Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Alberta

Redman got it right on COVID response

Published

10 minute read

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.

Alberta

Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border

Published on

Marathon Petroleum’s Detroit refinery in the U.S. Midwest, the largest processing area for Canadian crude imports. Photo courtesy Marathon Petroleum

From the Canadian Energy Centre

By Deborah Jaremko

More than 450,000 kilometres of pipelines link Canada and the U.S. – enough to circle the Earth 11 times

As U.S. imports of Canadian oil barrel through another new all-time high, leaders on both sides of the border are warning of the threat to energy security should the incoming Trump administration apply tariffs on Canadian oil and gas.

“We would hope any future tariffs would exclude these critical feedstocks and refined products,” Chet Thompson, CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), told Politico’s E&E News.

AFPM’s members manufacture everything from gasoline to plastic, dominating a sector with nearly 500 operating refineries and petrochemical plants across the United States.

“American refiners depend on crude oil from Canada and Mexico to produce the affordable, reliable fuels consumers count on every day,” Thompson said.

The United States is now the world’s largest oil producer, but continues to require substantial imports – to the tune of more than six million barrels per day this January, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Nearly 70 per cent of that oil came from Canada.

Many U.S. refineries are set up to process “heavy” crude like what comes from Canada and not “light” crude like what basins in the United States produce.

“New tariffs on [Canadian] crude oil, natural gas, refined products, or critical input materials that cannot be sourced domestically…would directly undermine energy affordability and availability for consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s largest trade association, wrote in a recent letter to the United States Trade Representative.

More than 450,000 kilometres of oil and gas pipelines link Canada and the United States – enough to circle the Earth 11 times.

The scale of this vast, interconnected energy system does not exist anywhere else. It’s “a powerful card to play” in increasingly unstable times, researchers with S&P Global said last year.

Twenty-five years from now, the United States will import virtually exactly the same amount of oil as it does today (7.0 million barrels per day in 2050 compared to 6.98 million barrels per day in 2023), according to the EIA’s latest outlook.

“We are interdependent on energy. Americans cutting off Canadian energy would be like cutting off their own arm,” said Heather Exner-Pirot, a special advisor to the Business Council of Canada.

Trump’s threat to apply a 25 per cent tariff on imports from Canada, including energy, would likely “result in lower production in Canada and higher gasoline and energy costs to American consumers while threatening North American energy security,” Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers CEO Lisa Baiton said in a statement.

“We must do everything in our power to protect and preserve this energy partnership.”

Energy products are Canada’s single largest export to the United States, accounting for about a third of total Canadian exports to the U.S., energy analysts Rory Johnston and Joe Calnan noted in a November report for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

The impact of applying tariffs to Canadian oil would likely be spread across Canada and the United States, they wrote: higher pump prices for U.S. consumers, weaker business for U.S. refiners and reduced returns for Canadian producers.

“It is vitally important for Canada to underline that it is not just another trade partner, but rather an indispensable part of the economic and security apparatus of the United States,” Johnston and Calnan wrote.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Trudeau’s Tariff Retaliation Plan: Alberta Says “No Thanks”

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

After years of neglect and exploitation, Alberta refuses to back Trudeau’s countermeasure plan against Trump’s tariffs, exposing the cracks in Canada’s so-called unity.

Let’s take a moment to appreciate Justin Trudeau’s brilliant strategy for handling Trump’s latest stunt: tariffs. Trump, in true Trump fashion, threatens to slap a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, because apparently, Canada is responsible for all of America’s problems—from border security to fentanyl. And Trudeau’s response? A $150 billion countermeasure plan that includes the possibility of crippling Alberta’s energy sector. Genius! Except one small problem: Alberta said, ‘No thanks.’

Why wasn’t Alberta there? Because Premier Danielle Smith isn’t an idiot. Trudeau’s plan includes export levies on Canadian oil, a move that would essentially tell Alberta to torch its own economy to help Trudeau look tough on Trump. Alberta exports $13.3 billion of energy to the U.S. every month, making it the lifeblood of this country’s economy. But sure, let’s just gamble that away because Trudeau needs a distraction from his sinking legacy.

But Alberta’s refusal isn’t just about this plan. It’s about years—years—of Ottawa treating Alberta like the black sheep of Confederation. Remember the Northern Gateway Pipeline? Trudeau killed it. Energy East? Dead, too. Those projects could’ve given Alberta access to global markets. Instead, Trudeau left the province landlocked, dependent on the U.S., and completely vulnerable to economic extortion like this. And now, after all that sabotage, he expects Alberta to ‘unite’ behind his plan? Please.

And don’t even get me started on Bill C-69. They call it the ‘Impact Assessment Act,’ but Albertans know it as the ‘No More Pipelines Bill.’ This masterpiece of legislation basically made it impossible to build anything that moves oil. And just to twist the knife, Trudeau slapped on a carbon tax—because nothing says ‘we care about your economy’ like making it more expensive to run it.

And then there’s Quebec. Oh, Quebec. The province that’s spent years wagging its finger at Alberta, calling its oil sands ‘dirty energy’ and blocking pipeline projects that could’ve helped the whole country. Meanwhile, Quebec gleefully cashes billions in equalization payments, heavily subsidized by Alberta’s oil wealth. That’s right—the same people who call Alberta the bad guy are more than happy to take their money. And now Trudeau wants Alberta to step up and take one for the team? Give me a break.

Danielle Smith saw this nonsense for what it is: exploitation. She flatly refused to sign onto any plan that includes export levies or energy restrictions. And you know what? Good for her. She said, ‘Federal officials are floating the idea of cutting off energy supply to the U.S. and imposing tariffs on Alberta energy. Until these threats cease, Alberta cannot support the federal government’s plan.’ Translation: Alberta is done being Ottawa’s doormat.

Let’s not forget why Alberta is even in this mess. For nine years, Trudeau’s government has treated Alberta like its personal piggy bank, siphoning billions through equalization payments while doing absolutely nothing—zero—to support its economy. When oil prices collapsed and families were struggling, what did Alberta get? Crickets. Trudeau was too busy virtue-signaling to his globalist pals to care. And now, with Trump threatening a 25% tariff that could cripple Alberta’s economy, Trudeau has the audacity to turn around and ask Alberta to make the ultimate sacrifice. You can’t make this stuff up.

And then Danielle Smith does what any rational leader would do—she heads to Mar-a-Lago to defend her province’s interests. And what does Trudeau’s cabinet do? They lose their minds, clutch their pearls, and call her ‘unpatriotic.’ Unpatriotic? Are you kidding me? This is coming from the same government that has spent nearly a decade treating Alberta like the annoying little sibling of Confederation—good enough to bankroll Quebec’s luxurious equalization payments, but not important enough to actually listen to. And now, after years of kicking Alberta to the curb, they expect Smith to roll over, play nice, and ‘work together’? Please.

Doug Ford says, ‘United we stand, divided we fall.’ Great soundbite, Doug. But unity doesn’t mean asking one province to carry the load while others reap the rewards. Quebec Premier François Legault says, ‘Nothing’s off the table.’ Of course not—Quebec isn’t paying the price. This isn’t unity; it’s a shakedown.

Here’s the reality: Alberta isn’t at the table because Ottawa hasn’t earned the right to ask them to be. You don’t treat a province like an ATM for nearly a decade and then expect them to roll over when you need a favor. Danielle Smith stood up and said, ‘Enough.’ And frankly, good for her.

So here’s the real question: how long does Ottawa think it can keep exploiting Alberta before the province decides it’s had enough? Because let me tell you, when Alberta’s done, it’s not just the energy sector that’s going to feel it—it’s the entire country.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X