That didn’t take long. Andrew Scheer – pledging days earlier to fight to the bitter end to stay on as federal Conservative Leader – fell on his sword Wednesday morning. Just two weeks ago, Scheer pleaded with Alberta Tories that loyalty to the party meant loyalty to him personally.
Conservatives organizing to oust Scheer from the top job told me at the time that they expected to have him out before Christmas. I agreed that Scheer had little chance of surviving, but considered their prognostications of a pre-Christmas bloodletting wildly optimistic. For not the first time, I was wrong.
Joining a large contingent of grassroots members and activists calling for his head was a respectable number of insiders who’s careers are mostly as political operators. Scheer denounced them as elitists, but is himself surrounded by the same kind.
National Post columnist Rex Murphy isn’t wrong in pointing out that these insiders were primarily responsible for Scheer’s ouster, leaking news of his use of party funds to pay for his children’s private school tuition. Murphy is wrong however in bemoaning the fact that Conservative Party members were denied the right to make this decision for themselves at a scheduled leadership review vote in April.
Normally one of the most (if not the most) sober-minded writers on Canadian politics, Murphy takes it as a given that this vote would be conducted with any democratic norms that we would expect in a regular election. This is not the case.
Leadership review votes are themselves undemocratic. In most parties, they are only even held if a leader fails to win government in the preceding election. In essence, this means that winning an election removes even the pretence that a party’s members should have any say whatsoever in who their leader is. Effectively, party leaders are elected for life, so long as they can deliver power. If we applied this version of inner-party democracy in our intra-party democracy, a prime minster that wins power would never have to face another election again. Because he won. We scoff at this idea for intra-party elections, but accept it as gospel for inner-party elections.
In the United States’ primary system, even sitting presidents that win elections are not guaranteed their party’s nomination and leadership for the next go-around. They are forced to face their party’s supporters in a primary election, every single time.
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson crushed Republican challenger Barry Goldwater 61 per cent to 39 per cent; but just four years later he retired the Oval Office without a fight because he knew that he could not win his party’s nomination again in the face of opposition over the Vietnam War. In Canada’s parties, a sitting prime minister not automatically continuing as leader as long as he or she pleases is unthinkable.
In cases where leaders fail to win power and are forced to endure the nuisance of a leadership review vote, they are a sham in any case. Anyone who has observed them with a critical eye knows that they are anything but democratic.
Typically, members are herded into a large hall to listen to a lineup of loyalists preceding the actual leader, extolling the virtues of his or her continuing in the job. After this, members captive in the hall listen to a long and rousing speech from the leader, often with the caucus forced to stand nearby as an implicit signal of support from them. Few MPs or MLAs would dare not do so for fear of retribution. To the leader’s speech there is no rebuttal from those in opposition. There is no “question and answer” period to grill the leader off script. Party members are handed swag and signs with the leader’s name, which most will wear and wave out of peer pressure.
Once the show of unity is over, members are sent straight off to cast their ballots, without time for consideration or debate. It is little different than voters being sent to cast their ballot on the prime minister minutes after he gives a speech to a captive audience, with no debate or chance for rebuttal from his opponents. Inner-party leadership reviews resemble Venezuelan elections more than Canadian ones.
If after all this careful stage management, the members still decide that it is time for the boss to go, it’s difficult to trust the results. Inner-party democracy is not overseen by non-partisan outside officials like general elections. It is run entirely by party insiders, sometimes with agendas. Local MP or MLA nominations are notoriously corrupt.
In its 2017 leadership vote, the Conservative Party insiders oversaw the ballot counting, and inexplicably destroyed the records even before the results were announced. In a race that saw Andrew Scheer edge out Maxime Bernier by less than 1 per cent of the vote on the final ballot. If there was dirty play or not, it was a disturbing move that undermines the election’s credibility. In general elections, ballots are kept in safe sealed boxes for months afterward in close races so that recounts can be conducted and the integrity of the process kept above reproach. No such protections exist in the Conservative Party, or most parties.
This all combines to make the leadership review process a sham. In the history of Canada’s major political parties, there has only ever been a single case of a sitting leader of a political party actually losing a leadership review vote; Thomas Mulcair. Unofficially, John Diefenbaker is in that club as well, so let’s be charitable and call it two.
Do we really believe that only twice in the history of Canada and its ten provinces have party members wanted to replace their leader? The question is wildly rhetorical.
Without any formal mechanism for removing sitting prime ministers and premiers in most parties, and a shambolic process of removing the leaders of opposition parties, it’s no wonder that all of them that leave unwillingly, are forced out through messier, less formal means. This doesn’t make it right, but there is little other choice for party members that want new management.
There’s a simpler and much more democratic solution to this; take a page from the US primary system and require all leaders, MPs and MLAs to go through automatic, neutrally managed nominations before every election, win or lose.
Members wanting change and leaders wanting to face members directly would both be better served by it.
KAY: Green extremists ignore indigenous voices that don’t fall in line
Barbara Kay’s debut column with the Western Standard.
In mid-November, a handful of Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs in BC spearheaded yet another attempt — thwarted by the RCMP — to scuttle Coastal GasLink’s $6.6 billion natural gas pipeline. The half-completed pipeline will run 670 km from Dawson Creek in northeast BC to Kitimat on the west coast, there to be processed in an $18-billion terminal financed by LNG Canada’s joint partnership, then exported as low-emission liquified gas to replace high-emission coal-based energy in client Asian countries.
In their latest act of mischief earlier this month, the scofflaws blockaded a workers’ camp, trapping up to 500 workers without food or water before the blockage was dismantled; they stole or vandalized heavy machinery, and they caused destruction to forestry roads sufficient to bring the movement of police and industry personnel to a halt.
It certainly doesn’t help matters when prominent voices on the left egg on the activists. Longtime political gadfly David Suzuki was roundly criticized when he opined, at an Extinction Rebellion event, that “there are going to be pipelines blown up if our leaders don’t pay attention to what’s going on.” This was a shockingly imprudent impulse. Most of Canada’s energy and transportation hubs run through native lands that cannot be adequately policed against sabotage. (He has since apologized, but the unfiltered instinct to say it remains “problematic,” a word frequently trotted out by progressives when critiquing the manifold perceived sins of conservatives.)
It also doesn’t help when our political and cultural elites continually harp on Canadians’ inherent shame as collective genocidaires, not to mention endless land acknowledgements that beg the question of why we seem to admit the land was “stolen,” but don’t give it back.
Instead of inviting reconciliation, our various forms of breast-beating are inspiring revanchism. The mantra one hears with increasing frequency amongst indigenous activists these days, “Land Back,” means exactly what it says. Those chanting it have been encouraged to believe, by non-indigenous allies in government, academic and environmental-activist circles, that their hunting and gathering ancestors understood the concept of land “ownership” as we do today, and that consequently, 3% of the Canadian population deserves legal title to a third of our land mass.
That is not going to happen, and such lines of thought should be discouraged by everyone with political and cultural influence. The 1997 Supreme Court Delgamuukw ruling made clear that Wet’suwet’en land title is limited, and that the Crown has use of the title land for the public good.
Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault recently tweeted: “Indigenous peoples have been stewards of this planet since time immemorial. The fight against climate change is not possible without their knowledge and leadership.” But whose leadership exactly? Elected band council leaders who signed on to the pipeline project, or a small group of unelected hereditary chiefs who do not enjoy support from more than a tiny fraction of their people? There is little clarity on this important distinction from government officials.
And whose “knowledge”? The CGL met the highest environmental standards in planning its project. They complied with all provisions set out in eight provincial and federal regulatory environmental Acts. They requested meetings with the Office of the Wet’suwet’en (which represents the hereditary chiefs) to discuss issues related to the project over 40 times, with no response from them. If the hereditary chiefs had “knowledge” it was important for CGL to know, they had ample occasion to share it and chose not to.
None of our climate-obsessed progressive elites ever emphasize what an economic boon and lifeline to independence this pipeline and other eco-responsible projects are to indigenous peoples (a far greater boon than government handouts). While indigenous Canadians make up 3.3% of our general workforce, they represent 7.4% of the country’s oil and gas sector workforce.
As for indigenous peoples being “stewards” of the planet: Even if we all agreed that indigenous people are “stewards” of the land, why should we assume that all indigenous people are of the same mind as Steven Guilbeault in his opposition to resource development? There is plenty of diversity amongst stakeholder populations, including amongst the hereditary chiefs. Yet the establishment media rarely draw attention to this diversity, preferring, as befits the modern, culturally self-loathing progressive spirit, to romance the anarchic dissenters.
Majority Wet’suwet’en opinion is pro-resource development, and it is time their voices were heard and respected. I, therefore, recommend a visit to the Canada Action site, where you will find many strong statements such as these below:
- “There’s quite a bit of support for this project,” says Bonnie George, Witset First nation, Wet’suwet’en. “But people are afraid to speak up because, in the past few years, people that [have] spoken up were either ostracized…[or] ridiculed, bullied, harassed, threatened, and being called a traitor – a sellout….There’s a small group of members from the Wet’suwet’en Nation that doesn’t support the [CGL] projects.”
- “Twenty First Nations participated extensively during five years of consultation on the pipeline and have successfully negotiated agreements with [CGL]. This is on the public record,” says Karen Ogen-Toews of the First Nations LNG Alliance.
- Theresa Tait-Day, a hereditary chief of Wet’suwet’en Nation, says the voices of female hereditary chiefs “are not being heard. “We have been working particularly with LNG and [CGL]. Our people wanted a benefit and they wanted to be able to make a decision on a positive note. However, we’ve experienced lateral violence and coercion since then by the five chiefs who claim to represent the nation” (since then, two chiefs of the five have dropped out of activating)…The protest organizers are conveniently hiding beneath our blanket as indigenous people, while forcing their policy goals at our expense.”
- The Haisla Nation are associated with the Kitimat terminal project. Speaking for them, Crystal Smith says, “I’ve seen the impacts first hand. I’ve felt the impacts firsthand. The focus for us is the long-term careers. For the first time, we’re funding culture and language programs…This independence is what we want. This is what we need more of in our community. We need to heal our people. No other government…has been able to heal our people the way they need it.”
- Also for Haisla Nation, former chief councillor Ellis Ross: “Professional protesters and well-funded NGOs have merely seized the opportunity to divide our communities for their own gains…and ultimately will leave us penniless when they suddenly leave.”
- “This is one of the biggest projects in Canada, who wouldn’t want to be a part of it?” asks Derek Orr, former chief, McLeod lake Indian Band.
Who indeed? Only virtue-signalling enviro-alarmism obsessives, irresponsible disruptors who get a thrill out of “direct action” that sows chaos and disorder, and patronizing Nanny Statists who prefer that indigenous peoples continue to boil their drinking water than admit that responsible capitalism providing work, resources and human dignity is the way forward for Indigenous populations.
Barbra Kay is a Senior Columnist for the Western Standard
Why oil and gas matters to Ontario
Many Canadians may not be aware that the first commercial oil production in North America started in Ontario in 1858.
By Ven Venkatachalam and Lennie Kaplan
The headline screamed: “The end of oil age” in the Economist in 2003. Fast forward 18 years and that still doesn’t make sense in many ways. The demand for oil is increasing across the globe. Even U.S. President Joe Biden is now asking OPEC to produce more oil.
You don’t have to go far to fill your gas tank to see the rise in fuel prices in recent months. Who says oil is dead? Just look at the growing global disconnect between supply and demand, where the need for natural gas threatens all sorts of shortages.
Many environmental groups have been calling for divestment from oil and gas, yet, they ignore the realities on the ground. Divestment from oil and gas harms not only the many energy companies that are creating jobs in the economy, but also investors, such as the middle-class and seniors, and other value chain sectors that depend on oil and gas.
Let’s look at Ontario, as a prime example.
Many Canadians may not be aware the first commercial oil production in North America started in Ontario in 1858. Since then, the oil and gas sector has played a significant role in the provincial economy. Though Ontario is not a major producer of oil and gas, there are still some 3,000 oil and gas wells active in the province.
There are many ways the oil and gas sector benefits the Ontario economy, in addition to reliable energy supply. Thousand of kilometres of pipelines in Ontario move oil and gas to the U.S., creating many jobs in Ontario. The refining industry also creates employment and contributes to the provincial economy. And many value chain sectors in Ontario supply goods and services to oil and gas companies.
Looking at the most recent (2017) comprehensive data available from Statistics Canada, it turns out the oil and natural gas industry was responsible for adding $7.7 billion in nominal GDP to Ontario’s economy and more than 71,000 jobs. Many of these jobs are indirect, but just as critical to the oil and gas sector. Think of oil and natural gas employment in Ontario as engineers and manufacturers hired to design and build oil and gas operating equipment and facilities, a building in Edmonton or in downtown Toronto, or an investment firm tasked with raising capital for a natural gas company operating in northern Alberta or B.C. Also think of an Alberta oil sands company whose local spending on office furniture results in jobs created in the Ontario firm that produces that furniture.
In 2017, the oil and gas industry purchased $7.3 billion worth of goods and services in Ontario, including $4.3 billion from Ontario’s manufacturing sector alone. Other “big ticket” purchases include $700 million from the Ontario finance and insurance sector, $600 million from the professional, scientific and technical services sector, and $300 million from transportation and warehousing. Overall, $2.1 billion in salaries and wages were generated as the result of oil and gas industry spending in Ontario.
Beyond the impact of the oil and gas sector, let’s widen the look at Alberta’s impact on Ontario’s economy. In 2017, Alberta’s population was 11.6% of the national total, while Alberta’s share of purchases from Ontario’s manufacturing sector was 21% of Ontario’s total interprovincial trade in manufacturing. That’s nearly twice Alberta’s share of Canada’s population. In fact, Alberta’s consumers, businesses, and governments were responsible for nearly 24%, or $32.5 billion, of Ontario’s total interprovincial trade in 2017. This was second only to Ontario’s next-door neighbour, Quebec.
Now consider Alberta’s share of Ontario’s interprovincial and export trade and how it compares to selected countries. Alberta’s $32.5 billion in purchases from Ontario in 2017 was behind only the United States ($197 billion), but ahead of the United Kingdom ($14.7 billion), China ($3.4 billion), Mexico ($3.2 billion), and Germany ($1.9 billion), among others. Add up the goods and services purchased by Alberta consumers, businesses, and governments from Ontario firms between 2012 and 2017, and the total value was about $193 billion.
Economies may be locally based, but local businesses and jobs are impacted by investment and trade flows from other places. Whenever someone says oil and gas doesn’t matter to Ontario, tell them to look at the “on the ground” realities. From Bay Street to Yonge Street to Main Street, people living across Ontario benefit from a thriving oil and gas sector.
Ven Venkatachalam and Lennie Kaplan are with the Canadian Energy Centre, an Alberta government corporation funded by carbon taxes. They are authors of $193 billion and 71,000 jobs: The Impact of Oil and Gas (and Alberta) on Ontario’s Economy.
SLOBODIAN: Kenney needs to stop ‘criminal’ searches of doctors’ offices
“Unless criminal charges are laid against those two so-called investigators, the CPSA itself is a criminal organization,” said lawyer Jeff Rath.
Do not relent on the demand for a criminal investigation and sue their sorry asses off.
Accessing medical files under allegedly false pretenses while a legal challenge is underway is despicable and can’t be legal.
This kind of medical “fascism” has no place in Canada.
Investigators for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta (CPSA) went too far with what could be interpreted as either a shut-up tactic or dirt-digging hunt against Jeffrey Rath, a lawyer acting on behalf of several clients involved in litigation against the CPSA.
If the two CPSA investigators who raided a doctor’s office Thursday get away with this shockingly unethical stunt, then no one — vaccinated or unvaccinated — will be safe from these tyrants who think they have the authority to do whatever they want, rights and freedoms and privacy be damned.
This is utterly chilling. Jeff Rath, of Rath & Company, called it “medical fascism.” He’s right.
CPSA investigators Dr. Jeff Robinson and Jason MacDonald searched the files of Calgary family practitioner Dr. Dan Botha for patients he granted COVID-19 medical exemptions.
One of the few files — out of about 10,000 — they suspiciously accessed was Rath’s.
“We’re in active litigation with these people and they think they can send investors in to access my medical files,” Rath told Western Standard.
“I wonder how a judge would feel if a judge found out these people could go through a judge’s medical file while a hearing with regard to the College’s conduct was before that particular judge.”
You can bet Alberta Health Services (AHS) — which pushes the boundaries of its authority beyond acceptable limits — had its mitts on this.
Apparently, AHS didn’t let Premier Jason Kenney in on the plot.
“Neither the premier nor the Premier’s Office has any knowledge of the alleged events you describe. You’d need to contact the College of Physicians and Surgeons directly,” said spokesman Christine Myatt.
The investigators searched Botha’s files under the guise of a benign practice review they alleged was part of normal oversight procedures under the Health Professions Act.
Botha told Western Standard’s Melanie Risdon he was handed a one-page letter requesting he provide access to his patient files for the inspectors “under section 53.1 of the Health Professions Act (HPA).” It indicated the inspection was to “ensure the issuance of medical exemptions for vaccination against COVID-19 are in adherence to the provincial vaccination exemption program, medical exemptions for face mask are in adherence to provincial public health orders and the prescribing of Ivermectin is in adherence with CPSA Standards of Practice.”
This raid came from the CPSA, said Rath.
“I’ve sent several letters to the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding concerns that my clients have with the CPSA basically interfering in doctor/patient relationships in Alberta. They’re telling doctors what they can and can’t prescribe, telling doctors what exceptions they can and can’t write,” said Rath.
“A week or so ago I wrote the College a letter saying how dare you tell doctors what medical exemptions they can’t write or threaten doctors with misconduct because they’ve written medical exemptions.
“The College replied: ‘Oh no, no, no, we’re not the ones coming up with these medical exemption restrictions, that’s coming from AHS.’ I said there’s an inherent conflict of interest in AHS setting out what the criteria are for medical exemptions to the vaccine and then having the College enforce it after the fact.”
On the heels of the raid, Rath fired off a letter demanding Robinson have his medical license suspended and that a criminal investigation be opened against both Robinson and MacDonald.
“As far as I’m concerned, they were illegally accessing my files under false pretenses that they were acting appropriately under the Health Professions Act.”
“Unless criminal charges are laid against those two so-called investigators, the CPSA itself is a criminal organization.”
Sadly, for the CPSA, there’s no dirt to be found in Rath’s medical file.
“There’s nothing in the damn thing anyway. It’s not like my doctor’s doing anything wrong regarding prescriptions. My privacy’s been violated. I feel personally violated. That invasion of my personal privacy is absolutely beyond belief.
“If they’re there — ostensibly conducting a random investigation of a doctor’s practice under the Health Professions Act to make sure that he’s conducting himself professionally with regard to mask exemptions or whatever — what business do they have targeting the medical file of a lawyer acting against the CPSA?”
“I grew up in a public health family. I’m watching what’s happening to the medical profession in this country and the complete lack of ethical conduct by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in this province. I don’t even recognize this to be my province anymore.”
Meanwhile, the family of a two-year-old whose file was seized is considering a lawsuit for the breach of privacy.
Botha, treating the child with Rett syndrome, has provided a permanent mask exemption.
“Think about the poor mother. You can imagine how that family suffered already and you’ve got agents of the CPSA poking around in her poor little daughter’s medical file to decide if Dr. Botha appropriately granted this little girl a masking exemption. This family’s being terrorized by the College,” said Rath.
Time for the terrorizing to stop. It started with pastors and now has progressed to target little girls and lawyers.
Who’s next? You?
What say you, Jason Kenney? Time to put a leash on these people.
Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standard
KAY: Green extremists ignore indigenous voices that don’t fall in line
Road closures as British Columbians brace for more rain
Bill to aid jurors traumatized by testimony up for vote … again
Dr. Bonnie Henry ordered to stand trial
The Western Standard Is Back
BC doc says he’s found blood clots in 62% of post-jab patients
- Suzuki apologizes for radical ‘blown up’ pipelines comment on
- Road closures as British Columbians brace for more rain on
- Top US Dem senator demands reversal of Keystone XL ban on
- WORLD WATCH: New COVID variant ‘of concern’ found in South Africa on
- Suzuki apologizes for radical ‘blown up’ pipelines comment on
Petition: No Media Bailouts
We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.
News2 days ago
UPDATED EXCLUSIVE: Calgary doctor’s office raided by regulators searching for vaccine exemption files
News1 day ago
Lawyers blast Alberta’s medical regulators for doctor’s office raid
Polls3 days ago
UPDATED WS POLL RESULTS: Will you be booking your child for a Pfizer pediatric vaccination?
News3 days ago
Wildrose leader says Alberta government is ‘fearmongering’ as Pfizer pediatric vaccines roll out
Opinion2 days ago
SLOBODIAN: Kenney needs to stop ‘criminal’ searches of doctors’ offices
News2 days ago
UPDATED: Shooter in custody after targeting BC RCMP detachment
News2 days ago
Alberta sets homicide record
News2 days ago
Alberta library promotes ‘How To Blow Up a Pipeline’ book