The News Rundown

In Calgary and Edmonton, Smith deep-sixes Defund the Police

Alberta’s pre-election campaign continues, this time focusing on public safety and the police.
At an announcement made in Calgary the Premier effectively said “Whatever It Takes” when it comes to safer streets and transit.
The government is committing to 100 new police officers, with almost all being split between Calgary and Edmonton.
In the press conference Danielle Smith said, “When we see violence showing its face so flagrantly, when something as essential as public transit becomes a no-go zone and when entire communities live in fear, a red line has been crossed.”
This is of course referring to the series of criminal incidents and harassment that occur on our transit systems.
There’ve been cases of racism, people being spat on and worse, and people being beaten. Alongside a stabbing spree in downtown Calgary.
The body language at the press conference was striking because Calgary Mayor Jyoti Gondek was there and didn’t look pleased - whether she was a part of a UCP announcement or she didn’t like the policing announcement.
Gondek and others in the past voted to move funding from Calgary’s police to social programs.
Edmonton police chief Dale Mcfee said, “This is about safety and accountability. You don’t have well-being without safety. It’s time for action and time to do something different.”
He also thanked the government for stepping up.
The province is also encouraging Calgary and Edmonton to transfer transit officer command to police. This would in the words of the government “enable the police to better lead a coordinated and strategic response to the increase in violent crime on public transit.”
Whether or not they do that is up to time but there’s also an already existing collaboration between transit peace officers and police. So, given the upcoming election, it’s questionable whether the cities will go along with this.
Rebecca Schulz, MLA for Calgary-Shaw and Municipal Affairs Minister this week also talked to the media and highlighted the NDP approach to city crime.
First, she called on Rachel Notley to drop candidates who did not support the police.
Then came a list of NDP candidates who outright did not support the police and in some cases would have sown resentment in the community.
In a deleted Tweet, NDP candidate Druh Farrell (Calgary-Bow) said she could not help but wonder about domestic abuse within police families after watching videos of nonwhite people assaulted by officers.
Edmonton-Ellerslie candidate Rod Loyola said in a deleted tweet having an Edmonton police badge “gives you the right to beat up citizens and not have to face criminal charges.”
NDP candidate Rhiannon Hoyle for Edmonton-South when she was running for city council, answered a questionnaire by saying she supports freezing Edmonton police’s budget.
In 2020 candidate Janis Irwin for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood shared #DefundThePolice in an Instagram story.
Rakhi Pancholi for Edmonton-Whitemud said she was all for “spending less money on our criminal justice system and actually investing.”
Candidate Rob Miyashiro for Lethbridge-East served as a city councillor, he voted to reduce the Lethbridge police’s operating budget by $1 million.
Whenever a candidate says something that goes against the social norms of 2023 or is offensive to any degree, they are lambasted by the media. Yes, they should apologize and should be held accountable.
But the interesting part comes when an NDP candidate speaks out against law enforcement or the police it doesn’t make the headlines in nearly as large a manner.
There was some coverage in the Edmonton Journal and Herald and online media such as Western Standard but very little on Global, CTV, or CBC.
The most effective line from Edmonton police chief Dale McFee came when he uttered the words “unprovoked random attacks.”
This sets the table entirely for this story and brings it home to anyone who uses the transit system or lives near it.
425 of 608 violent incidents last year were unprovoked random attacks.
He also said that Canada is approaching US-like fatality rates for police with 8 officers killed in the last 6 months.
The numbers speak volumes and Albertans need to realize that a good portion of the NDP candidates listed would likely go into cabinet if the NDP are elected in May.
But most importantly today, the double standard the media has between the out-of-vogue offensive comments by some UCP members and their coverage vs. run of the mill comments associated with leftist-anti-police ideology and the absent coverage of those needs to be highlighted.
Supplementals:

The ongoing story of Chinese influence in Canada has largely been dropped by the mainstream media as they have headed onto other topics, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Namely, how far does the influence spread, and is Canada doing anything about it?
A new report out from the Globe and Mail shows that it spreads pretty far, and it's really hard to tell exactly what Canada is doing to halt the spread. According to a recording of remarks by a former executive of influential community organizations that promote candidates for Canadian political office, China’s consulate in Vancouver conducts political screening on the potential leadership for various organizations that try to shape the political landscape in Canada.
Two organizations in particular, the Canadian Community Service Association, or CCSA, and the Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations or CACA, do not disclose formal ties with the Chinese government. The CCSA is based in Richmond, B.C., and regularly attracts Canadian political leaders and Chinese diplomats to its events, calling itself “the Chinese community’s spiritual home,” and a hub for trade and cultural exchange between the two countries.
The CACA, meanwhile, is made up of 130 groups, and similarly dedicates itself to “encouraging mutual communications and interactions.” While both organizations say they are differing levels of 'apolitical', that is clearly not the case. There are requirements for the associations’ leadership, and the Chinese consulate plays a role, according to comments made by Wang Yan in a recorded conversation in 2020. Ms. Wang previously served as the CCSA’s executive president, but resigned several years ago. She had been asked to consider a leadership role in CACA, she said in the recording.
When considering leadership of either organization, Wang says: “If you want to be the chairperson, you must not be a person with a Red Notice, or a supporter of Falun Gong, or Taiwan and Hong Kong independence." Supporters of those groups can never become chairpersons of either group, and to do so, a 'political review' process must go through the Chinese consulate in Vancouver.
While both Chinese associations describe themselves as 'apolitical', both have openly advocated for individual candidates in elections. In 2018, the CCSA formed “election assistance teams” to support Peter Liu for Richmond city council and Jason Zhen Ning Li for the city’s school board; the association published on its website an image of a ballot with both men’s names circled. A document on the CCSA website lists 20 election team captains.
Neither candidate won, but Mr. Liu was among the candidates also recommended by the Canada Wenzhou Friendship Society, which was briefly investigated by police after offering a $20 transportation subsidy to those who voted. The RCMP later said it had found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The CACA, meanwhile, says part of its primary mission is to organize and mobilize the participation of ethnically Chinese people in politics. In the 2017 provincial election, the association’s chairman met with several Chinese candidates and promised to “mobilize volunteers and other organizations … to actively help solve some real difficulties.”
The association has supported Richmond Liberal candidate Steven Kou, Vancouver city council candidate Steven Low and Karen Wang. Ms. Wang was a Burnaby Liberal candidate who pulled out of a 2019 by-election after a message on WeChat in which she called herself “the only Chinese candidate in the riding,” while describing opponent and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh as being “of Indian descent.”
Political screening for leaders suggests the Chinese consulate is acting like a board of directors for certain groups. Kenny Chiu, a former Conservative MP who believes he was targeted by a Chinese interference campaign in the past election, says that It raises particular questions for Canadian politicians who attend events hosted by those organizations.
It's clear that we do have CHinese influence into BC politics. Despite CSIS's report last month into election interference in Vancouver's election by Chinese organizations, the RCMP is refusing to begin an investigation into the matter.
The lack of police action in Vancouver underscores the amount of obstacles to confronting interference by other countries. In part, that’s because Canada has made it difficult for information gathered by intelligence to be used in court.
Until recently, British Columbia placed no limits on foreign spending on political campaigns. That changed with a series of 2017 amendments that barred direct political contributions from people outside the province.
But B.C.’s laws do not specifically address foreign interference outside of these provisions. In 2020, Elections BC recommended dozens of additional legislative changes to address threats from foreign interference, deliberate disinformation and anonymous digital advertising, which it said “have jeopardized the integrity of free and fair elections.”
Earlier this month, the B.C. government proposed new amendments in response. Most legislation, however, has sought to address paid influence, through advertising. Keith Archer, the former chief electoral officer in B.C. put it simply: “If you’re not spending money, then you’re not going to run afoul of our election campaign-financing provisions.”
Such laws fit awkwardly with social-media platforms that can bring large audiences within reach at no cost. Federal law has barred “partisan activity” funded by a foreign entity. In B.C., no such restriction exists.
For a wing of the Chinese government to be directly taking a hand in who runs these powerful Chinese-Canadian community organizations is exactly the type of influence that differing levels of the Canadian government and media establishment are trying to either downplay or ignore. These intrusions into Canadian democracy cannot be ignored, and must at the bare minimum be talked about and actions taken to minimize the current problem and prevent future ones. Sadly, it's hard to know what action is being taken, or if any action is being taken, and the media is not reporting on it one way or another.
Supplementals:

NATO is getting ready to twist Canada's arm on defence spending

This past week Finland was admitted to NATO and with that comes the discussion of NATO defence spending targets.
This is an interesting story because there are many angles to take from it, media, domestic, and of course international.
The only real coverage the topic of NATO defence spending targets got this week was in an analysis piece from the CBC which spent the first third of the article re-capping the 2019 summit that in their view was awkward with President Donald Trump looming over it.
But what Canadians need to be focused on first and foremost is that our defence spending landed at 1.29% of GDP for the 2022-23 fiscal year. The NATO benchmark is 2%.
There is currently and has been no plan for Canada to hit the 2% spending threshold.
France’s Ambassador to Canada Michel Miraillet highlighted France’s recent increases to defence spending and said Canada should do the same, saying, “The same goes for Canada and its weak defence effort, nevertheless, somewhat forgetful of the memory of its past commitments, of the courage shown in all major conflicts, as in peacekeeping operations”
The defence from the government and Ottawa-leaning sources is that Canada has the sixth largest defence budget in NATO (though not based on per-capita GDP) and that we’ve spent $19b on new F-35 fighter jets, and $4.9b towards modernizing NORAD.
But it may not be enough. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg suggested that the 2% may become a minimum rather than the ceiling.
He said, “we will also address how to ensure that allies are investing enough in defence, and we will start preparations for the summit in Vilnius, where I expect allies to agree a more ambitious pledge, to regard 2 per cent of GDP for defence not as a ceiling but a floor, a minimum, that we should all meet.”
The countries with the highest defence expenditures in NATO are the US, UK, and Germany.
As for countries that spend the highest in terms of proportion of GDP? Greece tops the list at about 3.8%, then the US at 3.5%, then Poland at 2.4%. Outside of the US, UK, and France, all countries that meet the 2% of GDP defence target spending are from Eastern Europe.
This underscores something very important: those in Eastern Europe, specifically countries formerly part of the USSR understand how important mutual defence is.
This discussion of making the 2% a floor rather than a ceiling has been on the table since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and has picked up steam in the recent months.
With the federal budget tabled it’s clear that there’s no plan to move towards that 2% threshold - at any time since that would only further the deficit spending we see.
What’s more concerning and a little odd is that no one in the media has picked up on this as of late.
It’s a signal that either the media establishment isn’t concerned and the government is content to let other countries do the heavy lifting. Or it suggests that the story wouldn’t be able to gain traction and thus wasn’t covered.
Both of these are bad since we live in an era where Russia is becoming increasingly belligerent and China is posturing over Taiwan.
In 40 years time we may look at this period as a second cold war with those in Canada having been happy to look the other way. That is not good.
Supplementals:

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_197050.htm

Firing Line

Liberal MP asks for second look at carbon tax report that shows Canadians will come out behind

On April 1st, in what Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre called "Justin Trudeau's big joke to Canadians", the federal carbon tax increased from $50 to $65 per tonne. According to the Canadian Taxpayers’ Federation, the change will translate to a higher cost for consumers at the gas pumps, from the current 11.05 cents per litre, to 14.31 cents per litre, among other impacts.
The hike comes just days after a report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) this week stating that by 2030, when the price of carbon is expected to reach $170 per tonne, most households will see a net loss, despite the rebate payments offered by the federal government to offset the surcharge.
PBO Yves Giroux said in a statement following release of the report: “When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss. Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.”
Even Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said in an interview that while "on average, households will pay more” because of the carbon price increase, even after the rebates, he says the system is designed to be proportional, meaning wealthier Canadians will still foot larger bills.
Guilbeault said: “If you do the average, yeah, it's true, it's going to cost more money to people, but the people who are paying are the richest among us, which is exactly how the system was designed. So the rich pay more for their carbon consumption and their carbon pollution, and we're supporting, through the transition, middle class Canadians and low income Canadians, and that's exactly what we're doing,” he also said.
Guilbeault said that while the rebates may not cover the full cost for Canadians, the federal government is doing a number of other things to mitigate the cost of climate change and help people transition to a lower carbon future. He cited incentive programs to purchase electric vehicles, and home energy retrofits to reduce home heating costs, as examples.
But when pressed on the system itself and a commitment that most households wouldn’t be out of pocket for the carbon price, Guilbeault again pointed to it being proportional, and lower income Canadians seeing greater rebates.
Guilbeault also said in a statement this week the PBO report does “not account for economic opportunities that come with driving clean tech innovation,” and referenced the recently tabled federal budget and the earmarked funds for clean energy included in it. He said of the PBO report: “That’s like a business calculating their revenues, by looking only at one side of their ledger book.”
The federal Conservatives have repeatedly issued calls for the Liberals to axe the carbon price, with party leader Pierre Poilievre saying in the House of Commons this week: “It’s April Fool’s Day, and the joke will be on Canadians. Why won’t they cancel this tax?”
Liberal Guelph MP Lloyd Longfield wrote an open letter to Giroux on Wednesday asking him to take a broader perspective, arguing the PBO wasn’t factoring in the cost of climate inaction.
He wrote: “In light of the overwhelming body of evidence, including your own analysis, that climate change is bringing huge costs to bear on Canadians, I would ask that you launch a new study that integrates both sides of the climate ledger into your assessment,”
Longfield pointed out that the PBO submitted a report last fall that found climate change was already costing the Canadian economy considerably. That report found rising temperatures had already cost the economy $20 billion as of 2021.
He argued the carbon tax can reduce a family’s expenses if it encourages them to install a heat pump for their home instead of an oil furnace, or buy a zero emission vehicle, which comes with fewer maintenance costs.
“To ignore the impact of these developments does a disservice to the public debate about how best to tackle climate change,” he said. “There is no more pressing public policy issue than a fair and fully informed assessment of the costs, benefits and liabilities of climate change action and inaction, which is why I am requesting a new study to consider all sides.”
The problem with this, is that these purchases are being encouraged by a government that has already strained Canadian's pocketbooks by employing a monetary policy, or lack of one, that has fueled inflation massively, which has made it difficult for anyone but the rich to actually afford these extra environmentally friendly upgrades.
It's crazy how every report in the media talks about the Liberals' response to the PBO report but we don't ever get expert analysis or to find out how true the report is. Given how the reporting in the media on the carbon tax, it's left to Canadians to see who they trust - the Parliamentary budget officer, whose job it is to track federal government spending, or the partisan Liberal government who clearly has an agenda.
Supplementals:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/guilbeault-defends-carbon-price-says-on-average-households-will-pay-more-but-rich-will-shoulder-burden-1.6338974

Quote of the Week

“When both fiscal and economic impacts of the federal fuel charge are considered, we estimate that most households will see a net loss. Based on our analysis, most households will pay more in fuel charges and GST—as well as receiving slightly lower incomes—than they will receive in Climate Action Incentive payments.” - Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux on the Liberal carbon tax plan costing Canadians.

Word of the Week

Random - made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.

How to Find Us
Westerncontext.ca

westerncontext.ca/subscribe

westerncontext.ca/support

twitter.com/westerncontext

facebook.com/westerncontext

Show Data

Episode Title: Attacks and Defences

Teaser: The UCP responds to an increase in crime, BC Chinese organizations report to the Chinese consulate, and Canada’s low defence spending benchmark is criticized by NATO. Also, Steven Guilbeault admits the carbon tax will take money from the average Canadian.

Recorded Date: April 8, 2023

Release Date: April 9, 2023

Duration: 53:30

Edit Notes: None

Podcast Summary Notes

Duration: XX:XX