Connect with us

Opinion

City Hall continues to provoke the bear. “They don’t give council options they don’t support.”

Published

5 minute read

The debate over masking is exposing city hall administration’s narcissistic attitude.

The administration did not offer city council any options they did not support. The administration is now provoking the bear. I predict that many candidates, especially incumbents, will campaign in the next municipal election (Oct. 2021) on shaking up city hall.

Perhaps our city councilors will take back the reins, and take control of the agenda. They give direction to the Mayor and administration not the other way around.

Remember a past blog;

The recent debate over the Molly Banister could be seen as democracy at work and possibly an expose of city hall dysfunction.

At first reading of the bylaw to remove the road alignment it seemed supported by the Mayor, by the council and by the administration. Comments from some elected officials about campaign promises made it appear inevitable.

The public reacted and it appeared that city hall was out of sync with today’s reality.

The local newspaper did an editorial on September 29, declaring in bold headline that the “Road extension must be kept”. Writing ;”It’s surprising that public workers paid to plan for the city’s growth would do the opposite; not plan for the responsible development of the region.” “ What is portrayed as an environmental concern is really just an interest in keeping neighbourhood traffic down to a minimum,”

Former city manager, Craig Curtis, waded into the debate, questioning the recommendation and reminding us of past decisions that were essential to our development that were similar.

Legal opinions on historical commitments and legal obligations.

Knowledgeable residents debunked many of the environmental issues.

The local church came out in favour of the extension.

The Mayor who championed removal, declared herself in conflict, as she lives in the area, removed herself from voting before each reading.

Councillor Wong started off questioning, after the public hearing, why the administration would bring up a 250 foot bridge when an old man like himself could hop the creek?

Councillor Lee questioned why the city would emphasize the road would cause several instances of ecological damage when the other option of building houses on the creek would have the same effect? Councillor Lee admitted that the majority wanted the extension and voted against the removal.

Councillor Hendley, questioned the city about the future changes. How, when the city administration repeated that there is no current connection to Springfield Avenue, countered, that when the neighbourhood plan is presented it could then be connected, initiating another public hearing. She didn’t claim to know what the future would bring and wanted to leave all options opened.

Councillor Buchanan mentioned that in his non-councillor life he has witnessed the short-cutting of drivers that were of concern to neighbouring communities.

Councillor Higham, took note of the less than complete information on traffic. Bringing her own detailed analyses of traffic to the table.

Together they formed the majority that paralleled the wishes of the majority.

On the face of it, democracy won, a fragile democracy but still a democracy.

2 of the opposition councillors credited the support of the administration in buoying their determined support to remove the alignment, another one used the “Green” umbrella to support her opposition to keeping the alignment.

Poll after poll showed majority support for the extension, so why did we need to go through this stressful and expensive process? Why did the same traffic study get 2 extremely different interpretations?

red deer city hall

City hall has been put on notice. Do their jobs, leave the politics and biases out of the equation. You get paid the big bucks to give your political masters the untarnished truth, so do it.

Someone said; “The bear has been poked, do not provoke”.

The next municipal election is on the horizon, provocation could mean great change. Not just at the ballot box.

Is it time for a shake-up and renewal at city hall? Just asking.

Will city administration heed the people duly elected to represent the people?

Will city hall administration be the ballot box question? Just asking.

Follow Author

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Why is Trudeau sticking to the unmarked graves falsehood?

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

There is simply no possibility that Trudeau didn’t know on June 17th, 2024 that he was spreading misinformation when he said that unmarked graves were found. In plain English — he knew he was lying.

The claim made by Chief Rosanne Casimir on May 27th, 2021, that the remains of 215 children, former students of the Kamloops Indian Residential School (KIRS) had been found in unmarked graves on the school grounds, was false.

Only soil anomalies were detected by a radar device. Those anomalies could be tree roots, previous excavations, or almost anything. In fact, research since that time makes it clear that the anomalies were almost certainly the trenches of a former septic field installed in 1924 to dispose of the school’s sewage.

No “unmarked graves”, “human remains”, “bodies” or “mass graves” were found.

Chief Casimir finally confessed to making that false claim three years after making it. She admitted what was known to most of all along: no graves, human remains, or bodies were found — only 215 “anomalies”.

So, everyone in Canada now knows that the May 27th, 2021 claim of unmarked graves containing human remains found at Kamloops was false. Everybody except the prime minister it seems, and his former Indigenous Affairs Minister, Marc Miller.

However on June 17th, 2024, Prime Minister Trudeau — instead of taking the opportunity to set the record straight — repeated at an indigenous event the whopper that “unmarked graves” have been found. He has been spreading that misinformation for three years.

One would think that now that the person who originally made the false claim has admitted that no graves were found — only anomalies — that Trudeau would take the opportunity to clear up the confusion and go with the truth, instead of repeating the original lie.

One would be wrong.

There is simply no possibility that Trudeau didn’t know on June 17th, 2024 that he was spreading misinformation when he said that unmarked graves were found. In plain English — he knew he was lying.

So, why would he do such a thing? Doesn’t a prime minister have a duty to refrain from deliberately lying to Canadian citizens? After all, the great majority of Canadians know by now that no graves were found at Kamloops.

The only answer that makes sense is that the Prime Minister was not speaking to all Canadians on June 17th, 2024. He was speaking only to indigenous Canadians when he falsely stated that unmarked graves had been found at Kamloops. He was repeating a lie they believed. They believed that lie in large part because he and Marc Miller were doing their best to keep the lie alive.

Everything that he and his colleagues have done since May 27, 2021 — lowering flags, kneeling with a teddy bear in an ordinary community cemetery, lavishing money on indigenous communities to search for missing children he knows were never “missing” — has been done to pander to an indigenous community that largely believes those false stories about evil priests and secret burials. I repeat  — believes that anti- Catholic bilge in large part because the Trudeau Liberals have encouraged them to believe it.

What has come to be known as the “Kamloops Graves Hoax” is now known to most Canadians for what it is — a false claim. However, we have a prime minister who, for his own reasons,  seems intent on keeping the hoax going within the indigenous community. The deception being practiced by the prime minister will have serious consequences in the years ahead. And those consequences are all negative.

Prime ministers come and go. Some remain popular throughout their term, but some become increasingly unpopular. For example, the late Brian Mulroney was so unpopular with Canadians toward the end of his term that the Conservatives, led by his successor, Kim Campbell, were  virtually wiped in the election following his retirement.

Trudeau’s fate remains to be seen.

However, that is just politics. But what Trudeau is doing, in deliberately lying to an already marginalized demographic that has a history of being lied to by indigenous and non-indigenous politicians, is not just politics. It is reprehensible conduct. Those people are going to be very angry when they realize that they have been deceived.

Under Trudeau’s watch, we have already seen churches burn, statues topple, and other mayhem as a result of a claim that the PMO knows is false.

Exactly why he is practicing this deception we do not know. We do know with certainty that Indigenous Affairs Minister Marc Miller spoke with Chief Rosanne Casimir on the evening of May 27, 2021, immediately after she made her false claim that the remains of 215 children, who were students at KIRS, had been found. Here’s what he said about his May 27, 2021 telephone conversation with Casimir, according to Hansard:

“On Thursday evening, I spoke to Chief Casimir and assured her of my steadfast support for the grieving and reconciliation process over the coming weeks. We have been in contact since then as well. We will be there with them as they lead this initiative, and we will help meet their needs in the coming weeks and months.”

Unless Chief Casimir told Miller that “remains” had been found, and not the truth — that only anomalies had been detected — the Trudeau government and the Kamloops band together, for reasons unknown, created the false narrative that the remains of 215 children had been found, knowing that their claim was false. Why did this happen?

The prime minister is now keeping this false narrative alive, knowing that it was, and is, false. Why is he doing this?.

And why are the CBC and our mainstream media not even trying to find out?

Something is very wrong here.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Continue Reading

International

Rumble CEO slams Google’s suppression of conservative content: ‘Is that not election interference?’

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Didi Rankovic

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski cited Google’s suppression of the link to Rumble’s exclusive GOP debate livestream last year as an example of the giant’s ability and willingness to suppress dissent and control what narratives get promoted.

Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski has reacted to Google suppressing, in Google Search, the link to the Rumble exclusive GOP debate livestream as an example of the giant’s ability and willingness to suppress dissent and control what narratives get promoted.

In conversation with Russell Brand, Pavlovski noted that Google had positioned itself (and gained massive search market share thanks to that) as a service that provides unbiased and relevant results, but that at this point, this is no more than “the bag of goods that they sold us.”

In other words, even if Google started out, and became extraordinarily popular, thanks to organic search – those days are long gone.

Still, seeing products and movies promoted to the top of the page instead of the most relevant to the query result is one thing, but it’s a very different problem when this powerful search engine that the huge majority of users in the Western world regularly turn to, starts “hiding” links to political content.

READ: Biden campaign demands censorship of video showing president wandering off at G7 meeting

Pavlovski mentioned the GOP debate which was exclusively streamed on Rumble, that is, Rumble was the only place to watch it live – and yet, when people searched for this in the hope of seeing the link to the page, it did not come up as the top result.

He said that instead, Google “put” (that is, programmed its algorithms to this end) “some corporate media entity” as the top result, even though it clearly didn’t have the livestream exclusively.

Pavlovski then wondered, “Is that not election interference?”

Pavlovski also touched on other consequences of the “rigged search” – namely, that it almost to a fault favors Google products (YouTube videos, Google Maps to show locations, etc.) in this way creating “a mouse trap” for its users. And, as critics – Rumble included – keep repeating, seriously undermining competition.

“And that’s one of the reasons why we have a lawsuit against them. It’s very difficult for you to go and search something that’s relevant and find Rumble near the top,” he said.

Brand observed that YouTube (Google) is a powerful entity that has in a sense become a “curator of reality” – “you only see certain stories, you only have access to certain ideas.”

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

Trending

X