Connect with us


Moment of Truth: The must-read book about Alberta’s future

“If you’re concerned with Alberta’s place in confederation, pick up this book.”




What lies ahead for Alberta? Since confederation, the West generally – and Alberta specifically -have been subjects of the federal government’s Laurentian agenda. After over a century of struggle against Ottawa, the time has come for Albertans to decide which course they will take. 

Moment of Truth: How to Think About Alberta’s Future is a compilation of chapters written by different authors and edited by Jack M. Mintz, Ted Morton, and Tom Flanagan. In it, readers are faced with the pressing discussion of Alberta’s place in confederation now, in the past, and in the future. Though sympathetic to independence, this book is by no means a manifesto for a sovereign Alberta. 

Authors, who include famed Calgary School members such as Tom Flanagan, Ted Morton, Barry Cooper, and David Bercuson, clearly explain the problems faced by Alberta and outline possible solutions both in independence, or in a so-called “fair deal.” They also do not shy away in explaining the difficulties in independence, including increased defense costs and a lengthy constitutional process for peaceful secession. Nonetheless, the authors are agreed; as the title of Morton’s chapter suggests, “The status quo must go.” 

As the Buffalo Declaration makes clear, “Our federation has reached a crossroads at which Canada must decide to move forward in equality and respect, or people in our region will look at independence from confederation as the solution.” For anyone concerned with the future of Alberta’s place in confederation, this book is a must read and comes at a perfect time, just as Canada chooses its path.

In his chapter, Alberta and the myth of Sisyphus, Flanagan builds an Albertan political mythology, complete with heroes and villains beginning just after confederation. Every time a hero – always a Westerner – tries to make a gain in the direction of Albertan self-determination over natural resources, a villain – always from Ottawa –  attempts to thwart it. 

Our first hero is Louis Riel with his villain Sir John A. Macdonald. Macdonald’s federal government wanted control over Rupert’s Land which it had just purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company. 

“Canada had not stopped to consider that there was a civilized community already present [in Rupert’s Land] in the Red River Colony.” 

Thus, Macdonald and Riel clashed over control of Rupert’s Land which resulted in the creation of Manitoba, and eventually Riel’s declaration of independence from Canada and the quelling of his North-West rebellion in 1885. Though failed, it was the first spark of Western secession in Canada.

The twentieth century also saw its share of Western heroes and Laurentian villains. Frederick Haultain clashed with Sir Wilfrid Laurier over the provincialization of the West. Whereas Haultain wanted one large province —‘Buffalo’ — Laurier ordered the creation of two smaller provinces, ‘Alberta’ and ‘Saskatchewan.’ Ottawa still retained control over public lands and natural resources. 

This brings us to our next hero, John Edward Brownlee. As premier of Alberta, Brownlee (hero) negotiated with William Lyon Mackenzie King (villain) over control of public lands and natural resources. Though delayed by lobbying in Quebec, an agreement to give Alberta control over its public lands was eventually reached in 1929.

The federal government was not satisfied with its inability to control Alberta’s natural resources and in 1980, the National Energy Program was introduced by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (archvillain). As Flanagan points out, “… federal Energy Minister Marc Lalonde later said, the motive was ‘to transfer wealth from Alberta to central Canada.’” Thus emerged our next hero, premier of Alberta, Peter Lougheed. One of Lougheed’s victories against the National Energy Program was “insertion of Sec. 50 into the Constitution Act, 1982, to confirm provincial control over ‘exploration for’ and ‘development, conservation, and management of’ non-renewable natural resources.’” This, along with the election of (Brian) Mulroney’s Progressive Conservatives, led to National Energy Program’s eventual repeal in 1986.

Finally, we are presented with our final villain, Pierre’s son, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trudeau II has once again attempted to wrest control of Alberta’s natural resources by kiboshing pipelines and introducing a carbon tax. What we are not given is a clear hero. Will it be Jason Kenney? Someone else? And if we are given a hero, will they continue Alberta on its Sisyphean task and let the boulder of control over its natural resources roll back down the hill? Or, perhaps, will a new hero emerge who eventually breaks the curse and allows Alberta to take back its natural resources permanently? Alberta’s mythology is its own to create and the following chapters give Albertans a blueprint.

Donald J. Savoie offers the thesis that “The treaty Macdonald and [George-Étienne] Cartier struck in 1867 put blinders on national institutions to ensure they would focus on Ontario and Quebec, and would limit regional considerations to Quebec” (p. 97). Though strong, in his chapter, “Canada’s national political institutions wear blinders,” Savoie offers compelling examples of how this is exactly the case. Two institutions which clearly suffer this defect are brought to light in Savoie’s chapter; they are the Supreme Court and the Senate.

The Constitution guarantees Quebec three Supreme Court justices. No other province or region is given such a guarantee. While it might be thought that custom would protect regional interests in the supreme court, Savoie points out that this has not been the case, citing Justin Trudeau’s 2016 attempt to replace Nova Scotian Judge Thomas Cromwell with a judge from outside Atlantic Canada. Trudeau argued other forms of diversity beyond regional diversity were important when making appointment decisions. As Savoie asserts, “Political and administrative institutions matter” and the Supreme Court in no exception. Though writing in an American context, journalist Garet Garrett noted the importance of executive appointments of Supreme Court judges in shaping policy, in 1952. If some policy was previously considered unconstitutional, how is it that it can now be considered constitutional? Garrett responds; “By reinterpretation of the language of the Constitution. That is done by a sympathetic Supreme Court.” Thus, those concerned with their own regional interests cannot rely on that written document, the Constitution, alone for protection. They must also concern themselves with how that document is interpreted. While Quebec is guaranteed such sympathy, all other regions are at the mercy of the cabinet and governor general’s discretion in appointing judges.

Canada’s Senate faces similar issues in giving preference to the Laurentian provinces. The obvious problem for Westerners is under-representation. With Ontario and Quebec each respectively guaranteed the same number of senators as the entirety of Western Canada (24) Alberta and British Columbia come out wildly underrepresented. As of 2018, Quebec had one senator per 350,904 constituents whereas Alberta had one senator per 721,701. While under-representation is a problem which some Westerners have sought to reform, Savoie points to another problem which reform may not altogether solve. He points out the Senate has no mandate. Are senators to be the voice of regional interests or are they a check on democracy? It is not clear. As Savoie argues, “In short, the Senate has no widely accepted mandate. It all depends on how individual senators define their role.” 

Though some argue that the cabinet should play the role of ‘voice of the regions’ Savoie remarks that though we may have once had “powerful regional ministers,” this is no longer the case. “Justin Trudeau even did away with regional ministers in 2015. For some unexplained reason, he decided to re-introduce the position in 2019 but only for Quebec.” Without the Senate or the cabinet, who is to be the voice of the West in Ottawa?

Robert Mansell offers empirical research surrounding the redistribution of Albertan wealth to the other provinces in his chapter, “Alberta’s fiscal contribution to confederation.” Looking at “direct taxes,” “indirect taxes,” “investment income,” “final federal expenditures on goods and services in the region,” and “interest payments on the public debt to residents of the region,” Mansell tells Albertans just how much they are giving to other provinces. From 1961-2018 “the net federal fiscal contribution by Alberta has averaged $3,700 per person per year.” This is the cost of confederation for Albertans. 

Other provinces have certainly reaped the rewards with the maritime provinces garnering a net negative annual federal fiscal contribution of over $5,000 and the territories garnering a negative contribution of $22,842. As Mansell’s research shows, we are not trending towards a more favorable outcome for Alberta. Between 2000 and 2009 Albertans had a net federal fiscal contribution of $5,645 per person per year and a contribution of $5,243 from 2010 to 2018. As Alberta becomes relatively more productive than other provinces, its pockets continue to be picked. Alberta sows, and the Eastern provinces reap.

Mansell breaks down the contributions by source between various policies such as income taxes, equalization, employment insurance, and sales taxes. Most provinces pay in some categories and benefit in others with two exceptions. The first is that of New Brunswick which benefits in all categories outlined by Mansell. The second, which may come of no surprise at this point, is Alberta which pays in every category. The point made is clear: Albertans pay so that other provinces may live more comfortably.

This brings us to Barry Cooper’s chapter, “Challenges for western independence.” Unafraid and unrelenting, Cooper asks a question to Western politicians.

“How much more abuse will it take to persuade Westerners that serious action is required? How many times must polite petitions be answered with repeated injuries?”

For Cooper, that “serious action” might just be secession.

Cooper’s most poignant argument is many problems which have hitherto appeared to be legal matters are not so at all. They are, in Cooper’s words, “political, all the way down.” Two such issues are equalization and referenda on secession. As Canada’s 1982 Constitution explains: “Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.” 

For Cooper and other legal experts, the wording is totally unclear.

“The several governments are committed to the ‘principle’ of equalization payments, but nothing is said about the actual practice. Nor is the meaning of a ‘reasonable’ or ‘comparable’ level of public services or taxation discussed. If Alberta has a lower level of taxation than other provinces, does this imply Alberta should have higher taxes or the other provinces should have lower ones? The question practically answers itself, which is why equalization has been called a welfare trap for provinces. For these reasons alone legal scholars have reached a consensus that Sec. 36 in non-justiciable. That is, in the view of these experts, no court can legitimately determine that Sec. 36 imposes any obligations on any of the governments that have pledged their ‘commitments.’ In other words, the actual working out of equalization payments is entirely political.”

The same is true for the Clarity Act, according to Cooper. After Quebec’s 1995 referendum on independence, it was decided power would be vested in the House of Commons to determine whether or not all future referendum questions regarding secession were clear and whether or not a clear majority in favour of secession had been established. What seems like a legal barrier for Albertans to cross to gain independence, Cooper points out, is a wholly political one.

“Whatever the role and whatever the question, and however clear the question and the vote may be to common-sense or to the voters, the House can always ‘deem’ things to be otherwise.”

Cooper asks us to consider “… the following hypothetical: following an intensive and effective educational campaign detailing the long train of abuses suffered by the West, Alberta and Saskatchewan vote overwhelmingly (say, 95 %) in favour of a straightforward question: do you wish Alberta and Saskatchewan (and perhaps other parts of the existing country of Canada) to be independent of Canada?” 

Cooper poignantly asks, “Then what?”

What is so troubling about the Clarity Act is that it vests the power of determining the clarity of the question and a whether a clear majority obtained in the House of Commons. We might consult a linguist, writer, or psychologist whether or not the question asked is clear. We might consult a statistician, mathematician, or political scientist whether or not a clear majority was obtained. Instead, non-experts with their own interests and agendas — Members of Parliament — are asked to determine the answer to these questions. What is more concerning is Cooper’s suggestion the House of Commons might determine a clear question was unclear, or a clear majority does not require us to suspect MPs of ignoble or immoral conduct. MPs are expected to represent their constituents. 

Suppose a member of parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador is presented with Cooper’s above hypothetical. He must now decide whether or not 95% represents a clear majority. Some $3,000-plus per year per person is at stake for his constituents (as Mundell’s chapter tells us.) Should that MP agree 95% represents a clear majority and turn his back on the interests of his constituents? What should be expected of him in this case? Well-intentioned MPs may therefore, in a noble attempt to represent their constituents, go against all common sense and understanding of statistics and deem that 95% does not represent a clear majority.

Perhaps Alberta should follow Quebec in rejecting the Clarity Act, as they courageously did with the passing of Bill 99 which gave Quebec the authority to determine whether or not a referendum question was clear and understood a majority to mean “50 % of the valid votes cast plus one.”

If you’re concerned with Alberta’s place in confederation, pick up this book. Alberta has spent more than a century being abused by the federal government. If Albertans do not feel those abuses, read this book and you will feel them. If you think there is no hope in secession, read this book and you will see what it takes for Albertans to overcome those obstacles.

Alberta is at a crossroads. Which path will Alberta take? How will Alberta build its own mythology? This book may be a first step for readers in being part of that story.

Andrew Allison is a Freelance Columnist for the Western Standard and is a PhD philosophy student at the University of Waterloo

Continue Reading


  1. Steven

    July 20, 2021 at 10:12 am

    I’ll read this book. I suspect many Wildrose members will be interested in this book also.

    This could be a hard fight. Especially since Justin Trudeau in a French language interview in Quebec did state “this country “Canada” belongs to us” meaning Quebec. I suspect the Laurentian elites will have that same attitude as Justin Trudeau and his father before him.

  2. mm

    Lee Harding

    July 18, 2021 at 1:08 pm

    Yes it is a very timely book and has eminent people cover the topic in a variety of ways. It`s not often we see this kind of book that`s so accessible and yet in-depth on an issue that is both contemporary and historic.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply


Timeline of Kenney’s seesaw COVID-19 protocols

Kenney announces Alberta returns to a state of emergency. After many promises from the premier that Alberta will not introduce a vaccine passport, proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test will now be mandatory for participating businesses and social events.




On the heels of new lockdown measures in Alberta, The Western Standard reviews Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s seesaw approach to dealing with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

March 20, 2020 – Four days after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic, Alberta cities including Calgary declared local states of emergency and shut down most non-essential businesses and serviced. Alberta also declared a provincial public state of emergency and closed all schools.

May 13, 2020 – Alberta enters a Stage 1 re-opening plan allowing businesses, like restaurants and retailers, to reopen with social distancing restrictions.

June 12, 2020 – Stage 2 is introduced earlier than expected, allowing theatres, massage therapists and hair salons as well as libraries to open. Alberta’s state of emergency ends after nearly three months.

August 4, 2020 – The province mandates back-to-school mask use for students in grades four to 12.

October 26, 2020 – Alberta introduces a limit of no more than 15 people for social gatherings.

November 12, 2020 – Tighter restrictions are introduced in restaurants and bars, including an earlier last call for alcohol.

November 24, 2020 – The province announces new and even tighter restrictions banning social gatherings, limits attendance numbers in churches and funerals and closes Alberta high schools.

November 25, 2020 – A Facebook post from Kenney states “We decided not to proceed with a lockdown because of the profound damage it would cause to Albertans, thereby deepening the mental health crisis and leaving many to despair. We will not let political pressure or ideological approaches cause indiscriminate damage to people’s lives and livelihoods.”

December 8, 2020 – Despite Kenney’s announcement less than two weeks earlier, the province is plunged into another full lockdown. All indoor and outdoor social gatherings are banned and non-essential businesses are forced to close including restaurants.

January 14, 2021 – Restrictions on outdoor gatherings are eased and personal service businesses, including massage and hair salons, are allowed to reopen.

January 29, 2021 – Premier Jason Kenney announces “The Path Forward” framework, allowing for an incremental easing of restrictions over three stages. Benchmark metrics were set based on hospitalizations of COVID-19 patients and a minimum wait period of three weeks between each phase.

February 8, 2021 – “Step 1” of The Path Forward plan begins with Alberta easing some restrictions on restaurants, kids sports and indoor fitness.

March 1, 2021 – Kenney announces “Step 2” phasing in low-intensity fitness classes; however, earlier benchmarks were ignored and the remainder of Phase 2 was delayed until March 8 when libraries, retailers, banquets, etc. were permitted to resume at varied levels of capacity. Sports programs were also allowed to resume with limits on participants and social-distancing measures.

March 22, 2021 – Again ignoring previously-set benchmarks, the province announces, due to a surge in COVID cases brought on by variants of concern, “Step 3” would be paused until COVID patients are under 300 and declining.

April 6, 2021 – Premier Kenney rolls Alberta back to “Step 1” until further notice moving the goalposts yet again, stating restaurants in the province were only allowed to offer outdoor dining service.

April 29, 2021 – Kenney announces targeted heath measures specific to regions where there were higher numbers of COVID cases. Schools in those regions were to switch to online learning, indoor gyms were to close and all indoor sports activity were to be suspended. This would last for two weeks.

May 4, 2021 – New restrictions are announced again province-wide. All schools including post-secondary institutions were moved to online learning, indoor recreation activities were shut down and in-person dining was prohibited as of May 10. In those areas with high case counts, gatherings were limited to 5, retail stores went to 10% capacity, personal care services were closed and outdoor gatherings were limited to immediate family members only. 

May 25, 2021 – Students were permitted to return to in-person learning. The next day, Kenney announced he was replacing his “Plan Forward” strategy with the “Open for Summer” plan, based on vaccination progress and hospitalization numbers.

June 18, 2021 – Kenney announces “Step 3” would be implemented July 1.

July 1, 2021 – Kenney announces Alberta is “Open for Summer” and nearly all remaining public heath orders are lifted including mask mandates, self-isolation requirements, scaled back testing and contact tracing.

July, 2021 – Kenney, while attending a Calgary Stampede pancake breakfast, is recorded saying he swears to God the province is “open for good.”

July 29, 2021 – The province announces major changes to the COVID-19 protocols on testing, self-isolation and contact tracing. Testing would now only be for the symptomatic; self-isolating is no longer mandatory and AHS would stop close-contact contact tracing.

Sept 4, 2021 – Alberta brings back mandatory masking for all indoor public spaces and work places. Restaurants are ordered to end alcohol service at 10 p.m.

Sept 15, 2021 – Kenney announces Alberta returns to a state of emergency. After many promises from the premier Alberta will not introduce a vaccine passport, proof of vaccination or a negative COVID-19 test will now be mandatory for participating businesses and social events. As of September 20, restaurants will have to shut their dining rooms and only provide service on their patios or take-out meals until they have a vaccine passport system in place which will then offer them exemptions. The province will also continue a curfew of 10 p.m. for liquor sales. Forced social distancing returns and it will be illegal for unvaccinated people to attend social functions in homes. Vaccinated families can have friends come over from one other vaccinated house to a total of 10 people. Along with other restrictions, mandatory work from home orders are also back in place.

Continue Reading


MAKICHUK: TOP SECRET – Meet the real-life James Bonds

“We haven’t had a female Bond in the films, but there are already lots in real life.”




Like James Bond, they cross borders with fake identities and passports.

They operate in small isolated teams and have access to the full array of 007 gadgets designed by the spies’ Q section.

Its members are famed for not always looking like soldiers. Some speak different languages and can pass as foreign nationals.

The standing joke is that they could fit in at an embassy party or a whorehouse in Istanbul.

And just like Bond, they are all highly trained in firearms and hand-to-hand combat.

In fact, their training is considered “amazing even by SAS standards.”

But unlike the fictional 007 character, these assets don’t work for MI6, the famed British Secret Intelligence Service.

They are an elite section of the SAS, known as “The Increment.”

According to a report in the UK’s The Sun, the existence of the secret unit, “E Squadron,” was inadvertently confirmed this week when bungling Army top brass leaked the personal details of more than 70 Special Forces troops.

Buried deep in a spreadsheet of 1,200 soldiers’ names, trades and military units was a single reference to “22 SAS E SQN.”

It was the first written proof that the unit exists.

E Squadron is the fifth and newest limb of 22 SAS, the world’s most famous Special Forces regiment, whose motto is Who Dares Wins.

But its work is so secret that its troops are kept apart from the other four Sabre Squadrons, A, B, D and G, at their headquarters in Hereford, the Sun report said.

The squadron’s main task is to work with MI6 on top missions all over the globe.

SAS legend Andy McNab spent three years with the unit from 1991 to 1993, after his patrol in the first Gulf War which he wrote about in his book Bravo Two Zero.

He said the unit — which was hand-picked from the SAS — was “the closest to what James Bond does” of any British secret service.

But almost 30 years after he left, he said his work was still too secret to reveal, the Sun report said.

Another former member, who asked not to be named, said: “We were moving in and out of countries on different passports. Always in civvies, overseas all the time. It was busy.

“It was the James Bond stuff — use your imagination.”

The ex-member added: “You had to be able to blend in. People were picked for their ability to do undercover work.”

While some MI6 officers are firearms trained, it is never to the same level as their counterparts in E Squadron.

The former soldier said: “MI6 and MI5 are always distancing themselves from James Bond, saying they aren’t really like that. It’s true — spies aren’t like James Bond, they’re eggheads. Give them a gun, they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

“E Squadron solves that problem but they do a lot more as well.”

The places where they often have to work, using civilian cover identities, make it impossible to be armed, so they are all trained in deadly hand-to-hand combat, the Sun report said.

SAS author Chris Ryan served with Andy McNab on the 1991 Bravo Two Zero mission, in which a SAS patrol was deployed into Iraq during the first Gulf War to destabilize Saddam Hussein’s war strategy.

Says Ryan: “To be in the Increment is to be the best of the best.”

According to SOFREP.com, The Increment are strictly black ops — deniable missions that would be disavowed by the British government if compromised.

These could include:

  • Secret military assistance to foreign powers
  • Clandestine insertion and extraction of intelligence agents
  • Covert reconnaissance/intelligence gathering

Today E Squadron’s members are drawn from the three Tier One Special Forces units — the SAS, the SBS and the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, the Sun report said.

The SBS provides specialist frogmen and mini-submersibles which can be used to insert teams undetected on foreign shores.

The SRR, whose soldiers specialize in plain-clothes surveillance operations around the world, provides a large number of women.

The unit was formed out of 14 Intelligence Company, which was known as the Det, and operated undercover in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles.

A source said: “Women are often the best at this sort of work. If a group of blokes turns up, it always looks suspicious.

“We haven’t had a female Bond in the films, but there are already lots in real life.”

The Increment’s troops were among the first British soldiers in Afghanistan, ahead of the US invasion in 2001.

They were also involved in the 2011 uprising in Libya which toppled Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the Sun said.

A former E Squadron soldier said the unit was heavily involved in Iraq in the run-up to the 2003 invasion.

He said: “E Squadron are military people. They have rules of engagement.

“Is it a licence to kill? It is certainly not carte blanche. But the nature of soldiering means it’s sometimes necessary to take life. Everyone is trained in deadly force.”

Dave Makichuk is a Western Standard contributor
He has worked in the media for decades, including as an editor for the Calgary Herald. He is also the military editor for the Asia Times.

Continue Reading


Why does this BC area have the rudest postal code in Canada?

The area of Canada that easily takes the title for most unfortunate postcode has to be a street in Delta East Central: V4G1N4 (VAGINA). 




A U.K. online business — apparently with buckets of time on its hands — has researched and unveiled what it calls “Canada’s rudest” postal codes.

Research by Money.co.uk shows the most unusual and awkward postal codes (the wacky Brits called it a “postcode”) in Canada and the UK and looked at the potential it can have on house prices.

As every maple-syrup blooded Canuck knows, Canadian postal codes contain a six-digit string of numbers and letters to create the final outcome, if one ignores the hyphen that splits the codes 

Using numeronyms —words where a number is used to form an abbreviation — the Brits discovered some odd pairings.

For example, in Timmins, Ont. you’ll find the postcode P4N-1C5. Nothing too eye-popping there until you dissolve the hyphen and are left with P4N1C5 (PANICS).

M4X1M5  (MAXIM) is more associated with a mens’ mag, not a vibrant area of downtown Toronto.

In another example, one area of Winnipeg sports the R3L1C5 (RELICS) code. 

However, the area of Canada that easily takes the title for most unfortunate postcode has to be a street in Delta East Central: V4G1N4 (VAGINA). 

The Brit release noted with the average Canadian house price currently around $716,828, living in a postcode such as V4G1N4 may actually effect your house price. However, no proof of the claim was offered.

Here are the top 21 most unusual/amusing postcodes in Canada:
• B3G1N5 (begins) Eastern Passage, NS;

• B4N4N4 (banana) Kentville, NS;

• L1V1N6 (living) Pickering Southwest, ON:

• L3C3L5 (levels) Orilla, ON:

• L4G3R5 (lagers) Aurora, ON;

• M4G1C5 (magics) East York (Leaside), ON;

• M4L1C3 (malice) East Toronto (India Bazaar / The Beaches West), ON;

• M4R1N3 (marine) Central Toronto (North Toronto West), ON;

• P3N1L3 (penile) Greater Sudbury (Val Caron), ON;

• P4N1C5 (panics) Timmins Southeast, ON;

• R3J3C7 (reject) Winnipeg (St. James-Assiniboia SE), MB;

• R3L1C5 (relics) Winnipeg (River Heights East), MB;

• R3M0V3 (remove) Winnipeg (River Heights Central), MB;

• R3T1R3 (retire) Winnipeg (Fort Garry NE / University of Manitoba), MB;

• S3N1L3 (senile) Yorkton, SK;

• S7R0K3 (stroke) Saskatoon Northwest, SK;

• T1R1N6 (tiring) Brooks, AB;

• V1C4R5 (vicars) Cranbrook, BC;

• V1K1N6 (Viking) Merritt, BC;

• V1X3N5 (vixens) Kelowna East Central, BC;

V4G1N4 (vagina) Delta East Central, BC.

Mike D’Amour is the British Columbia Bureau Chief for the Western Standard.

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Petition: No Media Bailouts

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

605 signatures

No Media Bailouts

The fourth estate is critical to a functioning democracy in holding the government to account. An objective media can't maintain editorial integrity when it accepts money from a government we expect it to be critical of.

We the undersigned call on the Canadian government to immediately cease all payouts to media companies.

**your signature**

The Western Standard will never accept government bailout money. By becoming a Western Standard member, you are supporting government bailout-free and proudly western media that is on your side. With your support, we can give Westerners a voice that doesn\'t need taxpayers money.

Share this with your friends:


Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.