Unemployment Rates Historical Comparison East VS. West

Unemployment Rates Historical Comparison East VS. West

https://youtu.be/ASYn_YlgYM4

Last week we looked at poverty and the middle-class, and how they relate to Canadians. Now we are going to take a look at a subject that ties in these previous articles. Unemployment directly affects poverty and homelessness. In Canada, our governments could be doing much more to help this problem, federal, provincial, and municipal. Before getting into solutions, taking a look at the facts and stats around unemployment in Canada is necessary. 

Tradingeconimcs.com has some really great information in regards to this subject. They describe the unemployment rates as the “number of people actively looking for a job as a percentage of the labour force.” In other words, this means that it is measuring the amount of people who are able to work, who are of age, and yet are unemployed, in Canada this includes 15 year-olds. Most recently October 2019, showed Canadian unemployment rates at 5.5% which has been fairly consistent since July bouncing between 5.5% and 5.7%. Canada did see a loss of 1, 800 full time positions, but then replaced those with 14,300 part time jobs. Which is a trend happening around the world, replacing full time jobs with part time jobs. This means that more people have jobs, leading to lower unemployment rates, but leading to lower paying jobs, meaning more poverty, or struggling families. Since 1966 Canada has averaged an unemployment rate of 7.62%. In December 1982 this was at its highest rate of 13.10%, which was due to policies and economic decisions made in the United States. The lowest rate recorded falls in at 2.90% in June of 1966. Which means our current rates are below average, but it does vary across the country and across job sectors. Canada saw drops in the manufacturing, warehousing, construction, and transportation areas, but a significant increase in administrative, finance, insurance, real estate, rental, leasing, and agricultural employment. We also saw differences based upon age, ages 15-24 saw no changes, but 24-55 year-old workers dropped in employment, while those aged 55 and over increased in employment. Not quite the shift I expected, but considering the manual labour job loss, it should not come as a real surprise. 

If we look at Stats Canada, we can see how these rates are dependant upon the province and territory one lives in. As of the summer the stats were as follows, nationally 5.7% was the average. The provincial breakdown: BC 4.3%, Alberta, 6.7 %, Saskatchewan 5.2%, Manitoba 5%, Ontario, 5.2%, Quebec 5%, New Brunswick 7.2%, PEI 9%, Nova Scotia 6.5%, Newfoundland and Labrador 12.4%. These numbers vary depending on how diversified each province is in their economy. Maritime provinces tend to rely on many seasonal jobs, and so they end up with higher rates depending on the season, otherwise many will leave for other provinces to work in the off-season. In the territories we see Yukon with 2.7%, NWT with 7.3%, and Nunavut with 14.1%. Yukon has more Ocean access and the ability to help in BC with forestry/fishery jobs, whereas NWT and Nunavut do not have these options, and are far more spread out in population bases, increasing the unemployment numbers. A good way around this issue, is for provinces and territories to diversify their economies, so when one commodity crashes, they have others to fall back on. Compared to other developed countries, Canada ranks middle of the pack in unemployment rate success. Switzerland leads the pack with 2.2% unemployment, and South Africa comes in at the bottom with 29.1%, which also reflects poverty rates in these countries. 

If we then take a closer look at the situation with the territories, conferenceboard.ca has great reasoning behind their issue. They claim to have 2 factors behind the higher than national average unemployment rates. One is that southern workers travel up north to take the higher-paying jobs that take more skill, but they do not stay to live there. The same problem the west sees with workers from the Maritimes. The second comes in the form of “economic expansion”, this has pushed more people from the north to search for jobs, but not all will be able to locate a job, resulting in more unemployment. Yukon, thankfully has avoided these issues, maintaining one of the lowest unemployment rates in Canada. 

They do also provide information on how unemployment rates can vary depending on immigration status. In 2018, those born in Canada had a 5.2% unemployment rate, newly landed immigrants were at 6.1%, immigrants landed less than 5 years were at 9.4%, immigrants landed within 5-10 years were at 6.4%, and Immigrants who have lived here for more than 10 years were sitting at 5.3%. I do have an issue with these stats though. First of all, immigrants who come to Canada need to be able to support themselves and not rely on tax pay dollars to keep them afloat, these numbers simply raise our countries unemployment stats. Secondly, if they cannot maintain a job in Canada, then they should not be allowed to remain in Canada. We have a lot of homelessness and poverty in Canada, so returning people who are not working back home help us to support those who truly need the help and are Canadians. This would apply for anyone who does not have a citizenship. 

During Stephen Harper’s time as Prime Minister the country did fairly well economically, with the exception of the 2008-09 recession, in which Canada was hit less hard than the United States. Our unemployment rate hit 8.3% but since we seemed better prepared, Canada was able to not be struck as hard as the United States, who were bleeding jobs up to a total of 2.6 million jobs, according to CNN Money. Too many lost jobs in both countries, but Canada’s preparation helped the country to rebound quicker and to help other countries try to rebound. However long term the US has been able to recover to lower unemployment rates, having the US rates drop to as low as 4.9%. Canada was able to recover in a short amount of time after this, mainly due to the quick thinking of Stephen Harper, who was able to get a trade deal with China, which shortened the recovery period, although some might say China is a terrible partner to support. Then when moved forward to 2016, when Justin Trudeau was in his second year as Prime Minister, rates dropped again, which has a lot to do with failed promises, harmful bills, and failed projects. One such failure would be the $4.5 billion purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which then got sidelined by the Vancouver area blocked it from going through and had it upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada (Huffington Post) Another threat would come in the form of Bill C-69, which makes a lot more red-tape in place for any future pipelines; it has been deemed the “Pipeline Killer”, according to Global News. The purchase and failure to proceed as planned with the pipeline to the BC coast, and a bill making it difficult to complete oil projects, made it very tough for the West and cost many jobs and a lot of money. Atlantic jobs were affected by this as well. Another factor in this was a struggle to recover after the oil price crashed in 2014, which has taken years to try to rebound from, a struggle that still shows today, hindered further by Federal environmental laws. To further read into this, check out conferenceboard.ca. 

Unemployment rates due to economic crashes, like in Alberta, can cause a spike in poverty and homelessness rates, which we have seen in the west. I won’t get too far into this topic though, as I have a whole previous article dedicated to that, (https://authortonypeters.blogspot.com/2019/11/keep-foreign-aid-money-in-canada.html and https://authortonypeters.blogspot.com/2019/11/trudeau-considering-supplying-vancouver.html). I will say that in 2017 Stats Canada placed 3.4 million or 9.5% of Canadians below the poverty line, which is not very clear, but they say the line is $25,000/year for single adults, but $40,000 for families, which seems low to me. Wages tend to play a big role in this, especially since so many people are having to work 2 jobs to make a living. The part time job trend has made this more pronounced. The wage of an average Canadian is $25.55, but this can be a hard stat to set with Salaries, self-employment, farming, and contract work. 

When looking to set up a policy around employment, a lot of factors must be considered, as there will always be some unemployment, largely in part to people moving to find jobs, shifting between workplaces, or a change in career. Canadians tend to have the highest rates of moving between cities and provinces to move to a labour mobility, according to conferenceboard.ca. The goal that should be kept in mind for policy setting, is to motivate all eligible workers in Canada to be able to find a job, no matter where in the country they are located. When families and locations have longer periods of unemployment it destroys and tears apart families and communities, so these periods need to be acted upon quickly. This has been the situation in the west and Prime Minister Trudeau has not followed through on promises to help the west fix this problem. The west supplied thousands of jobs for eastern workers in their oil boom, but when government policy destroyed this market the easterners flooded back east, an option that westerners are left without. CBC estimated these workers as being 20%, or 1700 people up to 10,000 at one point.  Yet the east has then criticized and hindered their progress to try to recover and diversify. Another factor that could be looked at is technology. When new tech hits the market it often cuts out jobs, leading to a spike in unemployment, but as people receive training for the new tech, the rates drop, as people get jobs working with the new technology. This creates short-term unemployment spikes, followed by longer term employment spikes. There are times, however, when new tech actually destroys a sector and takes it over, resulting in devastating job loss rates, that will struggle to recoup, so when implementing new technology, caution must be exercised to avoid unemployment because of technological automation. 

When an area has low unemployment rates, employers will struggle to find employees and wages are going to be higher, making it harder for employers to get by. High wages can also boom the housing market, making it harder to buy a home due to the inflation. Can areas really control this though? On one hand they could, but should they? A boom does have to end at some point, often times with a crash, rather than the preferred gradual decline. Which is devastating; but being able to provide jobs for a long period of time is important, meaning that preventing the boom is counter-productive. The best way to deal with the situation, is to diversify, find ways of bringing in other economic opportunities while the boom is on, that way when a crash does happen, the area has other sectors to depend on. Not everything is within a community or countries control however, a lot of this results from global and neighbouring countries globalization. American decisions affect our country greatly, and more recently, the decisions of the globe’s environmentally brain-washed movement. 

History tells of mistakes made in this regard, but also tells of successes. Provides educational opportunities in what not to do, as well as what to do. Listening to these lessons, can guide Canada through economic struggle, to help make Canada prosperous again. This does require governments that will listen. Our government cares not what happens in the west, which has made recovery, which the west is working at on their own, more challenging. All levels of government should assist areas that are struggling, not ignoring one half of the country and helping one province that has had it’s struggles. The whole country needs to be economically stable to lower unemployment rates and the rates of poverty. If we continue to have governments that ignore this, Canada will be led into further disaster. Work together to come up with a solution for the country as a whole. United we stand. Unify the West. 

Written in collaboration with Spencer Mathews

Unify The West Server https://discord.gg/rBKxjD3

Unify The West Facebook https://www.facebook.com/groups/443787693008469/

Jingle Bells B and T with Alan Jackson

Wexit, Wheatland and Saskatchewan Petitions What Are They?

Wexit, Wheatland and Saskatchewan Petitions What Are They?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsOav7VInOk&t=304s

Three motions or petitions. Each has its own angle, but ultimately do they come with the same end goal? This is the question many would like answered, and rightfully so. Without background knowledge these political nuances, can be hard to understand. How do you sign something you don’t comprehend? Today these efforts will be broken down, in an effort to help people understand, so that educated decisions can be made.

Wheatland County MD, Jason Wilson, presented a motion, that if Ottawa decides to reject or ignore, would force a referendum on Alberta’s Independence. Normally I would summarize it myself, but Dave Naylor of the Western Standard does it better than I could, so I will quote his explanation, which makes it pretty clear. “Therefor be it resolved: The Government of Alberta act on the following recommendations in order to insert Alberta’s constitutional rights within confederation.

1.  That the Province of Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and create an Alberta Pension Plan offering the same benefits at lower cost while giving Alberta control over the investment fund. Pensions are a provincial responsibility under section 94A of the Constitution Act. 1867.

2.  That the Province of Alberta collects its own revenue from personal income tax, as the province already does for corporate income tax. There is no reason to have Ottawa collect Alberta’s revenue. Any incremental cost of collecting our own personal income tax would be far outweighed by the policy flexibility that Alberta would gain.

3.  That the Province of Alberta use Section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to REMOVE EQUALIZATION from the Canadian Constitution. The federal government and other provinces must seriously consider a proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.

4.  That the Province of Alberta again uses Section 88 of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Quebec Secession Reference to demand Senate reform. Alberta has acted decisively in holding Senate elections. Now is the time to drive the issue further.

5.  That the Province of Alberta start preparing options to replace the RCMP as the province’s police force.  Alberta is a unique province and needs a police force operated, owned, and directed by the people they serve. Like the other major provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we should have our own provincial police force that answers to the Government of Alberta and understands the regional needs throughout the province. We have no doubt that Alberta can run a more efficient and effective police force than Ottawa can.

6.  That the Province of Alberta enter into an agreement with the federal government, similar to the Canada-Quebec Accord, allowing Alberta to oversee its own immigration that depicts the regional, cultural and economic needs of the Province.

Further be it resolved: If the federal government does not deal with these demands in good faith; if they block, hinder, or otherwise prevent Alberta from exercising its rights as outlined above, that the Government of Alberta will hold a Referendum with a “clear question”, as defined by The Clarity Act, on the secession of Alberta from the Canadian Confederation on October 18th 2021.” This motion covers the majority of what westerners, Albertans especially, have been demanding change on. Provincial police force, CPP removal to replace with APP, Equalization removal, senate reform, no federal GST, instead replace with Alberta’s own tax, and control just like what Quebec has already. These are all things that Westerners in general wish for, so glad that Jason Wilson and our team have been able to get more and more counties on board with this, including Medicine Hat. Keep writing your MDs and MLAs to get these things pushed through.

As for the Saskatchewan petition that our group has also put forth, it has the same end goal, just a bit of a different angle that is being taken. This petition asks for a plebiscite for separation from Canada. A plebiscite is, “The direct vote of all members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution,” according to the Oxford Dictionary. The change being referred to in this petition separation, though this is not actually it’s end goal. The preferred result of this petition is exactly what the Wheatland county motion is desiring. Wording it this way simply provides another option, should these demands not be met. It gives our political leaders an idea of how important these things are to their constituents. They want to know how people feel and are thinking about the forced government action. Right now, it takes the form of an online petition, which in and of itself, actually means very little, it just acts like a pre-polling before a written petition comes out, which IS significant, as a written petition will hold up in court. The group working on these motions, in part, is the Unify The West Discord group. Once the desired signatures are collected it will become a clear signal to both the federal government, but more importantly the provincial government, as they are the ones with the power in this. Provincial governments hold these referendums, not federal governments, so getting a federal party in place is not necessary, and in fact is a waste of effort, when attention, money and time, could be spent at the provincial level where it really matters. Saskatchewan wants meaningful changes, as does Alberta, and this petition makes that known. It is important for Saskatchewan and Albertan residents to stand up for themselves. Stand up for their rights, demand that they be given a fair shake in the Eastern run country of Canada, or I guess you could call it Eastanada. Have western voices be heard, make Ottawa and our apparently deaf and blind Prime Minister Trudeau, who also seems entirely clueless about country leadership, listen.

The Wexit movement no-doubt has some vested interest behind it coming from the Alberta public. However, upon further investigation the Wexit movement inherently lacks substance, mostly bolstered by empty rhetoric stemming from the concerns and frustrations almost every Albertan and many western Canadians have now in Canada’s history. Let’s start with the leader, Peter Downing, who himself has said that he is easily replaceable, is a former RCMP and Canadian military veteran who has become the face of the trendy western separatist movement[1]. Adopting the popular catchphrase Brexit, which stands for the separation of the British Isles from the EU, Wexit, represents the intended separation of the 4 westernmost provinces of the Canadian confederation into its own sovereign state. [more about Peter Downing] Peter Downing’s goal as a party is mainly and for the most part solely devoted to becoming provincial and federal parties, I encourage you to find out more of the intended platform other than cutting taxes and ending the equalization transfer. In the meantime, Peter Downing and his future party are campaigning across the western provinces hoping to gather enough signatures to be recognized as a political party, approximately 8 thousand are needed in Alberta[2].

Backed by the evidence of pollsters asking Albertans if they would support a separatist movement, a hesitant 60% would vote in favor of separation, hesitant because voluntary polling has its many flaws and biases meaning that those numbers are inaccurate, despite the inaccuracy of volunteer bias the sentiment to separate is present in the west[3].

In respect to this article, this is where the Wexit rhetoric appears unsubstantiated. In comparison to the Saskatchewan Plebiscite petition, which calls for “Alberta firewall” like action yet in relation to Saskatchewan, there are clearly laid out points and objectives that the plebiscite wants to accomplish when bargaining with provincial authorities, however the Wexit petition cries out with the grievance of one issue, how Saskatchewanians are tired of the unfair equalization transfer payment deal the province is locked into[4]. That’s it. In contrast the Sask. Plebiscite which names out the grievances that are had towards the carbon tax, the mishandling of foreign relations by the misguided Trudeau leadership which is negatively affecting the trade of provincial goods internationally, and the poor representation that is had in Western Canada because of the unfair distribution of voter influence in Canada’s legislative assembly, on top of stating how equalization transfers are an unfair agreement for the province in tangible clearly stated terms, not baseless rhetoric relaying the complaints of western Canadians without figures to back up those claims much like is found in the Wexit petition. In the end both efforts seek to accomplish the same end, begin a referendum in Saskatchewan that represents the desire for Western Canadians to be heard in our federal assembly by first separating from it to gain their own voice, so why not adopt the stronger politically minded leadership and forget Peter Downing. Unify the West advocates don’t even want to be affiliated with him anymore, him and his pose’s provincial townhalls are getting tired, spewing the same old empty rhetoric that may have the right conviction but isn’t backed up with the fact minded initiative the western separation movement needs.

Written in collaboration between Tony Peters and Spencer Mathews

https://discord.gg/rBKxjD3 Unify The West Server

https://www.facebook.com/groups/443787693008469/ Unify The West Facebook

[1] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/is-a-wexit-in-albertas-future,

[2] https://www.narcity.com/news/ca/ab/wexit-alberta-founder-peter-downing-is-touring-alberta-this-month-to-gain-support-for-his-movement

[3] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/is-a-wexit-in-albertas-future,

[4] https://www.change.org/p/scott-moe-make-a-plebiscite-concerning-saskatchewan-separation?recruiter=934444302&recruited_by_id=b7d5fb10-292a-11e9-8e4c-319e5eb75b77&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=petition_dashboard

& https://www.change.org/p/province-of-saskatchewan-saskatchewan-wexit

Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer Duet

Family Chipmunk Jingle Bells

Minister of Middle Class Prosperity, Say What?

Minister of Middle Class Prosperity, Say What?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRei0sxRSAk&t=2s

Mona Fortier, a name most people did not know until November 20^th of this year, when she was given two minister titles in cabinet, Minister of Middle Class Prosperity, whatever that means, and Associate Finance Minister. Mona Fortier was first elected in 2017, when she became the first female Member of Parliament for the Ottawa-Vanier region, according to the Government of Canada website. She claims that she has always thought that the best way to help her community, is to get involved and take action. The Government of Canada lists her areas of expertise as “health care, education, job creation, and francophone affairs”. Job creation, ironic, since Prime Minister Trudeau created a cabinet position just for her, a move many seem to suspect is simply to make Trudeau look like he is encouraging gender parity (according to The Star). She has, however, received a number of awards for her community involvement mentioned earlier, including a medal from the Queen in 2012, Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

With a little background on her political career, it is easier to see why she was given a position that one would think would involve job creation and helping people in the middle-class to make more money, or “prosper”. The position has caused a lot of confusion though, as no one, including Fortier, can properly explain what this new, made up position, really is. Minister of Middle Class Prosperity seems like a loaded position. Who determines what middle-class is? Who actually knows what middle-class is? From speaking to various Canadians, they all seem to have differing opinions on what middle-class is. Hence the confusion. Middle-class, really is a very ambiguous term, since there is no clear line of where poverty turns to middle-class. The National Post has stated that the Liberals claim that poverty rates are at an all-time low, yet wonder at how their official party line narrows its focus on the middle class, who, by Liberal claims, are not actually largely at risk of falling into poverty. Why the focus on “Middle-Class Prosperity” then? A really good question. The reason for this, as I see it, would be due to the fact that the East is prospering and have a growing middle-class, yet the west has been decreasing in the number of middle-class citizens, with more and more becoming impoverished daily. As long as the Liberals can bolster middle-class numbers and use this new position to appear to give a crap, they can keep attracting new eastern voters, winning further elections. The same strategy Trudeau has in increasing our immigration numbers.

This can come with consequences though. An example of which is how Canada appears on a global scale and at the country level. Canada has been scoring lower and lower on rankings surrounding equality, due to the battle of food insecurity (National Post). Looking at this though, shows that the real problem is not for middle-class citizens to further prosper, it appears as if the true problem lies in bringing our impoverished citizens out of their poverty. By helping this “class” to prosper, we then do in fact grow our middle-class. Helping our impoverished saves lives, and drives up the morale of the country, something more advantageous than what Fortier’s new cabinet position is designed to do.

Mona Fortier sees her position as fitting into her own personal goals. She claims, on the Government of Canada website, to be focused on environment, business prosperity, and “making life more affordable for Canadians”. Sounds like a line right out of Trudeau’s playbook, no wonder he chose her, cut from the same mold. She also claims that Canada needs “an ambitious plan to build stronger and better communities while growing the middle class”. What this plan is supposed to be, is yet to be determined. Which fits in with the confusion surrounding this position. A Conservative, Melissa Lantsman, states that this is a, “Politically-driven minister with an unclear set of responsibilities.” She suspects that this made up position is an attempt by the Liberal Party to do what they failed to do in their last term, which is to be the party for the middle-class as Trudeau has claimed. With the majority of Canadians visualizing themselves as being part of this class, it really is murky, some stats would place up to %60 of Canadians in this category. Stats Canada defines middle-class as making $25,000-$66,000. In 2017, Stats Canada placed 9.5% or 3.4 million Canadians in the poverty category, which is awfully convenient, since this is the year with the lowest stats in history. Here in 2019 these stats will be higher, since Alberta, Saskatchewan and Northern British Columbia have all been hit hard economically. The Liberals seem to want this to appear to be their way of presenting the issues of the middle class and show off the ways that they are supporting them, even if it is just that, the appearance of helping. Their whole election campaign, once again, was focused mainly on this exact appearance which seemed to work for them, even though their past successes in this was limited.

 Mona Fortier was interviewed by CBC in trying to help people understand what this position means to Canadians. In the interview, Mona even seems to be confused as to what the position actually involves. The hope would be that she will focus her attention on affordable housing, to help those below the poverty line, and bring them into the middle-class category, but this isn’t the feel that is given by her interview. She does claim that her focus will be on making life more affordable for Canadians and to develop the economy. She was asked to put her own definition on middle-class. Which she seemed to give a Trudeau answer by really avoiding the question, since defining it is such a difficult task. Eventually she did come up with an answer. Fortier defines middle-class as, “where people feel that they can afford their way of life. They have quality of life…It’s having the cost of living where you can do what you want with your family.” Which led her to then to re-affirm that the Liberals intend to have a strong economy, which is hard to believe with how they have destroyed and mis-managed the western economy. Prime Minister Trudeau did promise Canadians that the Liberals would make a middle-class tax cut, and Fortier follows this same path, stating that the Liberals will be making cuts for sure. This cut though comes with doubts though, as David MacDonald, of Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, says that the only ones to really find the cuts advantageous is the higher middle-class citizens. Fortier counters this with saying that will have different methods of helping the differing levels of middle-class, including helping people with children’s bills. She states that the upper-class Canadians need to give more money, so they will support those that drive the economy through the middle-class. No real direction or answer came on the question of how they are going to do this, making one wonder if they even have any clue.

The real focus, to which I agree, should be the impoverished portion of our population, and the lower middle-class. The Star has done great research on this, and in a previous article of my own, I also did a lot of research. People are finding it hard to get by, building up more debt than they are bringing in through job income, and this has been on the rise over the last decade especially, but it really goes further back than that. Trudeau and the Liberal Party seem like they are confused as to how to handle this, which explains their disjointed methods of tackling the poverty issue, and explains why Trudeau focuses on middle-class, not impoverished Canadians. Liberals have tried and succeeded in bringing 825,000 people out of poverty. They have made cuts to the taxes that businesses are hit with, and provided more in the form of the Canada Child Tax Benefit. In 2016, they set up the Affordable Housing Innovation Fund, which was supposed to help people get financing for “affordable rental housing projects”. According to the Star the wide variety of projects funded by this, shows a “lack of cohesion”. The fund right now is not taking in applications. In 2017, the government followed this effort up by setting up the National Housing Strategy. As I mentioned in my previous article, this will cost $55 million over the course of 11 years. It is designed to reduce homelessness rates by %50, through building 125,000 homes, renovating 300,000 homes, as well as other means of accomplishing this. In other words, they are aiming, and promising, to “strengthen the middle-class” and create “social housing stability” for those who are in need the most. Whether this strategy works or not remains to be seen, but from the aforementioned lack of focus, doubts remain.

As an attempt is being made here to explain a little about what could potentially be behind the new cabinet position, the views of Canadian citizens must be explored. When the position was announced, people began asking why the Liberal Party would put in a position just for the middle-class, when they are not the group of people in need of financial help most. Kathy Wells tweeted, “How about a Minister of Poverty, Unaffordable Housing and Rising Consumer Debt, Mr. Trudeau?” Another tweet by Gillian Kolla scoffs, “Looking forward to the announcement of the Minister of Thousands of People Homeless Every Night Across Canada.” Rabble.ca had more people commenting in regards to Fortier’s position. Lagatta4 jokingly refers to the position as the “Ministry of Silly Walks”, in reference to Monty Python, then furthers it with saying that, “it is strange to have a Ministry based only on classist bullshit.” More comments continue on talking about the middle-class being thrown some bones, but that this seems like an effort to pit the impoverished against those in the middle-class. An effort to separate them. One person points out the terrible poverty rates in Fortier’s own riding, and how little the Liberal Party has done to resolve the problem. The poster leaves it off saying that it is, “Too bad there isn’t a Minister of Child Poverty.”

Through the article I was hoping to discover for myself what the Minister of Middle Class Prosperity actually means. However, it would appear that everyone, from regular citizens, reporters, up to Fortier herself, who seems confused by the position. I guess time will reveal what the position will entail and what it will hope to accomplish, or if it will even accomplish anything. It may very well be what some suspect, a filler position to make Trudeau look like he has more women on his Cabinet.

Join Our Server: https://discord.gg/rBKxjD3
Join us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/443787693008469/

Trudeau Considering Supplying Vancouver With Drug Money

Trudeau Considering Supplying Vancouver With Drug Money

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2mQwYeoNOk&t=6s

On Thursday, November 21, 2019, Prime Minister Trudeau had an in-person meeting with the Mayor of Vancouver, Kennedy Stewart. At this meeting, the drug overdose problem was discussed and Mayor Stewart presented a request for $6 million of federal tax dollars to purchase clean and safe drugs for drug-users in Vancouver. Vancouver Coastal Health is the organization applying for the federal funding from Health Canada. They claim that having the safe and clean supply of drugs to provide will prevent, or at least minimize, the fatal overdoses caused by drugs being laced with fentanyl or carfentanyl, according to the Global News article. It should come as no surprise that Trudeau has not refused this request, in fact the mayor has stated that he was “open” and “encouraging”. After the meeting, Mayor Kennedy Stewart had the following to say, “(Trudeau) is open to having conversations and looking to us to lead, with health care professionals, to try and figure out the best solutions.” Which is actually kind of sad and amusing. Our Liberal government is open to using tax payer dollars to fund and enable Vancouver’s drug problem, but they are not willing to help the rest of the West with their economic struggles, nor even listen to Premier Scott Moe about changes that needed to be made. I am sure glad we have a federal party in place that is willing to stand up for Canadians, so long as they are druggies, or Eastern sheep, that way no one has time to think about the bribes and scandals we see from Prime Minister Trudeau, who should be in jail for his crimes.

Stewart also stated earlier that he hates the idea of “western alienation”, blaming it for hindering the drug overdose crisis and the housing crisis from getting the attention he feels it needs. He states, “I feel like we’re being a little bit hijacked by Alberta’s agenda.” As a portion of the west being alienated, we must thank the mayor of Vancouver for continuously thinking only of Vancouver and themselves, rather than thinking of the west as a whole. We in the rest of Western Canada, love the thought of being used and abused, then cast aside when detrimental government policies are implemented. People are starving, committing suicide, dying, and going homeless due to poverty, including our veterans, and yet the federal government and mayor of Vancouver think that drug overdosing in Vancouver is a more serious problem. Yet our Prime Minister talks of speaking and working for the middle-class. What about the fact that the middle-class segment is declining as more people fall into the impoverished categories, including our Indigenous/Inuit populations?

The Mayor has stated that Vancouver still has an overdose death every day, which shows how deep the drug problem goes. Vancouver’s Chief Medical Health Officer, Dr. Patricia Daly, also supports having a clean drug supply for Vancouver. City Council has already approved these requests to the federal government, based upon the recommendations of Daly and BC’s Centre for Disease Control. Trudeau had previously stated not being willing to provide this, but now seems “open” to the idea. This year he had stated a focus on treatment, programming funding, safe consumption sites, and methods of preventing harm. Trudeau must feel that providing clean drugs is a form of harm prevention, which it is in theory, except for the fact that it also enables them to stay on drugs longer, since there really is less risk to drug use. Vancouver already has one of the few safe injection sites in world. This has been controversial since it was founded. Opposition states that these sites encourage drug use and bring crime to the surrounding area, which is logical with making it easier and “safer” for addicts to get a fix. The pro side states that it saves lives and helps an addict reconnect to society, enabling them to get health services. Again, they probably do save lives and saves the spread of HIV/AIDS, but a better way to reconnect to society would be to make it harder to get drugs in the first place, not promoting drug use, or providing funds for clean drugs.

At these safe injection sites, addicts are provided with clean injection supplies, to avoid disease spread, health care, in case of overdose, which comes in the form of staff providing breathing masks, naloxone (antidote for overdose), information on safe injection, and drug addiction information, as well as several other health services. These sites do prevent deaths, proof in the fact that no death has ever been reported at the Vancouver facility. Keith Humphreys does research in addictions and teaches psychiatry at Stanford University. According to NPR Health News, Humphreys supports finding better tools to combat the drug crisis, but he also states that although supervised injection sites don’t appear to be harmful, they have not actually shown a decrease in deaths due to overdose, likely due to the users of these facilities not solely using the facility. The Vancouver facility has enabled 3.6 million injections, and has saved more than 6,000 overdoses, having no deaths since opening in 2003. The facility, Insite, claims that their presence has not increased or encouraged drug use, but the question for them is, how do you know how much a user is actually using outside the facility? And how do they know how much the addict used before they located the facility? Insite has claimed that overdose rates around the site decreased, yet the city still claims that the overall Vancouver rates are remaining steady. They also claim that people using the facility are less likely to utilize actions that could lead to HIV, and are more likely to use drug detoxification, using treatments like methadone, yet still we have not seen a decrease in drug use. Insite prides itself in being a “non-judgemental place that accepts them for who they are”, according to NPR Health News. Is this really a good thing though? Yes, judging addicts is not the way to implement healing, but enabling the drug addiction, encourages and makes it easier for them to continue using illegal drugs. Vancouver has actually seen a reduction in drug overdoses this year compared to last year. Suspected OD deaths were 7/week in 2018, according to Vancouver.ca, yet the last couple weeks of October this year only saw 2 and 4 suspected deaths. The year 2018 saw 387 confirmed OD deaths, compared to this year’s 182 up to the end of August. A dramatic decrease in deaths, without the funding Vancouver is requesting.

If Vancouver is the focus of drug prevention, what about the rest of Canada? According to CCFA, Canadian Centre for Addictions, drug abuse has been growing in Canada and to fight the problem is quite costly, costing taxpayers $22.8 billion per year through treatment, policing, and equipment. Over the last decade Canada has seen an increase in drug production exponentially, especially in the categories of producing ecstasy and methamphetamine. This has also led to increased crime, gang influence, and violence. These drugs have been making their way around the world, particularly Australia, the US, and Japan. The supplies used to make these illegal drugs come in through our Toronto and Vancouver airports, through countries like Mexico and India, although they are originating from China. With Canada’s large borders and coastlines, it is difficult to prevent these drugs and their supplies, from making it in and out of the country. Canada also has fairly lax drug laws and the enforcement of these laws are laughable, being exploited by drug traffickers. The problem continues in the form of new and unique drugs making it into the country, drugs our addicts are not used to having access to, which results in more overdoses caused from these new forms of drugs. Canadian citizens will now be forced to deal with the consequences of a federal government that has allowed an easy path for increased illegal drug industry activity. Crimes related to this industry will continue to rise, until something is done. Crimes like gang violence, drug seizures, and general crimes to supplement the cash of addicts to purchase increasingly expensive drugs. Dealers start users off at a cheap rate, increasing it slowly as the addict needs more to meet their body’s demand.

With these facts in mind, a conclusion can be formed. Canada’s federal government should NOT be using tax payer dollars to fund the purchase of “clean” drugs. Enabling an addiction does not help an addict heal and reform. It will encourage problems with addicts demanding more and more. Last I checked, these drugs were still “illegal”, though so is indecent exposure, but that law is ignored in Toronto rallies. Here is an idea, instead of blowing millions of tax payer dollars on “safe” injection sites, and considering giving clean drugs to Vancouver, our government could invest that money in drug prevention, and enforcement of our drug laws. One can argue about the money saving overdosing lives, but isn’t prevention a way to save lives as well? Canada needs to strengthen our border security measures, make laws surrounding illegal drug use and supplying have harsher punishments. Focus hard on seizing drugs and tracking down those making them. Put more funding into drug rehab programs, and research programs or methods of helping people stay clean. Don’t use my tax dollars to supply drugs for an industry that is illegal. To allow this funding of clean drugs, would be just another criminal act by Prime Minister Trudeau, but he already knows that there is no one who is able to hold him accountable. Since when has our Prime Minister ever cared about what the law states?

Join Unify The West Server

https://discord.gg/rBKxjD3

Join Unify The West on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/443787693008469/