It may seem minor and petty but this is serious business.
Calgary mayoral hopeful Jyoti Gondek has made great political hay out of her support for lockdowns, masking, social distancing and mandatory vaccinations. Gondek opposed Alberta’s unmasking back in June and still supports stronger restrictions today.
Meanwhile at an event today (September 25) Gondek was apparently doing maskless selfies in close quarters with people who aren’t in her household.
Emma May who appears in the picture quickly deleted the tweet and blocked me on Twitter but alas, it is too late. The image of this act of hypocrisy endures.
Leading by example is critical. How are we supposed to expect citizens to take social distancing legislation or even recommendations seriously when proponents of such measures won’t do so themselves?
Are not Alberta’s hospitals filled to capacity right now? Has it not been made clear that vaccinations alone don’t prevent spread? Why does Gondek think that unmasked, close contact with people outside of her own cohort won’t lead to the potential spread of infections?
Hypocrisy is one of the worst traits one can see in political leadership.
There are many reasons not to select Jyoti Gondek as Calgary’s next mayor.
Her gross hypocrisy when it comes to COVID-19 safely measures should top that list.
While the term “Just Transition” sounds innocuous enough, it is anything but. It represents a plan based on the presumption that the world will no longer need petrochemical products in the near future. Proponents of Justin Trudeau’s “Just Transition Act” view energy transition as being a black and white issue. They feel that petrochemical production must be halted altogether as soon as possible while we seek new means of energy generation. This ideologically driven approach to policy is certain to irreparably harm Canada’s energy sector while doing little to mitigate climate change.
Producers in Canada’s energy sector are well aware that the old way of doing things is finished. They also understand that Canada remains blessed with some of the most abundant energy resources on earth. Rather than throwing up their hands and working under the assumption that we will be shutting in our petrochemical resources, our energy producers have been taking a pragmatic approach through embracing the principles of a circular economy.
In a circular economy, producers no longer are simply focused on extracting, refining, and selling an energy product. The age-old principles of reduce, reuse and recycle are now being applied with resource extraction. Companies are now looking at the entire cycle of their operations and with technological advancements, net-zero emission goals are within reach.
Carbon that once was released into the atmosphere is now captured. Rather than viewing carbon as a waste product to be disposed of, researchers are finding ways to turn it into an asset.
Carbon dioxide is already being used for enhanced oil recovery projects. This reduces water and steam injection and naturally sequesters the carbon underground.
Technology is being developed that can use carbon in concrete, plastics, and liquid fuels. Captured CO2 can be used to accelerate algae growth which can be used as feed-stock for food, biofuels, and plastics.
We are just beginning to see the potential uses for captured carbon and new applications for it are being discovered all the time.
To foster continued innovation in carbon technology, industry leaders and investors need to be confident that they can get a long-term return on their investment. Why invest in new technology when the government appears to be poised to shut down the industry that it will apply to?
It will be nothing less than a tragedy if Canada shuts down one of its core industries based on ideological and political motives. We have an opportunity in front of us to be technological leaders in the production of net-zero emission petrochemical products. Both the economy and the environment will suffer if we allow our petrochemical sector to be shut down rather than cleaned up. The world will continue to consume fossil fuels from nations with low environmental standards while our domestic energy prices will skyrocket.
We need to move away from binary thinking when it comes to the future of petrochemical production. There is a third way and it isn’t transition, it’s transformation. The petrochemical industry is embracing positive, forward-thinking change. If only the government would let the industry get on with it.
I formed the Alberta Independence Party in 2000 at the ripe old age of 29. I was full of piss, vinegar, and inexperience. The party didn’t last long but the experience gained was invaluable.
Now more than 20 years later, other Western independence groups and parties have come and gone. All of the same regional grievances exist and we are no closer to independence than we were decades ago.
We continue to go in circles and keep making the same mistakes. While the situation of the West hasn’t changed in the last 20 years, I have.
I have remained active in provincial political circles and have served in roles ranging from election candidate for the Separation Party of Alberta to VP of policy for the Wildrose Party of Alberta when they were the official opposition.
After every assault on the wealth or culture of the West, we see new supporters of independence created. Every time a Conservative candidate takes us for granted or a Liberal candidate insults us, a few more people realize that the West’s relationship with Canada is untenable.
New supporters of Western independence are often politically inexperienced. They are ready to pursue independence but don’t know where to begin. They need a guide and I am putting it together.
It’s time for a new approach and there is little need to keep slamming into the walls that I already have.
The book is now in the final stages of editing and an electronic version will be published soon. The introduction is below. Consider signing up in the form at the bottom of the page so you can be informed when the full book is available.
Support for Western independence in Canada has had ebbs and flows for decades. Western alienation in Canada has existed since the beginning of confederation.
This book is for those who have concluded that the time has come for Western independence but may not know where to begin. We have tried to achieve change through the electoral system for generations to no avail. Attempts to change the constitution are futile as demonstrated by the failure of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords.
Canada’s system is outdated and lopsided. It is designed to serve Central Canada at the expense of outlying provinces. The deck is stacked and we will never win by playing within the existing structure.
The Reform Party burst upon the scene with the message of “The West wants in”. Through decades of pressure and compromise, the Reform Party merged into the mushy Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) of today. Even with O’Toole throwing Western interests to the wind by flip-flopping on his carbon-tax and firearm rights stances, the CPC was rejected by Central Canada in favour of the scandal-ridden Liberals. Western interests will never be a priority in federal politics. It is political suicide for a federal party to serve anything but Central Canada’s demands.
Western independence parties and movements have come and gone over the years. The Western Canada Concept made inroads in the 1980s and faded away. The Alberta Independence Party made ripples at the end of the 1990s and dissolved shortly into the 2000s. The Separation Party of Alberta came and went by 2010. Wexit was formed in 2019 and morphed into the soft-regionalist Maverick Party that made little more than a blip in the 2021 election.
We need to approach the pursuit of Western independence differently or we will never break out of the pattern of chronic failure that has marked the movement so far.
Rather than spawning more parties and advocacy groups, Western independence proponents need to build their base as individuals.
A lasting foundation for Western independence won’t be built through electoral runs or advocacy groups that seem to be little more than fundraising machines. Those organizations inevitably fall apart due to self-interested leadership, infighting or the compromising of core principles by the impatient.
Every supporter of Western independence needs to become an ambassador for the movement. The discussion forum for independence needs to be at dinner tables, over the neighbour’s fence, and in the lunchroom at work. Growth needs to be organic and from peer to peer.
This book will provide the tools to become an effective advocate for Western independence. Not as an annoying fanatic, but as a rational voice for a concept whose time has come.
Supporters for Western independence need to be won one person at a time. It will take patience and many conversations but this is how we will build the environment for the sea-change required in order to make Western independence a reality.
As Western independence proponents, we must to be able to effectively counter the common arguments made against independence. We need to be able to express how it’s the Canadian system rather than the Canadian people that we are eschewing.
We also need to avoid the mistakes made by previous independence movements.
Rather than having an independence movement represented by a handful of parties and groups we need to have a movement made up of hundreds of thousands of active, individual supporters. A true grassroots movement is invulnerable to the damage that organizations can cause under poor leadership.
When we communicate with our peers about independence, we speak directly and genuinely. The bias of the mainstream media is bypassed when we take on communication individually.
Once the strong foundation of support for Western independence is built, the parties will follow. As the late Ralph Klein said, his secret was to find out where the parade was going and to get in front of it. Once we build the parade, rest assured we will see plenty of prospective leaders and spokespeople rushing to get in front of it.
The concept is old but our approach needs to be new. This book will chart the path to Western independence and it begins with you.
The Libertarian Party of Canada has been around since 1973. Few alternative parties can claim that sort of longevity and many have come and gone in that period.
The Libertarian party stays true to its ideals and philosophy. While the mainstream parties tend to change tact whenever the political winds shift, the Libertarians stick with their principles. That tenacious nature may be admirable, but it does make it difficult to garner support on the electoral front.
Libertarians are a stubborn lot by nature and can be difficult to lead. Jacques Boudreau has taken on a challenging task. Boudreau is maintaining an optimistic and pragmatic attitude and is planning to have a bigger presence in the next election which may be coming quite soon. With unrestrained government growth being the theme of the 2021 general election, a fiscal crisis down the road is unavoidable. The Libertarians plan to be there as the small-government alternative if and when Canadians do realize that we need to change the status quo.
Despite COVID-19 infections being in a total freefall in Alberta and despite the rest of the province dropping all restrictions on July 1, Naheed Nenshi and his usual gang of fartcatchers decided to keep Calgary’s mask bylaw intact as it is set to expire at the end of 2021.
This spiteful and pointless move was done simply to give the middle finger to Premier Jason Kenney. Kenney has invested a lot of political capital into what he is calling “the best summer ever”. Nenshi and company want to make sure that Calgarians remain miserable and hope that this will ensure that Kenney gets no bounce in support from people happily shedding their masks and getting back to normal living for the summer.
Unfortunately, it will be Calgary businesses who bear the brunt of the cost for Nenshi’s posturing as people choose either to shop outside of the city boundaries or to stay home rather than shop and go out while wearing stifling masks in the heat.
City council will be revisiting the mask bylaw on July 5. They may choose to finally get rid of the law and catch up with the rest of the province at that time or they may not. Clearly need and science aren’t behind their choices so it is hard to say right now.
Most of those who voted to keep us all masked will be running for one elected office or another this year. I want to document them below so that voters can be reminded just who decided to arbitrarily restrict their rights and return to normal in order to try and score petty political points.
Below are the seven council members who voted to keep you sweating and gagged this summer.
While Naheed Nenshi won’t be running for Mayor again, it is clear that he is far from being done in politics. He may be appointed to the senate or as Governor General. He may also run to become a Liberal MP if indeed he has his eye on the Prime Ministerial throne down the road.
Jyoti Gondek is Naheed Nenshi’s preferred successor. Nenshi’s former top man Stephen Carter is even managing her campaign. You may be familiar with her campaign signs polluting streets throughout the city as she takes advantage of a sign bylaw loophole in order to campaign for mayor while purportedly simply promoting a townhall meeting.
Diane Colley-Urquhart was past her electoral best-before date a decade ago. Unfortunately, voter apathy has allowed her to continue to keep her seat. Let’s hope her zeal in masking citizens finally encourages enough voters to send her out to pasture this fall.
Giancarlo Carra found life as a city councilor to be more lucrative than being an urban designer. While within the city, he could nudge developments into compliance with his density dreams. Carra consistently follows Nenshi’s lead and will happily swing left and become Gondek’s second on council if she becomes mayor. Let’s get Carra back into the private market so he can try pursuing his design dreams again. It will be for his own good (and ours).
You may not have heard of councilor George Chahal. That is because as a first term councilor, George has taken the tact of doing little and not making waves in order to keep his job secure. It worked well for Hodges and Jones for decades. George wants to keep you masked for the foreseeable future however thus he really should be eased out of his seat and replaced with a councilor who will be less lacklustre and who will put the needs of constituents ahead of those of the mayor’s agenda.
Druh Farrell has long been the queen of the looney left on city council. It was no shocker that she voted to keep citizens suppressed. Farrell finally won’t be running for re-election but she may surface elsewhere. I am sure the Notley NDP would welcome her with open arms. Let’s ensure that voters don’t.
Evan Woolley is the Hipster in Chief for council. Consistently left and happy with high spending. He was gleeful in voting to keep the mask bylaw. Woolley isn’t running for re-election but he has been known for electoral waffling for years. His eyes have always been on the mayor’s chair but he just couldn’t make that leap. Best that we help his indecision by making sure that he remains in the political dustbin of Alberta.
This fall’s municipal and federal elections will be important ones.
Here are seven people who no longer should be in elected office. Let’s remind voters of that this fall.
Never in human history have we had such access to information, nor such an ability to create information and share it with others. We can access the contents of entire libraries on our phones and view everything from works of art to theatrical productions from any location with a cellular signal.
We also have the ability to reach outward like never before. Anyone can create a video that may potentially reach thousands or even millions of people. A poem, an article, or even a digital book can be posted online where it may be read instantaneously by people anywhere in the world. The capability to widely publish and broadcast content used to be limited to large media corporations. Common folks are now empowered with the ability to communicate with and influence others around the planet, and this empowerment is making the old guard uncomfortable.
With every great human advancement there can be a downside, and the age of information is no exception. Along with unprecedented access to information, we also have more access to misinformation than ever before. Fake news is a very real problem, as rumours and falsehoods can traverse the planet unchecked. Easily shared content has made it nearly impossible to protect intellectual property and artistic creations. And cultures feel threatened as foreign entertainment content overwhelms local productions, and democratic exercises like elections have been found to be influenced by foreign powers.
The double-edged sword of unfettered communication has inspired the Canadian government to expand the ability of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) through Bill C-10. This proposed legislation would allow the CRTC to directly regulate content on digital platforms, like Netflix, with their streaming services, much as it already does with traditional broadcasters like television and radio.
Canadian Heritage official Thomas Owen Ripley told MPs at a Canadian Heritage Committee hearing in March that Bill C-10 would give the CRTC the ability to require social media platforms to make financial contributions to support Canadian content, as well as impose programming standards and reporting requirements. Then in April, the committee updated the bill to remove a clause that exempted user-generated online content, such as YouTube videos posted by individuals. This removed the previous clarity that such content on social media platforms isn’t considered “programming” and therefore is not subject to federal regulation.
Following an outcry from critics concerned that this amounted to an attack on free speech and expression, in early May Liberal MP Julie Dabrusin proposed an amendment to C-10 that would impose limits on the CRTC’s ability to regulate user-generated content. However, it would still regard that type of content as programming and allow the regulator to force social media platforms to promote Canadian content to users.
That amendment may fail, but it has exposed the zeal with which some regulators want to come after small, independent content creators. While unregulated internet content may be presenting some troublesome issues, the legislative cure will be much worse than the disease if Bill C-10 passes.
With empowerment comes responsibility, and a troubling number of people appear willing to abdicate both to the state. A generation of peace has made us complacent. While voices on every side of the political spectrum are speaking out about the risks posed by Bill C-10, this issue hasn’t been gaining much traction in the public spectrum. Our fantastic, unhindered access to unregulated online content is being threatened, and citizens are responding with little more than an apathetic shrug. Many feel that giving up aspects of free speech and expression will be less troublesome than having to sift through content and determine merit by oneself. This is a very dangerous place for society to be in.
While today’s government may give assurances that it won’t infringe on people’s freedom of speech, can we be confident that this promise will be kept, or that future governments will keep the same promise? How would we be able to protect ourselves from a government with nefarious intentions, when the government controls our ability to communicate and express ourselves? History should have taught us by now that the assumption of state goodwill is often misplaced. We should never for a second consider relinquishing fundamental rights such as speech and expression—yet we are on the brink of doing just that.
Opposition to Bill C-10 should transcend party lines. The duty toward citizens should come first for legislators as they consider ratifying this bill. While Canadians at large appear to be oblivious to the consequences of Bill C-10, our elected officials should be well aware that the bill places unacceptable limitations upon free speech and expression. It is their duty to oppose this bill on behalf of the citizens who won’t stand up and do it for themselves.
We have become fatigued by state incursions upon our individual rights. We have passively, trustingly, and hopefully only temporarily allowed a number of Charter rights to be suspended in the name of pandemic control. We can’t let ourselves get into the habit of giving up our rights easily. Eventually, we will realize that we want those rights back. If we have given up our fundamental rights to free speech and expression, it will be nearly impossible to organize in order to regain the rest of our rights.
Free speech has been taken for granted. Many Canadians may not understand just how important those rights are, but we can rest assured that aspiring authoritarians do. Let’s hope our legislators do the right thing and stop Bill C-10 in its tracks.
How is it that Alberta elected an NDP government in 2015 and now appears to be poised to do so again? As the province ostensibly considered to be Canada’s conservative heartland, it seems inconceivable that Alberta would put Rachel Notley back in the premier’s chair. But if current polls are to be believed, that is exactly what would happen if an election were held tomorrow.
So what the heck is going on in Alberta?
Most Albertans are indeed conservative-leaning. In elections, we overwhelmingly choose conservative options on the ballot. The thing is, we are loyal to conservative principles, not parties. Party brand and history means nothing to us. If we think a party has drifted from the basic principles of conservatism, we will vote for a different party. If a different conservative party isn’t available, we will create one. We have done that federally and provincially repeatedly since the province was formed.
A little background is required to explain this unique trait of Albertans.
Alberta is a frontier. It is a place where people move to in order to make a better future for themselves. In the early part of the last century, agriculture drew ambitious settlers from within Canada and around the world. Later, it was the development of oil and gas that brought waves of new citizens.
It takes a certain kind of person who is willing to take a chance, leave their friends, family, and all that is familiar to them in order to make a new life in the Wild West. The people who migrate like that are chance-takers and individualists. They are not conformists, and they have little use for authoritarianism. These are conservative-minded people who believe in direct, hands-on solutions to problems. If a political party is no longer considered to be serving them, they will either fix it or replace it. Supporting an unprincipled party based on loyalty to a brand is simply not a consideration.
Historically, when Albertans got upset enough to form a new party, that party would take off with such vigour that it would obliterate the party in power. We saw that happen with the United Farmers of Alberta (1921–1935), which wiped out the Liberal government and was subsequently knocked off by the new Alberta Social Credit Party a few election cycles later. In 2015, the Wildrose Party gained enough support to reduce the Progressive Conservatives’ 70 seats at dissolution to nine but didn’t gather enough steam to win government. The unexpected and devastating outcome was the NDP winning a majority government, with 54 seats, with only 40 percent of the vote.
Jason Kenney offered a plan to merge the two conservative parties in order to ensure that the Notley government remained a single-term anomaly. While the process was heated and messy, Kenney managed to cobble together a new, merged entity under the United Conservative Party banner. It was an impressive feat, as was winning a majority government in 2019. Since then, things have gone nowhere but downhill for Premier Kenney. He may know how to win government, but he doesn’t seem to know how to manage it.
While Kenney promised a lean government true to conservative principles, he increased spending and struck commissions to examine rather than deliver on election promises. Direct democracy promises got moved to the back burner while the missteps of the energy “war room” quickly drew criticism.
Along with disappointing his conservative base, Kenney infuriated the left with such actions as picking fights with Alberta’s doctors over salaries, proposing coal mining in the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains, and changing the nature of provincial parks. These may have been policies worthy of examining, but the UCP government’s ham-handed approach to them left openings for the NDP to claim that Kenney wanted to tear down mountains, drive doctors from the province, and to sell off our provincial parks.
Kenney’s flip-flop approach on COVID-19 restrictions has now led to a full-blown caucus revolt. Sixteen MLAs, representing a quarter of his caucus, signed a letter that harshly criticized his latest lockdowns. Kenney’s response, according to a Western Standard report, was to threaten them with calling a general election. I can’t think of a more ineffective way to try and quell the upstart MLAs than that, and it demonstrates that Kenney truly has lost touch with Albertan thinking.
I suspect Kenney’s threat was hollow, but it has to be understood that if he did call an election, Albertans would reject him at the polls. We would rather take our chances with the possibility of another NDP government than be bullied into partisan compliance with the threat of it.
The NDP is polling in majority territory right now in Alberta. We have two more years before we are due for another election and a lot can change in that time. Either Premier Kenney is going to learn how to understand and lead Albertans or another conservative party will be developing on his right flank. That new party may form government, or it may indeed lead to another NDP government.
One thing can be counted on though: Albertans will always vote based on principle rather than party—even if they end up hurting themselves.
Cory Morgan is a columnist and business owner based in Calgary.
The examples of the arbitrary and inconsistent nature of government restrictions being made ostensibly to protect us from the pandemic is long and ugly. Some examples are just too much to bear however and this one is outstanding.
While you are allowed to buy food at a drive-thru restaurant, park in parking lots with thousands of other cars at Walmart, sit with thousands of other cars while in traffic, or even get a drive-thru COVID-19 test, the luminaries at Alberta Health Services decided to crack down and shut down a non-profit drive-in movie in High River just days before they were to open.
What possible threat could that drive-in have presented? Is there a lick of evidence anywhere that drive-in movies are responsible for any infections?
Evidence be damned. The pointy headed bureaucrats swooped in and shut down the event despite having recently approved it. Much like patios at bars.
It seems that they are more determined to shut out any form of happiness or human enjoyment that actually fighting the pandemic.
To add insult to injury in a mind blowing act of hypocrisy and double standards, there is a drive-in movie event happening unhindered in Grande Prairie on the very night that AHS shut down the High River one.
So what was the difference?
The Grande Prairie event was being held for AHS employees with full concession and public washrooms.
Those employees happen to be nurses.
Now don’t get me wrong.
I do not want the drive-in for the nurses to be stopped. It is just as safe as the High River event would have been, Perhaps less because they have concessions but that’s not the point.
How are we to take government shutdowns seriously when even nurses don’t follow the same rules?
This is galling.
We need to start opening up yesterday.
Clearly the danger is not as some like to claim it is.
I can’t think of a more Albertan way to push back against pandemic restrictions than to hold a rodeo and Ty Northcott is doing just that on May 1 and 2 in Bowden.
Albertans are more than tired of the interminable excuses and the ever-moving goalposts as pandemic restrictions drag on and on with a negligible impact on public safety. Countless businesses and individuals have gone broke and many more teeter on the edge of insolvency.
Ty Northcott’s rodeo stock business is one of those still hanging in there but it is terribly threatened. Having lost an entire year already due to government restrictions, it is looking likely that the government has no interest in letting the rodeo industry open up this year either. Northcott and others in the industry simply can’t afford that and they are pushing back in the way they know best; they are holding a rodeo.
This rodeo will also be a rally. There will be presenters and speakers throughout the weekend.
As can be seen below, Ty’s bulls are ready and eager to get to work.
Not everybody is into attending rallies downtown or taking part in other traditional protests. Who doesn’t like a rodeo though? It’s part of Alberta’s fabric, it’s safe, it’s outdoors and it’s simply fun.
This is our way of being able to go out and say to the authoritarians with the government “What are you going to do about it?”.
The Northcott family has been in the business for generations and if we let their business go, it is never coming back.
The location is ideal. Bowden is right between Red Deer and Calgary and is well within day-trip range. Camping will be available for folks who want to make a weekend of it.
We need to feel human again. We need to gather with others and we need to support our local industries.
In Canada, the notion moved beyond academic postulating and into potential legislative reality when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke to the UN on pursuing the reset last September. A universal basic income (UBI) policy would be an integral facet of that scheme, and the Liberal government is laying the groundwork for it.
To encapsulate the Great Reset, it is a global plan to take advantage of the current crisis caused by the pandemic to completely rebuild our economic and governance models. To make changes piecemeal takes years of work and voters have to be consulted. If the economy has ground to a halt due to a world crisis such as a pandemic, governments can use the emergency in order to implement massive changes while the population is fearful and ready to embrace new visions.
This is distressing on two fronts.
For one, leaders and governments that want to pursue the Great Reset have an incentive to crash economies further. If a leader truly believes that the Great Reset will bring about change for the greater good, they will want the economy to reach rock bottom as soon as possible in order to begin rebuilding this new utopia.
Secondly, the vision for a post-reset world is a socialist one. Increased government presence in the economy along with a massive increase in the welfare state are fundamental facets in the Great Reset. Developed nations have been drifting into this state of being for decades, but the ideologues want to accelerate that process and the Great Reset gives them the means.
A UBI policy would hasten Canada’s trip to the economic bottom and would bring about massive growth in state dependency. It is a two-for-one policy as far as Great Reset proponents are concerned. That is precisely why Liberal MP Julie Dzerowicz has tabled Bill C-273, or the National Strategy for a Guaranteed Basic Income Act.
Private members’ bills rarely pass and can usually be dismissed. But when an MP from the governing party puts forth a private member’s bill, we must sit up and take notice. Governments use these kinds of bills to float notions and to promote future initiatives without looking like the party in power is actually behind the bill. The Trudeau government keeps a tight leash on its MPs, so you can rest assured that Dzerowicz’s bill would never have seen the light of day if the powers that be didn’t want it to.
UBI schemes have been toyed with by economists and politicians for years, but have failed without exception when put to the test. While a UBI plan is supposed to replace existing state plans such as welfare and employment insurance, governments don’t have the courage to eliminate those plans so the UBI just becomes another payout on top of many. UBI policies also work on the naive premise that people won’t become dependent on the payments and will seek employment as soon as possible. A two-year experiment in Finland that ended in December 2018 proved that wrong, as UBI recipients simply took the money and stayed at home.
With the Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) program in response to the pandemic, Canada is already undergoing what is essentially a nationwide experiment in UBI. The full cost of CRB can’t even be measured yet since there hasn’t been a federal budget in nearly two years. We should wait and see the fiscal costs of this before even considering embracing a UBI policy.
Ready access to CRB funds is undeniably a contributing factor to Canada’s addiction crisis. People with addiction challenges need treatment, not cash. Easy access to unconditional funds can exacerbate problems for people who are fighting addiction and can’t make responsible spending choices. Overdose deaths across Canada skyrocketed in 2020. A UBI program would have the same effect.
To embrace a universal basic income at a time like this would be economic suicide. Ironically, that is exactly why the Trudeau government wants to implement it. We can’t enter the Great Reset without hitting rock bottom first, and a UBI program will hurtle us toward that hard landing.
It’s going to be a long, difficult climb for us all to get out of the pandemic recession. People will be tempted to fall for the siren-song of big government solutions, and UBI will be one of them. We need to stand up and push back against such initiatives while we still can. Bill C-273 needs to be stopped.