fbpx
Connect with us

Opinion

BROWN: Fall election, vaccine ‘passports’ not popular among grassroots Canadians

Perhaps most telling, when asked who should be the next prime minister of Canada, no current candidate fared particularly well. O’Toole finished a distant second to “other”.

mm

Published

on

Is it really any surprise that the mainstream, Liberal-friendly narrative on election polling and ‘vaccine passports’ would be misleading?

With an election call seemingly near, the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) sent out an election poll to 25,000 supporters and grassroots Canadians to learn about the issues that really matter most to them.

The results were eye-opening, to say the least. And the picture that they paint is of a nation alienated and divided like never before.

Trudeau and an early election

Just 40% of NCC respondents feel this “early election is necessary.”

A whopping 99% answered that Trudeau does not deserve a majority government, although that might not be surprising from NCC supporters.

A total of 99% of grassroots Canadians are worried about the expansion of state censorship powers via Bills C-10, C-36, and other reported and rumoured legislation.

A total of 96% feel that there must be changes to Canada’s equalization formula to better serve Albertan interests, instead of just Quebec’s.

And 93% feel the inflation that has occurred on Trudeau’s watch must become a pressing election issue.

Mandatory vaccines

The NCC also asked: “Now that Canada is setting belated vaccine uptake records, would you support ‘vaccine passport’ restrictions on the day-to-day life of your fellow Canadians?” A resounding 84% said no.

When asked if they could vote for a politician who supports those kinds of restrictions, 79% of respondents said no.

A commanding 91% of respondents said they would not support any more lockdowns in the coming fall or winter.

The Conservative Party of Canada

Here’s where it gets interesting. Even with a high percentage of those who were polled being moderate-to-right leaning, there appears to be real division and fatigue among the ranks.

Trudeau’s carbon tax may be overwhelmingly unpopular (99% against), but so too is federal Conservative Leader Erin O’Toole’s, with 89% disapproving. This could be a major problem for O’Toole with his base.

When asked if they were happy with the present direction of the Conservative Party of Canada, only 20% of those who replied said they were. A slim majority are even considering a vote for a right-leaning candidate outside of the CPC. While the PPC and the Maverick Party (in the West) are still unlikely to win any seats, they pose a growing threat to the Tory lock on right-leaning voters. This is largely the fault of the Tory leadership, not right-leaning voters.

A total of 74% are considering making a strategic vote against Justin Trudeau, regardless of party allegiances. That might register as a saving grace for O’Toole.

Perhaps most telling, when asked who should be the next prime minister of Canada, no current candidate fared particularly well. O’Toole finished a distant second to “other”.

This is a snapshot of where NCC supporters are at right now, not necessarily all Canadians at large, but it should be a wake-up call, especially for Erin O’Toole and the team around him.

Alexander Brown is the Communications Director for the National Citizens Coalition

Continue Reading
6 Comments

6 Comments

  1. francis witzel

    August 10, 2021 at 5:22 pm

    Here’s a new idea , let’s not have any Priime Minister, They don’t do anything they say anyway , it would solve a lot of problems, no more lies , and really what heck has he done for this country since he was elected anyway , go ahead name one good thing .

  2. Pamela Bridger

    August 9, 2021 at 9:13 am

    One must assume PPC and Sloan parties are protest votes. How could anyone seriously elect a party with no grass roots, chose themselves leader and hand picked all candidates running. Have Conservatives lost their minds?

  3. Chris

    August 8, 2021 at 6:40 pm

    I am voting PPC. PC and Liberal parties seem to have the same ideas. Bernier seemed to be the only conservative will to stick his neck out during covid. Maverick party is MIA except for ad’s to donate.

    Michael Wagner’s new book “No Other Option: Self Determination for Alberta” was a good read and details how a western party has failed many, many times before (Canadian Alliance, Reform Party).

    Alberta’s only option is independence. Trudeau would force policies on Alberta that would open more eyes and help get votes to separate.

  4. Steven

    August 8, 2021 at 5:00 pm

    I’m thinking Maverick might surprise the NCC in the next election, especially in Alberta.

  5. berta baby

    August 8, 2021 at 2:41 pm

    Oh it’s coming to a store near you ( minus Alberta) real soon…. Boycott all who try doing the governments dirty work… and remover that even if the FDA approves it will be the fastest approval in history without having a full 9 months for pregnant women, or a two year history for medium term side affects …the approval means nothing

    https://globalnews.ca/news/8096192/fauci-covid-vaccines-fda-us/

  6. Penny4YourThouhts

    August 8, 2021 at 2:40 pm

    Fascinating stats when you consider how different these are to all the others reported. Funny that. O’Foole panders too much to try to gain left votes so he doesn’t deserve any votes from conservatives who value their own conscious. Derek Sloan will gain the votes of conservatives who care about the never ending creeping lefties who find their way into the party, and the spineless conservatives already in power who won’t actually say what they really think.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Opinion

WAGNER: Hydrocarbon based fuels are here to stay

“Think of it as telling people to step out of a perfectly serviceable airplane without a parachute, with assurances that politicians will work out alternatives on the way down.”

mm

Published

on

Alberta’s future is threatened by a national campaign to dramatically reduce the production of hydrocarbons.

The political and media elite repeatedly assure everyone that such fuels can be replaced by new “green” energy sources such as wind and solar power. People currently employed in the oil and gas industry will supposedly transition into green energy production and life will continue on as before, except with fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Indeed, Justin Trudeau’s federal government has committed to transitioning Canada’s economy to producing net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.

Trudeau’s scheme is a fairy tale. Hydrocarbons are going to be required for a very long time because current green energy technology is nowhere near where it needs to be to replace them. Currently, there are no realistic alternatives to oil and gas, so reducing their production will only lead to energy shortages.

As Dr. Henry Geraedts put it recently in the Financial Post, “The ultimate goal of net-zero politics is to impose a radical energy transition that demands a top-to-bottom physical and social-economic restructuring of society, with no credible road map in sight. Think of it as telling people to step out of a perfectly serviceable airplane without a parachute, with assurances that politicians will work out alternatives on the way down.”

Geraedts’ Financial Post column is a brief description of a policy report he produced in June 2021, and how it was ignored because its conclusions contradict the ideological perspective that university professors are expected to support. He didn’t toe the party line, in other words, and therefore got the cold shoulder.

Geraedts’ report, Net Zero 2050: Rhetoric and Realities, is available online at the website of the Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy which is affiliated with both the University of Saskatchewan and University of Regina. It’s a very credible piece of work.

Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons and Geraedts points out “hydrocarbons are nature’s most efficient embodiment of primary energy: the combination of high energy density, abundance, stability, safety, portability and affordability is unmatched by any other source of energy.”

Currently, hydrocarbons comprise about 80% of global primary energy. This is essentially the same percentage as 30 years ago, when the global warming craze began. Despite years of favourable government policies and billions of dollars in government subsidies, green technology such as wind and solar energy remain relatively small contributors to the world’s energy supply.

Geraedts also describes the negative environmental impacts caused by so-called green energy technology. Among the most interesting details he mentions is: “Neither turbine blades nor solar panels nor lithium-ion batteries are physically or economically recyclable. They are instead, at an alarming rate, ending up in landfills leaching toxic chemicals — an estimated 10 million tons/year of batteries by 2030 alone.” So much for protecting the environment.

Geraedts is not a so-called “denier.” He points to data from reliable sources indicating global temperatures have increased by one degree Celsius since 1900. But he also explains “the projections used to justify net zero policies and the Paris Accord, are based on fundamentally flawed computer climate models that overstate warming by some 200%.”

Not only that, but “observational, empirical evidence remains agnostic as to what, with requisite confidence levels, is attributable to anthropogenic influences vs. natural variability.” In other words, it cannot be determined with certainty to what degree the gradual temperature increase is the result of human activities.

But climate change worries aside, there is still a fatal lack of realistic alternatives to hydrocarbons. The International Energy Agency forecasts that even if all countries fulfill their Paris Accord commitments — an unlikely prospect — hydrocarbons will still account for 60% of primary energy in 2040. With accelerating energy demand in Africa and Asia, Geraedts expects hydrocarbons will remain the dominant energy source for decades to come.

This is what it all means: If we put progressive ideology aside and take a hard, honest look at the energy situation, hydrocarbons are here to stay for quite a while. Knowing the ingenuity of human beings in a free society, the discovery of new energy sources is likely at some point in the future. For now, though, we need oil and gas, and Alberta has lots of both.

With strong international demand for hydrocarbons forecast to last for decades, there is no reason why these resources cannot continue to provide the foundation of economic prosperity for the province. The biggest obstacle to such prosperity, of course, is the federal government. Due to its determination to prevent the development of hydrocarbons, independence may be the only way to maintain and increase the resource-based wealth that is Alberta’s birthright.

An independent Alberta could implement policies maximizing economic growth and avoid the suffocating policies of Canada’s central government. A free Alberta would be a prosperous Alberta.

Michael Wagner is a columnist for the Western Standard

Continue Reading

Opinion

Stirling: Suzuki is a superspreader of alarmism

By actively denigrating people who hold rational, dissenting views on climate change, Suzuki and his fellow travelers have created a very dangerous situation today.

mm

Published

on

Guest Column by Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society

In 2015, Reader’s Digest counted David Suzuki as the number one most trusted influencer in Canada. He had already lost his shine with the oil patch working people of the West thanks to his performance in the appalling 2011 CBC co-production shlockumentary, “The Tipping Point: Age of the Oil Sands.” Others recoiled at the equally dreadful, “Where Will Santa Live?” fundraiser which suggested to kids Santa will drown unless your parents send cash. Yet for many, he still resonates as a kind of wise elder.

People of influence should be very careful about what they say.

For decades, Suzuki has been calling scientists and scholars who challenge his climate catastrophe narrative ‘deniers.’ He’s called for them to be silenced and censored, despite the fact when interviewed in Australia on television, the self-styled king of climate change was unable to understand a question from the audience that referred to the commonly known temperature data sets used in climate science. It seems he’d never heard of them.

By actively denigrating people who hold rational, dissenting views on climate change, Suzuki and his fellow travelers created a very dangerous situation today. There are many people who are genuinely frightened there might be only “10 years left” as Suzuki claims and they are like a tinderbox looking for a flame. Suzuki lit a spark for them a couple of weeks ago with his irresponsible musing about pipelines being blown up. His tepid apology will not put that genie back in the bottle.

Imagine if we had had open, civil debate on climate change in the media for the past 20 years. Imagine if, when Suzuki claimed there was a climate crisis, an atmospheric scientist like Dr. Richard Lindzen could show him why this is imaginary and how claims of a climate emergency are just a means for renewables promoters to push their wares.

Imagine if when Suzuki claimed Santa would drown and take the polar bears with him, an expert like geoscientist Dr. Ian Clark, who actually hikes the Arctic for his research, could show him that during the Holocene Hypsithermal of about 8,000 years ago, the Arctic was ice-free, rather balmy, and the polar bears were all fine.

Imagine if when Suzuki invokes “consensus,” (which forms the basis of the Toronto Star’s refusal to run any report that conflicts with the alleged 97% consensus), if someone like astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv could have been invited to explain that science is not a democracy, it’s about evidence. While all scientists agree climate does change, they disagree on what ratio is human-caused versus natural influences like the sun and oceans. Scientists don’t all agree that taxing people will stop climate change, and most scientists are not convinced anymore that carbon dioxide is the control knob on climate.

This kind of open, civil debate, based on facts and evidence rather than emotional hyperbole would take society a long way toward more rational responses on climate and energy policies.

Unfortunately, it looks like things will get much worse as “The Climate Coverage in Canada Report” has run a consensus survey of its own, and Canadian journalists concluded that “large majorities … somewhat or strongly agree there is a climate crisis and the news media should report on it that way.”

In the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (AR6), the word “crisis” is only used once, and only in reference to media coverage on climate. Otherwise, there’s no crisis stated in that 4,000-page science report.

The mainstream media in Canada has been parroting Suzuki’s hyperbolic words, republishing his op-eds posted by the David Suzuki Foundation and obligingly blocking any dissenting views for decades.

Canadian media have made his incendiary words go viral — making him a super spreader of a contagious social disease called anarchy. Suzuki began this soft incitement years ago asking people if they were “radically Canadian” or not.

It’s time the media and Suzuki stopped the spread of alarmism and incitement and asked people to be rational instead.

Guest Column by Michelle Stirling is Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society. This op-ed expresses her personal opinion.

Continue Reading

Opinion

MAKICHUK: Fear, loathing and the desolation of late night TV

My generation is fading fast, and soon, it will be gone — but at least we had the best of late night television. It was great, while it lasted.

mm

Published

on

I miss David Letterman.

I really, really miss him and his Late Night television show.

I even miss Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, for God sakes.

They were great entertaining programs and Dave had the best band going, led by Canada’s own Paul Shaffer.

It never got better than that, in my humble opinion.

And it was just about a window on the world, not only politics.

Conan is OK, he can be funny, especially when he goes abroad and I think he got screwed over. Fallon, the young gun, and making $12 million a year … I just want to punch in the face.

Cordon, he’s always shouting and I think he’s over-rated as a celeb although his bit with Paul McCartney in Liverpool was epic.

Colbert, I fear, has jumped the shark and Meyers is a lightweight. Don’t even know why that guy has a show.

I also didn’t mind Craig Ferguson, the Scottish comedian, I thought he was good. But then, he too got shown the door.

The greatest of them all, of course, was Johnny Carson. The king of late night television.

During his three-decade tenure, virtually every North American with a television set saw and heard a Carson monologue at some point. At his height, between 10 million and 15 million viewers slept better weeknights because of him.

I actually got the chance to see his show live, in the summer of 1976, in L.A. My buddy Whitey and I waited all night at the door in Burbank for tickets.

It was well worth it — we got to see the entire show, which was during the Montreal Olympics. No big stars but it was great just to see Johnny do his thing and admonish us for not laughing at his terrible opening monologue.

Legendary Carson sets made the careers of people like Woody Allen, Joan Rivers, Jerry Seinfeld, Drew Carey, Garry Shandling, Steve Martin and many more.

On any given night, comedian Don Rickles (“Mr. Warmth”), Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin or Bob Hope could show up. Mayhem would ensue and Johnny just rolled with it.

“Anyone looking at the show 100 years from now,” said Tom Shales, The Washington Post television critic, at the time of Mr. Carson’s retirement from “Tonight” in 1992, “will probably have no trouble understanding what made Carson so widely popular and permitted him such longevity. 

“He was affable, accessible, charming and amusing, not just a very funny comedian but the kind of guy you would gladly welcome into your home.”

But then I go back to another late night show, which was just as good as Johnny, the Steve Allen show.

Despite all these attempts to re-invent late night television, Allen always said that it basically came down to a desk and some chairs, nothing more.

But then he had brilliant comedians such as Don Knotts, Louis Nye and Tom Poston to call on. The crazy man on the street stunts were hilarious, and no doubt influenced Carson.

And even before that, I remember the brilliance of Jack Paar. Check out some of his interviews on YouTube, you will be amazed by the people who appeared on his show.

Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro, himself, Senator John F. Kennedy, William F. Buckley Jr., Nobel laureate Albert Schweitzer and Richard M. Nixon, among others.

“Anyone who saw him when he was in his prime knew he was a great television original,” Ron Simon, a television curator at the Museum of Television and Radio in New York, told The Washington Post. 

“You never knew what was going to happen . . . He was the catalyst for ways the talk shows would go.

“The whole idea of intermingling politics with entertainment on a talk show really began with Jack Paar,” Simon said.

Now, it’s just a parade of beautiful people, musicians and singers. The problem with late night TV these days is that it has no soul. 

It lacks the interpersonal humanity of a Jack Paar, a Steve Allen or a Johnny Carson.

These guys could make you laugh. It made your life a little better. 

Aside from Jimmy Kimmel, who’s actually not a bad guy and the only late night guy I PVR, it’s a late night wasteland.

As for Dave, The Atlantic reported he might have been the last true innovator in late-night comedy and I totally agree with that.

In his interview with The New York Times, Letterman says his disorderly streak was honed early on by NBC’s strictures.

“[The network] came to us and he said: ‘You can’t have a band. You can have a combo. You can’t do a monologue. You can’t do, like, Aunt Blabby. You can’t do Tea Time Movie Matinee.’ There were so many restrictions. So that was the framework we were handed, which was fine because then they gave us an excuse not to think of that thing to do.”

Letterman came across as someone who had stolen a camera crew and broken into an empty studio, The Atlantic reported. 

“Stupid Pet Tricks,” for example, became an audience favourite and reflected his unique brand of caustic humour. 

Chris Elliott’s “Guy under the stairs” skits also added to the fresh approach to comedy. His spearing of an aging Marlon Brando remains a comedic classic. 

And again, Paul Shaffer and his fabulous band, along with numerous musical guests, many of which can still be seen on YouTube. 

As Christmas approaches, I will definitely miss hanging with Dave, hearing that great story of the Lone Ranger (Google it) as told by Jay Thomas, and of course, the spectacular Darlene Love belting out Christmas (Baby Please Come Home).

My generation is fading fast, and soon, it will be gone — but at least we had the best of late night television.

It was great while it lasted.

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 Calgary correspondent for ChinaFactor.news
makichukd@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Share

Petition: No Media Bailouts

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

829 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:

Trending

Copyright © Western Standard New Media Corp.