Alberta
Redman got it right on COVID response
From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy
By Linda Slobodian
“The fear is still, I would say, in 65% of our population. They are now self-destroying their Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
Emergency response expert and retired Lt. Col. David Redman tirelessly tried to warn everyone that the “incoherent” chaotic response to COVID-19 was dangerously flawed.
The powers in charge didn’t listen to Redman, a globally respected authority who led Alberta’s Emergency Management Agency (AEMA) for five years and served 27 years with the Canadian Armed Forces.
But finally, Redman’s dire warnings, concerns, and suggested response to dealing with a pandemic were validated by recommendations made by the Public Health Emergencies Governance Review Panel (PHEGRP) in a report submitted to the Alberta government last week.
What the government does with the recommendations remains to be seen.
But steps must be taken to hold decision-makers accountable for “gross negligence” and to help people break out of COVID’s needless “cycle of fear” that still cripples too many, Redman told the Western Standard Friday.
“Canada will pay the costs of this deadly response for decades to come,” said Redman.
Redman’s letters early on to Canada’s premiers warning them that discarding emergency management principles and placing health care officials in charge of pandemic response was dangerous, were ignored.
AEMA strategies, prepared in advance and in place to deal with pandemics, collected dust. Redman led the team that wrote the 2005 Pandemic Influenza Response Plan that was updated in 2014.
Emergency management offices — fully equipped and staffed with experts — in every province and territory were shut out.
Under the direction of health officials, the public was under siege. Punished for disobeying mandates. Subjected to unnecessary lockdowns and school closures. And controlled by a fear factor that defied a tenet of emergency management experts.
“They did it on purpose. They used fear as a weapon. In emergency management you never use fear. You use confidence. You show confidence that the emergency can be handled and present a plan to show how this will be achieved,” said Redman.
He said it is deeply disturbing that people still believe they must keep vaccines up to date and self-isolate. And that must be rectified if even possible.
“The fear that this government generated — by this government I mean every provincial, territorial government, and in particular the federal government — created for two straight years, only broken by the Freedom Convoy — will last until the children that were just entering school in 2020 die.”
Redman said the COVID-19 response was the “exact opposite” of an emergency management response.
“The pandemic response was health only focussed with terrible and deadly costs to individual mental health, societal health, our children, other serious illnesses and diseases, economic viability, and our democratic way of life simply ignored.”
“Unless there is an emergency management plan built, these costs will continue to be massive.”
Well, there’s hope.
The PHEGRP submitted its final report with more than 90 recommendations.
The panel was established by Premier Danielle Smith in January to review the government’s legislation and governance practices to manage the COVID-19 pandemic.
“It is my hope that by adopting these recommendations, the Government will be better equipped to cope with future emergencies and that the impacts on Albertans — their personal livelihoods, civil liberties and mental health — can be mitigated to the greatest extent possible,” said PHEGRP Chair and former Reform party leader Preston Manning in a press release.
Key recommendations include strengthening the AEMA through legislative amendments and budgetary provisions to make it the lead government agency responding to and coordinating the government’s response to future public emergencies.
Redman is “very happy” with Manning’s recommendations.
“There’s a lot of meat in what he’s written.”
“The first and foremost recommendation overarching his whole report is that legislation need to be changed to ensure that the emergency management process and emergency managers are in charge of every emergency including the next pandemic.”
“And that that the AEMA is appropriately funded and staffed to do their new far extended role.”
“He didn’t just say the legislation needs to be changed. He said the government needs to build and fund that organization to be responsible for response for every emergency including pandemics.”
Redman, who testified at the National Citizens Inquiry in Red Deer last April, was pleased with Manning’s wide scope.
“In the first line of each recommendation he’s covered all of the areas from fear being number one, to not doing a hazard assessment to realize that Sars-CoV-2 was really only affecting the elderly.”
“And the terrible destruction of the children and their education system, but more importantly their socialization, the effects on business, the destruction of our economy, and then summing it up with the complete destruction of rights and freedoms.”
“I think they’ve pretty much covered the areas.”
Redman said two steps must be followed immediately.
First, hold a public inquiry to educate the public and “break the cycle of fear.”
“The fear is still, I would say, in 65% of our population. They are now self-destroying their Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”
“They believe Sars-C0V-2, the sixth version of the common cold, is deadly. And they will keep believing it until we do a full, open, transparent public inquiry to teach people that what we did was absolutely wrong and why it was wrong.”
“Step two, there must be a process-driven full-recovery plan … That recovery process has to be complete, covering all the points in the Manning report and any that he might have missed.”
“Again, it must be transparent. And that plan has to be fully implemented with the ability to hold accountable everyone responsible for the gross negligence and criminal negligence that was done during COVID.”
“That will show to the public that what was done wasn’t just wrong, it was criminally wrong, and they can stop the fear.”
The inquiry must address what was done, why and “how do we recover from all of the damage we’ve done.”
“Let’s use children as an example. How do you overcome the loss of academic training. And how do you overcome two years of lack of socialization?”
If the emergency management recommendation is implemented by Smith’s government, citizens can be confident if/when the next pandemic hits.
“Emergency management is made up of professionals who are experts who evaluate daily hazards. They use a disciplined process to mitigate, prepare for, respond to and recovery from all hazards in their jurisdiction,” said Redman.
“The process they use ensures that all required experts, across the public and private sector, are involved in making a plan that evaluates the cost versus the benefits of all possible actions, making a coherent plan that is issued to the public for their engagement and feedback.”
Alberta’s pandemic plan is designed to control the spread of disease, reduce mortality, mitigate societal disruption, minimize adverse economic impact, and support efficient and effective use of recourses during response and recovery.
The Manning report recognized the delicate balance in protecting Albertans during emergencies and honouring rights and freedoms.
It recommended amending the Alberta Bill of Rights, Employment Standards Code, and Health Professions Act to protect the rights and freedoms of all Albertans, including workers and healthcare professionals and freedom of expression during emergencies.
Manning noted that too many Canadians suffered losses — including loved ones, jobs due to “rigorous health protection measures,” businesses, and freedoms.
How different would things have been if people like Redman had been listened to at the time…
Linda Slobodian is the Senior Manitoba Columnist for the Western Standard based out of Winnipeg. She has been an investigative columnist for the Calgary Herald, Calgary Sun, Edmonton Sun, and Alberta Report. This originally appeared in the Western Standard here.
Just over a year ago, Alberta Finance Minister Nate Horner unveiled a report exploring the potential risks and benefits of an Alberta Pension Plan.
The report, prepared by pension analytics firm LifeWorks – formerly known as Morneau Shepell, the same firm once headed by former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau – used the exit formula outlined in the Canada Pension Plan Act to determine that if the province exits, it would be entitled to a large share of CPP assets.
According to LifeWorks, Alberta’s younger, predominantly working-class population, combined with higher-than-average income levels, has resulted in the province contributing disproportionately to the CPP.
The analysis pegged Alberta’s share of the CPP account at $334 billion – 53% of the CPP’s total asset pool.
We’ve explained a few times how, while that number might initially sound farfetched, once you understand that Alberta has contributed more than it’s taken out, almost every single year CPP has existed, while other provinces have consistently taken out more than they put in and technically *owe* money, it starts to make more sense.
But, predictably, the usual suspects were outraged.
Media commentators and policy analysts across the country were quick to dismiss the possibility that Alberta could claim such a significant portion. To them, the idea that Alberta workers had been subsidizing the CPP for decades seemed unthinkable.
The uproar prompted an emergency meeting of Canada’s Finance Ministers, led by now-former federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland. Alberta pressed for clarity, with Horner requesting a definitive number from the federal government.
Freeland agreed to have the federal Chief Actuary provide an official calculation.
If you think Trudeau should release the pension calculation, click here.
Four months later, the Chief Actuary announced the formation of a panel to “interpret” the CPP’s asset transfer formula – a formula that remains contentious and could drastically impact Alberta’s entitlement.
(Readers will remember that how this formula is interpreted has been the matter of much debate, and could have a significant impact on the amount Alberta is entitled to.)
Once the panel completed its work, the Chief Actuary promised to deliver Alberta’s calculated share by the fall. With December 20th marking the last day of fall, Alberta has finally received a response – but not the one it was waiting for:
“We received their interpretation of the legislation, but it did not contain a number or even a formula for calculating a number,” said Justin Brattinga, Horner’s press secretary.
In other words, the Chief Actuary did the complete opposite of what they were supposed to do.
The Chief Actuary’s job is to calculate each province’s entitlement, based on the formula outlined in the CPP Act.
It is not the Chief Actuary’s job to start making up new interpretations of the formula to suit the federal government’s agenda.
In fact, the idea that the Chief Actuary spent all this time working on the issue, and didn’t even calculate a number is preposterous.
There’s just no way that that’s what happened.
Far more likely is that the Chief Actuary did run the numbers, using the formula in the CPP Act, only for them – and the federal government – to realize that Alberta’s LifeWorks calculation is actually about right.
Cue panic, a rushed attempt to “reinterpret” the formula, and a refusal to provide the number they committed to providing.
In short, we simply don’t believe that the Chief Actuary didn’t, you know, “actuarialize” anything.
For decades, Alberta has contributed disproportionately to the CPP, given its higher incomes and younger population.
Despite all the bluster in the media, this is actually common sense.
A calculation reflecting this reality would not sit well with other provinces, which have benefited from these contributions.
By withholding the actual number, Ottawa confirms the validity of Alberta’s position.
The refusal to release the calculation only adds fuel to the financial firestorm already underway in Ottawa.
Albertans deserve to know the truth about their contributions and entitlements.
We want to see that number.
If you agree, and want to see the federal government’s calculation on what Alberta is owed, sign our petition – Tell Trudeau To Release The Pension Calculation:
Once you’ve signed, send this petition to your friends, family, and all Albertans.
Thank you for your support!
Regards,
The Free Alberta Strategy Team
By Dan McTeague
Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry.
There’s no doubt about it: Donald Trump’s threat of a blanket 25% tariff on Canadian goods (to be established if the Canadian government fails to take sufficient action to combat drug trafficking and illegal crossings over our southern border) would be catastrophic for our nation’s economy. More than $3 billion in goods move between the U.S. and Canada on a daily basis. If enacted, the Trump tariff would likely result in a full-blown recession.
It falls upon Canada’s leaders to prevent that from happening. That’s why Justin Trudeau flew to Florida two weeks ago to point out to the president-elect that the trade relationship between our countries is mutually beneficial.
This is true, but Trudeau isn’t the best person to make that case to Trump, since he has been trashing the once and future president, and his supporters, both in public and private, for years. He did so again at an appearance just the other day, in which he implied that American voters were sexist for once again failing to elect the nation’s first female president, and said that Trump’s election amounted to an assault on women’s rights.
Consequently, the meeting with Trump didn’t go well.
But Trudeau isn’t Canada’s only politician, and in recent days we’ve seen some contrasting approaches to this serious matter from our provincial leaders.
First up was Doug Ford, who followed up a phone call with Trudeau earlier this week by saying that Canadians have to prepare for a trade war. “Folks, this is coming, it’s not ‘if,’ it is — it’s coming… and we need to be prepared.”
Ford said that he’s working with Liberal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland to put together a retaliatory tariff list. Spokesmen for his government floated the idea of banning the LCBO from buying American alcohol, and restricting the export of critical minerals needed for electric vehicle batteries (I’m sure Trump is terrified about that last one).
But Ford’s most dramatic threat was his announcement that Ontario is prepared to shut down energy exports to the U.S., specifically to Michigan, New York, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, if Trump follows through with his plan. “We’re sending a message to the U.S. You come and attack Ontario, you attack the livelihoods of Ontario and Canadians, we’re going to use every tool in our toolbox to defend Ontarians and Canadians across the border,” Ford said.
Now, unfortunately, all of this chest-thumping rings hollow. Ontario does almost $500 billion per year in trade with the U.S., and the province’s supply chains are highly integrated with America’s. The idea of just cutting off the power, as if you could just flip a switch, is actually impossible. It’s a bluff, and Trump has already called him on it. When told about Ford’s threat by a reporter this week, Trump replied “That’s okay if he does that. That’s fine.”
And Ford’s calls for national unity – “We need to stand united as Canadians!” – in context feels like an endorsement of fellow Electric Vehicle fanatic Trudeau. And you do wonder if that issue has something to do with it. After all, the two have worked together to pump billions in taxpayer dollars into the EV industry. Just over the past year Ford and Trudeau have been seen side by side announcing their $5 billion commitment to Honda, or their $28.2 billion in subsidies for new Stellantis and Volkswagen electric vehicle battery plants.
Their assumption was that the U.S. would be a major market for Canadian EVs. Remember that “vehicles are the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023 of which 93% was exported to the U.S.,”according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9% of all exports (2023).”
But Trump ran on abolishing the Biden administration’s de facto EV mandate. Now that he’s back in the White House, the market for those EVs that Trudeau and Ford invested in so heavily is going to be much softer. Perhaps they’d like to be able to blame Trump’s tariffs for the coming downturn rather than their own misjudgment.
In any event, Ford’s tactic stands in stark contrast to the response from Alberta, Canada’s true energy superpower. Premier Danielle Smith made it clear that her province “will not support cutting off our Alberta energy exports to the U.S., nor will we support a tariff war with our largest trading partner and closest ally.”
Smith spoke about this topic at length at an event announcing a new $29-million border patrol team charged with combatting drug trafficking, at which said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” Her deputy premier Mike Ellis was quoted as saying, “The concerns that president-elect Trump has expressed regarding fentanyl are, quite frankly, the same concerns that I and the premier have had.” Smith and Ellis also criticized Ottawa’s progressively lenient approach to drug crimes.
(For what it’s worth, a recent Léger poll found that “Just 29 per cent of [Canadians] believe Trump’s concerns about illegal immigration and drug trafficking from Canada to the U.S. are unwarranted.” Perhaps that’s why some recent polls have found that Trudeau is currently less popular in Canada than Trump at the moment.)
Smith said that Trudeau’s criticisms of the president-elect were, “not helpful.” And on X/Twitter she said, “Now is the time to… reach out to our friends and allies in the U.S. to remind them just how much Americans and Canadians mutually benefit from our trade relationship – and what we can do to grow that partnership further,” adding, “Tariffs just hurt Americans and Canadians on both sides of the border. Let’s make sure they don’t happen.”
This is exactly the right approach. Smith knows there is a lot at stake in this fight, and is not willing to step into the ring in a fight that Canada simply can’t win, and will cause a great deal of hardship for all involved along the way.
While Trudeau indulges in virtue signaling and Ford in sabre rattling, Danielle Smith is engaging in true statesmanship. That’s something that is in short supply in our country these days.
As I’ve written before, Trump is playing chess while Justin Trudeau and Doug Ford are playing checkers. They should take note of Smith’s strategy. Honey will attract more than vinegar, and if the long history of our two countries tell us anything, it’s that diplomacy is more effective than idle threats.
Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.
Gov’t memo admits Canadians are shifting to independent news due to distrust of media, not Russian ‘bots’
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks
LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
armed forces1 day ago
Canadian military deployed ‘gender advisors’ to Ukraine, Haiti at taxpayers’ expense
-
Business2 days agoTaxpayers release Naughty and Nice List
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days agoHow The NFL Grinch Bought Xmas: Drowning In A Sea of Football
-
Health1 day agoDr. Malone: Bird flu ‘emergency’ in California is a case of psychological bioterrorism
-
Opinion2 days agoHow Christianity Remade the World
-
Business1 day agoRand Paul Releases Report Detailing $1,000,000,000,000 In Gov’t Waste. Here Are The Worst Offenders