Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Alberta

What is the Great Reset?

Published

7 minute read

We are nearing one full year since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic began sweeping the globe, ravaging all major industries worldwide and forcing the global economy to grind to a near halt. 2020 has been dominated by social and political upheaval as officials have struggled to find the balance between economic lockdown and protecting the public from the virus. Adding to the uncertainty, disinformation is circulating at an unfathomable rate. Heading into December, tension and mistrust appear to be at an all time high as individuals and groups have begun to rebel against lockdown orders and what many believe to be government forces overstepping their democratic boundaries. 

Among the hype and hysteria, the “Great Reset” has become a popular and highly divisive topic in recent months. Aggressive disagreements have broken out among experts, political leaders and the general public, often citing controversial buzzwords like “socialism”, “government control”, and “elite agenda”. In this setting, it has become increasingly difficult to determine what is fact and what is fiction, as fear and confusion fuel conspiracy theories and government distrust.  

COVID-19: The Great Reset is a book originally published in July 2020, co-authored by Thierry Malleret, founder of the Monthly Barometer, and Klaus Schwab, founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF). This book elaborates on a recovery plan proposed by the WEF that presents the global COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to correct the shortcomings of the existing social, economic and political institutions around the world. According to the WEF, “The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems – from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for our lives, livelihoods and the planet.”
Within this setting, the WEF calls for collaboration among experts and world leaders to propose and implement a vision for the future that will “build a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being.” The values highlighted by the Great Reset propose an ideological shift away from capitalism. This includes shifting the global focus towards fairer market outcomes, the advancement of sustainability measures and the improvement of environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics across industries. 

The Great Reset global agenda calls for unprecedented cooperation among countries and industries around the world to unite under one recovery strategy aimed at repositioning the current trajectory of society as a whole. “Rather than using recovery funds to fill cracks in the old system,” says Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, “we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run.” 

The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset initiative has received support from several influential organizations around the world, including TIME Magazine, Apple and Microsoft. However, while it appears many have signed onto this initiative as a unique opportunity to build a prosperous future for all members of the human race, an equal number have emerged to furiously oppose it. 

Opponents of the Great Reset have labeled it as a radical socialist agenda being pushed on the masses by global elites. The initiative has been extensively criticized for appearing to use the global upheaval inflicted by the pandemic to implement social and economic measures not approved by the democratic process. An article released by the Post Millennial accused the WEF of using the “blunt force trauma of the pandemic to force the world to reshape according to socialist dictates.” This mentality has been echoed by a number of individuals and organizations around the world.
The National Review criticized Schwab’s book, COVID-19: The Great Reset, for having “undeniably authoritarian subtext” on which no legitimate societal transition should be based. 

These opposing viewpoints on the legitimacy and intentions of the Great Reset have led to extreme backlash for political leaders who appear to support the initiative in any way. On September 29, 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau landed himself in hot water during his United Nations address, where he spoke of the impacts of the pandemic and the way forward for Canada. “This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset,” he said, “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts, to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.”

Trudeau’s address was swiftly condemned by many, as certain onlookers accused the Prime Minister of supporting the global elitist plan to collapse the economy and renege on Canadian rights and freedoms.
In November 2020, in response to Trudeau’s UN address, Conservative Member of Parliament Pierre Poilievre launched a petition called Stop the Great Reset. The petition calls on Canadians to “fight back against global elites preying on the fears and desperation of people to impose their power grab”. The petition received more than 60,000 signatures in a matter of days.

As governments and politicians around the world struggle to respond to the ongoing conditions of the pandemic under increasingly bleak circumstances, the consumption and circulation of accurate, credible information becomes increasingly important with each passing day. As businesses in every industry continue to go under and more and more individuals lose their livelihoods, the propagation of disinformation and fear serves only to divide and isolate us further. Whether you subscribe to the theory of the Great Reset as a legitimate avenue towards the creation of a healthier post-pandemic society, or as an illegitimate attack on democratic rights and freedoms, it is paramount to seek credible information.
Should we encourage our governments and politicians to adopt a Great Reset? Is it best to reinvigorate our economies? Or do we look to a combination of these two ideologies?

For more stories, visit Todayville Calgary.

Alberta

ASIRT investigations concluded on fatal officer-involved shooting involving the RCMP.

Published on

Incident investigation report from the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT)

Introduction

On December 22, 2022, the Alberta Serious Incident Response Team (ASIRT) was directed pursuant to s. 46.1 of the Police Act to investigate a then non-fatal Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer-involved shooting. The shooting of the affected person (AP) was reported to have happened during an interaction with him, as a result of him being a suspect in a complaint of a man with a gun.

While AP initially survived, he died of complications from the shooting the following day.

ASIRT’s Investigation

ASIRT’s investigation was comprehensive and thorough, conducted using current investigative protocols and principles relating to Major Case Management. Information from civilian witnesses, the subject and a witness officers, and importantly video recordings provided sufficient information to determine whether the force used by the subject officer during this incident was reasonable.

Circumstances Surrounding the Officer-Involved Shooting

On December 01, 2022, Maskwacis RCMP received a call reporting that a male [AP] had been drinking and left the caller’s house with a gun. AP was shooting the gun in the country (believed to be the area around the residence). Two RCMP officers responded.

Witness officer (WO) located AP walking on the road with a rifle. AP walked toward WO’s marked police vehicle with the rifle pointed at the vehicle/WO, while WO was seated in the driver’s seat. WO then exited his vehicle with his carbine rifle and moved to the rear of his vehicle while AP kept the rifle pointed at the police vehicle. The subject officer (SO) arrived on scene, but came from the opposite direction. AP turned around and walked toward SO with the barrel of the rifle pointed upwards. SO exited his police vehicle with his service pistol drawn and walked toward AP while he
repeatedly provided verbal direction to AP to drop the firearm. AP and SO were walking toward each other; at that time AP still had the barrel of the rifle pointed upward. As SO and AP got within approximately five meters of each other, AP lowered the barrel of the rifle and pointed it directly at SO. SO fired multiple rounds and struck AP with four rounds causing AP to stumble, drop the rifle and fall to the ground. AP initially survived the shooting and was transported to an Edmonton hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery. The following day, AP succumbed to his injuries.

Analysis

The subject officer was lawfully placed and acting in the execution of his duties in dealing with AP as a person who was the subject of a complaint about him being in possession of a firearm and shooting it off.

The Use of Force

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code, police officers are permitted to use as much force as is necessary for the execution of their duties. Where this force is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, the officer must believe on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the self-preservation of the officer or preservation of anyone under that officer’s protection.

A police officer’s use of force is not to be assessed on a standard of perfection nor using the benefit of hindsight.

With the benefit of hindsight, time for detached reflection and knowledge of the ultimate outcome, it is easy to speculate about how things could have been done differently. That is not the standard, however, against which an officer’s conduct is measured. The question is, applying principles of proportionality, necessity, and reasonableness, whether the force used falls into a range of possible reasonable responses.

Proportionate Response

Proportionality requires balancing a use of force with the action to which it responds. Here, the subject officers were faced with an individual that was armed with a gun and pointing it in their direction. As such, the response by the subject officers in using their respective firearms to shoot AP was proportionate to the threat of death or grievous bodily harm that he reasonably posed to both of them.

Reasonably Necessary

As set out previously in this report, AP presented as a lethal threat to both SO and WO given his actions in pointing his rifle at them. While WO did not shoot during this incident that does not impact the analysis of SO’s actions. Under the circumstances as then faced by SO, no other use of force options were reasonably available for attempted use. The use by SO of his firearm to incapacitate this lethal threat was reasonably necessary. Given the above, the defence available to SO under s. 25 of the Criminal Code would apply.

Conclusion

Under s. 25 of the Criminal Code a police officer is justified in doing what he or she is authorized to do and to use as much force as is reasonably necessary where he or she has reasonable grounds to do so. Force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm is justified if the officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that the force was necessary to prevent the death or grievous bodily harm of the officer and/or any other person. The analysis under s.34 of the Criminal Code leads to a similar finding that subject officer’s actions were lawfully permitted.

After a thorough, independent and objective investigation into the conduct of the subject officers, it is my opinion that they were lawfully placed and acting properly in the execution of their duties. There is no evidence to support any belief that any officer engaged in any unlawful or unreasonable conduct that would give rise to an offence. The force used was proportionate, necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Alberta requests more control over provincial immigration system

Published on

Alberta is requesting more control over its provincial immigration to address its skilled workforce shortage, including increasing Ukrainian evacuee participation in the job market.

Premier Danielle Smith has written a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asking him to re-evaluate his government’s decision limiting the number of allocations for Alberta’s provincial nominee program in 2024. Last week, the federal government informed the province it would only receive 9,750 such allotments – which is the same number of allocations Alberta received in 2023 and is less than the 10,140 for 2024 the federal government had originally allocated.

As of February 2024, Alberta accounts for just under 12 per cent of Canada’s population, but it leads the nation in net employment growth, with 42.8 per cent of the country’s employment gains between January and February 2024. By not providing the requested increase to Alberta’s provincial nominee allocations, the federal government is restricting the province’s ability to keep up with its growing labour market demands, especially as it relates to integrating Ukrainian evacuees into Alberta’s job market.

“Alberta is growing and that is good news. Since January 2023, more than 100,000 new jobs have been created in our province and our employment rate has led the country even longer. At the same time, we continue to experience labour shortages that could be resolved by welcoming skilled workers from around the world, including evacuees from Ukraine, many of whom have the exact skills that our job market most needs. Alberta has long been the economic engine of Canada and we are once again requesting Ottawa respect section 95 of the Constitution and let us welcome the skilled individuals we need into our province on our terms.”

Danielle Smith, Premier

With Alberta’s population growth at levels not seen in four decades, Alberta’s Provincial Nominee Program is best placed to address the province’s unique immigration and economic goals.

Part of Alberta’s population growth has resulted from Russia’s invasion in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Since that time, Alberta has welcomed a significant number of Ukrainian evacuees to the province. While it is anticipated that many will return to Ukraine following the war, Alberta is also expecting a number of families to apply for permanent residency via the Alberta Advantage Immigration Program. An increase in the number of allocations from the federal government would assist these new Albertans to fill positions in the province’s workforce.

“Immigration is key to Alberta’s ability to address labour shortages and to grow our economy. This limitation imposed by the federal government on our provincial nominee program will be a very difficult pill to swallow, not only for businesses that need this skilled labour but also to the many Ukrainian evacuees who have the skills we need and wish to stay permanently in Alberta.”

Muhammad Yaseen, Minister of Immigration and Multiculturalism

Quick facts

  • The federal government through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada sets provincial immigration nomination limits. It also approves all permanent resident applications.
  • Alberta maximized its 9,750 nomination allocations in 2023, with a total of 10,029 nominations issued within the federal government administrative buffer.

Related information

Continue Reading

Trending

X