News
Innisfail’s Council Determines Inquiry Into CAO’s Conduct Unwarranted

By Sheldon Spackman
Council for the Town of Innisfail has determined that an inquiry into the conduct of their CAO is unwarranted. Officials say a delegation, speaking during council’s Nov. 28th regular meeting, indicated concerns with the Town’s termination practices and requested council initiate an inquiry into CAO Helen Dietz’s conduct. The delegation at that time also submitted fourteen questions for council’s consideration. Council on Monday responded to nine of the questions in writing and those remaining, called for private personnel-related information that the Town was not able to disclose.
In a release, Mayor Brian Spiller issued the following statement: “After careful consideration, and following an in-depth review of internal policies and procedures, council will not be moving ahead with the delegation’s request. From the concerns that were raised, the Town will identify any areas of potential improvement, and consider changes as necessary. However, council is of the belief that an inquiry such as that requested is unwarranted, and as such, it will not be pursued at this time. Council wishes to thank the delegation for its constructive dialogue on the matter, and for its respectful and democratic engagement.”
Other highlights from Innisfail’s Town Council meeting this week are listed below:
Council approved the allocation of over $150,000 in FCSS funding. Six recipients were recommended by the Town’s FCSS (Family and Community Support Services) Advisory Board, and subsequently approved by Council for the following amounts:
Big Brothers Big Sisters — $35,000
Boys and Girls Club — $30,000
Chinook’s Edge School Division — $45,000
Henday Association for Lifelong Learning — $3,600
Seniors Drop-In Society — $32,596
Pathways Home Family Counselling — $5,000
Total — $151,196
Approximately $15,500 in funding remains available for distribution throughout the year. The Advisory Board will review applications on an as-needed basis.
In November 2016, energy suppliers were invited to submit a proposal to supply and deliver electricity and natural gas to various civic facilities within the Town of Innisfail. Three submissions were received, with Council on Monday opting to enter into a four-year agreement with AMSC. A locked-in rate was approved for electricity, while natural gas will be billed at a variable rate.
Finally, Council agreed to grant an extension of time for Subdivision File INN14405, an application to create 30 residential parcels, a municipal reserve parcel, a public utility lot and an environmental reserve parcel from lands owned by Laebon Developments in the Woodlands Area. An extension of time was requested in order to provide time to fulfill approval conditions and register the subdivision at the Land Titles Office. Council approved the extension to Dec. 8, 2017.
(Photo courtesy of the Town of Innisfail)
Internet
It’s only a matter of time before the government attaches strings to mainstream media subsidies

Misinformation is not exclusive to alternative online news organizations
In a previous world, whether they succeeded or failed at that was really no one’s business, at least provided the publisher wasn’t knowingly spreading false information intended to do harm. That is against the law, as outlined in Section 372 of the Criminal Code, which states:
“Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.”
Do that, and you can be imprisoned for up to two years.
But if a publisher was simply offering poorly researched, unbalanced journalism, and wave after wave of unchallenged opinion pieces with the ability to pervert the flow of information and leave the public with false or distorted impressions of the world, he or she was free to do so. Freedom of the press and all that.
The broadcasting world has always been different. Licensed by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), content produced there must, according to the Broadcasting Act, be of “high standard”—something that the CRTC ensures through its proxy content regulator, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC).
Its most recent decision, for instance, condemned Sportsnet Ontario for failing to “provide a warning before showing scenes of extraordinary violence” when it broadcast highlights of UFC mixed martial arts competitions during morning weekend hours when children could watch. If you don’t understand how a warning would have prevented whatever trauma the highlights may have caused or how that might apply to the internet, take comfort in the fact that you aren’t alone.
The CRTC now has authority over all video and audio content posted digitally through the Online Streaming Act, and while it has not yet applied CRTC-approved CBSC standards to it, it’s probably only a matter of time before it does.
The same will—in my view—eventually take place regarding text news content. Since it has become a matter of public interest through subsidies, it’s inevitable that “high standard” expectations will be attached to eligibility. In other words, what once was nobody’s business is now everybody’s business. Freedom of the, er, press and all that.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith
Which raises the point: is the Canadian public well informed by the news industry, and who exactly will be the judge of that now that market forces have been, if not eliminated, at least emasculated?
For instance, as former Opposition leader Preston Manning recently wondered on Substack, how can it be that “62 per cent of Ontarians,” according to a Pollara poll, believe Alberta Premier Danielle Smith to be a separatist?
“The truth is that Premier Smith—whom I’ve known personally for a long time—is not a separatist and has made that clear on numerous occasions to the public, the media, and anyone who asks her,” he wrote.
I, too, have been acquainted for many years with the woman Globe and Mailcolumnist Andrew Coyne likes to call “Premier Loon” and have the same view as Manning, whom I have also known for many years: Smith is not a separatist.
Manning’s theory is that there are three reasons for Ontarians’ disordered view—the first two being ignorance and indifference.
The third and greatest, he wrote, is “misinformation—not so much misinformation transmitted via social media, because it is especially older Ontarians who believe the lie about Smith—but misinformation fed into the minds of Ontarians via the traditional media” which includes CBC, CTV, Global, and “the Toronto-based, legacy print media.”
No doubt, some members of those organizations would protest and claim the former Reform Party leader is the cause of all the trouble.
Such is today’s Canada, where the flying time between Calgary and Toronto is roughly the same as between London and Moscow, and the sense of east-west cultural dislocation is at times similar. As Rudyard Kipling determined, the twain shall never meet “till earth and sky stand presently at God’s great judgment seat.”
This doesn’t mean easterners and westerners can’t get along. Heavens no. But what it does illustrate is that maybe having editorial coverage decisions universally made in Hogtown about Cowtown (the author’s outdated terminology), Halifax, St John’s, Yellowknife, or Prince Rupert isn’t helping national unity. It is ridiculous, when you think about it, that anyone believes a vast nation’s residents could have compatible views when key decisions are limited to those perched six degrees south of the 49th parallel within earshot of Buffalo.
But CTV won’t change. Global can’t. The Globe is a Toronto newspaper, and most Postmedia products have become stripped-down satellites condemned to eternally orbit 365 Bloor Street East.
The CRTC is preoccupied with finding novel ways to subsidize broadcasters to maintain a status quo involving breakfast shows. So we can’t expect any changes there, nor can we from the major publishers.
Which leaves the job to the CBC, whose job it has always been to make sure the twain could meet. That makes it fair to assume Manning will be writing for many years to come about Toronto’s mainstream media and misinformation about the West.
(Peter Menzies is a commentator and consultant on media, Macdonald-Laurier Institute Senior Fellow, a past publisher of the Calgary Herald, a former vice chair of the CRTC and a National Newspaper Award winner.)
Daily Caller
Big Tech Cover-Up: Google distorts search results to protect Obama

Quick Hit:
Google is under fire after a new study revealed it buried Tulsi Gabbard’s bombshell claims that Barack Obama fabricated Trump-Russia intel—flooding search results with leftist attacks and downplaying the story to protect the former president.
Key Details:
- DNI Tulsi Gabbard accused Obama of fabricating intelligence to bolster the Trump-Russia collusion narrative.
- Google News allegedly buried Gabbard’s exposé by promoting stories attacking her instead of covering her claims.
- MRC found that 90% of Google’s promoted coverage came from left-leaning outlets, leaving just 10% for right-leaning perspectives—almost exclusively Fox News.
Diving Deeper:
During a July 23 press briefing, Tulsi Gabbard revealed explosive allegations against the Obama administration, accusing the former president of overriding intelligence assessments that found no Russian interference favoring Donald Trump in 2016. According to Gabbard, Obama “manipulated” the intelligence community to promote a “contrived narrative,” aimed at undermining Trump and, by extension, the will of American voters.
But rather than spotlighting the story’s significance, Google appeared to move swiftly to suppress it. As the MRC study shows, Google’s News tab was flooded with coverage designed to discredit Gabbard—many articles outright calling her a liar or suggesting she was distracting from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. One article from The Atlantic branded Trump’s public support for her findings as “desperate,” while others derided her evidence as “thin gruel” or claimed she was trying to “rewrite history.”
A closer look at Google’s search results between July 24 and July 29 paints a troubling picture. The MRC analyzed the first page of results for the term “Tulsi Gabbard” and found that out of 42 articles, 33 were from outlets classified by AllSides as “Lean Left” or “Left.” Only four were from right-leaning sources—and all four came from a single outlet: Fox News. Three of those Fox articles focused not on Gabbard’s claims, but on attacks against her, often echoing Democratic Party criticism.
MRC highlighted how even these rare conservative pieces offered little defense of Gabbard’s findings. One article simply quoted Rep. Adam Schiff dismissing the accusations as “dishonest.” Others featured video clips of NBC’s Kristen Welker pressing GOP figures like Sen. Lindsey Graham about the credibility of Gabbard’s claims. Only one article directly addressed the substance of her evidence.
Meanwhile, prominent left-leaning outlets featured in Google’s curated feed pushed narratives designed to ridicule or minimize the allegations. MSNBC dismissed her claims as “absurd,” while Politico suggested Gabbard had become a “weapon” for President Trump. CNN accused her of attempting to “rewrite history,” and FactCheck.org labeled her statements “misleading.”
The implications go beyond this single controversy. A 2021 Pew Research Center study found that two-thirds of Americans rely on search engines like Google for their news. This means most Americans are receiving information that has been filtered through what critics argue is an increasingly leftist editorial algorithm.
By not allowing a diversity of viewpoints on such a critical national security issue—especially one involving a former president—Google’s conduct raises serious concerns about media bias and the integrity of information distribution. While it is unsurprising to see The New York Times or CNN toe the DNC line, the monopoly Google holds over digital search amplifies this bias into something far more powerful and dangerous.
The episode underscores a growing divide in how news is curated and presented online. For conservative Americans, it also reinforces a longstanding suspicion: Big Tech is not just biased—it’s actively working to sanitize narratives unfavorable to the Democratic Party.
In this case, shielding Obama and undermining a sitting Trump administration official.
-
Alberta19 hours ago
Fact, fiction, and the pipeline that’s paying Canada’s rent
-
Business2 days ago
Call for Federal Inquiry as Pressure Mounts for Release of Buried Report on Buddhist Land Transactions in PEI
-
International1 day ago
Israeli government approves Gaza ceasefire
-
Crime1 day ago
Florida teens credited for averting school shooting plot in Washington state
-
Alberta20 hours ago
Alberta Is Where Canadians Go When They Want To Build A Better Life
-
Internet2 days ago
Social media pushes pornography on children within minutes, report finds
-
Energy1 day ago
“It is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the … erosion of trust among global customers in Canada’s ability to deliver another oil pipeline.”
-
Energy1 day ago
In the halls of Parliament, Ellis Ross may be the most high-profile advocate of Indigenous-led development in Canada.