Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Inner city shoplifting and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew

Todayville

Published

7 months ago

9 minute read

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Brian Giesbrecht

This problem is only made worse by gullible writers and politicians who make excuses for the thieves. Their excuse is that these people are disadvantaged, so they are less than fully responsible for their criminal conduct. Some sympathetic souls go even further, and suggest that these indigenous shoplifters are simply taking back what is rightfully theirs as “reparations” because the shop owners are on “stolen land”.

Winnipeg, Manitoba is being hit with an epidemic of shoplifting that appears to be out of control. Thieves openly steal expensive items, such as frozen meat, from inner city food stores. Shelves are stripped bare in what are more accurately described as robberies than shoplifting. Victims describe brazen thefts by entitled thieves who become indignant when caught in the act. One store employee, who tried to stop a theft, was told “You are on Treaty 1 territory”. The stores that are hardest hit are often owned by immigrant families who have worked very hard to build their modest businesses. Some have had to close, as a result of the unchecked criminality, and others will follow.

Police protection is weak. Even in rare cases where culprits are caught and prosecuted, sentences are minimal.

The problem of brazen theft from Winnipeg liquor stores reached such a serious level in the recent past that customers at urban liquor stores in Manitoba are now allowed to enter the store only after lining up single file, and producing identification. Liquor prices have risen as a result, because special government employees must be hired to sit at the door to inspect ID’s. Customers must line up outside, even on the coldest winter days, because freeloaders choose to steal liquor. And everyone – including the police – are too shy to confront the robbers.

Other western cities, such as Regina, Saskatoon and Thunder Bay are having similar problems. Even small cities, such as Wetaskiwin, Alberta, are hard hit.

The common element is that all of these cities and towns have significant indigenous populations who migrated to the cities from largely dysfunctional reserves, where attitudes of dependency, entitlement and victimhood prevail. Most arrive poorly educated, with few job skills, but with an expectation that they will be provided for. They proceed to live rough lives on the mean streets of these cities. Many drift to shoplifting and other crime. The inner city thieves are disproportionately from this demographic.

This problem is only made worse by gullible writers and politicians who make excuses for the thieves. Their excuse is that these people are disadvantaged, so they are less than fully responsible for their criminal conduct. Some sympathetic souls go even further, and suggest that these indigenous shoplifters are simply taking back what is rightfully theirs as “reparations” because the shop owners are on “stolen land”. They argue that these indigenous people are victims of a system that gives them no chance to succeed, or that they are suffering from the “intergenerational trauma” presumably caused by the fact that 1 in 6 indigenous children attended residential schools in the past.

The shoplifters readily adopt these excuses, and claim to be victims of “systemic racism”.

But, wait a minute! Isn’t the Premier of Manitoba, Wab Kinew, indigenous? Isn’t he a successful, law-abiding person? And wouldn’t most indigenous Canadians laugh at the idea that they had to steal to survive? How is it that Wab Kinew, and the many other successful indigenous Canadians manage their lives just fine while the shoplifters cannot?

The answer is that Wab succeeded the way all successful people do. He went to school, worked hard, and went where the jobs are. He was fortunate to have competent, caring parents who understood the importance of education and hard work. His parents also understood that assimilation (or, if you prefer, integration) was essential for their son to succeed. Wab’s father had a rough time in residential school, but used what he learned to raise a son who has become a provincial premier.

The fact that Kinew is fully assimilated does not prevent him from celebrating his indigenous heritage. Recently, a video of him energetically performing a prairie chicken dance went viral. It showed indigenous youth that they too can be both successful Canadians – and proudly indigenous – at the same time.

It is clear from watching him dancing so vigorously that he would have been a formidable warrior in pre-contact indigenous hunting culture. Colonialism ended that possibility. But it is equally clear that he, and the other indigenous people who were willing to learn the new ways, received a lot in return from the settlers. He is now an articulate, literate, thoroughly modern man, thanks to “settler colonialism”. Colonialism has also given him an expected lifespan more than double that of yesterday’s hunter-gatherers. Colonialism gave at least as much as it took from him.

Kinew’s memoir, “The Reason You Walk” describes someone determined to live his life not as a victim, but as a confident indigenous Canadian.

He built his own life – making mistakes along the way – but learning from those mistakes, and is now the leader of a province – and lauded as a possible future prime minister. He offers no apologies to critics who suggest that an indigenous person who is successful is somehow “selling out” indigenous people. His famous reply to that old saw is “Aboriginal success is the best form of reconciliation”.

Don’t expect to find Wab Kinew stealing frozen hamburger from a Food Fare store anytime soon.

But here’s the lesson indigenous youth can learn from the example Wab Kinew, and other successful indigenous people have set: “If they can do it, so can you”. They should also tell the apologists who want to give them tired excuses – excusing theft as “reparations” for perceived past wrongs, or “intergenerational trauma” – that they, like Wab, refuse to live their lives as “victims”.

In short, the solution to the shoplifting problem is not to condone theft. It is not to treat criminals differently because they are indigenous. It is not to offer them excuses. The solution is to create more Wab Kinews.

And that’s up to Indigenous parents. No government can do that for them. For many families, like Wab’s, that will include the difficult decision to move from dead-end reserves. But if they have the same commitment to their children’s education and upbringing that Wab’s parents had there is no reason that they can’t raise successful children in this country.

Long before he became Manitoba’s premier, Wab Kinew, regularly entertained listeners on CBC Radio. He was a refreshing, common sense voice, and always refused to play the victim. He never failed to remind young indigenous people that Canada worked just fine for him.

And, with a bit of grit and hard work, it can work for them too.

Brian Giesbrecht, retired judge, is a Senior Fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Up Next

Capital gains tax hike will cause widespread damage in Canadian economy

Don't Miss

EU elections turn ‘sharp right’ as immigration woes wreak havoc in Europe

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Chrystia Freeland’s WEF page deleted after she announces bid to replace Trudeau

National / 23 mins ago

Poilievre calls likely Trudeau replacement Mark Carney the World Economic Forum’s ‘golden boy’

Daily Caller / 2 hours ago

Pastor Lectures Trump and Vance On Trans People, Illegal Immigrants

COVID-19

Report Shows Politics Trumped Science on U.S. Vaccine Mandates

Published on January 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

If you thought responsible science drove the bus on the pandemic response, think again. A December 2024 report by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee, Coronavirus Pandemic shows that political agendas made regulatory bodies rush vaccine approvals, mandates, and boosters, causing public distrust.

“After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward” praised the Trump administration’s efforts to speed up vaccine development. By contrast, the report said presidential candidate Joe Biden and vice-presidential candidate Kamala Harris undermined public confidence.

“[W]hy do we think the public is gonna line up to be willing to take the injection?” Joe Biden asked on September 5, 2020. This quote appeared in a Politico article titled “Harris says she wouldn’t trust Trump on any vaccine released before [the] election.”

The House report noted, “These irresponsible statements eventually proved to be outright hypocrisy less than a year later when the Biden-Harris Administration began to boldly decry all individuals who decided to forgo COVID-19 vaccinations for personal, religious, or medical reasons.”

Millions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered beginning in December 2020 under an Emergency Use Authorization. This mechanism allows unapproved medical products to be used in emergency situations under certain criteria, including that there are no alternatives. The only previous EUA was for the 2004 anthrax vaccine, which was only administered to a narrow group of people.

By the time vaccines rolled out, SARS-CoV-2 had already infected 91 million Americans. The original SARS virus some 15 years prior showed that people who recovered had lasting immunity. Later, a January 2021 study of 200 participants by the La Jolla Institute of Immunology found 95 per cent of people who had contracted SARS-CoV-2 (the virus behind COVID-19) had lasting immune responses. A February 16, 2023 article by Caroline Stein in The Lancet (updated March 11, 2023) showed that contracting COVID-19 provided an immune response that was as good or better than two COVID-19 shots.

Correspondence suggests that part of the motivation for full (and not just emergency) vaccine approval was to facilitate vaccine mandates. A July 21, 2021, email from Dr. Marion Gruber, then director of vaccine reviews for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), recalled that Dr. Janet Woodcock had stated that “absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination.” Woodcock was the FDA’s Principal Deputy Commissioner at the time.

Sure enough, the FDA granted full vaccine approval on August 23, 2021, more than four months sooner than a normal priority process would take. Yet, five days prior, Biden made an announcement that put pressure on regulators.

On August 18, 2021, Biden announced that all Americans would have booster shots available starting the week of September 20, pending final evaluation from the FDA and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Some decision-makers objected. Dr. Marion Gruber and fellow FDA deputy director of vaccine research Dr. Philip Krause had concerns regarding the hasty timelines for approving Pfizer’s primary shots and boosters. On August 31, 2021, they announced their retirements.

According to a contemporary New York Times article, Krause and Gruber were upset about Biden’s booster announcement. The article said that “neither believed there was enough data to justify offering booster shots yet,” and that they “viewed the announcement, amplified by President Biden, as pressure on the F.D.A. to quickly authorize them.”

In The Lancet on September 13, 2021, Gruber, Krause, and 16 other scientists warned that mass boosting risked triggering myocarditis (heart inflammation) for little benefit.

“[W]idespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate,” the authors wrote. “Current evidence does not, therefore, appear to show a need for boosting in the general population, in which efficacy against severe disease remains high.”

Regardless, approval for the boosters arrived on schedule on September 24, 2021. CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky granted this approval, but for a wider population than recommended by her advisory panel. This was only the second time in CDC history that a director had defied panel advice.

“[T]his process may have been tainted with political pressure,” the House report found.

Amidst all this, the vaccines were fully licensed. The FDA licensed the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine on August 23, 2021. The very next day, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued a memo announcing a vaccine mandate for the military. Four other federal mandates followed.

“[T]he public’s perception [is] that these vaccines were approved in a hurry to satisfy a political agenda,” the House report found.

The House report condemned the dubious process and basis for these mandates. It said the mandates “ignored natural immunity, … risk of adverse events from the vaccine, as well as the fact that the vaccines don’t prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

The mandates robbed people of their livelihoods, “hollowed out our healthcare and education workforces, reduced our military readiness and recruitment, caused vaccine hesitancy, reduced trust in public health, trampled individual freedoms, deepened political divisions, and interfered in the patient-physician relationship,” the report continued.

The same could be said of Canadian vaccine mandates, as shown by the National Citizen’s Inquiry hearings on COVID-19. Unfortunately, an official federal investigation and a resulting acknowledgement do not seem forthcoming. Politicized mandates led to profits for vaccine manufacturers but left “science” with a sullied reputation.

Lee Harding is a Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Energy

Why Canada Must Double Down on Energy Production

Published on January 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Lee Harding

Must we cancel fossil fuels to save the earth? No.

James Warren, adjunct professor of environmental sociology at the University of Regina said so in a recent paper for the Johnson Shoyama School of Public Policy, a joint effort by his university and the University of Saskatchewan. The title says it all: “Maximizing Canadian oil production and exports over the medium-term could help reduce CO2 emissions for the long-term.”

The professor admits on the face of it, his argument sounds like a “drink your way to sobriety solution.” However, he does make the defensible and factual case, pointing to Canadian oil reserves and a Scandinavian example.

Decades ago, Norway imitated the 1970’s Heritage Fund in Alberta that set aside a designated portion of the government’s petroleum revenues for an investment fund. Unlike Alberta, Norway stuck to that approach. Today, those investments are being used to develop clean energy and offer incentives to buy electric vehicles.

Norway’s two largest oil companies, Aker BP and Equinor ASA have committed $19 billion USD to develop fields in the North and Norwegian Seas. They argue that without this production, Norway would never be able to afford a green transition.

The same could be said for Canada. Warren laid out stats since 2010 that showed Canada’s oil exports contribute an average of 4.7% of the national GDP. Yet, this noteworthy amount is not nearly what it could be.

Had Trans Mountain, Northern Gateway, and Energy East pipelines been up and running at full capacity from 2015 to 2022, Warren estimates Canada would have seen $292 billion Canadian in additional export revenues. Onerous regulations, not diminished demand, are responsible for Canada’s squandered opportunities, Warren argues this must change.

So much more could be said. Southeast Asia still relies heavily on coal-fired power for its emerging industrialization, a source with twice the carbon emission intensity as natural gas. If lower global emissions are the goal, Canadian oil and natural gas exports offer less carbon-intensive options.

China’s greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are more than four times what they were in 1990, during which the U.S. has seen its emissions drop. By now, China is responsible for 30% of global emissions, and the U.S. just 11%. Nevertheless, China built 95% of the world’s new coal-fired power plants in 2023. It aims for carbon neutrality by 2060, not 2050, like the rest of the world.

As of 2023, Canada contributes 1.4 percent of global GHGs, the tenth most in the world and the 15th highest per capita. Given its development and resource-based economy, this should be viewed as an impressively low amount, all spread out over a geographically diverse area and cold climate.

This stat also reveals a glaring reality: if Canada was destroyed, and every animal and human died, all industry and vehicles stopped, and every furnace and fire ceased to burn, 98.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions would remain. So for whom, or to what end, should Canada kneecap its energy production and the industry it fuels?

The only ones served by a world of minimal production is a global aristocracy whose hegemony would no longer be threatened by the accumulated wealth and influence of a growing middle class. That aristocracy is the real beneficiary of prevailing climate change narratives on what is happening in our weather, why it is happening, and how best to handle it.

Remember, another warming period occurred 1000 years ago. The Medieval Warming Period took place between 750 and 1350 AD and was warmest from 950 to 1045, affecting Europe, North America, and the North Atlantic. By some estimates, average summer temperatures in England and Central Europe were 0.7-1.4 degrees higher than now.

Was that warming due to SUVs or other man-made activity? No. Did that world collapse in a series of floods, fires, earthquakes, and hurricanes? No, not in Europe at least. Crop yields grew, new cities emerged, alpine tree lines rose, and the European population more than doubled.

If the world warms again, Canada could be a big winner. In May of 2018, Nature.com published a study by Chinese and Canadian academics entitled, Northward shift of the agricultural climate zone under 21st-Century global climate change. If the band of land useful for crops shifts north, Canada would get an additional 3.1 million square kilometers of farmland by 2099.

Other computer models suggest warming temperatures would cause damaging weather. Their accuracy is debatable, but even if we concede their claims, it does not follow that energy production should drop. We would need more resilient housing to handle the storms and we cannot afford them without a robust economy powered by robust energy production. Solar, wind, and geothermal only go so far.

Whether temperatures are warming or not, Canada should continue tapping into the resources she is blessed with. Wealth is a helpful shelter in the storms of life and is no different for the storms of the planet. Canada is sitting on abundant energy and should not let dubious arguments hold back their development.

Lee Harding is Research Fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.