Carney launches campaign with independent media ban

Mark Carney kicked off his leadership campaign with a press conference from which independent media were excluded. 

Carney bans independent media from campaign launch | True North | Quinn Patrick, True North Wire:

January 16, 2025 - "'You’re not welcome here,' was the message Liberal leadership candidate Mark Carney’s campaign team had for independent media journalists who tried to attend his launch in Edmonton, Alberta. 

Courtesy X.

"The former Bank of Canada and Bank of England Governor met with supporters to announce his leadership bid on Thursday.... While the event welcomed legacy media journalists, independent reporters were told they were not welcome and barred from entry.

"Police refused entry to True North’s Isaac Lamoureux after he arrived at the venue to cover Carney’s official campaign announcement. Other independent journalists including The Western Standard’s James Snell, The Counter Signal’s Keean Bexte and freelance reporter Mocha Bezirgan were also denied access.

"Police told Lamoureux he was not allowed to enter the premises after contacting event organizers who refused True North entry. Shortly thereafter, Lamoureux was asked to leave after organizers told police that he was 'not welcome.'  

"Bexte, who is an accredited journalist with the Alberta legislature, recorded a video of the incident."

Read more: https://tnc.news/2025/01/16/carney-bans-independent-media-campaign-launch/

Covid mask mandate unreasonable, judge rules

For the first time I am aware of, a Canadian federal judge has ruled that a Covid mask mandate was unreasonable.

‘UNREASONABLE’: Federal judge rules against workplace COVID mask mandate | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson:

January 15, 2025 - "A federal judge has ruled in a precedent-setting case [that] compelling employees to wear a mask at work during the COVID-19 pandemic was unreasonable. Complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ruled the judge, per Blacklock’s Reporter. The decision marked the final chapter in pandemic mandates that forced millions to wear masks in public.

"'It is unreasonable,' Justice Benoit Duchesne of the Federal Court ruled in the case of an Elections Canada manager who complained he felt unsafe after the office mask mandate was lifted in 2023. The manager was fully vaccinated and had no particular health issues, the court found. 

"Nicolas Juzda, chief of field programs at Elections Canada, said he was put at risk after the agency ordered employees back to work at its Gatineau, QC, headquarters without mandatory masking. 'I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,' wrote Juzda, citing the Canada Labour Code. Section 128.1 of the law states federally regulated staff may refuse work 'that constitutes a danger to the employee'.... 

"Management dismissed the claim 'The matter is frivolous,' wrote one executive. Duchesne agreed. 

"'The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted COVID-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to COVID-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,' wrote the court. The concerns were unwarranted, it said.

"Cabinet enforced mask mandates from April 20, 2020 to February 14, 2023. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau maintained the mandate was recommended by scientists though the Public Health Agency never made such a recommendation. 'We followed the recommendations of public health experts, doctors and scientists,' Trudeau told reporters in 2022....

"Dr. Howard Njoo, deputy chief public health officer, told reporters earlier in 2022 that mandates were not required. 'We want people to be sort of informed and make that a voluntary choice,' he said. 'It doesn’t have to be because there is a mandate.'

"Dr. Theresa Tam, chief public health officer, went further in the first weeks of the pandemic in dismissing masks as pointless. 'There is no need to use a mask for well people,' she told reporters in 2020. 'It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.'"

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/unreasonable-federal-judge-rules-against-workplace-covid-mask-mandate/61185

Don't rely on us or anyone, says CBC ombudsman

Addressing the question of biased CBC coverage during the Covid pandemic, CBC ombudsman Jack Nagler has told Canadian viewers not to rely on its coverage: "Even if CBC were perfect, it is unwise to rely on any single news source if you want to be fully informed."

CBC ombudsman admits it’s ‘unwise’ to rely on network for the full story | Western Standard | Jen Hodgson:

January 5. 2025 - "It is unwise for Canadians viewers to rely on the state broadcaster 'if you want to be fully informed,' CBC Ombudsman Jack Nagler said in his final report before retiring. Nagler, who served in his role for 34 years, in his final report as Ombudsman faulted the CBC as 'too timid' in failing to acknowledge differing points of view in its news coverage, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.

"Nagler’s term as Ombudsman ended December 31. His comments were in response to viewer complaints of one-sided CBC News coverage of the pandemic including uncritical treatment of vaccine mandates.

"'Even if CBC were perfect it is unwise to rely on any single news source if you want to be fully informed,' wrote Nagler. 'This is part of the problem that has been created in recent years as many of us have slipped into "news silos" or "information bubbles" or whatever other jargon you want to use. We aren’t hearing enough information that conflicts with our pre-existing views, and when we do, too often we reject it out of hand.... Read widely. Watch widely. Listen widely. And don’t assume any source, even CBC News, is going to tell you everything you need to know'....

"The CBC from the onset of the pandemic had a duty to 'make sure the public got consistent information' in dealing with a crisis, wrote Nagler. 'As time went on it’s perfectly fair to argue the CBC and other media should also have been more willing to report on perspectives that fell outside the consensus view of public health officials, not because those officials were wrong, but because there was an erosion of consensus among the public.... Those developments were interesting stories and could have received more attention than they did.

"'If I were writing as a media critic rather than Ombudsman I might say that CBC was too timid about giving exposure to some of the sentiments in Canadian society during the height of the pandemic,' wrote Nagler. 'That does not mean it was wrong to give credence to experts.'

"The Ombudsman in his final report quoted Nancy Waugh, CBC manager of journalistic standards, as suggesting a requirement for balanced news coverage should not be taken literally in all cases. 'CBC policy acknowledges that how widely held a particular point of view is should also be taken into account,' wrote Waugh. 'In other words, fringe notions however fervently held by individuals are not afforded the same time and attention as mainstream views.'"

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/cbc-ombudsman-admits-its-unwise-to-rely-on-network-for-the-full-story/60863 

Ford proposes critical minerals alliance with USA

Ontario Premier Doug Ford is proposing a critical minerals alliance with the United States, in response to Donald Trump's tariff threats, while federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh wants to cut the U.S. off from critical minerals entirely.

Jagmeet Singh (left) and Doug Ford in 2017. Courtesy TVO. 

Ontario Premier Ford Proposes Critical Minerals Alliance to Deter US Tariff Threat | Epoch Times | Andrew Chen:

Jauuary 13 2025 - "Ontario Premier Doug Ford is proposing a Canada–U.S. critical minerals alliance to deter the incoming U.S. administration’s tariff threat by strengthening cross-border supply chains. Ford called for creating the critical minerals supply chain alliance with the United States during a Jan. 13 press conference in Toronto. The move is part of the broader 'Fortress Am-Can' partnership the premier has proposed in response to U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to impose a 25 percent tariff on all Canadian goods unless Ottawa does more to boost border security....

"Ford’s proposed critical minerals development strategy focuses on accelerating federal and provincial regulatory approval timelines for key projects and prioritizing those that reduce reliance on Chinese supply. The strategy also calls for designating strategic regions, such as Ontario’s Ring of Fire — a mineral-rich area about 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay — as priority zones for expedited approvals.

"Last December, China imposed export bans on 'dual-use' critical minerals to the United States, such as antimony, gallium, germanium, and “superhard” materials. While the Chinese regime cited the need to 'safeguard national security and interests,' the move is widely seen as retaliation against the United States for restricting access to its advanced semiconductor technologies.... While China maintains global dominance in the supply of various critical minerals, Ford said Ontario’s mineral deposits could help fill the supply gap for the United States — a position echoed by Ontario Northern Development Minister Greg Rickford. 'Ontario is uniquely poised to meet the opportunity of Am-Can, particularly when it comes to mineral production,' Rickford said during the press conference....

"Ford had previously suggested cutting oil and gas supplies to the United States in response to Trump’s tariff warning—an option Ford said he remains open to.... In 2023, Ontario electricity powered 1.5 million homes in the United States and the province is a major exporter of electricity to several other states. Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly said recently that the federal government hasn’t ruled out cutting energy exports to the United States as part of its response to tariffs. 

"Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been critical of the proposal, saying on Jan. 13, 'Oil and gas is owned by the provinces, principally Alberta, and we won’t stand for that.' Smith, who met with Trump over the weekend, said she wants to avoid the tariffs by emphasizing to the United States the importance of its partnership with Canada.... In response to Smith’s comment, Ford noted that both premiers speak only for their own provinces....

"On Jan. 13, federal NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for blocking critical mineral exports to the United States in response to Trump’s tariff threat. 'If Trump attacks Canadian workers and jobs with tariffs, let’s fight for them by cutting off the flow of critical minerals to the U.S.,' he wrote on social media."

Read more: https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/ontario-premier-ford-proposes-critical-minerals-alliance-to-deter-us-tariff-threat-5791097

Lib-funded research links Conservatives to Nazis

Research projects funded by the Trudeau government have claimed ties between the Conservative Party and extremist groups including German Nazis.

Federal funds used to link Conservatives to Nazis and hate groups | Western Standard | Western Standard News Services:

January 12, 2025 - "Government-funded research projects claimed ties between the Conservative Party and extremist groups, including German Nazis, under a federal initiative created to combat online disinformation, according to Access to Information records. Blacklock's Reporter says despite the controversy, Government House Leader Karina Gould, who launched the 'Digital Citizen Initiative' in 2019, offered no comment.

"One taxpayer-funded project alleged, 'Efforts to reclaim Canadian history as a white, middle-class colonial space with firm cultural connections to Britain have jumped from fringe accounts into the mainstream and have been in evidence in the campaign rhetoric of the Canadian People’s Party and Conservative Party'....

"Carleton University received $99,115 for its project titled Triangular Hate: Digital Memory, Disinformation And Transnational Traffic Between Germany, The U.S. And Canada. The research aimed to document supposed links between opposition parties and 'National Socialist ideology.' 'Our research has clearly shown us there is a strong interest among far-right and populist groups in Canada to weaponize Canadiana and Canadian history in the service of acquiring adherents and mainstreaming extremist ideas and hate,' researchers wrote. 

The Red Ensign, Canada's flag before 1965, is now 

allegedly a "hate-promoting symbol",  Photo, Wikimedia Commons.

"Examples cited included 'hate-promoting symbols such as the Canadian Red Ensign,' the national flag before 1965.... The study claimed the Red Ensign was co-opted as an emblem of extremism during the [2022 Freedom Convoy]..... 

"Simon Fraser University received $95,500 for a related project, 'Understanding Hate Groups’ Narratives And Conspiracy Theories In Traditional And Alternative Social Media.' This research also focused on the Freedom Convoy, labeling it as a hate movement despite no charges of hate crimes being brought against any participants....

"Gould, who launched the Digital Citizen Initiative with $19.4 million in funding over four years, had previously said the program was designed 'to help Canadians understand online disinformation and its impact on Canadian society.' However, no parliamentary committee reviewed the projects or spending under the initiative."

Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/federal-funds-used-to-link-conservatives-to-nazis-and-hate-groups/60981

Affordable housing ≠ housing affordability

Cities become affordable when lots of new housing is built, not when a larger percentage of a small stock of new housing is made "affordable" by mandate.

Matthew Boonstra, Homes under construction, Edmonton, 2020. CC BY-SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons.

Why Building a Lot of 'Affordable' Housing Is Bad News for Affordability | Reason | Christian Britschgi:

January 7, 2025 - "On New Year's Eve, the Boston city government issued a press release touting the good work of its newly reorganized Planning Department at approving new development. The city reports that 3,575 net residential units were approved in 2024, of which a little over a third were 'income-restricted.' That top-line number is not necessarily anything to brag about....  Despite having some of the highest home prices and rents in the country, Boston is permitting fewer homes than less-expensive peer cities with equivalent populations.... 

"Even more concerning than Boston not permitting a lot of new homes is how many of the homes it is permitting are 'income-restricted.' Those are units (often also just called 'affordable,' 'below-market," or 'deed-restricted' units) that are reserved for lower-income residents and where rents are capped at steeply discounted below-market rates. Despite the city's celebratory touting of that figure, such a high share of new housing being income-restricted housing is very bad news.

"That data point suggests that not only is Boston not building a lot of housing, but that it's vastly under-building what the market demands. It says most of the projects getting approved in Boston are either dependent on public subsidies or command such high rents that they can bear the cost of the city's punishing affordable housing mandates. Understanding exactly why cities don't become affordable by raising the 'affordable" share of the tiny amount of housing that they do build is crucial for getting housing policy right.... 

"In a free market without subsidies and price controls, there wouldn't be such a thing as 'income-restricted" units. All housing would be rented or sold at market rates for a profit (save for whatever housing is provided by charitable nonprofits and religious groups). New housing would be pricey under such a system. But without zoning or other artificial caps on production, housing would still generally be affordable thanks to filtering. 

"Filtering is the process by which high-income people move into pricey, newly built units, lowering demand (and prices) for the older units they leave behind. Those units are then snapped up by lower-income people, who themselves leave behind an older, less-expensive unit to be taken by even lower-income people. Studies that follow the filtering process down the income ladder find that the addition of new market-rate units kicks off a chain of moves that ends up leaving more units available in the most affordable neighborhoods.

"Boston, of course, does not have a free market in housing.... One measure of regulatory burden finds Boston has the strictest land use rules in the country. A consequence of such strict regulations is that the natural market filtering process is thrown in reverse.... Units become more expensive over time, not less. Lower-income people economize by moving into older, worse housing.... People at the bottom rung of the income ladder either move out of town or move onto the street.... When filtering has broken down in a city, the obvious move for policymakers is to get rid of the zoning rules, permitting requirements, impact fees, taxes, mandates, and more that stymie new housing production. Instead, cities like Boston have decided to fix the ill consequences of overregulation with more regulation.... 

"The voluminous research on inclusionary zoning policies finds that they're an effective tax on new housing that lowers housing production and raises housing prices. For-profit builders need to make a higher rate of return on their market-rate units in order to make up for the tax imposed by 'income-restricted' units. If the returns on market-rate units in a project don't cover the costs of the inclusionary zoning tax, then that project just doesn't get proposed at all. That means that in Boston, fewer units overall get built and the market-rate units that do make sense to build are incredibly expensive.... Housing becomes affordable when a lot of it is built, not when capital-A 'affordable housing' makes up a larger slice of a tiny new housing pie."

Read more: https://reason.com/2025/01/07/why-building-a-lot-of-affordable-housing-is-bad-news-for-affordability/

Canadian rights groups challenging prorogation

Two Canadian rights groups, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms and Democracy Watch, are backing court challenges to the Trudeau government's eleven-week prorogation of Parliament. 

Canadians challenge Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament: “no reasonable justification” | Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (news release):

January 7, 2025 - "The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is providing lawyers on an urgent basis to two Canadians, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, seeking a Federal Court declaration that Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent prorogation of Parliament is unreasonable and must be set aside. When Parliament is prorogued, the parliamentary session is terminated, and all parliamentary activity, including work on bills and in committees, immediately stops.

"Among its many grounds arguing that Trudeau’s decision to advise the Governor General to exercise her prerogative power to prorogue Parliament to March 24, 2025, this application argues that the decision to prorogue Parliament was 'incorrect, unreasonable or both' [and] that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue 'was not made in furtherance of Parliamentary business or the business of government, but in service of the interests of the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada].'

"At his news conference ... on January 6, 2025, the Prime Minister’s stated justification for the prorogation was (1) to 'reset' Parliament and (2) to permit the Liberal Party of Canada time to select a new party leader. No explanation was provided as to why Parliament could not recess instead. No explanation was provided as to why Members of Parliaments could not immediately exercise their right to vote on a motion of non-confidence in the government. A majority of MPs have now repeatedly promised to do just that, which would trigger an election and provide the needed 'reset' in a democratic and legitimate way.

"No explanation was provided as to why a prorogation of almost three months is needed. No explanation was provided as to why the Liberal Party of Canada ought to be entitled to such a lengthy prorogation simply so it can hold an internal leadership race.

"This Federal Court application includes language taken from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which ruled in 2019 that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson had prorogued Parliament unlawfully, as a means of avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny over the government’s 'Brexit' negotiations concerning the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

"The application contends, among other things, that 'in all of the circumstances surrounding it, the [prorogation] has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, particularly insofar as it relates to Parliament’s ability to deal quickly and decisively with especially pressing issues, such as the situation caused by President-Elect Trump’s stated intention to impose a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada.'"
Read more: https://www.jccf.ca/canadians-challenge-prime-ministers-decision-to-prorogue-parliament-no-reasonable-justification/

Democracy Watch litigates against Trudeau government prorogation | Western Standard | Lee Harding:

January 8, 2025 - "Democracy Watch will pursue a court challenge of the request by Prime Minister Trudeau that the Governor General prorogue Parliament. Trudeau announced the prorogation at a press conference the morning of January 6, shortly after Democracy Watch announced it would oppose in court any prorogation if it met certain criteria. On Wednesday morning, Democracy Watch said it would follow through on its court threat, having decided this prorogation is clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest, and is happening at a time when the opposition parties are clearly intending to vote non-confidence in the government. 

"Democracy Watch’s legal arguments will be based on rulings in its past court cases challenging snap election calls, and the UK Supreme Court’s unanimous 2019 ruling that it was illegal for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament for no justifiable reason when a majority of MPs wanted Parliament to stay open and operating.

“'While a non-confidence motion was not being debated when the prorogation was requested, and while it is fair to allow a political party to change leaders before an election occurs, the Prime Minister dictating that Parliament must shut down for almost three months to avoid a non-confidence vote in his government that would trigger an election, without consulting any opposition leaders or even Liberal MPs, is fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable,' said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch. 'The Prime Minister had other options and, from all evidence, could have reached an agreement some time ago with one or more opposition parties to have the Liberals hold a party leadership contest while Parliament continued operating,' Conacher insisted."
Read more: https://www.westernstandard.news/news/democracy-watch-litigates-against-trudeau-government-prorogation/60987