The key question I have regarding the confiscation of legally owned guns from vetted legal gun owners is: how will this solve illegal guns being smuggled into Canada? How will this solve illegal guns being used by criminal gangs and known criminals in Canada?
Minister Blair won’t bring in laws to help law enforcement, such as a stop and frisk law, that would assist police in detaining gang members who conceal and carry illegal guns. Why won’t Minister Blair bring in these types of laws? Infringement on the gang members and criminals’ human rights.
The Trudeau government has no qualms infringing on the rights of legal gun owners though. Just look at how the laws are written and the acceptable infringement by the Trudeau Government on law-abiding gun owners for the police to without a warrant come to your house at any hour of the day to ensure your guns are safely secured and locked up.
Isn’t that a stop and frisk law on law abiding gun owners that Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Blair are afraid to bring in and enforce on gangs and criminals?
McCOLL: The Cowtown Kremlin moves to stop Farkas
McColl writes that the Calgary City Council’s proposed rule against Farkas campaigning is better suited to Russia than to Alberta.
Normally, one must go to Russia to find this kind of candidate suppression. This week, Calgary City Hall earned its nickname: the Cowtown Kremlin.
As reported by the Western Standard’s Dave Naylor, council will debate a motion that could require sitting councillors to seek permission from other councillors in order to attend or host events in each other’s wards, something that any candidate running for mayor would obviously need to do. This was rightly highlighted as a deliberate attempt to hinder Councillor Farkas’ ongoing mayoral campaign to replace Mayor Naheed Nenshi. Mayor Nenshi by contrast, would not face any similar restrictions should he run for re-election.
Councillor Farkas’ himself raised this issue at committee on Tuesday.
“This policy unfairly targets sitting Councillors running for mayor. It also unfairly targets civil debate, as well as the rights of private individuals to associate with others… Running for mayor necessitates a city-wide campaign where each of these events could be outside your ward. Keeping each Councillor apprised of a busy, everchanging campaign schedule is unreasonable and it’s ultimately unnecessary to prevent citizens from being confused about who represents them.”
The council committee voted 6-4 against the motion, but it will still go before the full city council on December 14.
Similar rules were passed in 2016 for the 2017 election. In an interview with the Western Standard, Councillor Farkas argued against the 2017 policy. “Council clearly overstepped their bounds in 2017, It’s good that they’ll likely not repeat the same mistake for this election.”
It’s worth noting that the 2017 rules were temporary guidelines specific to the period of ward redistricting, as explained in council on September 26, 2016 by then Ethics Advisor Professor Alice Woolley.
“This speaks to a councillor in a community that they do not currently represent, but that they will be seaking to represent in the next election and it says that particular activity is treated as campaigning. And the reason for that is because of the particular dangers and concerns that exist as a result of ward boundary changes.”
Professor Woolley clarified repeatedly, “This is not a policy, this is not a rule, this is simply a guideline for what I would consider good practice” calling it a “playbook for civil relations at a time of difficulty” and emphasizing: “At this point in time while the ward boundaries are in flux, I don’t think this rule would be appropriate in the same way after that time.”
Flash back to the present and current Ethics Advisor Professor Emily Laidlaw told Councillor Farkas that yes, a councillor could deny permission to attend a private function in an outside ward, but that she can’t see why that would happen if a person’s been invited.
Call me a jaded political junky, but I can imagine plenty of private events – hosted by federal or provincial Conservatives – within constituencies that overlap with wards of left-wing city councillors. Councillor Farkas is a former President of the Calgary-Elbow Wildrose Constituency Association and was a leader in the early days of merging the Alberta PC and Wildrose parties into the current governing United Conservatives. Should Councillor Evan Wooley have the power to block Farkas from attending a private event hosted by conservatives in Calgary-Elbow, or Jeff Davison block him from events in Western Calgary?
Trying to turn a temporary ethics guideline designed for ward redistricting into a rule to censor Farkas’ mayoral campaign is plainly undemocratic. Reviving it as a simple guideline opens the door for future meritless ethics complaints. Neither should be acceptable in a democracy.
Alex McColl is the National Defence Columnist with the Western Standard and a Canadian military analyst
WAGNER: Where Canada went wrong – the legacy of Pierre Trudeau
“For over a century, Canada was a great and noble country, justly earning a deep patriotic attachment from Westerners. That was the country that so many in the West still remember and love. But alas, those days are over.”
The Maverick Party (formerly Wexit Canada) features the following statement on its website: “We love Canada too. But the system is broken.” It may seem strange that a political party ostensibly created to advocate Western Canadian independence openly proclaims its love for the country which it seeks to leave. However, many Westerners who favour independence do so reluctantly, and would rather have Canada fixed than create a new country. This is reflected in the party’s mission statement priorities: “(a) constitutional change, or (b) the creation of an independent nation.” Fixing Canada is the first option, however unlikely.
It is understandable that Westerners would feel an attachment for Canada. After all, it has been one of the freest and most prosperous countries in history. Many millions of people desire to move here from other parts of the world because – let’s face it – Canada is better than the vast majority of other countries. If this wasn’t the case, people would be flooding out of Canada rather than flooding in.
However, Canada has been changing in recent decades, and not for the better. Although Westerners’ legitimate grievances against Central Canada go back over a century, they have become much more acute since the 1960s.
There was a time when Canadian patriotism was the sensible position for Westerners. But things have changed. From the time of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau onwards, confederation has increasingly been detrimental – and sometimes outright hostile – toward the West. Although Canada was once great, it has changed so much that the creation of a new country in Western Canada is needed.
An excellent source for information about Canada’s decline in the latter part of the twentieth century is the 1994 book, Derailed: The Betrayal of the National Dream by historian David Bercuson and political scientist Barry Cooper, both professors at the University of Calgary. In this book, they explain the original purpose of confederation, and how that purpose became subverted after the Second World War, especially under the administration of Pierre Trudeau.
Bercuson and Cooper point out that the original colonies confederated in 1867 primarily for economic reasons. By uniting, they could create a national government with the resources to build a country that would generate greater economic prosperity than each of the smaller units could do on their own. As Bercuson and Cooper explain, “Only when the national government was able to marshal effectively the resources of the nation and to direct westward expansion, settlement, railway construction, and industrial development would the real aim of Confederation be achieved – namely, prosperity as a British Dominion. As long as that happened, the New Nationality would hold together out of self-interest and the mutual support of disparate groups in the common enterprise of what we now call nation building.”
It was not intended that the new country would lead to a common identity that all Canadians could share. What kind of national identity could the English-speaking Protestants of Ontario and the French-speaking Catholics of Quebec have in common? They already had their own cultural identities, so they could only be united in one country on the basis of economic and political interests. As Bercuson and Cooper explain: “There would be no national myths to tie the disparate peoples of Canada together, other than the myths and ties of commerce. The role of the new national state that had been created to foster the new nationality was to promote economic growth and national development. The Fathers of Confederation well knew that the state could never have any other role.”
This was the predominant view of federal leaders until the 1950s, and it did not begin to change until Prime Minister John Diefenbaker came to power. He saw Canada as more than an economic alliance, but was unable to make much of a difference.
After Diefenbaker, however, Prime Minister Lester Pearson began to take the country in a new direction. Pearson’s government wanted to establish what being a Canadian really meant. As Bercuson and Cooper write: “the new Canadian character itself was going to be created in the image of the thinkers and doers that Pearson had collected around him. So, for example, Canada was going to be bilingual and bicultural whether or not it made sense of Canadian reality, whether or not the nation could afford it, whether or not it actually drew Canadians together. They would do so by making bilingualism and biculturalism part of the national creed and, by lifting it above politics, turn it into an expression of our collective public virtue.”
This meant that by 1967 the role of the federal government had changed significantly: “Henceforth that role was not simply to administer, but to create and shape and mould a national character and, above all, to pursue collective public virtue.” Canada would henceforth be on a different path.
It was in this environment in which Pierre Trudeau entered politics and became prime minister in 1968. Even more than his predecessor, Trudeau wanted to substantially change the country of which he had become leader.
According to Bercuson and Cooper, there were two major components of Trudeau’s agenda: “First, he would make Canada the kind of place where Quebecers would feel at home anywhere. And second, he would make Canada, including the now comfortable and well-adjusted Quebecers, a just society. His tool would be the state.”
The bottom line of Trudeau’s major policy initiatives and pursuit of a “just society” all had one thing in common: “increased intervention by the state in the operation of the economy and in the daily lives of ordinary citizens.”
Trudeau came to power facing a major challenge from the growth of Quebec nationalism. Within a few years he was also faced with an energy crisis due to the rapid rise of oil prices resulting from war in the Middle East. After his come-back re-election victory of 1980, he decided to aggressively tackle both issues.
Bercuson and Cooper outline Trudeau’s goals as follows: “The logic was clear but never could be admitted: if Alberta’s energy revenues could be appropriated by Ottawa, and then redirected by it, the economy would hum; if the constitution could be changed, Quebec would be happy to remain in Canada. Even if it proved impossible to change the constitution, the ‘redirection’ of energy revenues as regional equalization payments held the promise of making Bourassa’s profitable federalism attractive.” The idea of “profitable federalism” was that Quebec should remain in Canada (rather than separate) because of the financial rewards it would receive.
Trudeau pushed through his constitutional changes but they did not satisfy Quebec. Nevertheless, those changes — and especially the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — fundamentally altered Canada (for the worse, in my view). As federal Justice Minister John Crosbie said to a parliamentary committee in 1985: “The public does not realize that we already have had a revolution in Canadian society. The adoption of a charter was a revolution. It has changed the whole power structure of Canadian society.” This assertion would be confirmed by future judicial decisions.
Besides his constitutional initiative, Trudeau unveiled his infamous National Energy Program (NEP). It was predicated on the belief that Alberta was benefiting too much from high oil prices. Why should a pipsqueak province like Alberta profit at the expense of Ontario and Quebec?
As Bercuson and Cooper explain, in the view of Trudeau and the Liberals, “it was not ‘fair’ that Alberta should collect so much revenue. The ultimate cause of this unfairness was the irrationality of nature in putting oil in Alberta in the first place. Surely it was now up to the rationality of EMR [Department of Energy, Mines and Resources] to set things right. More to the point, it was self-evident that Alberta could not be expected to use its new financial power in the interests of Canada. What made it self-evident was the undisputable fact that Albertans had shown their complete irresponsibility, not to say irrationality, by refusing to elect a single Liberal to the House of Commons.”
The NEP severely damaged Alberta’s oil and gas industry. It was later repealed by the government of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. However, Mulroney’s government itself favoured Central Canada over the West. Both the federal Liberal and federal Progressive Conservative parties prioritized policies that benefited Central Canada because they needed to win large numbers of seats in Ontario and Quebec to form the government. Therefore, the West required its own party, and Preston Manning’s Reform Party filled that need.
Despite the Reform Party’s best efforts, however, the West is still expendable to the Liberal Party and taken for granted by the Conservative Party. Again, a new Western party is needed to represent the West’s interests in the House of Commons. The Maverick Party’s prioritizing of “constitutional change” is understandable but somewhat naïve. A number of Western initiatives have been launched to reform the country over the last 40 years, and all have failed. Not an inch of progress has been made. This means that it’s time for the Maverick Party’s Plan B: “the creation of an independent nation.”
In an ideal world, a truly conservative federal government would be elected, allowing Alberta to develop its energy resources and export them through numerous pipelines and oil tankers along the BC coast. The limitations of so-called “progressive” policies could be overcome, and Canada would emerge as the freest and most prosperous country in the world. But this is just a pipe dream; the only realistic path to this kind of freedom and prosperity is an independent Western Canada, or at least an independent Alberta.
For over a century, Canada was a great and noble country, justly earning a deep patriotic attachment from Westerners. That was the country that so many in the West still remember and love. But alas, those days are over. Since the time of Pierre Trudeau, this has been a different country. Now, a new political path forward is needed. The time has come for an independent Western Canada.
Michael Wagner is a 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.’
JAMES-FROM: Governments owe citizens a better explanation on lockdowns
“If it is possible to adopt compassionate and balanced measures to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity naturally or through vaccination.”
Media coverage of the Great Barrington Declaration has been almost non-existent in Alberta’s mainstream media. This is an utter travesty; a blemish on our Fourth Estate. The Declaration is an important public health document offering a compassionate and balanced alternative strategy for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Quite simply, the public needs to know about it.
On October 4, 2020, professors Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya, and Martin Kulldorff authored and signed the Declaration in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. These professors (from Oxford, Stanford, and Yale respectively) are accomplished scientists from prestigious institutions who have expertise in public health and epidemiology. Since then, the public has been able to read and sign the Declaration online. There are now nearly 50,000 medical and public health scientists and practitioners and over 600,000 concerned citizens who have added their signatures.
Acknowledging that COVID-19 presents a significant threat, the authors of the Declaration point out:
“We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.”
Indeed, data from Alberta bears this out. The average age for a COVID-19 fatality is 82 years, and to date, no one under 20 years old has died. The goal of any compassionate response to COVID-19 must be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity, whether naturally or through vaccination. Armed with these simple facts, how should we accomplish our goal?
The authors favour an approach different from extremists. Albertans are being inundated with pleas for all manner of lockdown, while those who are opposed to these measures are construed as misanthropes who want nothing at all to be done to protect the vulnerable. These are false alternatives, and neither are tenable responses for neither is capable of meeting the goal of minimizing both mortality and social harms.
“Focused Protection” is what the Declaration’s authors ask us to consider. This consists of two things: first, those minimally at risk should go about their lives, should they choose to do so, in order to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, and second, those at highest risk should be offered rigorous protection tailored to suit local and individual needs.
This strategy, according to the authors, will both minimize fatalities and ameliorate the devastating public health consequences of lockdowns.
It’s difficult to believe at this point in the pandemic, but there are still those who refuse to acknowledge that lockdowns result in social harms rivalling those of COVID-19. Lockdowns result in deaths from despair due to economic ruin and social isolation, as well as untreated health issues like cancer, cardiovascular disease and the like. They also serve to increase spousal and child abuse, family breakdown, substance abuse, suicide and depression. And be warned, lower educational outcomes and poverty could affect our children and grandchildren for generations to come.
Alberta released a response to the Declaration on October 28, but instead of the thoughtful and fulsome analysis that we deserve, the response greatly misconstrued the Declaration and attacked a strawman. It is an interesting exercise to read the two documents side by side to parse the arguments. The response is inadequate, to say the least.
The response says that “herd immunity” is the “stated goal” of the Declaration. This is false. The stated goal is to balance the risks and benefits of all COVID-19 policies against the risks and benefits of other health concerns until we reach the inevitable end of the pandemic, which will come when we reach herd immunity naturally or through vaccination. Herd immunity is not a goal.
Later, the response mischaracterizes the Declaration as a “herd immunity plan.” But nowhere does the Declaration claim that herd immunity is a “plan.” Rather, it’s a biological result incidental to some portion of the population’s exposure to a pathogen. It’s a product, an outcome.
The response is replete with many other similar errors, which leads me to believe that focused protection has yet to be seriously considered by the Alberta government.
If it is possible to adopt compassionate and balanced measures to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity naturally or through vaccination. Albertans deserve that. If it is not possible, we deserve a far more rigorous analysis from our public officials explaining why we can’t implement it here.
Derek James-From is a freelance columnist and constitutional lawyer
MP blasts CBC for attack on the Western Standard
Legal warning shot fired at Manitoba mandatory church closures
McCOLL: The Cowtown Kremlin moves to stop Farkas
Senior doc says Alberta politicians “playing medicine”, media driving “hysteria”
EXCLUSIVE: CN Rail to send emergency propane shipments to Quebec
EXCLUSIVE: Teamsters union could block emergency propane shipment to Quebec
Sign up for the Western Standard Newsletter
News1 day ago
UPDATED: Calgary council to debate motion than could see Farkas banned from campaigning in most of the city
News23 hours ago
HEAR THE TAPES: Secret tapes of CNN execs talking about shaping the news to be released
Features4 days ago
The semi-communist European country you haven’t heard of
Opinion3 days ago
MORGAN: Alberta needs a sunshine list for union bosses
News2 days ago
Alberta human rights commission tosses case by man offended he was asked if he had children
Opinion2 days ago
ALBERS: There’s a difference between Quebec’s separatist, and Alberta’s independence movements
News2 days ago
UPDATED: Calgary will pay $312,000 for two people to fight racism
News1 day ago
Farrell calls for Calgary law to ban cat-calls