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

National

Anger towards Trudeau government reaches new high among Canadians: poll

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canadians’ anger towards Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government has reached a record high, according to a new poll.   

According to a national survey published by Nanos Research this month, 31% of Canadians feel anger and pessimism towards the Trudeau government, which marks an all-time low in satisfaction for government leadership.  

“Which of the following feelings best describes your views of the federal government in Ottawa?” the poll questioned.  

In addition to the 31% feeling angry and pessimistic respectively, 11% feel uninterested, while only 1% and 10% feel satisfaction and optimism, respectively. 6% were unsure of their feelings towards the Trudeau government.  

“Feelings of anger toward the federal government have increased or held steady in every region, with the largest increases among residents of Quebec (December: 12%; March: 24%) and Atlantic Canada (December: 21%; March: 38%). Pessimism and anger remain the top emotions Canadians say best describe their views of the federal government in Ottawa,” the research found.  

In recent months, Trudeau’s popularity has plummeted, with polls projecting a massive Conservative victory in the upcoming election.   

Trudeau’s popularity has been falling and his government has been embroiled in scandal after  scandal, one of the latest being a federal court ruling that the prime minister’s use of the Emergencies Act to end the 2022 Freedom Convoy was “not justified.”    

Even top Liberal party stalwarts have called for him to resign.    

Indeed, Canadians anger and dissatisfaction with Trudeau has become a topic of conversation on many social media platforms, with Canadians detailing how the Trudeau government has made their life less affordable.   

Numerous videos are being uploaded to social media by Canadians explaining that they struggling to make ends meet amid the rising cost of living and Trudeau’s ever-increasing carbon tax, while many immigrants are telling others not to come to Canada.  

 

Continue Reading

Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Budget 2024 as the eve of 1984 in Canada

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Michael Melanson

Those who claim there are unmarked burials have painted themselves into a corner. If there are unmarked burials, there have had to be murders because why else would anyone attempt to conceal the deaths?

The Federal Government released its Budget 2024 last week. In addition to hailing a 181% increase in spending on Indigenous priorities since 2016, “Budget 2024 also proposes to provide $5 million over three years, starting in 2025-26, to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to establish a program to combat Residential School denialism.” Earlier this spring, the government proclaimed:

The government anticipates the Special Interlocutor’s final report and recommendations in spring 2024. This report will support further action towards addressing the harmful legacy of residential schools through a framework relating to federal laws, regulations, policies, and practices surrounding unmarked graves and burials at former residential schools and associated sites. This will include addressing residential school denialism.

Like “Reconciliation,” the exact definition of what the Federal government means by “residential school denialism” is not clear. In this vague definition, there is, of course, a potential for legislating vindictiveness.

What further action is needed to address “the harmful legacy of residential schools” except to enforce a particular narrative about the schools as being only harmful? Is it denialism to point out that many students, such as Tomson Highway and Len Marchand, had positive experiences at the schools and that their successful careers were, in part, made possible by their time in residential school? If the study of history is subordinated to promoting a particular political narrative, is it still history or has it become venal propaganda?

Since the sensational May 27, 2021, claim that 215 children’s remains had been found in a Kamloops orchard, the Trudeau government has been chasing shibboleths. The Kamloops claim remains unsubstantiated to this day in two glaring ways: no names of children missing from the Kamloops IRS (Indian Residential Schools) have been presented and no human remains have been uncovered. For anyone daring to point out this absence of evidence, their reward is being the target of a witch hunt. As we recently witnessed in Quesnel, B.C., to be labeled as a residential school denialist is to be drummed out of civil society.

If we must accept a particular political narrative of the IRS as the history of the IRS, does our freedom of conscience and speech have any meaning?

To the discredit of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, fictions of missing and murdered children circulating long before the Commission’s inception were subsumed by the TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission). Unmarked graves and burials were incorporated into the TRC’s work as probable evidence of foul play. In the end, the TRC found no evidence of any murders committed by any staff against any students throughout the entirety history of the residential schools. Unmarked graves are explained as formerly marked and lawful graves that had since become lost due to neglect and abandonment. Unmarked burials, if they existed, could be construed as evidence of criminal acts, but such burials associated with the schools have never been proven to exist.

Those who claim there are unmarked burials have painted themselves into a corner. If there are unmarked burials, there have had to be murders because why else would anyone attempt to conceal the deaths? If there are thousands of unmarked burials, there are thousands of children who went missing from residential schools. How could thousands of children go missing from schools without even one parent, one teacher, or one Chief coming forward to complain?

There are, of course, neither any missing children nor unmarked burials and the Special Interlocutor told the Senate Committee on Indigenous People: “The children aren’t missing; they’re buried in the cemeteries. They’re missing because the families were never told where they’re buried.”

Is it denialism to repeat or emphasize what the Special Interlocutor testified before a Senate Committee? Is combating residential school denialism really an exercise in policing wrongthink? Like the beleaguered Winston in Orwell’s 1984, it is impossible to keep up with the state’s continual revision of the past, even the recent past.

For instance, the TRC’s massive report contains a chapter on the “Warm Memories” of the IRS. Drawing attention to those positive recollections is now considered “minimizing the harms of residential schools.”

In 1984, the state sought to preserve itself through historical revision and the enforcement of those revisions. In the Trudeau government’s efforts to enforce a revision of the IRS historical record, the state is not being preserved. How could it be if the IRS is now considered to be a colossal genocide? The intent is to preserve the party in government and if it means sending Canada irretrievably down a memory hole as a genocidaire, so be it.

Michael Melanson is a writer and tradesperson in Winnipeg.

Continue Reading

Trending

X