Trudeau's posturing not helpful in Ukraine investigation

Jan. 17, 2020

A "furious" Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Iran must conduct open investigation into downing of Ukrainian jet. This from a Prime Minister who stonewalled investigations into the SNC-Lavalin and Vice-Admiral Norman affairs.

The usual aircraft crash investigation is an exercise in futility. Iran has admitted to ‘mistakenly’ shooting down the aircraft with surface to air missiles. Painstakingly sorting through the debris to establish the cause of the crash is wasted time and effort.
How the ‘mistake’ was made is an Iranian affair, and the Prime Minister is dreaming if he thinks outside observers will be invited to participate in an internal military investigation.

There are treaties for compensation for crash victims of international airlines where the airline is found at fault but that would not apply in this case. The civil aviation act prohibits member nations from shooting down a civilian aircraft but does not address the compensation issue.

The families of victims have few legal recourses. Apparently the Ukraine and Iran are engaged in negotiations for compensation for victims’ families.

Canada’s posturing on the issue does not change the facts faced by victim’s families other than to raise false hopes of compensation that may take years or may not materialize.
The notion that compensation will ease the sense of loss and grief overwhelming victim’s families, friends and loved ones is cynical. Each of us processes the sudden and unexpected loss of a loved one differently.

There is no magic elixir that can deal with lives turned topsy-turvy in an instant. Grief shared is a temporary balm for those left bewildered but then come months of rebuilding lives in a new and vastly different reality.

Canada needs to tone down the rhetoric and focus on immediate needs of families such as assistance in identifying bodies and arranging for Canadian victims to be returned to their families as quickly as possible. We don’t know what forensic facilities Iran has, and we have expertise that can help. DNA matching is complex but may be the only way to identify victims of a fiery crash. Victim ID may require multi-national cooperation. Angry accusations are not helpful.

Supreme Court begins hearing Trans Mountain case today

By John Feldsted

0116 – Canada's high court will hear arguments Thursday on whether British Columbia can stop Alberta from shipping heavy oil through the Trans Mountain pipeline without a permit.

This is good news for Canada, and a good step in sorting out jurisdiction over inter-provincial infrastructure projects. There is little doubt that such works are under federal jurisdiction. One province cannot block projects that are to the benefit of other provinces or to Canada as a whole.

The federal government has the power to declare a work within a province as beneficial to Canada and take jurisdiction from a province. A petrochemical refinery and a facility producing medical radioisotopes would be two examples, irrespective of where they are located.

Premier John Horgan’s arrogance is breathtaking. He has announced that the UN Indigenous rights declaration will become law in BC. The bone-headed “progressive” thinking has the capacity to turn our constitution and rule of law in Canada on its head.

It is impossible to implement a UN declaration that provides indigenous people with the power to override federal and provincial jurisdictions, obligations and legislation. That in turn gives way the lie that indigenous self-government is possible within out legal framework.

Indigenous self-government requires recognition of indigenous people as a separate nation. There would have to be negotiations between Canada and the indigenous nation to set boundaries between the two and to implement a host of agreements on trade, passports, extradition, in short a combination of the treaties that established boundaries between Canada and the USA and all of the treaties we have with other sovereign nations.

Self-governance carries with it the obligations and responsibilities of any other sovereign nation. The notion that indigenous people can enjoy self-governance subsidized by Canadian taxpayers is not workable. Either indigenous people enjoy the protection of treaties made with the British government or the framework proposed by the UN but cannot have both.

SCC Case 38682 is scheduled for today at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time and will be live broadcast. It will be most interesting.

Saskatchewan vs Canada, Case 38863 is set for hearing March 24, and Ontario vs Canada, case 38781 is set for March 25. Both relate to carbon tax jurisdiction.

We must prepare to cast informed votes in the next election. Political parties are not credible or truthful during an election. Their sales pitches do not reflect their performance since the last election. That performance is what counts.

John Feldsted is a political commentator, consultant and strategist
from Winnipeg.



There is no climate emergency

By John Feldsted
Jan. 4, 2020

It is inconceivable that our government chooses to ignore warnings from 500 eminent scientists that the IPCC global warming climate models and the dire warnings emanating therefrom are deficient and unreliable. These scientists have challenged the United Nations to convene a meeting of scientists to address the faults of the IPCC climate change models.

I cannot add anything significant to their position. Like many others, I am fearful that our government is allowing itself to be stampeded into actions that will be harmful to our economy and standard of living without employing due diligence in examining all causes of climate change. That is the least we should expect from our governments.

Wrenching changes to the drivers of our economy cannot be done on a whim, or worse, done at the behest of an unelected and unaccountable non-government agency.  

Please see the extract below and the references. 

A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming .

The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Only very few peer-reviewed papers even go so far as to say that recent warming is chiefly anthropogenic. 
Warming is far slower than predicted.

The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
Climate policy relies on inadequate models.

Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters

There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and insects, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rain forests.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.

There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

Our advice to political leaders is that science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the climate system, while politics should focus on minimizing potential climate damage by prioritizing adaptation strategies based on proven and affordable technologies.


We must prepare to cast informed votes in the next election. Political parties are not credible or truthful during an election. Their elections sales pitches do not reflect their performance since the last election. That performance is what counts.

John Feldsted is a political commentator, consultant and strategistfrom Winnipeg.


A gathering of the wounded

By John Feldsted

Nov 15, 2019

Prime Minister Trudeau has announced that the House of Commons will resume sitting December 5th. Without further changes, the House will recess for Christmas on Friday, Dec 13 and will not return until Jan 27, 2020. That is 7 working days of the first 97 following the election.

     The Liberals are hiding from the opposition instead of exercising the “mandate” Trudeau has been bragging about. They took a shellacking, losing 20 seats and were not elected on their policies or record. Trudeau ran for office based on not being Rob Ford in Ontario and not being a Canadian in Quebec (he claims to be a Quebecer!).

 This was an election only the Conservatives could lose, and they did. They were invisible for much of the pre-writ campaign and failed to define themselves prior to the writ drop. When Scheer was challenged on moral values, he was outraged, answered petulantly and lost the election. He could not turn the narrative back from abortion and gay rights to the dismal Liberal record. The campaign lost focus and left Scheer with a dismayed and divided post election party.

Post 2011 the conservatives are the worst strategists ever. Those who want to dump Scheer could not engineer a caucus revolt to do the dirty deed. Waiting until a mid-April convention to hold a vote on dumping Scheer is political suicide version 2020.  

The NDP survived the election, losing 15 seats in the process and sliding to 4th place in party standings. Singh put on a stellar performance during the writ period, reassured the party base that he was worthy of support and avoided party anhelation. He won on personality, not on policy; he must remember that.

The BQ increased its presence by 22 seats and moved from 12.8% to 41% in Quebec, but that only from 3% to 9.5% nationally. Blanchet is basking in what he interprets as a resurgence of Quebec sovereignist sentiment, but he is in for a rude shock if he demands more Quebec autonomy or threatens another referendum.

The Greens remain a fringe and Elizabeth May is going to be best remembered as Mighty Mouth. According to May, the Greens are the only ones who understand the science underlying climate change. We would all be eternally grateful if she would enlighten Dr. Michael Mann and sort out the fools at the IPCC.

The People’s Party bombed in its first outing. Maxime Bernier lost his seat. Whether the PPC will become history or not depends on the strength of the conservative party between now and the next election. If Scheer and the CPC don’t move to become a force to be reckoned with, dissidents will move to the PPC. Those who stayed with the CPC to ensure a conservative majority will not give the party a second chance without a positive Scheer makeover.

In place of a new parliament with strong and feisty parties greeting us in 2020, we will have a collection of the walking wounded, having bloodied one another over the summer and fall while managing to thoroughly disgust most of the electorate. The ranks of the elected reek of defeat. None of them can honestly claim to have a mandate to speak for the people. They have lost a lot of respect.

2020 will be a test of which political party can manage to reconnect with the public and secure support o replace derision. An enterprising sort could make a fortune selling overripe tomatoes and weeks old eggs at the MP’s entrance to parliament. If all they are going to do is hurl insults at one another, we might as well make it worth watching.

Democracy is a participatory event; every election
is decided by the people who show up to vote.

Censorship – political correctness in overdrive

By John Feldsted
Political Commentator

    In our increasingly insane world, the protectors of political correctness are in overdrive banishing any comment they find offensive.
     Readers have pointed our that Don Cherry’s full quote is "You people love … you people that come here, whatever it is, you love our way of life".
     He did aim his comments at immigrants. That does not translate into racism. Either most immigrants observe Remembrance Day, or they do not. Cherry is of the opinion that they do not. He is entitled to his opinion, honestly held beliefs and entitled to tell the truth as he sees it. 
     Some media articles claim that Cherry is racist and others that he is anti-immigrant which is silly. It seems that Cherry offended some people which is not unlawful.
     Roger’s, which owns Sportsnet went into apoplexy, apologizing profusely for Cherry’s comments and making it abundantly clear that his views did not reflect the views of Sportsnet. What are the social standards and values of Sportsnet, and more importantly, why should they matter?
     Sportsnet is part of our mainstream media and its comments are protected under the Charter Section 2 (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; The protection is there because our media is obliged to air and publish controversial opinion to ensure issues are thoroughly discussed and debated and which some people will inevitably find offensive.
     The notion that Rogers or any other media outlet can invent standards that avoid publishing opinion that it deems to be controversial should result in withdrawal of its broadcast licenses. Mainstream media outlets are not the conscience of the nation or administrators of what the public should and should not be exposed to.
     The scope of the Rogers network is breathtaking. Rogers owns
           11 conventional TV stations;
           10 specialty and pay TV stations;
             2 community cable stations;
             1 TV production station;
           27 radio stations
           33 magazines
             3 online publications;
             4 shuttered online publications
             1 publications research service;
             8 sports teams;
             1 Arena
             Naming rights to 2 other arenas
             Cable television serving communities in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador, and a small portion of Quebec.
             Rogers High-Speed Internet (Also known as Rogers Yahoo! High-Speed Internet)
             Rogers Video & Rogers Plus
             Rogers Home Phone; Rogers Telecom; Rogers Telecom Holdings Inc. & Futureway     Communications (FCI Broadband)
             Metro Ethernet - Blink Communications & Atria Networks
             Rogers Wireless; Fido/Microcell; Chatr; Mobilicity; Rogers Hotspots - WiFi hotspot
service installed in venues across Canada
             OutRank by Rogers
             Rogers Bank
             Rogers Smart Home Monitoring
     Rogers, as well as its major competitors, have, through their subsidiaries and co-ownerships, a huge ability to shape public opinion through editorial manipulations.
     Don Cherry has not said anything that he must apologize for. At the very worst, he upset some people. Too bad. Thin-skinned virtue signallers are not setting our social standards and values. If Cherry made unlawful comments, deal with it properly, in the correct venue. If he made no breach of law, stop pretending he did. He is not obliged to bow to political correctness.
     Sportsnet parted ways with Don Cherry for making remarks it deemed offensive to its audience. That should result in a review of the broadcast license for the outlet. The media should not be choosing what is and is not suitable commentary for broadcast. If Mr. Cherry’s comments violated the charter of rights and freedoms or the human rights act, deal with him accordingly. If his comments are not unlawful, why are people cheering his dismissal from Sportsnet?
     We are not living in an era where crowds decide by a show of thumbs whether a gladiator should live or die. Our freedoms of thought, belief, opinion and expression are valueless if they can be censored or stifled by media mavens or a minority claiming to speak for the people.
     There is more at play here than irritation at the rant of a cranky old man. Don Cherry can be a pompous, bombastic, irritating pain in the butt but if he can be censored for comments a broadcaster finds offensive, none of us are protected from similar abuse. We did not fight for rights and freedoms to see them trampled by small groups of activists and virtue signalling idiots.
     We issue licenses to publish public opinion, not to limit or shape public opinion. Publishers and broadcasters who will not entertain dissenting opinion are not fulfilling their charter protected public duty. The licensing regime must extend to wire services that are notorious for publishing biased reviews of current issues.

Democracy is a participatory event; every election
is decided by the people who show up to vote.

Student housing may be why you can’t afford rent

By John Feldsted

1008 - Housing is a provincial jurisdiction and affordability is confined mostly to our larger cities. Federal politicians can solve the problem, but they don’t have the backbone to do what is required.  

Housing for university students (including over 430,000 foreign students) drives up rents. Housing for immigrants (arriving at an average rate of about 300,000 per year) drives up rents. Each new wave of immigrants requires housing that is not being built for them.

The homeless, immigrants, modest income pensioners, students, welfare recipients and the working poor are not going to go away. They did not create the housing shortages.

 The central bank’s low interest rates are the main cause of the problem. Low interest rates allow people to carry large mortgages; raising interest rates will result in an affordability crunch and a long overdue downward adjustment in home values. Low interest rates inhibit savings. People are less likely to save when they get a negligible interest return on their savings.

A home value decrease will result in diminished property tax income and a financial crunch for cities. When home prices crashed in the US as a result of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco towns and cities were hardest hit.

Our fiscal house is in disarray. Low interest rates, intended to stimulate the economy, have the opposite effect, encouraging consumer debt while discouraging savings.

We need two separate interest rates; one for consumers and a separate rate for commercial lending.

Banks and other lenders offering mortgages will find their assets diminish with the adjustment and must not receive bailouts. Instead, governments need to provide protection for municipalities adversely affected by a reduction in home values. Cities provide the basic services that make their areas livable. Basic infrastructure and services must be maintained.

We have solutions for affordable housing. Making the needed changes will be painful for cities, politicians and many homeowners with large mortgages and little equity in expensive homes. They will be faced with mortgages larger than their devalued homes are worth. The current housing market is ridiculously overpriced and sustained by artificially low interest rates.     

Until governments raise interest rates and deal with a housing market value adjustment, affordable housing will remain an unachievable dream.                        


Article from HuffPost
Student Housing in Canada is Being Ignored,

and it Might be Why You Can’t Afford Rent


The Great Debate wasn’t great

By John Feldsted

1008 - With a couple of million others, I watched the two-hour marathon of verbal mayhem and am not impressed. We were hoping to get some insight into who we can trust to lead the nation for the next four years and left disappointed. There were no knockout blows and no clear winner.

Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh faired best.

Singh was at ease, comfortable, managed to make a joke or two and overall refrained from constantly attacking his opponents. He scored points by being conciliatory on important issues.

Sheer weathered a storm of attacks with aplomb and mostly provided measured and reasonable responses. He lost some points by overdoing attacks on Trudeau.

It doesn’t dawn on any of the contenders that we don’t care what they think of their opponents and their opponent’s platforms. We have minds of our own and can assess party platforms. One thing that bothered me was the continual references to the Harper government. Mr. Harper was defeated in 2015 and Trudeau has held the reigns of power for the past four years. What Harper did or didn’t do is irrelevant. He is not running for office.
The same holds true of continual references to conservative provincial leaders. The provinces and federal governments have separate powers and responsibilities. Childcare, education, health care and housing are all under provincial jurisdiction. The leaders do no one favours by raising these issues in a federal election campaign as if these are topics the federal government can deal with.

I did note that at one point, Trudeau stated that Harper had stopped meeting with Premiers. It was Trudeau’s father Pierre who removed the requirement for an annual first minister’s meeting from the constitution when it was amended in 1982.

Elizabeth May lost points by insisting we face a climate crisis every time she spoke. She was adamant that we must take drastic action to combat climate change and that everyone must be on board. It did not occur to her that her plan cannot be implemented in a democracy. Requiring us all to adopt her climate change ideology can only happen in a dictatorship. I will pass on that one.

Trudeau exhibited a “deer in the headlights” look when confronted and responded with his usual talking points. He is an accomplished actor and seemed to sense that he was losing his audience.  

Scheer scored points when he confronted Trudeau about his statement that the initial Globe and Mail story on SNC-Lavalin was not true and later when he accused Trudeau of “donning a different mask” when he was dealing with each of a variety of issues. Trudeau claimed to be a champion of indigenous rights but fired the first indigenous Attorney General in Canada for doing her job. He claimed to be a feminist and champion of women’s rights but fired two competent women who dared to disagree with him.


 The moderators bombed. We lost about a half hour of debate when moderators allowed participants to talk over one another resulting in unintelligible gibberish. Time allotted for “free exchanges” was a waste. None of those segments were helpful in determining who to trust.

I am not sure that Scheer managed to convince viewers that he is a rational and trustworthy alternative to Trudeau. As I said above, the mayhem of the debate made it difficult to reach any clear conclusion. My conclusion at the end of the debate is that I fear for the future of our nation.

Climate change dishonesty

John Feldsted

1008 - Watching the “Great Debate” last evening gave me the chills. Our “leaders” are really followers. They are not interested in acting in the best interests of Canada and her people. They are blindly following IPCC warnings without critical analysis.

Few Canadians are aware that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted in Rio in 1992, Article 2 states:

"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) studies only the effects of alleged “human activity” ignoring all other factors that influence our planet and its climate. That presents a major problem as we cannot measure the influence of “human activity” without a knowledge and understanding of the non-human influences on climate. We have no knowledge of the proportion that human activity makes of overall climate change factors.
      The public has the impression that IPCC calculations and predictions are based on a study of the entire range of climate influences when that is not accurate.

Even fewer Canadians are aware that a group of 500 eminent climate scientist and professionals have written to the United Nations pointing out that there is no climate emergency and asking for an open debate on climate change in early 2020. If our political leaders are unaware of these factors and developments, they are derelict in their duties. Their failure to inform the public is unacceptable.

A copy of the letter to the United Nations is reproduced below:

From: Professor Guus Berkhout

23 September 2019

Sr. António Guterres, Secretary-General, United Nations,
United Nations Headquarters,
New York, NY 10017,
United States of America.
Ms. Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, Executive Secretary,
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change,
UNFCCC Secretariat, UN Campus, Platz der Vereinten Nationen 1,53113
Bonn, Germany
Your Excellencies,
There is no climate emergency
A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors.
The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose. Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.
We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.
We ask you to place the Declaration on the agenda of your imminent New York session.
We also invite you to organize with us a constructive high-level meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate early in 2020. Such a meeting would be consistent with the historically proven principles of sound science and natural justice that both sides should be fully and fairly heard. Audiatur et altera pars!
Please let us know your thoughts how we bring about such a momentous joint meeting.

Yours sincerely,

Professor Guus Berkhout The Netherlands Professor Richard Lindzen USA
Professor Reynald du Berger French Canada Professor Ingemar Nordin Sweden
Terry Dunleavy New Zealand Jim O’Brien Irish Republic
Viv Forbes Australia Professor Alberto Prestininzi Italy
Professor Jeffrey Foss English Canada Professor Benoît Rittaud France
Morten Jødal Norway Professor Fritz Vahrenholt Germany
Rob Lemeire Belgium Monckton of Brenchley UK
Ambassadors of the European Climate Declaration

There is no climate emergency
      A global network of 500 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address the uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real benefits as well as the imagined costs of adaptation to global warming, and the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of mitigation.

Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
      The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
Warming is far slower than predicted

The world has warmed at less than half the originally-predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.

Climate policy relies on inadequate models 
      Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2.In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
      CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
Global warming has not increased natural disasters
      There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and such like natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly. For instance, wind turbines kill birds and bats, and palm-oil plantations destroy the biodiversity of the rainforests.
Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
      There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.

Democracy is a participatory event; every election
is decided by the people who show up to vote.

We need an honest conversation about energy

By John Feldsted

1008 - The honest conversations we need to have are about our energy use, our environment and climate change. While the three topics are interdependent, they each have separate considerations.
Let’s start with environment – maintaining excellent quality air, land and water are just the basics.
Our environment includes cityscapes, the urban jungles where an increasing proportion of our society resides. In that environment, wind tunnels, sunlight, neon lights, artificial lighting, streetlights, traffic lights, traffic noise, and many other factors play a large part in “environment”.
In rural areas, livestock operations, natural water drainage, maintain wetlands, weed control, use of pesticides and fertilizer and maintenance of roads and bridges, all play a part in “environment”.
“Climate Change” is a different topic altogether. Changes to our climate can influence our environment, but we are not certain of what drives climate change. That is not acceptable.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insists that the driving force is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). However, its theories are suspect and under increasing pressure from the scientific community. We cannot take the chance that the IPCC theories are wrong. We need solid scientific investigation of the calculations the IPCC used in 1988 to develop its theories.
The climate is changing, and we need to prepare to mitigate the results of those changes. Pouring all our efforts into reducing carbon dioxide emissions is foolhardy unless there is clear evidence that the reductions will reduce climate change. After three decades, there is no evidence of a link between CO2 emissions and climate change. IPCC warming predictions have not proven to be accurate.
Energy is also a separate topic. Plentiful and reliable energy is a fundamental requirement for a healthy economy. Canada is growing – still a work in progress. With growth is an increased demand for energy. We cannot change to new energy sources in the foreseeable future. We can undertake conversion which will fill part of the increased demand, but we cannot replace the 90% of our energy needs that are supplied by diesel and gasoline in the next two decades.
Worse, the demand for so-called ‘clean energy’ is predicated on the IPCC theory which may very well be wrong. It is more likely that the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases or decreases as our climate changes rather than the other way around. Historical records show far higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide during warm periods long prior to the industrial revolution.
We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to lead the way in investigating IPCC theories and claims. If we can prove that their calculations and predictions are credible, we can move forward with some assurance that we are on the right path.
Canadians are a common-sense, logical and reasonable people. Many are skeptical of IPCC claims as they see no evidence of its prediction taking place. The IPCC keeps moving the goal posts with altered predictions, excuses and changes in language.
Our governments cannot avoid an honest debate on climate change, energy and environment. It is not relevant what the IPCC has to say. Our governments are responsible for verifying the accuracy of IPCC prediction before they take any action to follow IPCC directions.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious concept that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
Every other year or so a few thousand people gather at an IPCC climate change conference, link arms, sing Kumbaya and declare: “It is so!”
We need something more scientific and stable to use in navigating how to deal with climate change.

Energy – Canada risks becoming a nation of hypocrites

By John Feldsted

The honest conversations we need to have are about our energy use, our environment and climate change. While the three topics are interdependent, they each have separate considerations.
Let’s start with environment – maintaining excellent quality air, land and water are just the basics.
Our environment includes cityscapes, the urban jungles where an increasing proportion of our society resides. In that environment, wind tunnels, sunlight, neon lights, artificial lighting, streetlights, traffic lights, traffic noise, and many other factors play a large part in “environment”.
In rural areas, livestock operations, natural water drainage, maintain wetlands, weed control, use of pesticides and fertilizer and maintenance of roads and bridges, all play a part in “environment”.
“Climate Change” is a different topic altogether. Changes to our climate can influence our environment, but we are not certain of what drives climate change. That is not acceptable.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insists that the driving force is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). However, its theories are suspect and under increasing pressure from the scientific community. We cannot take the chance that the IPCC theories are wrong. We need solid scientific investigation of the calculations the IPCC used in 1988 to develop its theories.
The climate is changing, and we need to prepare to mitigate the results of those changes. Pouring all our efforts into reducing carbon dioxide emissions is foolhardy unless there is clear evidence that the reductions will reduce climate change. After three decades, there is no evidence of a link between CO2 emissions and climate change. IPCC warming predictions have not proven to be accurate.
Energy is also a separate topic. Plentiful and reliable energy is a fundamental requirement for a healthy economy. Canada is growing – still a work in progress. With growth is an increased demand for energy. We cannot change to new energy sources in the foreseeable future. We can undertake conversion which will fill part of the increased demand, but we cannot replace the 90% of our energy needs that are supplied by diesel and gasoline in the next two decades.
Worse, the demand for so-called ‘clean energy’ is predicated on the IPCC theory which may very well be wrong. It is more likely that the amount of atmospheric CO2 increases or decreases as our climate changes rather than the other way around. Historical records show far higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide during warm periods long prior to the industrial revolution.
We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to lead the way in investigating IPCC theories and claims. If we can prove that their calculations and predictions are credible, we can move forward with some assurance that we are on the right path.
Canadians are a common-sense, logical and reasonable people. Many are skeptical of IPCC claims as they see no evidence of its prediction taking place. The IPCC keeps moving the goal posts with altered predictions, excuses and changes in language.
Our governments cannot avoid an honest debate on climate change, energy and environment. It is not relevant what the IPCC has to say. Our governments are responsible for verifying the accuracy of IPCC prediction before they take any action to follow IPCC directions.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious concept that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
Every other year or so a few thousand people gather at an IPCC climate change conference, link arms, sing Kumbaya and declare: “It is so!”
We need something more scientific and stable to use in navigating how to deal with climate change.


When it comes to hate speech, politicians corner the market

By John Feldsted

The 2019 federal election campaign to date can be summed up as: "trivial pursuit". Our political party leaders claim to be concerned over hatred expressed by members of the public and fear for their personal safety. They need to take a deep breath and consider:
      “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 

      We have suffered a summer, early fall and over half of an official election campaign watching political party representatives hurl insults, manure, and yes, hatred at one another in an unending stream of vindictive lust for power. Now they are frightened by citizens who express similar views!!

      Tomorrow evening we will be treated to another “debate” which will quickly deteriorate into a verbal slug-fest that ignores our primary concerns. We are tired of political party manipulations. We are worried over the rising cost of living, ever increasing taxation, the costs of housing, economic instability, the possibility of a recession and our government fixation on a climate change.

     It seems that our government and party leaders are determined to spend every dollar they can beg, borrow or steal in order to live large. That results in frustration and anger, not hatred. Political parties and politicians who refuse to consider our best interests as a priority have earned our wrath.  

        Political party leaders, their campaign teams and party officials do not live in a parallel universe apart from society. We have had several candidates in this election disqualified by political parties for making remarks considered politically incorrect.

      The only people who can disqualify a candidate from representing the people are the people eligible to vote. That is how democracy works. We do not elect a political party.   
      Political parties claim to screen applicants for candidacy to find people of good character. Watch several episodes of “Question Period” and you will conclude that the screening is not working.

      Every candidate should meet three criteria:
           Financial security – not so indebted that bribes are attractive;
           No record of serious crimes; and
           No record of sexual offences.

After that, it is the people’s choice. Political parties must not decide who we get to choose from as our representative. Recently the NDP insisted that the CPC disqualify a candidate for having made anti-gay remarks. The CPC dumped the candidate claiming that no one with such views could serve in the party. What happened to the concept that a candidate for office represents the constituents in an electoral district, not a political party? Who decided to bury democracy?

The ingrained, self-centered smugness of political party officials does not allow them to recognize that “hateful online election chatter” is a signal that they are failing Canadians and we are fed up with their arrogant, snobbish refusal to heed our concerns. They are neither our betters nor superiors. They still pull on their pants one leg at a time.


Andrew Scheer lacks political instincts

By John Feldsted

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer's personal views on abortion are irrelevant, and quite frankly, no one’s business. As an MP his duty is to represent the people of his electoral district. As leader of the conservatives, the opposition or government his duty is to represent all Canadians.

The leftist press and political opponents are unrelenting in their efforts to force Scheer to divulge his personal views. Sheer is not astute enough to simply state: “I respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada and will not support any effort to diminish a woman’s right to choose.”

The reply will not satisfy his critics, but no answer will. Those who continue to badger him should be asked why they are not pursuing Trudeau for not clarifying his position on the SNC-Lavalin and Vice Admiral Norman affairs. Sheer must learn how to counter-punch effectively.

It appears that Scheer is a dual citizen of the USA and Canada. How his campaign team thought this would not be an issue is incomprehensible. Not arming Scheer with a clear statement is incompetent. Scheer should have led with a statement early in his campaign.

Canada – USA dual citizenship is nothing to be shamed of. Scheer is part of a huge family that has spouses from each nation and extended kinfolk in both nations. They number in the millions now. The intermarriages date from prior to the underground railway and influx of the United Empire Loyalists. Our nations are firmly intertwined on every level and always have been.

Scheer’s combat instincts can use honing. When Trudeau announced his campaign had purchased carbon credits to offset the carbon emitted by its aircraft and buses, Scheer missed the opportunity to point out that Trudeau is not serious about climate change. If we are on the precipice of a climate catastrophe and must reduce carbon emission, no one with an ounce of ethics and integrity can buy “carbon credits” – they are a licence for the purchaser to carry on polluting.

Nations and businesses that have exceeded emission reduction targets have a net ‘credit’ in their carbon account, but sales of the credit to other polluters negates the gain. Either the world is on board to reduce carbon emission or not. Collectively, we are way over target reductions. Pretending that we can buy credits to offset emissions while world targets are not met is lunacy and fraud. The carbon credit or trading scheme was the first indication that the IPCC was not serious about carbon emission reduction.

Trudeau cannot trade off his responsibilities when he is facing a catastrophe. Either the catastrophe is not real, or Trudeau isn’t. Pick one! 

The great non-inclusive Quebec debate

By John Feldsted

On Wednesday evening some of the leaders of our political parties vying for votes in the federal election campaign held a debate in the French language, in Montreal.

The debate was not broadcast outside of Quebec and was not translated to English. Where, oh where is our Language Commissioner? Why has the TVA network not suffered his wrath and heavy fines for failing to broadcast a debate of national interest in the English language to all of Canada?

Party leaders attending managed to insult every English-speaking citizen across the country and made it clear that (1) Quebec holds special status; and (2) Quebec’s 78 seats are far more important to them than Atlantic Canada’s 32 or Western Canada’s 104.

The double standard is unacceptable. Bernier and May were shut out of the debate as unworthy. Who gave TVA the powers to discriminate without penalty? How will Quebec voters decide on the potential merits of leaders shut out? The whole exercise is undemocratic.

Where is our Elections Commissioner? His inaction has shattered any illusion that we are going to have a fair and equitable 2019 election campaign.

This morning our media is filled with opinions of what happened last night in Montreal. That is not good enough. We are entitled to judge the leaders’ presentations for ourselves. Elections are a participatory event and we must not be shut out of participating.

Had the debate been held in Edmonton in English and not broadcast in French, Quebecois would be rioting in the streets. We are not a Quebec-centric nation. We are no longer a Toronto, Ottawa Montreal (TOM) centric nation. Canada is growing up and the outlanders are finding their voice.

Our choices for the upcoming election look even more dismal. I am looking for the first political leader to admit that participating in the TVA event was a mistake and apologizing to all those left out. I am not holding my breath.

We know with certainty that our political leaders are spineless, and worse, that our media can openly defy convention and interfere in our elections. The political – media alliance must end.    

There is no climate emergency

By John Feldsted

One of my readers asked if I could provide him with further information on the letter scientists wrote to the UN. I will share my reply with you: 
In the same e-mail I mentioned that Environment Canada had excluded 100 years of climate data from its models. I picked that up here:
I don’t make this stuff up. I make observation on what I find in the media and through research. Very little is reported in the mainstream media. I suspect they are wary of being labelled climate deniers if they dare print anything contrary to IPCC propaganda.
The scientific community is increasingly skeptical of IPCC claims of impending doom. The position of the IPCC to prohibit robust debate on the causes and effects of climate change is unacceptable.
US President Franklin D. Roosevelt stated (March 1933): “the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance”.
A significant portion of our population has given in to unjustified terror of changes to our climate. There is no doubt that our climate is changing. We do not understand the causes of those changes and consequently are ill prepared to protect ourselves from its effects. We need to make preparation to minimize the effects on our society. That is not possible when we are paralyzed by fear and unwilling to consider and debate the best course forward.
One thing is clear. We must not undertake spending $ billions on greening Canada without all the facts and factors on the table. There is too much at stake for too many people to put all our efforts behind an unproven theory that reducing man-made carbon emissions is the only way to deal with the effects of climate change.

Student climate protests ludicrous and pathetic

By John Feldsted

  Tens of thousands of students protesting government inaction on combatting climate change is ludicrous and at the same time pathetic. This generation of spoiled brats and their parents represent an ultimate in unbridled, wasteful consumerism.
      At the core of the climate change protest are spoiled children and their parents - snivelling brats, miserable, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. They have no solutions to offer; they are upset that older generations are not caught up in unquestioning obedience to unelected and unaccountable socialists using fear as a weapon to promote highly questionable hypothesis and theories.      
       This is the generation that insists every classroom must be air conditioned, that there are TVs in every room, whose classes are computer driven, and use expensive, trendy back packs to hold their lap-top computers, tablets and smart phones. It does not occur to them that enormous resources are used to create and operate the devices they cannot live without.
      This generation and their parents toss perfectly useful items and update to stay trendy. Whenever a new smartphone is announced, blocks long lineups at retailers form to replace the device that was adequate before the new item was available. These are people who insist on expensive brand name footwear and clothing to make a statement to their peers.
      This generation gets all its entertainment and news on electronic devices and has lost the ability to write legibly and coherently and cannot manage simple arithmetic without a calculator. They cannot write a formal letter or resume without assistance.
      Most of them don’t bike or walk to school. They use school buses or are transported by their parents (or their own cars), clogging up rush hour traffic to add to the amount of unneeded vehicle exhaust.
      They march today with thousands of one-time use banners and placards. City employees will expend a few thousand hours of taxpayer funded labour to gather up and truck this trash, along with water bottles, candy wrappers, coffee containers and fast food wrappers to a landfill – a complete waste of resources that will take years to biodegrade while giving off carbon dioxide as well and noxious and obnoxious gasses and chemicals.
      This is the generation that believes in high level of immigration and sneers at our efforts to ensure that the bulk of immigrants have the language and working skills to most easily integrate into our society as “racist”. It does not occur to them that immigrants without language and working skills require a huge investment in resources to enable them to live here and increase the risks of ghettoization and enclaves of people who cannot or will not integrate and become part of our society.   
      Protest requires no critical thinking, education, research or knowledge. Climate change protest is based on the need to replace religion, basically a belief in something intangible, with a different noble cause that can make people feel good about themselves. Christian teachings contain passages that infer if we do not follow His commandments, we can expect a fiery end to life. Climate change experts are using the same theory; if we fail to obey them, we will burn in a rapidly heating climate.
      We long ago learned the dangers of government-imposed religion and do not allow it. We are not about go back to an era where believers of a different religion were ostracized, persecuted, tortured and often executed.
      Without realizing it, student protesters are advocating for a return to star chamber courts of the late 15th to the mid-17th century where those of a different belief and experience were tried and found guilty in secret without the protection of the fundamental principles of justice.
      Is that what they really want?

Democracy is a participatory event; every election
is decided by the people who show up to vote. 

Memo to United Nations climate panel: How dare you!

By John Feldsted

0925 - How dare you, with your lack of experience, lecture world leaders on climate change? Many of those world leaders are elected and answer to the people who elected them, not to you, the United Nations or the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).          

Many of us are appalled that the IPCC would choose to frighten school children with implausible predictions of pending catastrophe resulting from climate change.    

We are disgusted with the lack of critical analysis and poor judgement of schools and teachers who have chosen to regurgitate IPCC propaganda rather than using climate change as an opportunity to create real dialogue and debate on what the causes of climate change are and how can we best respond to minimize and offset the results of climate change on widely dispersed populations.     

The main proponents of climate change alarmism, Dr. Andrew Weaver (Canada) and Dr. Michael Mann (USA) have taken Dr. Tim Ball (Canada) to court for slander because he dared to contradict and question their findings. After years in court, both actions for slander were dismissed and in the latest case Dr. Mann, inventor of the infamous hockey stick warming chart was ordered to pay Dr. Ball’s entire legal expenses. Both top IPCC scientists are found to be of questionable character and ethics.  

Canada’s environmental agency neglected to include surface temperature readings from 1850 to 1949 in their calculations because they did not fit the IPCC model outcome. That is not science; that is fudging valid temperature data to meet a political objective.       

More than 500 eminent climate scientists have written to the IPCC pointing out that there is no “climate emergency”. The “emergency” has been created through unethical manipulation of computer models and temperature data.

Controlling climate is more than simply slowing the rate of global warming. If it was possible, we could control the rate of arctic ice melt, create rain in deserts, soak forests to reduce wildfires, increase the growing season in northern and southern hemispheres and modify the torrid heat of the tropics. The fly in the ointment would be deciding which is the most important change to make.  

The IPCC is fixated on an unproven theory that man-made carbon emissions are the sole contributor to warming of the earth and that we must reduce carbon emissions to save the planet.     

That is suspect and highly improbable. Atmospheric carbon dioxide promotes plant growth while reducing carbon dioxide levels restricts plant growth. Without robust plant growth, mankind will die.    

The IPCC is promoting a simplistic solution to a highly complex natural phenomena we do not understand. We have records of the effects of climate change for tens of thousands of years but little knowledge of what drives the changes.      

Following the unproven theories is not a rational way forward. Only 500 years ago, the world was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. 350 years ago, we had no knowledge of gravity. 150 years ago, electricity, computers and radio had not been invented. 100 years ago, we did not have television. 50 years ago, we had no cell phones. Smartphones, tablets and GPS devices have been around for less than 30 years. 

Scientific theories require constant examination to support or refute their validity. The IPCC has refused to permit examination of its theories, attacking anyone who questions its conclusions. Our Environment minister dismisses critics of global warming prediction out of hand, sneering at ‘climate deniers’.

Demanding that the IPCC provide evidence of how its theories were developed and examine all the causes of climate change is not denying climate change. We recognize our climate continues to change but reject the IPCC version of the cause. The IPCC is politically, not scientifically driven.

Misdirection on violence involving guns

By John Feldsted

 0921 -  The term “gun violence” is the first misdirection employed by governments and the media. Guns don’t crawl out of their resting places to assault people. People use guns to harm others.
      Trudeau claims that conservatives “are in the pockets of the gun lobby” as opposed to his record of consorting with criminals, people accused of crimes and terrorists. 
      The Harper conservatives brought in amendments to the criminal code which added mandatory minimum sentences to criminals convicted of a violent crime who carried or employed a gun in commission of that crime. Liberal judges struck down the provisions as cruel and unusual punishment. The Liberals sat on their hands rather than challenge the lower courts or invoke the notwithstanding clause.
      Banning handguns is an exercise in futility. The handguns used in gang shooting that are plaguing Toronto and other major cities are not obtained from lawful sources or from thefts from legal owners. They are obtained in a thriving black market. Many handguns are manufactured by underground manufacturing operations who either produce complete handguns or order bulk parts and manufacture the rest to produce workable weapons. Banning handguns avoids dealing with the shooters and protecting the people they kill and injure.
      The changes needed involve amendments to the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the Criminal Code. First, any youth charged with a violent crime that includes carrying or using a prohibited weapon, which includes handguns and modified assault rifles is automatically raised to adult court and faces adult charges. Second, persons charged with violent crimes including the carrying or use of firearms automatically face multiple attempted murder charges with consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.
      Gang-bangers could face a couple of lifetimes behind bars for using guns to settle scores, protect turf or intimidate rivals.
      We need to amend our bail system to ensure that people charged with a crime involving a gun do not get bail prior to a court appearance. They are clear public danger. Legitimate, law abiding gun owners cannot get a permit to carry a weapon for self-protection in Canada. Those who do carry guns on their person or in their vehicle are violating laws prohibiting ordinary citizens from protecting themselves. They cannot be considered innocent.    
      We need to invest heavily in criminal court infrastructure. More courts, more judges, more prosecutors and more court and prosecution staff to clear the backlog of criminal cases and ensure timely prosecution of new crimes. Currently it takes about three years from when chargers are laid until a court appearance. That is ludicrous and must be addressed.
      If we want to stop street violence, we must deal with the thugs who employ guns and those who supply them with weapons. Laws aimed at controlling inanimate objects are ludicrous. We are giving criminal a free pass to go on killing and injuring innocent bystanders because we lack the spine to deal with thugs. We should be ashamed of ourselves and our governments should hang their heads in shame.
      Our society is increasingly frustrated with our apparent inability to deal with those who commit acts of violence without regard for who gets killed or injured. Handguns used by untrained people are notoriously inaccurate. Sportsmen, target shooters, police and military personnel trained in gun use must practice regularly to maintain an acceptable level of accuracy. The thug with an automatic handgun is a danger to everyone in the vicinity.
      The guns used in movies and on TV shows are not real. They cannot fire live ammunition and the scenes are for entertainment, not indicative of real life. Gun use on our streets is all too real as shown by the casualties. Deal harshly with the thugs and restore public safety and security. Our police forces do an outstanding job, but they need the tools to ensure the people they catch are convicted, sentenced and do not return for repeat performances.
      The public deserves more than band-aid solutions and evasions that don't get violent thugs off our streets and into a federal prison for an extended period.

Democracy is a participatory event; every election is decided by the people who show up.


The cynical despicables

By John Feldsted

190919 - The current federal election campaign has a lot to offer; mostly manure of varied consistency, aroma and flavour. There is a noticeable lack of debate and information on issues that really matter to people who will be voting.

     The NDP and Green Party are particularly nauseous. Neither has any hope of governing. Instead, one or both hope to prop up a minority government in return for acceptance of some wild policy positions they have taken. That is cynical and revolting. Neither party can attract more than a low (currently 13.6% and 7%) portion of electors, but they hope to jam their policies down our throats as part of a minority government. Their intent is to disrupt our political system in a quest for unearned power.

Jagmeet Singh shot the NDP in its foot, possibly fatally, by announced a separate party policy for Quebec. Jean Chretien was the last prime minister to employ dual party policies (one in Quebec, another for elsewhere) and that did not end well. Quebec has less than 25% of Canada’s population and its own federal political party; the Bloc Quebecois.

Resentment against federal language policy run high outside of Quebec. Declaring the NDP not on side with English speaking Canada is a strange position.

Elizabeth May’s determination to make her party more stringently “green” than Al Gore and David Suzuki combined is not comforting. Ms May is strongly opposed to any mining or petroleum development - no drilling; no exploration; no pipelines. It does not occur to her that the federal government lacks jurisdiction. Natural resource development is a provincial jurisdiction.     

Both the NDP and Greens are touting a national pharmacare program including dental care. We do not have a national health care program. We have ten separate provincial health care programs and a federal program to take care of the territories, indigenous people, federal prison inmates and military personnel.

Very few jurisdictions have pharmacare programs and those who do offset enormous costs with annual deductibles, per procedure costs and co-payments; costs of services are reimbursed in part, ranging from 50% to 80% and not just on drugs and dentistry but on all health care services.

Both parties are touting free post-secondary education. The concept is appealing, expensive and open to abuse. Does the program include the costs residency and meals for out of city students? What about residents of one city who want to be educated in a university or college in a different city? What about a student who enrolls in a program and fails to pass? Why should the public subsidize failure? Then there are the perpetual students who earn a degree, like the university atmosphere and start over in a different discipline. Do we also provide free master’s degrees and doctorates?

The Green Party election platform runs to 88 pages:

The NDP election platform runs to 109 pages:

These are not election platforms; they are somewhere between policy documents and wish lists. An elected government has real problems to deal with, including creating a fair and even climate for business investment; ensuring that business tax rates are competitive with the USA; reviewing and reducing non-essential spending; simplifying our personal tax structure; confining federal spending to matters in constitutional authority; and respecting provincial constitutional authorities amongst other things. No government can be effective without paying attention to the fundamentals first.

We cannot continue to expand federal services until we ensure that the current basic programs are funded into the future or amended to ensure they are sustainable over the long haul. We cannot continue to squander funds on support for the United Nations and foreign aid until we are certain that fundamental federal programs are funded, and the books are balanced.

We can be certain that the Trudeau liberals have minority governance with NDP support as their fall-back position.

A Conservative minority will produce chaotic parliament and a potential resurrection of the 2008 attempt to hijack parliament with a Liberal/NDP/Green/BQ coalition (not unlike the mess the UK is facing today). Nothing less than a conservative majority can protect the interests of Canadians.

The grasping interests of minority political parties are playing a key role in this election. Their willingness to prostitute themselves for political power must not be rewarded.

How the prime minister can seal - or reveal - cabinet secrets

John Feldsted

Report by Kathleen Harris, CBC News
Sep 14, 2019
Since the day the election campaign kicked off, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau has been dogged by questions about why he won't waive cabinet confidence to assist the RCMP's probe into the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
Trudeau maintains he granted an unprecedented waiver — what he called "the largest and most expansive waiver of cabinet confidence in Canada's history" — to allow the parliamentary committee and the ethics commissioner to dig into the matter, unshackling former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and others.
By John Feldsted

0914 - As an explanation, the above  article is an epic fail. First, the Queen’s Privy Council and the Government Cabinet are separate bodies with separate mandates.

The Privy Council provides apolitical advice to the Governor General on what is going on in Government. The Cabinet oversees operations of government departments and agencies. Cabinet ministers are usually members of the Privy Council and their duties vary depending on which body they are attending.

Privy council confidentiality is absolute. Members cannot disclose what is discussed during a privy council meeting. The Clerk of the Privy Council has no authority over the Government Cabinet. It is outside of his jurisdiction.
Cabinet confidentiality is less onerous than Privy Council confidentiality and can be waived by either the Prime Minister or the Courts.

In 1940, Prime Minister Mackenzie King amalgamated the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet into one position reporting to the Prime Minister.


Prior to 1940 the roles were separate and should be separate today. Amalgamation causes confusion of the sort highlighted during the SNC-Lavalin affair. The Attorney General and Minister of Justice are separate functions with different responsibilities.     

Trudeau is fairly caught. The Clerk of the Privy Council is not independent; he or she reports to Trudeau. Privy Council confidentiality cannot be applied to Cabinet meetings and material. Trudeau and Privy Council Clerk Ian Shugart can’t hide from their responsibilities.

There is no justification for the confusion. Separate the roles of the Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet and Minister of Justice and Attorney General. The media, MPs and the public should not need an index to sort out who they are communicating with.    

In past, courts have held that Cabinet confidentiality is important to encourage Cabinet members to speak fully and frankly during meetings. That is fundamental to democracy. These men and women were elected to represent us in government and cannot be censored in what they say or the ideas they put forward.

If there is an investigation underway in respect to a breach of ethics or the Criminal Code or other federal statutes, investigators must be allowed to seek an Order for the government to produce relevant Cabinet materials. The Judge can preview material to ensure that it is relevant to the investigation before releasing it.

The Mark Norman affair is another example of where our government refused to produce documents vital to Mr. Norman's defence and when it had destroyed his career, admitted it did not have case. These who wrongfully charged Mr. Norman need to be brought to justice.

For our Prime Minister to play a game of “Simon Says” with the media, opposition parties and police during an investigation into potential criminal actions is disgusting. Trudeau must not be allowed to escape accountability. Our Prime Minister, Cabinet members and Members of Parliament are all accountable to the public.

When our representatives break the law, they must be held accountable. The litany of excuses and evasions we are offered can be expected when petty criminals appear before a court. They are not appropriate in our parliament during an investigation. None of them are above the law.                      

Identity politics

By John Feldsted

0913 - One of the most self-serving and useless concepts political parties have thrust on us is the notion that they invented diversity.

We are, first and always Canadians. Colour, ethnicity, gender, language, marital status, race and religion are not what identifies us. Single people have family, friends and acquaintances so are part of a family, a community, a province and a nation. Everyone fits in in one way or another.

The notion that we were not a diverse people during our formative years is ridiculous. Even a cursory examination of our history indicates our diversity; we are humans and follow natural instincts of forgotten millennia.

Males and females seek out one another and thousands of books have been written about lovers who were kept apart by tribal traditions. Thousand more books have been written about lovers who defied traditions and lived long lives together supporting one another.
We have accepted lovers of the same sex. Same sex attraction is as old as dirt. Discrimination against gays was a government initiative. It was governments that purged their ranks of gay employees as a “security threat”. Larger society followed suit. Watching politicians prance at the front of a gay pride makes me ill. If it was not for their blind discrimination the gay parades would not have been necessary.    

Some people suffer under delusions that they are better than others and that their religious and social beliefs are worthy of thrusting on others. That is where democracy and society begin to break down. Governments must never be allowed to dictate our beliefs or to censor our opinions.

Identifying minority groups in need of special recognition and support is a wrong-headed attempt to atone for decades of bigotry by the majority. Minority groups don’t want to be singled out; all they ask for is an equal opportunity.

We have decades of evidence that given equal opportunity, minority members thrive. They take their place in every part of our society and some become noteworthy leaders. They are no different from the rest of our society, ranging from the indolent and indifferent to the superior and outstanding. No tribe within the tribes has distinct advantages.

When I was a youngster, people understood the value of a tribe. Our tribe was the community we lived in. We understood that we were interdependent. The safety, security and well being of the community was far more important than our individual independence. We understood that we had an obligation and responsibility to our neighbours.

Our differences, our diversity, was not considered important. If we faced wildfires, floods or storms we worked together to face the threat and restore what we could. If a church burned, another denomination would offer its facilities so members of another faith could still worship. The differences in belief were overridden by the welfare of the community.

Over the decades I have watched the value of family and community erode and we are poorer as a society. We are still tribal people and efforts to break away from the tribe have replaced the security of community responsibility with the angst of going it alone without the family and community support that keeps us grounded and props us up when the sledding is rough.

Political parties and governments have spent billions on convincing us that they can manage our lives better than we can which is absolute rubbish. We go back to give us equality of opportunity. Governments must pay attention to their constitutional responsibilities and get out of our personal lives. Social engineering by governments is as welcome as a skunk at a backyard BBQ.
      Political parties, federal and provincial, keep telling us that they are determined to fight poverty. That is an outright lie as they would be fighting themselves. All they need to do is to stop taxing the poor. Stop charging anyone with an annual income of $20,000 or less GST, PST, EI contributions, CPP contributions and income tax. Watch welfare roles diminish, and people given the opportunity to use their meagre incomes to advantage move up the income scale and contribute to our society.

Banish Human Rights Tribunals and rewrite human rights legislation to ensure the rights of an accused meet the principles of fundamental justice.

“Human rights tribunals” have become a playground for the perpetually offended which is the opposite of our need to reinstate the family, community and national patriotism that built this country from a wilderness into a G-7 nation.

We spent a century of progress despite our governments followed by 50 years of deterioration when governments became too powerful to fear the electorate. We need to fix that.

Democracy is a participatory event; if you don't participate, you will be governed by whoever others choose. Every election is determined by the people who show up.

The real world crisis is one of management

John Feldsted

We are told, ad nauseum, that the world is facing a climate crisis. To add to the hysteria, we are told that we are quickly reaching the point of no return. We are not doing enough and not soon enough to prevent catastrophe.  

Now we are told that fires in the Amazon rain forest are an international crisis. G-7 leaders meeting in Paris have pledged aid to Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The funding committed is about equal to one day’s cost of the G-7 meeting.  

Why didn’t the G-7 leaders insist that the Amazon rain forest be declared a world heritage site under protection from damage. All four nations who have parts of the rain forest in their territory are signators to the world heritage conventions and would have an obligation to protect the portions in their jurisdiction. Aid offered to help protect a heritage site lacks the political hazards of not doing so.           

The term “crisis” has become meaningless. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has cried “wolf” for so long that not even their most ardent supporters really believe that a global warming disaster can be averted.  

It is troubling is that governments do not believe in a climate crises either. They make a great show of building windmill and solar farms and making electric cars in the name of combatting climate change, but it is all window dressing.  

Frightening school children into thinking they are inheriting a doomed planet is hardly a civilized and rational way to deal with climate change.    

Corporate managers and competent governments faced with a crisis pull out the stops, rally available resources and vigorously fight off the crisis with everything at their disposal. No leader will waste more than a few hours deciding on a strategy before acting.  

Facing climate change requires more than dealing with a leaky roof! G-7 leaders have been exposed as the dithering group of incompetents they are rather than leaders of the seven most powerful democracies in the world.  

The real crisis is the trade war between China and the US along with Britain’s exit from the European Union. United, they have the capacity to (1) require China to use fair trade practices with other nations; (2) force the EU to make a fair deal with the British exit; and (3) plan to secure the economies of member nations and minimize the effects of a pending recession.   G-7 nations have lost the capacity to act together for their common good; each nation is convinced that it can act for itself in a highly integrated economic and financial world and succeed. They cannot accept that if one G-7 nation falters, they will all fail. It is 70 years since they faced a real crisis and the free world mobilized to defend its freedoms.  

We are facing a financial and economic crises that cannot be averted without some nations going bankrupt and millions facing financial ruin. We cannot continue to live in a fairyland of increasing debt with no rational plan for repayment over the next two generations. That is madness.  

The European Union is doomed. Member nations are still as balkanized as they were pre-union but now carry the added burden of layers of an expensive, detached and incompetent bureaucracy. It is not possible to govern responsibly without the accountability that does not exist in the EU.  

If G-7 leaders don’t set aside their pettiness and rivalries to work together to save themselves, there will not be one of them left in office by 2025.

John Feldsted is a political commentator, consultant and strategist, living in Winnipeg, Manitoba

'Hockey stick' climate theory shut out in BC Supreme Court

John Feldsted

By John Fledsted

Professor Michael Mann, the IPCC climatologist who invented the “hockey stick” model of future global warming has failed to defend his theory in B.C. Supreme Court and has been ordered to pay defendant Dr. Tim Ball's full legal costs.

During disclosure proceedings in his libel action against Ball, Professor Mann was ordered to produce the figures on which his theory is based in order that they might be checked for accuracy. He failed to do so.

Dr. Ball’s defence was based on “truth”. If Mann’s calculations were correct and not doctored Dr. Ball would have lost the case. Mann refused to reveal his calculation because he would not, or more likely could not prove he had not fiddled with the calculations to create his theory.

In 2003, the University of Guelph had already shown that Mann’s calculations were fraudulent and did not conform to standard statistical prediction calculations.

Dr. Ball’s first crucial courtroom win was against British Columbia Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver, another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modeling).

Dr. Ball’s alleged offence was his claim that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change.

Weaver’s libel case against Dr. Ball was dismissed by the BC Supreme Court last year.

IPCC efforts to silence Dr. Ball through multi-million dollar legal actions have failed and its key scientists are unable to defend their theory on predicted climate change and global warming.
Global warming and climate change is a world-wide exercise in uncritical and unexamined group-think based on junk science. The enormity of the fraud is breathtaking.

Politicians are always eager to adopt movements they do not comprehend, particularly if it gives them some semblance of control over the masses. They are also fickle and will turn on the IPCC rather than admit they failed to exercise due diligence in adopting the IPCC fraud. Birds of a feather . . .

John Feldsted
Political commentator, consultant & strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba
To subscribe:<>

Ball defeats ‘hockey stick’ climate lawsuit

Original report from Climate Change Dispatch, Aug. 24, 2019

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against skeptical Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Full legal costs were awarded to Dr. Ball, the defendant in the case.The court issued its final ruling in favor of the dismissal motion that was filed May by  Ball’s libel lawyers.

Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. IPCC 2001 climate report.

The graph showed a spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability. Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.

Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action in 2010 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.”

The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.

Canada needs to change parole rules for gun offenses

John Feldsted

0811 - 326 people charged with gun-related offences are out on bail, police chief says 

The CBC reports that claims by Toronto's police chief and mayor that a too-lenient bail system for people accused of gun-related offences is one of the causes for the rash of shootings in the city "is complete and utter nonsense," the head of the Criminal Lawyers' Association says. Other Toronto-based criminal defence lawyers contacted by CBC News were also critical of the remarks made by Chief Mark Saunders and Mayor John Tory, saying there's just no evidence that gun violence occurring in the city is a result of people out on bail on gun-related charges.

Read on:


Our approach to people who possess illegal handguns or who have and use guns in the commission of a crime needs a serious overhaul.

The spate of shootings in Toronto was caused by people. They were settling scores or in disputes over criminal territory.

Chief Saunders and Mayor Tory are on the right track. Section 88 of the criminal Code states:
Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose 
     88 (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

     (2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
          (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
          (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
We need amendments to the criminal coder to repeal ss 88 (2) (b) and to make the sentence for a breach of section 88 consecutive to any sentence for other crimes committed where a weapon was carried or possessed.

Someone committing murder, manslaughter or attempted murder should have a section 88 violation considered in determining eligibility for parole.

Why is it hard to understand that criminals do not follow laws? Bail conditions are meaningless. Gang members on bail will return to their gangs and criminal activities.

“Gun violence” is a misnomer and distraction. Violent, often criminal people use handguns without regard for innocent people in the area. 

People caught with illegal guns, in particular handguns, need to sit in remand until their case can be heard in court. We need to focus on the people endangering our society not on guns. Banning handguns will not stop the flow of illegal firearms. Criminal gangs make enough money to afford to acquire illegal weapons. We have to get career criminal off the streets by any means at our disposal.   

Sitting in remand awaiting trial and long sentences on conviction make carrying and using handguns far less attractive.

Anyone carrying an illegal handgun is a danger public safety. Whether the handgun is used to commit crimes, aggression against a rival or in defence against members of another gang or drug dealer, innocent bystanders are in jeopardy. No one carries a handgun without an intent to harm.

Violent use of weapons is not confined to Toronto. Every city and town across the nation is suffering from the same perils. Rural areas are not exempt.

Until we wake up and smell the coffee, shootings will continue.

Other links:

Checking the pulse of Canada's economy

By John Feldsted
Political Commentator

Canada loses 24,200 jobs in July, pushing unemployment rate higher
On positive side, July’s wage growth came in strong at 4.5 per cent — which was its highest level in more than a decade

By Andy Blatchford, 
The Canadian Press, Financial Post

OTTAWA — Wage growth accelerated last month to its fastest clip in more than decade, according to numbers released Friday from Statistics Canada.

The 4.5 per cent burst came in a month that also produced less-positive data: the unemployment rate moved up to 5.7 per cent as Canada shed 24,200 jobs.

The increase in wages — as measured by year-over-year average hourly wage growth for all employees — marked the indicator’s strongest month since January 2009.

The reading, one of several wage measures closely watched by the Bank of Canada, was up from 3.8 per cent in June and 2.8 per cent in May. In Quebec, wage growth sped up to nearly 6.2 per cent, while Ontario’s number was 5.1 per cent.
Read on:

John Feldsted
The numbers are starling and indicate serious trouble with our economy. Digging a bit deeper, we discover that July’s jobs numbers shows the economy lost 69,300 private-sector employee positions last month, while the public sector gained 17,500 jobs.

Shrinking private sector employment is alarming. A healthy economy adds private sector jobs each month. Shrinking private sector employment suggests a shrinkage of investment and a pending recession.

Increased public sector employment is also alarming. We are concerned over boated bureaucracies and at least some of the increase in wage rates is attributable to replacing entry level private sector jobs with well-paid civil service employment. That is a drag on our economy. Civil service employment does nor contribute to our GDP.

“Youth employment fell by about 19,000 positions, pushing the jobless rate up 0.7 percentage points to 11.4 per cent.” Small business is our highest youth employment driver.       

The indication is that small business is pushed to an economic wall. Increasing costs are hurting small business. It cannot escape the ripple effect of carbon taxes on needed supplies.

“The number of positions for core-aged women — between 25 and 54 years old — dropped by about 18,000.”  That is disturbing in that many of those women have turned to self-employment and face lower income, security and benefits. Federal equality programs are crashing and burning.
     Our governments, federal and provincial are focussed on physical climate change which they are powerless to deal with. Our climate is changing and we do not understand the forces that are driving the changes to our climate. Global warming is a result of climate change not the driver of climate change. Increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide promote plant growth and we need healthy plant growth to feed a growing world population.

Focus on the Wrong Climate

Our governments are ignoring our economic climate. We need a healthy economic climate to promote investment, private sector growth, employment and increases in productivity (GDP). Government cannot continue to meddle in and micromanage the private sector. We need our governments to create a climate of regulatory stability, competitive taxation and cessation of programs that benefit some businesses and sectors but not others.

Governments need to develop a health, robust private sector climate and then stand back and allow entrepreneurs to do what they have done well over the past century and a half – grow Canada.

We don’t need taxpayer subsidized electric cars, solar energy or windmills. If they are too expensive to compete with conventional vehicles and power sources, subsidies are an unneeded drain on the economy. Our economy is competing with economies that are not subsidizing so-called “clean energy”. We are disadvantaging ourselves in the altar of ideology.

The same is true of government fixation on environmental protection. No one will argue against protection of our environment. Clean air, land and water is important to us all. However, we need to balance environmental protection with our economic climate. If we continue on the path government have recently taken, environmental protection becomes superfluous as our economy will collapse and we will be left with nothing to work with.

Government fixation on climate change and environmental protection is endangering the growth and prosperity of our nation. Common sense, logic and reason are not part of government planning and policies. The results are starting to show and they are not pretty.

Contact John at

Public figures express anger, disbelief at mass shootings

By John Feldsted, Aug 5, 2019

El Paso - 21 dead, 26 injured;
Gilroy - 3 dead, 13 injured;
Dayton – 9, dead 27 injured.

In one week and the 66 injured doesn’t count hundreds of others traumatized by presence or who lost loved ones or whose family and friends were hurt in the melees. Harm ripples out from the core.

Politicians, public figures and celebrity publicity hounds all express disbelief, horror, revulsion and ‘thoughts and prayers' for the survivors and families of victim. They like to pretend they care.

The usual suspects will demand that we ban guns to make the shootings stop. It is the wrong solution for the wrong reasons.

All of the shooters were young. We can reasonably conclude that they suffered some combination of isolation, immaturity, detachment and anger with a society they couldn’t understand or cope with.

Social media is killing our society. Electronic contact is banal and sterile. A person can put another down or insult another person without risking a well-deserved slap or punch in the mouth. It is easy to participate in the on-line ‘piranha syndrome’ and join in supporting an insult or put-down: “Yeah (he / she) is a real loser.”  

At the same time, we are losing the ability to read facial expressions and body language that warn us when we are treading on socially dangerous ground. Most profoundly, people who are in face to face contact are often not in full presence; they are listening for a beep that signals a new message has arrived, and don’t realize that picking up the cell phone or tablet is an insult to the person across the table who has been relegated to secondary or even unimportant status.

Politicians and governments love hatred; they thrive on division and pit one group against others by providing them benefits to ‘level the playing field’. It is a charade to fuel the fires of envy and hatred.

We are losing the personal responsibility core of our civilization. Loyalty and honour are rooted in the family and friendships, in the community and finally in the tribe of the nation. We learn that well-being and security of family and friendships is more important than our own. We learn that sacrifice is not something to avoid; it is sometimes a necessity to serve the greater good. We learn to appreciate and reward the sacrifices of others.

Commitments to family and community require us to ignore differences and focus on our common interests and desires. Colour and ethnic origins are interesting side issues for exploration, not causes for envy and hatred.

Inclusiveness is a mindless, synthetic goal that avoids personal responsibility. We are told we must include people who avoid personal responsibility, make poor decisions, act irresponsibly and blame their disfunctionality on outside influences. They are the perpetual victims of circumstance.

We have groups of people who are openly hostile towards those who look different or don’t act and think the same way as they do. Thet have never learrned the rules of tribal interdependence. We exist in an artificial world of self-containment and independence in a society that survives through mutual aid, respect and tolerance.

We have never before experienced the abundance of opportunities that confront us today. Boundless opportunities are meaningless unless we have learned the disciplines to turn opportunities into reality. That brings us back to the personal responsibility core of civilization. Without an understanding of commitment, honor and loyalty we lack the ability to turn opportunity into reality.

Humans are social and tribal animals. At every level, we develop a social order with leaders and a descending order of lesser beings. As leaders change, the order below shifts to accommodate. Those who cannot or will not accept the social order (outlaws) are shunned, ostracized and finally cast out

Personal independence carries with it the responsibility to do no harm. If our actions infringe on anther’s rights or security of the person, we risk a deserved demotion in rank. If our actions are a flagrant abuse, we risk a demotion to outcast and a prison cell.

Tens of thousands believe that rank or station gives them immunity from tribal rules, but they delude themselves. Inevitably, tribal rules will reassert themselves through rebellion. The disconnect between those who govern and society at large cannot survive. It is a matter of time.              

Canada tend to mirror the American experience. We are not immune, just not on the same page yet.

Contact John at

What environmentalists won't tell us

By John Feldsted

0802 - We rarely hear about the dark side of renewable energy sources like windmills. Governments and the media are determined to convince us that wind power is part of our future and refuse to admit that there may be problems that affect our ecosystems.

Our hysterical approach to climate change as an emergency precludes realistic assessment of the risks that wind farms entail.

Hysterical people toss common sense, critical assessment and reason out the window. That is why our government talks of climate change in terms of “an emergency”. They don’t want us poking around and finding the multitude of flaws in their policies and positions. Fortunately, we have enough cooler heads to question the government’s motives and their position is increasingly difficult to justify.

We will see many governments crash and burn long before predicted climate catastrophes.

John Feldsted is a political commentator, consultant and strategist, living in Winnipeg.

From The Canada Free Press
By Institute for Energy Research

Studies have found that wind turbines are a dangerous threat to bats, high-conservation value birds, and insect populations that are a major supply of food to bats and birds. Insects, birds, bats, and wind farm developers are attracted to the same thing—high wind speeds. 

Wind farms in Europe and the United States are being built in the path of migration trails that have been used by insects and birds for millions of years. Researchers found that wind turbines in Germany resulted in a loss of about 1.2 trillion insects of different species each year. 

Researchers in India found almost four times fewer buzzards, hawks, and kites in areas with wind farms—a loss of about 75 percent. They found that wind turbines are akin to adding a top predator to the ecosystem, killing off birds, but allowing small animals to increase their populations resulting in a trickle effect throughout the ecosystem.

Read it all here:


Political parties are undermining our democracy

By John Feldsted

From Huffington Post

 The chairman of the board of Bombardier, a scion of the Rotman family, the chairman of a major power company — these prominent Canadians all gave as much money as they’re allowed, or close to it, to both the Liberals and Conservatives in 2018.
     They are among at least 20 Canadians who gave substantially to the country’s two most fiercely opposed parties last year, according to an analysis of public Elections Canada documents by The Canadian Press. Such donations are fully legal: a person can give to all the political parties if he or she wishes. But they are unusual. FULL REPORT

 By John Feldsted

 Political parties exist to acquire and maintain political power through governance. They have no interest in serving the electorate. They have an interest in maintaining relations with people who have or have access to money. Raising funds is critical to success. Donations buy the advertising and strategic advice they need, pay for polling, pay for media advertising, cover payroll and operating expenses, and fuel more donation campaigns.

Every political party has a circle of insiders who donate $1,000 or more to the party annually. They receive special treatment from the party and access to party officials. Those party officials are a gateway to parliament and MPs – either the government or opposition side.

This happens behind the scenes and rarely makes the news. Ineptness brought two examples to the forefront this spring – the SNC-Lavalin affair and the Vice-Admiral Mark Norman affair.

The SNC-Lavalin taught us about the strong interconnections between the Liberal Party and a web of corporations they regularly deal with and who influence government policy.

In the Mark Norman affair, a competent naval officer had his career destroyed in a battle between competing shipyards wanting war ship contracts. Someone blabbed about government meddling in military procurement contracts. The government needed a distraction and Mark Norman was tagged.

Influence peddling is scary. Those $250 a plate dinners are not intended to attract the average party members. The objective is to give party operatives a chance to encourage participants to join the ‘inner circle’ and enjoy the inherent advantages.

In a couple of weeks, the current low-level mud slinging will kick into high gear. Every party will be telling us of the horrors we can expect if we elect an opponent. Based on those advertisements, we would have to vote none of the incompetent shysters.

No political party will promise to do the right thing. They will promise policies that sound good, but lack substance. They will pretend to care about the middle class and poor but will take advice from those who have paid to be heard.

We have listened to decades of promises to solve our indigenous affairs crisis but have no plan. We get promises to fix problems with military procurement but stumble from one debacle to another. We need to end corporate welfare, but political parties are actively selling influence that undermines democracy.

The cheating, lying and hypocrisy are palpable. All we want are a few honest men and women willing to suffer the slings and arrows of political correctness and do the right thing for a change.

A modicum of honesty in a political campaign would be refreshing. Who will step up to the plate? 

Contact John at

Take note, Canada has left the building

By John Felsted

Avarice is an acid that ultimately destroys the avaricious. Greed overcomes common sense, logic and reason with fatal consequences. Canada as we knew her is collapsing under irresponsible political leadership that fails to understand the greatness it inherited.

Canada has always been considered a treasury of resources for men of means to exploit. The northern portion was colonized to exploit available resources, initially fish, furs and timber. Control over the colonies was initially in Paris (roughly 1608 to 1759) and London from 1763 onward.

London agreed to the British North America Act as it relieved London of and obligation to come to Canada’s aid if the USA invaded. It took anther 64 years before London relinquished full control over Canada in the Statute of Westminster 1931. Political power was now vested in Ottawa.

What has not changed since 1763 is the notion that founded the Company of One Hundred, the Hudson’s Bay Company and the North West Company; corporate friends of government should be allowed to harvest natural resources for a profit.

Political power was concentrated in Ottawa, and government friends still live in the TOM triangle (Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal). Over my lifetime, I have watched Winnipeg diminish from a railway hub, grain exchange hub, packing house giant and aircraft maintenance hub into a once-was. It is all gone; taken over by avaricious eastern investors.

Packing plants that dotted the western landscape have disappeared and we now export live cattle to the US for slaughter and import frozen carcasses from the US for processing here. The jobs in Canada have vanished along with the value added GDP of processing our own produce. Our world-class rail maintenance facilities were allowed to crumble and moved east.
Our aircraft hubs in Edmonton (once gateway to the North) and Winnipeg have been moved to Quebec, which would hurt less if Bombardier was a successful enterprise and did not require constant federal support unavailable to western Canada.

Federal failure to manage our ocean fish stocks resulted in destruction of the Atlantic fishery. Thousands of Atlantic families were left destitute with the option of starvation or relocation.
There was a mass exodus from Atlantic Canada to the west, primarily to Alberta. The Albertans and Maritimers discovered they had the same values; independence, industry, fairness, respect and responsibility.

Federal governments that allowed CNR and CPR to abandon spur lines and sell of huge tracts of lands that had been given to those railroads to build transcendental rail lines without compensation should be hung for treason. There is no valid reason why those spur lines should not carry grain, cattle and natural resources to market and deliver finished good to depots along the way.

We have effectively lost rail passenger service west of Toronto. Via Rail is a disaster except in the TOM triangle. Railroads that brought hundreds of thousands of settlers to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta when central Canada needed settlements to stave off potential incursions from the US can’t run a reliable passenger service today?

Our intercontinental highways and rail lines are a federal responsibility. Rail and roads that connect Canada to inland ports or seaports are a federal responsibility. The spur rail line connecting the transcontinental rail lines to Churchill is a federal responsibility and should be able to handle any sort of traffic destined for a seaport.

All highways connecting the Trans-Canad to US ports of entry are a federal responsibility and should be first-class divided all weather highways protected from flooding.

The Turning Point
The turning point came when our government allowed rapacious American investors to mount a pubic relation campaign to shut down our oil and gas industry. Not only did our government fail to protect Canada’s interests but joined in the effort, claiming without justification that our oil and gas sector was contributing to global warming.

Avarice has finally eaten up the federal government and its elitist friends. Trudeau has accomplished what no other Prime Minister in Canada has done. He forced us to look at Canada as she is; fresh out of the shower, unadorned by clothing or makeup and she is not pretty.

I have served Canada in various capacities as a proud patriot and have accepted the inherent risks without a second thought. I loved my Canada including Quebec. I have travelled from coast to coast and broken bread, drunk too much wine, compared and debated all sorts of issues and ideas with people from every province. The lack of acrimony and the politeness and respect shown throughout is astonishing. It pains me to admit that that is the Canada I once knew and loved.

Our federal government, has abandoned everyone living east or north of Saguenay, Quebec and west of North Bay, Ontario.

I am not going to waste time trying to reform a government system that is beyond rehabilitation. The denizens of TOM will resist change with the storm and thunder that huge financial assets and ownership of the media can muster. To those who think differently, remember the oilsands campaign.

I am a prairie lad through and through. I know prairie people and what they are capable of. Most of our forefathers arrived here from all over the world with what they could carry after a long and arduous journey to a strange an unforgiving place.

They built crude shelters of sod, trees and whatever lumber they could afford to face blistering summer heat and unforgiving cold and wind in winter. They cleared forests and tilled some of the quarter section of land homesteaders were granted. Individually and collectively, they built, worked and prospered. They built churches, community halls, libraries, schools and hospitals.
When private enterprise failed to meet their needs or was too expensive, they created credit unions and cooperatives that provided banking, groceries, gasoline, grain elevators, hardware, insurance, lumber and other necessities. Profits went back to the member investors.

Provinces took over hospitals and health care, but in so doing lost thousands of hours of volunteer efforts in fundraising, construction, landscaping and community pride in having a superior facility.

I have no doubt that Alberta, Manitoba, Northwest Ontario and Saskatchewan can draw on their heritage and create a separate nation without the ethnic rivalries that dominate TOM and central Canada. TOM can blunder on with a diminished domain and spend a decade designing a new motto.
The prospect of the Atlantic provinces joining us, effectively land-locking TOM is intriguing. Our current constitution, requiring us to sell our energy and other resources to central Canada at local rates less transportation costs would no longer apply.

TOM cannot survive without us. It would have to compete with the West for investments and negotiate rather than dictate terms of reciprocal services and purchase of resources.

Only one woman applies for Supreme Court vacancy

By John Felsted

From Huff Post

OTTAWA — More women, Indigenous and minority judges could find themselves on the Supreme Court if the government took a longer view of filling spots instead of scrambling to fill vacancies, says former prime minister Kim Campbell.
     Campbell headed the advisory body that led to Quebec judge Nicholas Kasirer’s being nominated to succeed Justice Clement Gascon. Her group crafted a short list of Supreme Court for the government to consider.
     She and Justice Minister David Lametti talked about the nomination process before Kasirer faced MPs and senators for formal questioning on Thursday.
     Among the 12 applicants for the job opened by Gascon’s impending retirement, there was only one woman and none were Indigenous or self-identified as a minority, Campbell told the House of Commons justice committee Thursday.
     Campbell suggested that rather than opening applications whenever a vacancy pops up — even retirements that come with six months of notice, as Gascon’s has — federal officials could have ongoing talks with the judiciary and the wider legal community about the needs of the Supreme Court to encourage more people to apply, particularly women and minorities.
     Read on:

     Political correctness raises its ugly head again. We want the best qualified and experienced members of the legal profession to sit as judges at any level. Experience and knowledge are more important at superior court, appellate and higher levels all the way to the Supreme Court. Gender and ethnic character are not factors. If the best qualified person is an aboriginal female she is best qualified for a promotion.
     The banality of phrases like: “all men are created equal” go unchallenged. It depends on where you were ‘created’. The cultures of Canada and Iran, Qatar and France, the USA and Myanmar are very different and the roles of men and women vary by country of birth.
     We have beaten the term ‘equality’ to a meaningless and unrecognizable pulp. People are not equal. Men and women bring different attributes, viewpoints, skills, intellect and reasoning to the table. There are outstanding examples of both and millions of others who are followers. Claiming that they are all equal is nonsense.
     Every ethnic group has outstanding achievers and criminals. Sometimes the achievers are criminals. If it were not so, elected officials could never be corrupt.
     No one should be disqualified due to gender, ethnicity or colour. We have gone overboard in allowing minority groups to claim discrimination when the real cause of their problems is a combination of bad behaviour and poor choices coupled with a sense of entitlement.
     That brings up another social ill we refuse to deal with. Why do we have minority groups? When did we decide that some of us should be set apart from others? Officially, I am ‘white’ but I am also a member of a minority group. My ethnicity should not give me any privilege and my whiteness should not engender scorn from others. I reject the concept of white guilt for contributing to a positive, progressive world with more democracies than any other group in history.
     The British empire at one time dominated the world. It did not become so by playing nice or not enforcing its will on other nations and cultures. Over time it waned and morphed into the British commonwealth of nations. It brought us the common law system, and the parliamentary system. Over time, commonwealth nations around the world became independent democracies with the same fundamental legal system. Hundreds of millions enjoy freedoms, independence and rights as a result.
     We owe out heritage to millions of immigrants who came to Canada, many while we were still a colony of Great Britain and a nation in the making. Initially, the dominant ethnic group in Canada was French. Every other immigrant was a member of some minority group. Can you imagine the chaos if we had applied current political correctness to our society at the time instead of learning to live with our neighbours?
      Political correctness is an artificial construct designed to splinter our society into factions that argue over trivia rather than focus on our common problems and successes and a censorship vehicle designed to stifle free speech and debate on government initiatives.
      Those who gain from the splintering and censorship are political parties and their candidates who are out of control and don’t serve anyone but themselves.

Report is another 'sky is falling' bunch of garbage

John Felsted

John Paul Tasker of CBC News reports on July 17, 2019 that a new report from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) says the federal government must commit to much more ambitious targets to protect the country's land and water if it's to have a chance of staving off a "nature emergency."

The report says biodiversity is declining faster than at any other time in human history — over one million species worldwide are facing extinction, according to a recent, groundbreaking study. It argues Canada must adopt aggressive measures beyond current targets by promising to protect and restore 30 per cent of all the country's land and inland waters by 2030 — about 330 million hectares.

Read on:


This is another piece of “the sky is falling”, “we have an emergency” nonsense popular in the social and mainstream media these days.

Increasing protected areas of land and water is not a solution to anything. It is putting off needed changes to how we protect our environment. It is the equivalent of forming a committee to study a problem rather than dealing with it.

All of our air, land and water needs protection, not just some of it. We cannot continue to pollute. Declaring that an area is protected requires monitoring to keep those areas free from pollution. We cannot continue to pollute areas that are not officially protected. That is insanity.

We need tough regulations to deal with polluters – including businesses and people who dump trash anywhere and everywhere. Littering our highways, streets, parks and beaches is pollution. We don’t solve problems by banning single-use plastics. Plastic straws and spoons aren’t the problem – people who discard containers, straws and spoons on the beach, sidewalk or out the vehicle window are.

Most of our refuse winds up in waste collection bins that are picked up and trucked to a landfill site. We must, at the least, get our trash into those bins. We are failing at that.

Recycling, particularly of plastics has proven to be a disaster. There are many types of plastic that can’t be recycled. Many types of paper can’t be recycled.

We need to incinerate rather than bury our trash. Modern incinerators, operating at very high temperatures reduce waste volume by 90% and thermal by-products can be used to generate electricity. The technology has improved vastly during the past decade.

We are drowning in our waste and need to invest in efficient and effective ways of dealing with it. Our investments will do far more for our environment than questionable carbon reduction schemes. We need to develop waste management streams:

  • Paper and plastics – all types;
  • Major appliances – refrigerators, freezers, stoves, washers, dryers, furnaces, air conditioners and hot water tanks;
  • Upholstered furniture and mattresses;
  • Automotive tires;
  • Small household and workshop appliances; the whole gambit from vacuum cleaners, microwaves and blenders to power drills and shop saws;
  • Metal or wood furniture and scraps;
  • All the remainder.

We have to make it easy for a householder to get rid of expired or unwanted items. We can deal with major appliances by having monthly pickups. The system must have the flexibility to increase pickup frequency if demand is high but will pick up at least monthly. That stops frustrated householders from hiring someone to take away an appliance to have it dumped in a ravine or river edge or worse. Each stream need to have a system designed to deal with that type of waste.

The easier we make waste disposal the less tolerant society is of scofflaws who don’t follow the rules. We care about our environment and are baffled by the amount of waste found on our riverbanks, roadsides, beaches, ravines and parks. Cost of cleanup are substantial.

We can do far better than banning random items and pretending we have accomplished something. If we want to help our environment, we have to make getting rid of trash in other than plentiful containers socially unacceptable. To do that we need to make trash disposal efficient and effective instead of giving householders long lists of items they cannot put in a recycle bin.

 To join John's e-mail list, with the subject line: Subscribe 

Trudeau needs to mind his own business

By John Felsted

How do Donald Trump’s comments on representatives in the of US Congress affect Canada and thus be unacceptable? They don’t and aren’t. Internal political warfare in our southern neighbour are none of our business. Our role is not to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations. Trudeau seems to be oblivious to the resentments his agendas on human rights and women’s rights cause in foreign lands. We don’t win friends and allies by rubbing their noses in their perceived failings.   
A leader with a modicum of common sense would keep his views to himself and allow the Americans to sort out their laundry without extraneous comment. Trudeau’s words carry no weight in congress or the presidency. However, he risks alienating people in the White House he has to work with on trade, NORAD and NATO partnerships, drug laws, border security and a host of other issues that arise between neighbours.
Trudeau’s comments will not sit well with the Republican minority in Congress when Canada needs all the internal allies she can find when dealing with the US administration.
During Trudeau’s tenure, we find ourselves with strained relations with China, India, Myanmar, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and our own prairie provinces and indigenous people. Diplomacy is not a strength of this government.

Discretion is a cornerstone of diplomacy. We have numerous failings and scandals we have to deal with before we can validly criticize the behaviour of foreigners. We need to correct our own failings to earn the right to comment on world affairs.  
John Feldsted

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds federal carbon pricing law

By John Feldsted

By John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist

Colin Perkel of the Canadian Press reported on CBC News on June 28

The federal government's carbon pricing scheme is constitutionally sound and has the critical purpose of fighting climate change, Ontario's top court ruled in a split decision on Friday.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, enacted in April, is within Parliament's jurisdiction to legislate in relation to matters of "national concern," Chief Justice George Strathy wrote on behalf of the court.

"Parliament has determined that atmospheric accumulation of greenhouse gases causes climate changes that pose an existential threat to human civilization and the global ecosystem," Strathy said.

"The need for a collective approach to a matter of national concern, and the risk of non-participation by one or more provinces, permits Canada to adopt minimum national standards to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions."



The Ontario Court of Appeal decision makes for some hilarious reading. I do not recall reading a decision so filled with unproven conjecture. At page 5 of the decision, the court writes:

[11] This global warming is causing climate change and its associated impacts. The uncontested evidence before this court shows that climate change is causing or exacerbating:

  • increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events (including droughts, floods, wildfires, and heat waves); 
  • degradation of soil and water resources; 
  • thawing of permafrost; 
  • rising sea levels; 
  • ocean acidification; 
  • decreased agricultural productivity and famine; 
  • species loss and extinction; and 
  • expansion of the ranges of life-threatening vector-borne diseases, such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus. 

Recent manifestations of the impacts of climate change in Canada include: 

  • major wildfires in Alberta in 2016 and in British Columbia in 2017 and 2018; and 
  • major flood events in Ontario and Québec in 2017; and 
  • in British Columbia, Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick in 2018. 

The recent major flooding in Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick in 2019 was likely also fueled by climate change.

That is straight from the IPCC script and has no bearing on a legal assessment of federal powers. 

The OCA also concluded that since carbon pricing is ‘regulatory’ it is not a tax. If a government removes money from our personal earnings by force of law it is a tax on our earnings. 

Although the OAC delves into the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and notes that combatting global warming requires collaboration and action on the part of all nations, it fails to consider whether a majority of nations are engaged in carbon emission reduction and how close they are to meeting Paris Agreement targets. China and the United States, who collectively account for 60% of carbon emissions, are not Paris Agreement participants. 

Without worldwide collaboration on carbon emission reduction, the federal government has no peace, order and good government argument. Reducing Canada’s tiny contribution to world carbon emissions is an exercise in futility.

Constitution s 91 federal powers for peace, order and good government (POGG) provide for very broad powers that are decided as issues not specifically enumerated under s 91 & 92 or under other constitutional clauses but are confined to issues affecting Canada and Canadians. 

Carbon emission reduction is an international scheme of dubious origins and quality. The Paris Accord does not require the participation of all major carbon emitters and has no provisions for penalizing nations who fail to achieve Paris Accord targets. It is an exercise in make-believe that cannot be used extend federal POGG powers.

It is difficult to accept that a carbon dioxide concentration of 400 parts per million (0.04% or 1/25th of 1%) is a driving force in global warming. 

Water vapor, not carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Heat radiated from Earth's surface is absorbed by water vapor molecules in the lower atmosphere. The water vapor molecules, in turn, radiate heat in all directions. Some of the heat returns to the Earth's surface. Thus, water vapor is a second source of warmth (in addition to sunlight) at the Earth's surface.   

Solar activity has a huge effect on the earth’s hearting and cooling cycles as do gradual shifts in the earth’s rotational axis. Changes in the globe’s attitude to the sun can have profound effects.

The government’s carbon pricing plan and resistance to development of our petroleum resources have major impacts on our economic and social well-being. In order to justify carbon pricing as for the good order and good government of Canada, the federal government must show without doubt that its efforts to reduce carbon emissions warrants the loss of income resulting from its petrochemical and environmental policies. 

The Ontario courts have sanctioned federal government coercion. Carbon pricing is intended to force reductions in carbon fuel use irrespective of the resultant economic, personal and social costs that individual Canadians will suffer. The government must be able to prove that those costs are a reasonable requirement to force on the people they are obliged to govern prudently and responsibly. Good government entails responsibility for consequences of its actions.    

If you wish to join to John's mailing list, send an e-mail to with a subject line:  Feldsted Friends List

Boy, ain't that the truth!

In the commercial world, you can’t survive without a business card. A business card consolidates who you are, gives you a proper identity and tells the world that you are open for businesses. Get your card out to thousands who regularly read Contact Merv Unger at 250-616-0416 or to discuss how we can put your card in front of thousands of readers.

Why Australia’s carbon tax bombed

By John Feldsted

By John Feldsted, 
Political Consultant and Strategist

0619 - Australians and Canadians are fighting back against silly taxes based on an unproven hypothesis that governments can control the earth’s temperature by regulating carbon dioxide emissions. There is no evidence proving that:

  • atmospheric carbon dioxide drives global warming; or
  • reductions in man-made emissions will result in reductions of atmospheric concentrations; or
  • that reductions in man-made carbon emissions will affect global warming or cooling.     

Governments cannot claim they are saving us from anything except their hysterical speculation, nor can they guarantee that the taxes they impose will have any measurable result other than ensuring less disposable income for people forced to suffer their inane carbon taxes.

Accusing the sceptics of global warming hypothesis of ignorance is proof that the warming theorists do not have a logical and reasonable case to support their hysteria. 

Trudeau, McKenna and company set the standards for emission reductions. If they aimed too high to be able to achieve their targets, that is a problem they created for themselves. There is no ‘crisis’. We are not required to atone for government failures to act reasonably responsibly.    

Catherine McKenna would have us believe that if Canada fails to reduce world carbon emissions by 0.002% the earth will rapidly warm and destroy us. We can be forgiven for doubting her. Ms McKenna can’t tell us how much atmospheric carbon is attributable to human activity. No one knows for certain how much is natural and how much we may contribute, which is ridiculous. Government claims on climate change and warming do not stand up to critical analysis.  

Carbon taxes are intended to force us to reduce our use of oil and gas products. No government can abuse its powers to infringe on our rights and freedom of choice by employing coercion. Coercion is a tactic of tyrants, not an appropriate policy of a democratic government. 

An earlier analysis by Margaret Wente in the Globe & Mail

When Australia repealed its carbon tax in 2014, environmentalists around the world rent their garments and beat their breasts. "We are taking a monumentally reckless backward leap even as other countries are stepping up to climate action," John Connor, chief executive of Australia's Climate Institute, told The New York Times. The Green Party's Elizabeth May lamented that it "sends the wrong signal to the world. "

But canny politicians know some things economists don't. They know that a lot of people don't like carbon taxes and will punish governments that try to impose them.

Popular concern for the environment reached a peak back in 2006. During the 2007 election, both major parties promised tough action on the climate. Then came the recession, and people's worries shifted elsewhere. When Julia Gillard took over as leader of the Labor Party in 2010, she solemnly swore not to impose a carbon tax. Then she formed a coalition with the Greens and promptly broke her promise. The carbon tax was introduced, and people hated it from the start. They threw the Labor Party out of office and elected Mr. Abbott, who promised to "axe the tax."

Australia's carbon-tax fiasco has been blamed on inept politics, public misunderstanding and design flaws – problems that are built into a lot of climate policy, as it happens. But the biggest problem was that the carbon tax drove up people's energy bills. The tax was billed as being revenue-neutral, but people didn't believe it. They also didn't see why they should have to pay for climate change when their country's output of greenhouse gasses is so small and inconsequential to the climate.


NDP set to promise mental, dental, hearing coverage for all

By John Feldsted

By John Feldsted,
Political Consultant and Strategist

CBC News got an early look at what’s inside the NDP 2019 federal election platform

The NDP will be the first Canadian federal party to unveil an election platform that promises to drastically expand Canada's health care system to include, not just pharmacare, but mental, dental, eye and hearing coverage for all citizens.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh will unveil the platform in Hamilton on Sunday at 11:15 a.m. will carry the announcement live.

What else does the NDP platform promise to do?

  • Commit to fully and equitably fund health education and other services in Indigenous communities.
  • Create an action plan to prevent suicide.
  • Cap and reduce tuition fees and student loan interest, with an eventual goal of free post-secondary education.
  • Ban unpaid internships.
  • Introduce federal incentives for zero-emissions automobiles and prioritize cars made in Canada.
  • Invest $1 billion in affordable childcare in 2020.
  • Focus on revitalizing industries like forestry, fisheries and agriculture.
  • Put a price cap on cellphone and internet bills and introduce a telecommunications bill of rights.
  • Close tax loopholes and introduce a one per cent "wealth tax" on personal earnings over $20 million.
  • Increase access to public transit, including along rural routes cut off by Greyhound service discontinuation.
  • Power Canada with net carbon-free electricity by 2030.
  • Ban single-use plastics
  • End veteran homelessness
  • Launch a basic income pilot project
  • Strengthen the air passenger bill of rights
  • Create an affordable housing plan that includes construction of more low-cost and co-operative housing across the country.

Read it all:

The gap between what political parties believe we will fall for and what we need from them has never been wider. The differences between what political parties offer, what government is responsible for, what we really need and what we can afford leaves us breathless. These issues are interconnected, not isolated. We can’t spend what we don’t have and with each passing year Canadians have less money left for discretionary spending. We cannot continue to fund irresponsible government largess.

We do not need political idealism. That is daydreaming we all do – wouldn’t it be wonderful if only we could ___________ ; then we realize the dream involves doubling our income and get on with life as it is.

Politicians do not govern us. We elect people to represent us and ensure that governments provide the services they are responsible for as well as spend and tax prudently and responsibly. No government may tax us for more than is needed to carry out its responsibilities to the public. 

Personal responsibility is the basis of democracy. Unless we are prepared to accept responsibility for our actions and behaviours a civil, democratic, lawful, orderly and peaceful society and its institutions will crumble to dust. We already see evidence of rot in our institutions. 

Governance should be administered at the level closest to the people. Municipal governance is very effective for the most part. However, when municipalities grow into large towns and cities, the connection between the governing body and those they serve are diminished and finally lost. The result is decisions made for the benefit those governing rather than for those governed.  

In general, governance bodies exist to provide services communities cannot afford on their own. Our constitution sets out a list of subjects provincial governments are responsible for. They are largely of a local nature, too costly for municipalities, but needed by the people of the province.

There is a second list of subjects for which the federal government is responsible. They are different from the subjects listed for the provinces. Hospitals and health care are provincial subjects. 

Provinces cannot enact law in federal subjects and the federal government cannot enact laws in provincial subjects. The federal and provincial governments operate in separate spheres; the federal government is not ‘superior’ or above the provinces. 

Our provincial governments already provide some drug coverage and have experimented with mass drug purchases to keep costs down. The introduction of generic drugs in the 1970s reduced costs considerably.

If full drug coverage was affordable and viable, some provinces would be providing pharmacare for their residents. 

What is missing from party election platforms is sound planning to grow our economy to provide the taxable incomes to support the services Canadians need. We cannot continue unending deficit spending. We need to generate more income to sustain the basic services we receive. We cannot allow political parties to continue to ignore spending restraints based on income. 

Political party delusions that they can buy our votes by promoting unaffordable programs is good reason for not supporting them. 

The majority of Canadians are more fiscally responsible and able to set realistic spending priorities than any federal government we have endured during the past 50 years. The days of people in political parties and government serving their personal interests and helping their friends must end. We need responsible adult supervision of our federal government.

Trudeau arrogrance showing in fight with provinces

By John Feldsted

Peter Zimonjic of CBC reports Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Tuesday has said that premiers demanding the federal government accept compromises on pending legislation to regulate natural resource development are themselves threatening national unity.

"It's absolutely irresponsible for conservative premiers to be threatening our national unity if they don't get their way," Trudeau  said, according to Zimonjic. "The fundamental job of any Canadian prime minister is to hold this country together, to gather us together and move forward in the right way. And anyone who wants to be prime minister, like Andrew Scheer, needs to condemn those attacks on national unity."

Trudeau made the remarks a day after the premiers of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories wrote him to demand he make concessions on two key government bills.

The first piece of legislation is C-69, the Liberal government's attempt to rewrite the rules for approving major national resource projects in Canada. The second is C-48, the planned ban on oil tankers along B.C.'s northern coast.

"The federal government must recognize the exclusive role provinces and territories have over the management of our non-renewable natural resource development or risk creating a constitutional crisis," the letter says. FULL CBC STORY  

By John Feldsted
Political commentator

0612 - It is possible that Trudeau finally "gets it". Provinces outside of central Canada are fed up with central governance that impoverishes them. The PM’s angry demeanor and words look like an aristocrat’s reaction to news that the household staff has declared a strike.

Expressing anger at six premiers on television rather than making an attempt to negotiate an amicable resolution is a strange way to “gather us together”. The petulance is inappropriate and divisive. Provinces are not going to knuckle under to imperious decrees from Ottawa. 

Trudeau, for the first time, is frightened. Premiers are rebelling. Worse, Ontario is in the mix. Those premiers represent 21.7 million Canadians, nearly 60 per cent of the population. If one more province joins the group, it will have the power to force constitutional amendments. Seven provinces with over 50 per cent of the population can either toss or substantially change the hated equalization clause, dump the Senate or change the Senate representation to six senators per province. Trudeau may regret bypassing Ford and Ontario to deal directly with Toronto. That arrogance has put federal authority in serious jeopardy.  

When Trudeau speaks thoughtlessly

By John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist

 0610 - On June 4, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau plunged Canada into international chaos.

Trudeau acknowledged on Tuesday that Canada’s historical actions resulted in a genocide of Indigenous women and girls but said Canada must move beyond debates about the term to taking steps to fix the situation.

“We recognized the need for a national public inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls and we have commissioners who came back with findings of fact and with calls to action,” he said to media at the Women Deliver conference in Vancouver.

The Prime Minister was then asked if he personally believed the harms done to Canada’s Indigenous people amounted to genocide.

“As I’ve said, we accept the finding that this was genocide. And we will move forward to end this ongoing national tragedy.”

SOURCE: Globe & Mail


International bodies have noted the admission and plan investigations into what is universally considered a crime against humanity with dire consequences. There is no half-measure genocide; a deliberate campaign to extinguish a race through violence is not trivial.   

Trudeau is historically and factually wrong. Origins of the Indian Act are rooted in the British 1857 Gradual Civilization Act, which aimed to force assimilation of indigenous people. Amended and renamed the Indian Act by our government in 1876, nine years after confederation, the objective was still to force assimilation of indigenous people.

Trudeau’s attempt to use the past tense to pretend that government attempts to force assimilation was or is ‘genocide’ is ridiculous. 

Numerous indigenous victims were killed by people they knew, not by strangers and that others suffered violence from persons unknown but not government agents, hired mercenaries or troops. There is no evidence to indicate that any group was or is attempting genocide of indigenous people.

The federal government spends over $19 billion annually to provide services to indigenous people but does so badly enough that indigenous people from coast to coast to coast are validly protesting unacceptable living conditions. 

The latest government excuse for inaction was to create the MMIWG Inquiry and then, after an incompetent effort, agreeing that Canada is guilty of genocide. That put the issues in need of immediate action to stop further harm and mitigate damage done on hold. Again.

Wasting time reviewing the 231 ‘calls to justice’ by the MMIWG Inquiry is unacceptable. We cannot delay efforts to improve the lot of indigenous people while indigenous activists and our government argue over what needs to be done, how and when.   

We need reform Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada with a mandate to:

  1. provide indigenous people on reserves with a workable self-governance model;
  2. provide basic infrastructure services to indigenous people on reserves;
  3. create a framework to provide indigenous people with education and health care services;
  4. create regional facilities to serve education and health needs; and 
  5. ensure equal treatment of aboriginal people irrespective of domicile; 
  6. allow Indian bands to relocate either to facilitate formation of mutual support systems or to overcome issues associated with isolation.

Item 1 above has to occur within the next 24 months, sooner if possible. The objective is to replace a failed Indigenous Services Canada with an agency that works with and for indigenous people. 

We need to scrap the ‘nation to nation’ concept. It is an attempt by some indigenous leaders to crate a separate and unneeded national indigenous governance structure. The result will be months of negotiations between Grand Chiefs and the government while indigenous people continue to suffer. 

Focus must be on alleviating the crises facing indigenous people on reserves. Decades of mismanagement by an indigenous affairs boondoggle have come home to roost and it is not pretty. Passing gas in Ottawa has to be replaced with urgent action needed in over 2,500 indigenous communities.   

Urban enrivonmental 'emergency' mantra wears thin

0609 - “Everybody wants to save the Earth. Nobody wants to help Mum do the dishes.”

That’s how U.S. humourist P.J. O’Rourke summed up the emerging green politics in his 1994 book, All the Trouble in the World.

It has been another tough week for the B.C. forest industry, as it deals with the long-expected decline in Interior log supply after widespread mountain pine beetle impact, continued punitive tariffs orchestrated by U.S. competitors, and the NDP government’s steeply increased stumpage on coastal B.C. logs. A wave of layoffs and lumber mill shutdowns is shaking rural communities across the province.


Canada suffers a dismal lack of leadership

By John Feldsted

By John Feldsted
Political Consultant And Strategist

0608 - In October, we will be confronted with choosing the least destructive prime minister and political party from a lackluster group.

Justin Trudeau and the Liberals are a decidedly poor choice. Everything Trudeau touches is worse for his attention and he has lost trust of the electorate. 

Andrew Scheer is possibly the least offensive, but leadership requires risk and the ability to stand on principle despite criticism. He avoids all controversy and no leader can manage that.

Jagmeet Singh leads Canada’s traditional third-ranking party. He is hampered by labour union ties and the majority of his support is government employees reviled by the non-union electoral majority. 

Elizabeth May is a gad-fly, unable to imagine balancing environment responsibility with the engines that drive our economy and develop the capital that funds our infrastructure, programs and services. 

Yves-François Blanchet heads a Quebec regional party that has no place in our parliament. 

Maxime Bernier is a bright light in the mix but is still building support. He could play a significant role in a minority government but is not ready for prime time.

The rest are strikingly bereft of original thought and leadership capacity. Trudeau, Scheer and Singh are now stage actors with scripts written by hired advertising gurus, campaign organizers, pollsters, and strategists who have no interest in the aspirations and needs of the electorate or the nation. 

We are weary of being offered political trash talk and fear mongering. We deserve to be treated respectfully as intelligent adults.  A leader must be able to ignore his party’s demands that our MPs avoid irritating donors or doing anything controversial. We need leaders who will do the right thing because it is the right thing.  

We need leaders who understand our constitution and the divisions of authority and responsibility therein. I will give you two examples. 

First, abortion is a medical and moral issue. The federal government has no authority to legislate on either; religion and morality is off the table and medical care is a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government does not have constitutional power to make abortion law. Peace, order and good government cannot save the federal government on this one. 

Second, the sale and ownership of a firearm (property) is a local matter under provincial control. Laws prohibiting trafficking in firearms or amassing them for seditious purpose or to arm a forces in a foreign nation and criminal use of a firearm are in federal jurisdiction but not the sale, ownership and storage of a firearm. (See: Prohibitory Liquor Laws (1895) 24 SCR 170).

Is there no leader who will commit to rescinding the Indian Act and replacing it with a local band self-governance act that will give indigenous people control over their lives, hope and the incentive to prosper from their efforts? 

Is there no leader who understands that government policy must originate in the commons caucuses and cabinet and not from hired gurus in the prime minister’s office?

Is there no leader who understand the Queen’s Privy Council is not an arm of the PMO?

Is there no leader who will admit that no government knows or understands the forces driving climate change? Those who claim they can influence global warming are frauds. 

Is there no leader who understands that all votes in the Commons must be free votes? We elect MPs to represent us, not a political party. We must not accept that winning a majority of the seats in an election guarantees a leader four years in power. Prime ministers must earn the right to continue to govern each day of a four year election cycle.                          

Is there no leader who will confront the United Nations, refuse to support and fund the UN without a major reorganization and corruption cleanup and withdraw membership if reforms are not made? Canada was instrumental in forming the UN and its founders would be ashamed of the undemocratic socialist circus it has become.

The October challenge signals that we lack leaders capable of sound governance. There is no debate on fundamental principles and policies. No one is paying heed to the basic responsibilities of the federal government. 

In place of an election campaign appealing to our logic and reason, we get an irresponsible circus. We are choosing the people who will govern us, not the best act in a fringe festival. 

Glacier National Park removes its ‘Gone by 2020’ signs

By Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D.,
Founder, Lysander Spooner University

0530 2019 – Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030.

In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)

The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020.

But at some point during this past winter, workers replaced the diorama’s ‘gone by 2020’ engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.”

Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.”

A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.

Last year the Park Service quietly removed its two large steel trash cans at the Many Glacier Hotel which depicted “before and after” engravings of the Grinnell Glacier in 1910 and 2009. The steel carvings indicated that the Glacier had shrunk significantly between the two dates. But a viral video published on showed that the Grinnell Glacier appears to be slightly larger than in 2009.

The ‘gone by 2020’ claims were repeated in the New York Times, National Geographic, and other international news sources. But no mainstream news outlet has done any meaningful reporting regarding the apparent stabilization and recovery of the glaciers in GNP over the past decade. Even local Montana news sources such as The Missoulian, Billings Gazette and Bozeman Daily Chronicle have remained utterly silent regarding this story.

(Note that since September 2015 the author has offered to bet anyone $5,000 that GNP’s glaciers will still exist in 2030, in contradiction to the reported scientific consensus. To this day no one has taken me up on my offer. –R.R.)

Vivian Krause’s testimony on the tanker moratorium
Krause will speak at the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show June 5

Money laundering melodrama made for TV


0527 - First it was $1 billion a year (maybe) being laundered through Lower Mainland casinos and real estate. Then it became $5 billion (maybe) in real estate alone for 2018.

These dramatic, expanding estimates have persuaded Premier John Horgan and Attorney General David Eby to put aside their serious concerns about cost and a lack of actual charges against actual crooks, and reluctantly agree with a strange chorus demanding a public inquiry into B.C. money laundering.

Eby and Finance Minister Carole James finally released two thick investigation reports this month, trying to quantify the “dirty money” in B.C.’s economy. You may have heard the most shocking conclusion, that billions were (maybe) poured into Metro Vancouver real estate, pushing up housing costs by (maybe) as much as five per cent.


Court says B.C. can’t restrict oil shipments

By John Feldsted

By John Feldsted
Political Consultant And Strategist

From the Canadian Press

VANCOUVER — A court has ruled that British Columbia cannot restrict oil shipments through its borders in a decision that marks a win for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion and Alberta’s efforts to get its resources to overseas markets.

The province filed a constitutional reference question to the B.C. Court of Appeal that asked whether it had the authority to create a permitting regime for companies that wished to increase their flow of diluted bitumen.

A five-judge panel agreed unanimously that the amendments to B.C.’s Environmental Management Act were not constitutional because they would interfere with the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines.

Justice Mary Newbury wrote on behalf of the panel that the substance of the proposed amendments were to place conditions on and, if necessary, prohibit the movement of heavy oil through a federal undertaking.

Newbury also wrote that the legislation is not just an environmental law of “general application,” but is targeted at one substance, heavy oil, in one interprovincial pipeline: the Trans Mountain expansion project.

“Immediately upon coming into force, it would prohibit the operation of the expanded Trans Mountain pipeline in the province until such time as a provincially appointed official decided otherwise,” she said.

“This alone threatens to usurp the role of the (National Energy Board), which has made many rulings and imposed many conditions to be complied with by Trans Mountain for the protection of the environment.”

B.C. argued that the proposed amendments were meant to protect its environment from a hazardous substance, while the federal government and Alberta said the goal was to block Trans Mountain.

Newbury wrote that even if the legislation was not intended to single out the expansion project, it has the potential to affect — and indeed “stop in its tracks” — the entire operation of Trans Mountain as a carrier and exporter of oil.

She said the National Energy Board is the body entrusted with regulating the flow of energy resources across Canada to export markets, and it has already imposed many conditions on Trans Mountain.

She added that the expansion is not just a British Columbia project because it affects the whole country.

Read on:

 This is why I continue to stress the importance of our constitution in considering the issues that have arisen in respect to pipeline construction in Canada. Provinces do not have jurisdiction over interprovincial works. 

The BC Court of Appeal also puts the jurisdiction and responsibility for interprovincial works squarely where it belongs – with the federal government. We have listened to months of nonsense about the federal government not being able to move forward on pipeline issues because of various appeals to provincial courts, and various laws passed by provinces and municipalities. That is a clear abdication of federal responsibilities. 

The federal government does not enjoy the luxury of deciding which of the constitutional subjects it has jurisdiction and responsibility for it will administer or which provincial constitutional subjects it can interfere with. The latter is the basis for constitutional challenges to the carbon tax. Section 92A (4):

(4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of

     (a) non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and

     (b) sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,

whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.

The constitution is our ‘rules of the road’ for governance jurisdiction and has been ignored by our federal governments for far too long.  

Democracy is a participatory event. Every election is determined by the people who show up.


Climate change fraud - nothing to do with climate

By John Feldsted

By John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Mantoba

Let’s examine the Paris Climate Change Agreement that our federal government is determined to shove down our throats despite growing resistance. Canadians do not take well to ideological government decrees.    

Within the wording, you will find:

Article 2

  1. This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
  1. Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
  2. Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and 
  3. Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.


This is the same theme that underlay the Kyoto Accord. Developed (industrialized) nations were to pay penalties to developing nations for alleged harm they were doing to the global environment. 

The original Paris Agreement wording tried to have industrialized nations pay penalties for alleged harm done over the last 250 years. That did not pass and was dropped from the final Agreement.

Article 9

1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

The object still is to find a means to transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations. Climate change hysteria and warnings of impending doom is the vehicle for that wealth transfer.

The Kyoto Accord had fixed penalties for (unattainable) carbon reduction targets. Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Accord in 2012. Not doing so would have cost us about $14 billion in penalties. The governments that signed on to Kyoto had done little to meet Kyoto carbon reduction targets. It was impossible to meet targets without economic ruination. Nothing has changed. We are still well short of meeting Paris Agreement targets and intensifying reduction efforts will lead to economic ruination.

There is no legal obligation for Canada to participate in the Paris Agreement.

There are no hard Paris Agreement reduction targets. Each nation sets its own targets. The IPCC uses coercion to encourage nation to set unrealistic targets to appear to be supporters of the IPCC master plan. It’s all about political gamesmanship and appearances.

Our government effectively doubled down on Kyoto carbon reduction targets. It is accountable for the targets it set. There is no connection between what Canada can reasonably achieve without destroying her economy and the carbon reduction targets set by the government. The sky is not falling; however, the Paris Climate Change Agreement is falling apart and our government refuses to admit it.  

The ‘Paris Agreement’ was doomed from the outset as it is not practical or practicable. It is designed to penalize developed nation for being successful. Why is our government committed to meeting carbon reduction targets no matter what the cost to Canada and her citizens?

The government is aware that the majority of nations are not meeting their targets, and some are ignoring the Paris Agreement (including China, India, Russia and the United States who account for 54% of world carbon emissions – (2015 figures)). Our government’s fear mongering is repulsive.

I can go on at length, but others have done an excellent job of identifying flaws in the Paris Agreement. I suggest you give it a read. It will answer many of your questions.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. - Bertrand Russell

If anyone would like to be added to my mailing list, send an e-mail to with a subject line:  Feldsted Friends List

If anyone would like to be removed from my mailing list, send an e-mail to with a subject line:  Unsubscribe

Democracy is a participatory event. Every election is determined by the people who show up.

The Yellow Brick Road to climate change

Maurice Stong, the father of the climate scam

0519 - Climate emergency declarations are the order of the day in politics world wide and even at the local level. There's a lot of history behind the climate agenda, a lot of which we are conveniently denied hearing about. Here's the other side, so you can determine the validity of the climate scare.

Australian website Quadrant Online has published numerous articles about climate fraud over a period of years. We will publish some of them for your enlightenment as to the origins and those with their snouts at the public trough.

Canadian Maurice Strong more than any other, redefined a trace gas as the meal ticket for tens of thousands of climate functionaries — the same people whose light-fingered heirs gathered at "climate" conferences.

Writer John Izzard has long studied the history behind the climate agenda, including a profile of the man who did very nicely by costing everyone else dearly. His feature was headed "Maurice Strong – climate crook." This was first published in 2015.

This is the first of a series on the climate change phenomenon.

Canada, we need to find our way again

By John Feldsted

Letter to the Editor of the Calgary Sun
Honorable Brian Giesbrecht is a retired judge from Brandon Manitoba.

While journalists in some parts of the world risk their lives (one butchered at the Saudi embassy in Turkey), ours were earnestly studying the details of new marijuana laws.  Where will we be allowed to smoke?  What will the fines be for disobeying a bewildering new sets of laws?  Switching over to BBC Radio, I find a multi-part expose of the opioid epidemic in Midwestern America — overdoses, families ripped apart due to addictions.  Sad people, lives based on cheap chemicals a punk threw together.

In need of a bathroom, looking around, instead of man-woman stick figures on two doors I found five bathrooms, each with a different combination of stick figures on their doors.  While those of different sexual orientations and gender identification are certainly entitled to respect, we have become preoccupied with such issues — neglecting the bread and butter issues essential to maintain our enviable standard of living.  Marijuana and extra bathrooms won’t do that.

In most countries, a day is not spent deciding which drug to take or which bathroom to use.  Life is more basic if you live in Yemen or Congo.  Happiness is supper to eat and a bed to sleep. Even in safer and more prosperous countries like China — our economic rivals — esoteric concerns like drugs and bathrooms are of marginal relevance.  They are more concerned about basics — helping their children get into the best schools and later succeeding in their careers.  While we ponder on marijuana and which bathroom to use, in China, parents focus on raising determined and competent offspring.

Recall our Prime Minister’s embarrassing trips to India and China?  In India he focused on his bright attire and looked silly, but his trip to China should worry us more.  In his earnest way, he shared with Chinese politicians matters dear to his heart — diversity, gender sensitivity, and “Indigenization.” After spending a few days trying to find someone who would listen to his sermon, and failing, he was hustled unceremoniously out of China.  He trotted out the same tired agenda at the first round of the NAFTA talks, and was laughed out of the room by the American negotiators.

The Chinese and Americans want to talk about steel, aluminum and cars, while our Prime Minister wants to talk about issues they consider trivial.  Now, we sell our oil at a 50% discount to the Americans while buying Saudi Arabia oil and Chinese technology.

At our universities, too many students expend their energy on a plethora of “studies” courses that have nothing to do with the real world. Once we had more important things to think about do: carve a country out of the wilderness, build a railway, fight world wars, keep from falling apart to tribalism.  Back then, Canadians had more weighty things to occupy themselves than
marijuana and bathrooms.

Canada should get back to basics: build pipelines, improve outdated tax structures, and generally — as Winnipeg’s own Randy Bachman aptly put it — “Taking Care of Business.” We should remember our forefathers’ goals and accomplishments, and consider how fortunate we are compared to most of the people on this planet.  We need to get back to concentrating on things that really
matter. We need to find our way again.

Brian Giesbrecht, a retired judge, is a senior fellow at Frontier Centre for Public Policy. 

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP) is an independent Canadian public policy think tank. Founded in Winnipeg in 1997, the Frontier Centre received charitable status in 1999 and currently has offices in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Our research aims to analyze current affairs and public policies and develop effective and meaningful ideas for good governance and reform. We provide a platform for public debate and engage with the public through our numerous publications and events.


Slowly the truth is coming out about climate change

The greatest scientific fraud of the century will be laid bare, along with its corrupt enablers in government, academia, industry and the media

0509 - Whistleblowers at the U.S. government’s official keeper of the global warming stats, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), claim their agency doctored temperature data to hide the fact that global temperatures plateaued almost 20 years ago.

Can the whistleblowers be believed in this claim, originally made in 2015? And in the further claim that NOAA then rushed this doctored data into print in time for the UN’s Paris global warming summit of world leaders, to dupe any doubters that the planet was in fact overheated?


Western frustration is deeper than just alienation

By John Feldsted

By Amanda Connolly
National Online Journalist (Politics)  
Global News

May 5, 2019

Writing off Western anger over federal energy policies as “alienation” is overly simplistic — it runs a whole lot deeper than that, one professor argues.

In an interview with the West Block‘s Mercedes Stephenson, political scientist Barry Cooper from the University of Calgary said the term minimizes the frustrations of Albertans and Western Canadians while at the same time showing that those in Ottawa are failing to grasp the underlying anger.

“There’s been a long train of abuses on Western Canada,” said Cooper, who was also thesis adviser to Stephenson.

Read on:


The anger runs far beyond the borders of Alberta and is much deeper than the petroleum industry and pipelines. Overall, income increases have been lagging behind cost of living increases. People find that they have less disposable income with each passing year. 

We were promised that there would be tax relief for the ‘middle class’. Four years later, no one can define this ‘middle class’. Why is it an enigma? Surely the government knew what income levels it was targeting. 

Federal and provincial carbon taxes are pushing far too many Canadians nearer to insolvency. That is particularly galling when governments continue to post deficits, driving up debt while preaching to taxpayers that they have to reduce personal debt levels.

Wage earners are distressed when governments are giving their money to support corporations and major infrastructure projects in central Canada and to foreign nations. Tens of millions here, hundreds of millions there and billions in some instances. The result is $20 billions in annual debt and nothing tangible in terms of tax relief.

Where Trudeau. McKenna and company went of the rails was in telling us that the carbon tax aims at forcing us to use less fossil fuels to heat our homes, supply us with hot water, cook our meals, drive our vehicles and afford groceries and clothing that are all brought to us by fossil fueled vehicles.

We did not elect a government to control us and to regulate how we live. That has offended millions of us who value our rights, freedoms and democracy. We will not be dictated to by ideologues who don’t give a damn that the federal government is not attending to its constitutional responsibilities.

In the recent Saskatchewan case respecting carbon taxes, the government wrapped itself in the flag of “Peace, Order and Good Government”. The government cannot take credit for the peace we enjoy at present, so where is the rest of it? We see no evidence of “Order” or “Good Government”. Political parties and politicians are locked in battle while our needs lay unattended in a ditch.

Candidates for office in October had better be able to tell us how they plan to fix our government to stop corporate cronyism, fix the bleeding in spending and treat all provinces equally and fairly. The charade is over. Don’t offer us band-aids to fix the dementia gripping Ottawa. 

John Feldsted
Political Consultant & Strategist
Winnipeg, Manitoba

Climate change comes to your grocery store

Rex Murphy

Rex Murphy in The National Post

0414 - There comes a roaring alarm over the grocery loudspeakers: “Apocalypse in Aisle Three. Apocalypse in Aisle Three.”

Expect that, or a like alarm at your local food store, now that Global Warming and Big Grocery have mixed their fortunes. From here on in, they are as one. In what will surely be hailed as a masterstroke in the fight against climate change — perhaps sufficient to halt the calving of icebergs and all melt in the Himalayas — the Canadian government this week announced a $12-million grant to retrofit refrigerators for grocery chains owned by plutocratic billionaires.* (Actually, one grocery chain, one plutocratic billionaire.)