Alberta
MLA says Trudeau’s “Emergency” underlines the need for a full public inquiry into government handling of covid crisis
 
																								
												
												
											This article and video submitted by Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan
As of Tuesday restrictions are substantially all gone from Alberta. Good. This is more how it should have been all along. We have seen too much top-down, command and control approach by all levels of government. I have and will continue to ask for an independent, comprehensive public inquiry. The better way is for Governments to trust adults to govern themselves and their families in respectful ways. Trudeau’s use of the Emergency Act looks increasingly ridiculous, even dangerous.
Last week the Alberta Government brought forward a motion on the Emergency Act. I stood in the legislature and the following are excerpts of my statement: (video and then written statement)
“Mr. Speaker, about a month ago I attended the Trucker Convoy Rally at Gasoline Alley. It was packed with friends. It was not an angry gathering; it was a positive atmosphere filled with hope. Why? Because men and women and families, had felt voiceless, disenfranchised by Federal and Provincial governments. But now they had a voice in a trucker convoy. That was a cause to celebrate; they did not feel listened to, they felt ignored.
I understand that feeling. I have felt it myself. We have seen a top-down, command and control approach that treated adults as children, not respecting and trusting them to govern themselves and their families in respectful ways.
Mr. Speaker what I have witnessed, offends my core values as a public servant. Mr. Speaker, many Albertans feel the same. In the end the truth will prevail, and history will show, that governments made gross errors, that across-the-board vaccine passports and mandates caused more harm than good, especially to young adults and children. Public health authorities undermined their own authority with biased reporting and using fear and coercion as a tool.
Mr. Speaker I have spoken on this before, and I will be bringing forward a motion in this legislature for there to be a comprehensive, public inquiry into COVID, including a full cost analysis of COVID restrictions, mandates and passports, especially on young adults and children. The truth must prevail. Mr. Speaker, in respect of the trucker convoy, we know what the Prime Minister did, that he went into hiding, and sought to cancel and delegitimize the protestors calling them a fringe minority, labelling them as misogynists and racists.
Now Mr. Speaker, there were a few protestors who did blockade public roads. I do not condone that. I do not believe, like some politicians in this legislature, that the ends justify the means. Even in a cause that is just, it is not right to blockade. It undermines the moral high ground of a just cause. I sorrow that it occurs. The Prime Minister enacted the Emergency Act. While he quickly revoked it, why did he do it in the first place? This was not an emergency. Yes, there were a few breaking the law, and in those isolated cases, the police should have been enforcing the laws.
This is a very serious matter. The Emergency Act must never be used as a political tool, attacking an entire movement of Canadians, including many Albertans, who felt disenfranchised, whose crime was disagreeing with government.
It labelled an entire movement which disagrees with government, as a public danger, an emergency, a voice that must be stomped out and silenced. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad precedent. What will the government do when there is a real emergency? Will citizens need to look over their shoulders if they support causes that an insecure, unprincipled government feels threatens their power and position? Government is supposed to protect freedoms and support prosperity for its people. In many cases, they have done the opposite. There is cause for concern, turbulence is on the horizon, in some respects it is already upon us. There is an urgency to prepare.”
The truth produces hope. There is healing in the truth. The truth makes us better. In the end, the truth prevails.
Alberta
Province orders School Boards to gather data on class sizes and complexity by Nov 24
 
														| Better data, better outcomes for Alberta students | 
To help schools address classroom complexity, Alberta’s government will begin collecting annual data on class size and composition.
Over the past three years, Alberta has welcomed more than 80,000 new students. With this unprecedented growth, classroom complexity and class sizes are among the biggest issues facing schools and teachers across the province.
To meet this challenge head on, Alberta’s government will work with school boards to gather yearly data on class sizes and composition. This information will be used to better understand staffing, student needs and classroom complexity. School boards will be required to submit data on Alberta classrooms by Nov. 24, and by January, this data will be made publicly available and will then be released annually.
Data collected on classroom complexity will help the province understand and address issues in schools, including class sizes, and support strategic investments in classrooms. Over the next three years, school boards will be provided with funding to hire 3,000 teachers and 1,500 new education assistants to support students with complex needs.
“We are ready to work with school boards and teachers to address classroom complexity and class sizes. We have heard them loud and clear and we are taking bold action to address these issues.”
Alberta’s government is establishing a Class Size and Complexity Task Force to begin work immediately on identifying solutions to the challenges facing Alberta classrooms. Alongside new annual data collection, the task force will ensure every student gets the attention and support they need to succeed. Details about the task force will be shared in the coming weeks.
“This data will provide essential insight into classroom realities, guiding evidence-based decisions and advocating for sustainable funding to address complexity, ensuring every student and educator in Alberta has the support to thrive.”
Quick facts
To inform decisions on addressing classroom complexity, data will be collected on total numbers of:
- all staff, per school, including roles
- substitute teachers
- district staff, listed by job title
- students, per classroom, per school
- severe, mild/moderate, and gifted/talented students, per classroom, per school
- English as an additional language (EAL) students, per classroom, per school
- refugee students, per classroom, per school
- First Nations, Métis and Inuit students, per classroom, per school
- Individualized Program Plans, per classroom, per school
- students waitlisted for assessment, per classroom, per school
- incidents of aggression and violence
- $55 million was provided in Budget 2025 to address classroom complexity.
- 8.6 billion is being invested to build and renovate more than 130 schools across the province.
- Budget 2025 is investing $1.6 billion in learning support funding to help meet students’ specialized learning needs.
- Budget 2025 is investing $1.1 billion to hire more than 4,000 teachers and educational staff.
Alberta
How one major media torqued its coverage – in the take no prisoners words of a former Alberta premier
 
														(Editor’s note: I was going to write on the media’s handling of the Alberta government’s decision to order striking teachers back to work and invoke Section 33 of the Charter in doing so. But former Alberta premier Jason Kenney provided such a fulsome dissection of an absence of balance and its consequences in terms of public trust on X that I asked him if The Rewrite could publish it. He said yes and here it is – Peter Menzies.)
By Jason Kenney
This ”story” is an object lesson for why trust in legacy media has plummeted, and alt right media audiences have grown.
”story” is an object lesson for why trust in legacy media has plummeted, and alt right media audiences have grown.
Here CTV “digital news producer” @AngeMAmato (she/her) writes a story about “experts” calling the use of Sec. 33 “a threat to democracy.”
Who are the experts?
A left wing academic, and a left wing activist. The latter, Howard Sapers, is a former Liberal MLA (which the article does not mention) for a party that is so marginal, it has not elected an MLA in over a decade.
For good measure CTV goes on to quote two left wing union bosses, who of course are predictably outraged.
A more accurate headline would be “Four people on the left angry about use of Notwithstanding Clause.” Which is the opposite of news. It’s the ultimate “Dog Bites Man” non-story.
Did the CTV producer make any effort to post a balanced story by asking for comment from academics / lawyers / think tanks who support use of Sec. 33? Did she call the @CDNConstFound or the @MLInstitute’s Judicial Power Project? Did she attempt to reach any of these four scholars, who just published their views in a @nationalpost op-ed last week?
Did she have an editor who asked why her story lacked any attempt at balance?
And did anyone at CTV pause for a moment to ponder how tendentious it is to accuse a democratically elected legislature of acting “undemocratically” by invoking a power whose entire purpose is to ensure democratic accountability?
She provides some historical context about prior use of Sec. 33. Why does that context not include the fact that most democratically elected provincial governments (including Alberta under Premier Lougheed, and Saskatchewan under NDP Premier Blakeney) agreed to adopt the Charter *only if* it included the Notwithstanding Clause to allow democratically elected Legislatures to ensure a democratic check and balance against the abuse of undemocratic, unaccountable judicial power?
Why does she not mention that for the first 33 years of the Charter era, the Canadian Courts ruled that there was no constitutionally protected right to strike?
Why doesn’t she quote an expert pointing out that Allan Blakeney defended the Saskatchewan Legislature’s 1986 use of Sec. 33 to end a strike as “a legitimate use of the Clause?” Or refer to Peter Lougheed’s 1987 commitment to use Sec. 33 if the courts invented a right to strike?
Many thoughtful criticisms can be levelled against Section 33. Being undemocratic is not one of them.
So why do we see so much agitprop like this masquerading as news from so many legacy media outlets?
IMO, there are two possible answers:
1) They are blind to their own biases; and / or
2) People like @AngeMAmato believe that they have a moral imperative to be “progressive journalists” which trumps the boringly old fashioned professional imperative to be objective and balanced.
Whatever the reason, “journalists” like this have no one to blame but themselves for growing distrust of legacy media, and the consequent emergence of non traditional media platforms.
|  | 
 | 
Invite your friends and earn rewards
- 
																	   Business2 days ago Business2 days agoCanada heading into economic turbulence: The USMCA is finished and Canadian elbows may have started the real fight 
- 
																	   Internet2 days ago Internet2 days agoMusk launches Grokipedia to break Wikipedia’s information monopoly 
- 
																	   Business2 days ago Business2 days agoBill Gates walks away from the climate cult 
- 
																	   National1 day ago National1 day agoCanada’s NDP is now calling women ‘non-males’ 
- 
																	   National1 day ago National1 day agoCanadian MPs order ethics investigation into Mark Carney’s corporate interests 
- 
																	   Business2 days ago Business2 days agoFord’s Liquor War Trades Economic Freedom For Political Theatre 
- 
																	   Banks2 days ago Banks2 days agoBank of Canada Cuts Rates to 2.25%, Warns of Structural Economic Damage 
- 
																	   Health2 days ago Health2 days agoLeslyn Lewis urges Canadians to fight WHO pandemic treaty before it’s legally binding 
 
								

 
																	 
														

 
											 
											 
											