Direct democracy is for losers. @DrJaredWesley Wesley and I argue that Alberta can Lead not Leave with more representative democracy and less direct democracy. open.substack.com/pub/thelin…

What an Actor, What a Person, What a good Human Being. Robin Williams had a rare gift. He could make you laugh, break your heart, and remind you what it means to be human, sometimes all in the same performance.

This post is completely wrong, and its final paragraph reveals just how delusional some people have become and the lengths they will go to defend a system that is plainly not working. It is also particularly troubling when the claim comes from a former elected official who either does not understand the system or is deliberately misrepresenting it. First, it is not Ottawa’s money. It is citizens’ money, collected from Canadians through income taxes, corporate taxes, the GST and countless other federal taxes and charges. Second, whether one individual receives more in government services than they personally pay in income tax entirely misses the point. For decades, Albertans have collectively contributed far more in federal revenues than Alberta has received in federal spending and transfers. That money has helped fund programs and services elsewhere, including equalization payments to Quebec. But her final argument is especially astonishing. She is literally saying most people receive more from Ottawa than they pay, which means Ottawa is spending more than it collects. That is not evidence of a successful system. It is an admission that the federal government cannot balance its books. How would that work for an individual or family? Spend more than you earn every year, borrow the difference and hand the growing debt to your children? You eventually go broke. And why should government be held to a different standard? Ottawa does not create money out of thin air without consequences. It taxes, borrows and leaves future generations with the bill. This is precisely the problem many Albertans are raising. Yet those who benefit from the current arrangement will defend it at any cost, no matter how unfair, dysfunctional or unsustainable it becomes for everyone else. Beware of those who dismiss legitimate concerns while personally benefiting from the very system they insist you are wrong to question.

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada released a decision providing some much-needed clarity about government action, administrative competence and accountability. This case captures one of the problems citizens face when challenging government action: too often, the response from the courts is essentially, “Well, they tried their best.” But shouldn’t we demand a higher standard when public institutions exercise significant authority, spend public money and administer programs supposedly in the “public interest”? Shouldn’t they be expected to administer those programs and services competently? Thankfully, in this case, the Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s conclusion that an administrative error had to be intentional or made in bad faith before it could constitute a serious irregularity. It does not. The Court recognized that honest, unintentional and good-faith errors can still cause serious harm. Elections Canada created a postal-code error, knew about it and failed to correct it for more than three weeks. As a result, a citizen’s vote was not counted, affecting the election result. Intentions matter, but so do consequences. “We tried our best” cannot excuse a serious failure that was within a public institution’s power to correct. Canadians need competence, responsibility and accountability from their governments. For goodness’ sake, that should not be difficult or controversial! Citizens should not have to sue their own government simply to obtain competent administration of the public institutions, services and programs they already fund. Government exists to serve the public, not to force citizens to fight through the courts to correct its avoidable mistakes. When government uses public money to shield itself from public accountability at virtually any cost, we have completely lost the plot. So, thank you to the Supreme Court of Canada for setting things straight. I hope this decision ensures that our public institutions and government officials understand that good intentions are not enough. Canadians are entitled to competent administration, meaningful accountability and consequences when serious, avoidable errors cause harm.

In politics, many talk about building a “big tent.” A wise man once described that to me as “lying a little bit to everyone.” It may be the most accurate description of politics I have ever heard. I see this time and time again, especially on the right. They seem to believe that the way to win more votes is to appeal to everyone, compromising their principles, softening their convictions and telling each group what it wants to hear. Meanwhile, the left rarely does this. They double down on their convictions, convinced of their own righteousness, regardless of the issue. News flash: the right’s approach is not working! People are tired of politicians who try to stand for everything and therefore stand for nothing. Be clear about your values. State your goals. Defend your principles. And do not waver whenever the political winds change. You do not earn trust by trying to be everything to everyone. You earn it by standing firmly for something and giving people a reason to come to you.

There is something deeply unhealthy happening in our public discourse. When people question government policy, they are called extremists. When they raise concerns about immigration or social cohesion, they are called racists. When they question public-health decisions or speak about vaccine injuries, they are called anti-vaxxers. When they challenge the constitutional status quo or discuss Alberta’s future, they are called traitors. These labels are rarely intended to encourage dialogue. They are used to end it. But questioning government is not extremism. Challenging existing laws is not lawlessness. Discussing constitutional change is not disloyalty. And disagreeing with government policy does not make someone dangerous. In a healthy democracy, citizens are free to question authority, challenge prevailing ideas and advocate for change. That is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy. The real danger is a political culture that silences legitimate concerns, punishes disagreement, disparages citizens and treats them as enemies simply because they refuse to conform. We will not rebuild public trust by ignoring this reality. We will rebuild public trust by listening, answering difficult questions and addressing the substance of their concerns. Dialogue does not weaken a country. Refusing to have it does.

I feel like this needs to be said because there is so much tension and division. It feels like every conversation is ready to become an argument. People are frustrated. Concerns are met with labels instead of answers, and people are pushed out. That will not rebuild trust. We must ask where public money goes, and expect officials to explain their decisions. Public service is a responsibility, not a favour. Science develops through questioning. Law develops through challenge. Democracy develops through disagreement. Instead of discouraging conversations or referendums, let’s encourage them. A strong democracy needs informed citizens who can disagree and still be heard. Progress actually comes from questioning the status quo.

Secretary Kennedy asked for comment on how to revise the CDC vaccine schedule. Here is what we submitted on behalf of @ICANdecide on that score: I. Every Vaccination Recommendation and Decision Should be Based on Shared Clinical Decision-Making (SCDM) The central principle is straightforward: vaccines should be treated like every other medical intervention administered to an individual patient. The appropriate approach, therefore, is SCDM, where there is no “default” decision to vaccinate, but where “the decision about whether or not to vaccinate may be informed by the best available evidence of who may benefit from vaccination; the individual’s characteristics, values, and preferences; the health care provider’s clinical discretion; and the characteristics of the vaccine being considered” with no “prescribed set of considerations or decision points in the decision-making process.”[1] This process should apply to every vaccine—period. HHS should therefore not treat SCDM as a special category reserved for a subset of vaccines or classes of vaccines; it is the appropriate clinical process for every vaccine decision. We urge HHS to adopt and implement this principle across the entire federal vaccine recommendation framework. A. Ethics and Informed Consent Demand SCDM The RFI states that personal autonomy, informed consent, and the values and preferences of patients and parents “apply across all vaccine recommendations, including routine ones.” However, with the current categories, most of which are “default” decisions to vaccinate, that statement has no practical effect. A federal recommendation should not predetermine the medical decision of any particular patient. This principle is consistent with ordinary clinical practice and ethics. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (“AHRQ”) describes SCDM as a collaborative process in which patients and clinicians make healthcare decisions informed by evidence, clinical expertise, and the patient’s values, goals, and circumstances.[2] The American Medical Association likewise recognizes informed consent as fundamental to medical ethics.[3] The fact that a vaccine is recommended by public health authorities does not eliminate the need for individualized clinical assessment or informed consent. Each patient’s medical history, risk factors, prior reactions, values, and preferences may affect the appropriate decision in ways a population-level recommendation cannot capture.[4] The current federal framework classifies a majority of vaccine recommendations as a “default” decision to vaccinate. Other medical frameworks reject this approach: Clinical Practice Guidelines, for example, are designed to inform clinician-patient decision-making by presenting the evidence and the likely benefits and harms of available options, without dictating a one-size-fits-all course of care.[5] There should not be any “routine” or “risk-based” recommendations. Population-level criteria cannot capture every clinically relevant characteristic of each patient, and applying them directly to individual decisions risks creating the false impression that harm-benefit tradeoffs are uniform across everyone who meets a given classification. In reality, individuals within the same risk group often differ substantially in their risk for the relevant outcome and in the balance of benefits and harms of treatment. Population-level classifications should never substitute for the individualized evaluation of all relevant patient attributes that determines whether an intervention offers a true net benefit to a specific patient.[6] A clinician should never administer a vaccine based on a government recommendation but rather should only administer every vaccine based on SCDM which allows for informed consent and an evaluation of each individual’s medical history, competing risks, and personal values. B. Many Childhood Vaccines Do Not Prevent Infection or Transmission and/or Have Limited or Uncertain Community-level Impact While all vaccines should be administered based on SCDM, without any exception, CDC’s existing guidelines already provide that most vaccines should be SCDM because they do not meaningfully prevent transmission. As CDC’s guidance provides: “ACIP makes shared clinical decision-making recommendations when individuals may benefit from vaccination, but broad vaccination of people in that group is unlikely to have population-level impacts.” For example, DTaP, Tdap, IPV, and MenACWY do not meaningfully prevent transmission, as detailed in the following link with supporting citations: sirillp.com/wp-content/uploa…. Also see an FDA Briefing Document, dated September 20, 2024, titled Use of Controlled Human Infection Models to Support Licensure of Pertussis Vaccines which explains that “aP [acellular pertussis] containing vaccines induce helper T cells (TH2) memory and neutralizing antibody responses that effectively prevent symptomatic disease but fail to prevent colonization and carriage.”[7] In a similar vein, HPV is almost exclusively transmitted through sexual contact, and, in most cases, an 11-year-old is not sexually active and may not face any meaningful near-term exposure risk. The decision to vaccinate at age 11 versus later should therefore be based on individualized considerations—anticipated timing of exposure, medical history, and parental values—rather than a uniform community-wide transmission concern. Hence, even putting the significant risks of this product aside, HPV vaccines should be recommended pursuant to SCDM so that clinicians and parents can evaluate risks, benefits, and timing for the individualized child, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach. As a final example, studies reflect that influenza vaccine has not been shown to meaningfully prevent transmission among children[8] and influenza vaccination during pregnancy involves widely varying clinical circumstances and risk profiles, and patients differ in their medical history, prior vaccine reactions, trimester-specific considerations, and personal values. A meaningful recommendation therefore requires an individualized discussion of expected risks and benefits, available alternatives, and the patient’s preferences—not a reflexive “routine” assumption. This approach is consistent with an evidence-based framework that prioritizes informed consent and individualized care, especially where community transmission benefits are not the driving rationale for giving this vaccine during pregnancy. The bottom line is that every vaccine should forthwith be moved to the SCDM category so that they will be administered through counseling based on the individual’s circumstances. HHS should eliminate all categories except for SCDM and treat all vaccines like every other drug or medical procedure. Sources: [1] cdc.gov/acip/vaccine-recomme… [2] About Shared Decision Making, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (last visited Aug. 25, 2026), ahrq.gov/sdm/about/index.htm…. [3] Opinion 2.1.1 Informed Consent, American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics (last visited Sept. 3, 2026), code-medical-ethics.ama-assn…. [4] Anil Makam and Oanh Nguyen, An Evidence-Based Medicine Approach to Antihyperglycemic Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus to Overcome Overtreatment, Circulation (Jan. 10, 2017), ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/…. [5] Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, National Academies (2011), nationalacademies.org/read/1…. [6] David Kent, et al., The Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity (PATH) Statement, Annals of Internal Medicine (Nov. 12, 2019), acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/…. [7] VRBPAC, FDA Briefing, September 20, 2024, fda.gov/media/181937/downloa…. [8] See, e.g., cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi…; pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/article….

There is something deeply unhealthy happening in our public discourse. When people question government policy, they are called extremists. When they raise concerns about immigration or social cohesion, they are called racists. When they question public-health decisions or speak about vaccine injuries, they are called anti-vaxxers. When they challenge the constitutional status quo or discuss Alberta’s future, they are called traitors. These labels are rarely intended to encourage dialogue. They are used to end it. But questioning government is not extremism. Challenging existing laws is not lawlessness. Discussing constitutional change is not disloyalty. And disagreeing with government policy does not make someone dangerous. In a healthy democracy, citizens are free to question authority, challenge prevailing ideas and advocate for change. That is not a threat to democracy. It is democracy. The real danger is a political culture that silences legitimate concerns, punishes disagreement, disparages citizens and treats them as enemies simply because they refuse to conform. We will not rebuild public trust by ignoring this reality. We will rebuild public trust by listening, answering difficult questions and addressing the substance of their concerns. Dialogue does not weaken a country. Refusing to have it does.

City of Ottawa to rename Trump Avenue ctvnews.ca/ottawa/article/ci…

Is anyone actually surprised by the anger out there? It’s not like it appeared out of nowhere. People have been disparaged and pushed aside by the elected representatives who are supposed to represent them. Public institutions and officials are not listening, and public trust is broken. Some are saying that holding a referendum is causing division and hate. Not only is that nonsense, but saying so pits neighbours against neighbours and families against families, instead of recognizing a referendum for what it is: a way for citizens to have a direct say. Meanwhile, billions in public money have been spent with questions about accountability still unanswered. Businesses were forcibly shut down, people lost their livelihoods, and many are still living with the consequences. People were coerced by their own government and shamed by their neighbours. Are we supposed to ignore all of that and then wonder why people are angry? Are we serious? To all the “leaders” out there: it’s time to look in the mirror and recognize how your own actions have contributed to the anger and loss of trust. Listen to people. Answer the hard questions. Have the conversations you have been avoiding. There are only two ways to lead: divide and conquer, or build and unite.

I feel like this needs to be said because there is so much tension and division. It feels like every conversation is ready to become an argument. People are frustrated. Concerns are met with labels instead of answers, and people are pushed out. That will not rebuild trust. We must ask where public money goes, and expect officials to explain their decisions. Public service is a responsibility, not a favour. Science develops through questioning. Law develops through challenge. Democracy develops through disagreement. Instead of discouraging conversations or referendums, let’s encourage them. A strong democracy needs informed citizens who can disagree and still be heard. Progress actually comes from questioning the status quo.

I am amazed that certain so-called experts and academics, and more concerningly elected officials, that are arguing against giving citizens a direct say through referendums. Public participation should be encouraged, rather than treated as an inconvenience or a needless expense. It is literally democracy in action! Switzerland holds the most national referendums and is rated among the strongest democracies in the world. It is an excellent example of direct democracy in practice. Referendums give citizens a voice in important decisions and a means of holding government accountable between elections. That is an essential democratic function, and precisely why we should be wary of those who seek to discourage that type of participation.