders. Canadians are living in a state of medical authoritarianism where the rule of law is in tatters, and constitutionalism and democracy with it.”

mm

Published

on

As Canada faces winter 2020 and the citizens of this country are threatened by politicians with a new wave of lockdowns, it is time to take stock and consider. 

There has never been a similar six-month period in the history of Canada like the period from April to September 2020.  The massive collateral damage from the lockdowns is akin to the national self-amputation of a limb.  The self-inflicted damage has been followed by an infuriating political nonchalance at all the blood.

With each passing day, it feels more and more like a stern reminder is needed for the ruling elite: that this figurative blood flows from real people. And it is still flowing.   

Over a million jobs have been destroyed, and with them the independence and hopes and plans of millions. The despair of families thus affected is stark and palpable.  I’ve met with scores of them recently, and they stare bleakly at their prospects for the future.  

The response from the political elite? More pontification about the benefits of the lockdowns. While Doug Ford bloviates and threatens, and Justin Trudeau administers the next dose of the globalist agenda, ratings agencies like Fitch and Moody’s quietly consider the ominous implications of Canada’s ongoing hari-kari.  

Against this grim backdrop stands another ugly truth: without a shot being fired, Canada, once renowned for its liberty and constitutionalism, has submitted to medical authoritarianism. 

In Canada, the Constitution Act, 1867 apportions law-making power to either Parliament or the provincial legislatures. The Constitution requires that people have representatives who consider, debate and make laws on their behalf.

There is nothing democratic about the oppressive rule of public health officials. 

The doctors have been in charge for over six months.  In that time, it has become obvious that they are unfit to make decisions on civil governance. They know nothing about tourism. They know nothing about commerce. They know nothing about transportation or agriculture or industry. They know nothing about the Constitution or its importance to Canada’s liberal democracy. They appear to also know nothing, or at least be willfully ignorant about the social consequences of their policy decisions, like domestic violence, suicide, a failing economy and growing civil unrest. 

It turns out that public health officials do know something about authoritarianism, however. 

Public health officials made the orders that forbade walking or exercising alone in the park, or sitting alone on park benches.  A public health order prohibited the gathering of citizens in Alberta to protest the economy-destroying lockdowns, where peaceful protesters were arrested and issued $1200 tickets. It was a public health order that authorized the $900 ticket to a lone teenager in Ottawa with ADHD playing basketball by himself.   

From east to west, contradictory and confusing orders have been issued by health officials regarding everything from churches to golf courses. And, of course on masks. 

On masks, we’ve heard it all. You don’t have to wear them, they don’t do any good. No, they are like a super power – you are safe if you wear them. You must wear them if you can’t socially distance. No, you have to wear them and socially distance. You have to wear them in church, but not in the restaurants. You can go to the gym and not wear them.  You must wear them during sex.  

The inanity of it requires that doctors be deposed and the legislatures resume governance.  

A frightening progression in this medical authoritarianism was seen two weeks ago., when Dr. Jacques Girard, leader of the Quebec City public health authority, held a press conference to brag that he had ordered the arrest of two citizens and had them incarcerated at a secret location. Dr. Girard announced that the police participation was “exceptional”.  

Citizens ought to take notice of the total lack of due process in Dr. Girard’s actions. No lawyers made submissions on behalf of the “accused” persons, no impartial judge considered the constitutional issues. There was no bail hearing. The Crown was not required to “show cause” as to why the liberty interests of two Canadians should be overridden. Dr. Girard alone decided two people were “guilty”, and he decided what their “sentence” would be. 

How long can people be confined in these new secret isolation centers? No one but the health officials know.   

That’s scary. It ought to be much scarier than COVID-19, which from recent statistics from the Canadian government has a death rate thus far of .009 percent of Canadians below the age of 60.  

In Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that laws which infringe constitutional rights can only be justified in accordance with the law (meaning laws which are duly enacted by democratically-elected members of Parliament or the legislatures) and within the parameters of a free and democratic society. 

We are a long way from a free and democratic society right now. There is nothing “democratic” about public health officials’ orders. Canadians are living in a state of medical authoritarianism where the rule of law is in tatters, and constitutionalism and democracy with it. 

Jay Cameron is a guest columnist and the Litigation Manager at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. 

Continue Reading

Opinion

TERRAZZANO: It’s time for Kenney to act on citizens initiative referendums

“Citizens’ initiative is a powerful tool to give voters more influence over the laws that govern all Albertans. Kenney promised citizens’ initiative about a year ago and his government must fulfill that promise during this fall’s legislative session.”

mm

Published

on

Last November, Premier Jason Kenney promised Albertans to introduce a citizen-led referendum law, or citizens’ initiative, to “give Albertans the power to hold this and future governments to account if we do not keep our commitment to stand up for Alberta.” It’s time for Kenney’s United Conservatives to make good on their promise and pass citizens’ initiative during the upcoming fall legislative session. 

Citizens’ initiative is based on a simple, but very important principle: if legislation belongs to the people, then the people should have a direct ability to introduce laws, hold politicians accountable and repeal bad legislation. 

Citizens’ initiative has been successful in British Columbia where it allowed voters to defeat the HST after the government bungled the transition process. While not through the formal citizens’ initiative process, the power of referendums was on full display in Calgary when taxpayers voted against the Olympic bid boondoggle and in B.C. where voters shut down the proposed TransLink tax. 

After Alberta’s New Democrats imposed their carbon tax without mentioning it in their 2015 election platform, citizens’ initiative would have given Albertans the opportunity to repeal the tax.

Citizens’ initiative would also help advance Alberta’s agenda in Ottawa. On constitutional issues such as equalizationOttawa has a legal duty to negotiate with the province if a referendum results in a clear majority on a clear question. Is there any doubt that Albertans would have had that referendum by now if we had citizens’ initiative? Importantly, Alberta’s legislation must allow citizens to initiate referendums on constitutional issues. A restriction against citizen-led constitutional referendums would mean that critical issues to Albertans such as equalization and internal free trade would be off the table unless the government of the day allows it.

Citizens’ initiative in Alberta also brings us one step closer to citizen-led referendums at the federal level. Albertans need a federal party willing to include citizens’ initiative in their policy mix, and the more provinces that have citizens’ initiative on their own, the more likely we are to have a federal party adopt the policy. If, for example, Albertans pushed for a referendum to abolish the No More Pipelines Act, that would at least put the issue on the national stage more than a simple opinion poll. In fact, that may be one of the best ways to bring our energy issues into the national spotlight.

A common concern with citizens’ initiative is that it may lead to a never ending cycle of referendums. Fortunately, there’s many different referendum laws we can follow to make sure Alberta’s model doesn’t lead to political chaos while still giving citizens a fair shot at passing our laws. 

When the UCP first promised to introduce citizens’ initiative, it said that it would follow B.C.’s example where citizens must collect petition signatures from 10 per cent of registered voters in 90 days to force a referendum. That doesn’t sound so bad at first glance, but it meant collecting more than 320,000 signatures in B.C.’s last initiative attempt, which translates to more than 3,500 signatures per day. These onerous rules explain why only one referendum attempt has collected enough signatures to trigger a referendum in B.C. since citizens’ initiative came into effect in 1995. 

Contrast B.C.’s rules with the rules in California, which has a population similar to the size of Canada, but requires less than double the amount of signatures to trigger a referendum than B.C. does. If Kenney wants citizens’ initiative to be more than just window dressing, he’ll need to make sure the rules are less onerous than B.C.’s.

In the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s presentation to the province’s Democratic Accountability Committee, we advocated the Alberta government take a more middle-ground approach and follow the rules in Idaho, which require signatures for six per cent of voters to trigger a referendum. The citizens of Idaho also have 18 months to collect the required signatures. Based on the number of registered voters from the last provincial election, Albertans would need to collect about 157,000 signatures to trigger a referendum, or less than 300 signatures per day. 

Kenney should also implement a signature threshold for each electoral district to ensure interests in big cities and rural areas are both considered. 

Citizens’ initiative is a powerful tool to give voters more influence over the laws that govern all Albertans. Kenney promised citizens’ initiative about a year ago and his government must fulfill that promise during this fall’s legislative session. 

Franco Terrazzano is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. This column is an abbreviated version of the presentation he made for the Alberta government’s Democratic Accountability Committee.

Continue Reading

Opinion

WAGNER: W. P. Kinsella – Alberta’s famous “redneck” writer

Michael Wagner profiles the Alberta man that wrote the book behind ‘Field of Dreams”, scorned by Canada’s literary establishment.

mm

Published

on

One of Canada’s most famous fiction writers was Alberta born and bred W. P. (William Patrick) Kinsella. He’s probably best known for the fact that his book Shoeless Joe was made into the 1989 movie Field of Dreams that starred Kevin Costner and received nominations for three Academy Awards. Because of Shoeless Joe, Kinsella also won a couple of major book awards.

Kinsella’s stories tend to focus on either baseball (such as Shoeless Joe) or the lives of First Nations people. His book The Fencepost Chronicles, with fictional stories about the lives of “Indians” from Hobbema (now known as Maskwacis), won the Stephen Leacock Award for Humour in 1987. Kinsella was criticized for his portrayal of First Nations people and for the offence of “cultural appropriation.” Nevertheless, he rejected such criticism, and considered the fact that his books sold well as vindication of his writing.

Interestingly, Kinsella was politically conservative and this set him apart from Canada’s literary elite. His political views are described by University of Calgary Canadian Studies professor George Melnyk in Volume Two of The Literary History of Alberta which was published in 1999. 

Literary figures in Canada tend to be leftists, with Margaret Atwood being a prominent example. Partly because of his political views, Kinsella was disconnected from Canada’s literary establishment. As Melnyk put it, “His pro-Americanism, his rejection of political correctness on such issues as appropriation of voice, and his championing of right-wing causes such as the Reform Party have isolated him from many members of the Albertan and Canadian writing community.”

Kinsella was not at all bothered by such isolation. For as Melnyk explains, “This lone-wolf image is rooted in his solitary childhood (he has acknowledged that ‘childhood is the most influential part of a writer’s life’) and an American-influenced individualism in which writing is simply a means to an economic end.”

Melnyk points out that Kinsella’s writing has been well-received by the reading public – it’s only Canada’s literary elite that found him wanting…”As a novelist, Kinsella has successfully blended both American and Canadian contexts; but the price of this popular success has been a certain ostracism by the Canadian literary establishment, where neither Kinsella’s personality, his political and literary pronouncements, nor his writing have found much favour. Despite the controversy, his writing remains popular with the general public.”

According to Melnyk, there are three distinct elements influencing Kinsella’s fiction. The first is an affinity for the loner and the outsider. “The second feature is his right-wing, pro-American sympathies which are reflective of popular sentiments in Alberta, but which are anathema to the Canadian academics with whom he has waged an ongoing battle for more than a decade. Kinsella certainly has not been averse to identifying with the image and values of a traditional Alberta redneck.”

The third element is his view of the value of commercial success: “In private-industry-oriented Alberta, he shares the popular conviction that the marketplace is the great judge of real value and success.” This view contrasts with the idea that success is determined by the favourable judgment of the academic community. Kinsella’s emphasis on the market as the standard for success reflects a much more populist view than that of many scholars in the Canadian literary establishment.

It’s likely that most successful fiction writers in Canada are left-wing, so Kinsella is very much an exception to that pattern. But if there’s going to be an exception to the leftist conformism of Canada’s literary elite, it’s only fitting that he should be an Albertan. One could even say that he was a bit of a maverick. 

Michael Wagner is columnist for the Western Standard. He has a PhD in political science from the University of Alberta. His books include ‘Alberta: Separatism Then and Now’ and ‘True Right: Genuine Conservative Leaders of Western Canada.’

Continue Reading

Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter

Free news and updates
* = required field

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard owned by Wildrose Media Corp.