Did you notice? Two old white guys

April 11, 2019

Hey, with all the chatter over young females, extreme progressives, youth and diversity in the American Democratic Party who would have thought that white Joe Biden born 1942, and white Bernie Sanders born 1941, would be leading the polls?

Where are all those starry-eyed progressives who have all the answers? Seems like at least up to now the rank-and-file Democrats are not as enamoured with these types as are the mainstream press who are endlessly covering the likes of O’Rourke, Harris, Castro, Booker, Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobochur. In the Morning Consult poll Biden has 32 per cent of Democrats favouring him and 23 per cent favouring Sanders. All the rest have less than 10 per cent each.

Byron York of the Washington Examiner sums it up:

"Whatever their differences, the two front-runners in the Democratic presidential race, Joe Biden, born November 20, 1942, and Bernie Sanders, born September 8, 1941, share one common trait: They are too old to be president.

Biden, leading the Real Clear Politics average of polls, will be 78 years old on inauguration day 2021. Sanders, number two in the field, will be 79. Both would be older upon taking office than Ronald Reagan was when he left office after two terms.

Voters are clearly open to older candidates. President Trump, born June 14, 1946, is the oldest president ever to take office — 70 years old on inauguration day, a few months older than Reagan when he took power. And of course, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, born October 26, 1947, who, had she won, would have been the same age as Reagan, 69, upon taking office.

Americans elect a president with the understanding that he or she might serve eight years. If that were the case with a President Sanders, he would be 87 years old on leaving office, and a President Biden would be 86."

To those interested in politics it will be interesting to follow this story as the Democrats move toward their convention in July next year.

You won’t believe this: what Trudeau said

April 10, 2019

"You can’t be lying to Canadians," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in referring to Andrew Sheer, Opposition Leader. 

Pot calling the kettle black, wouldn’t you say?

We all know he isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer., but he sure has more than his quota of gall!

This is the guy who promised no deficits by this year. And what do we have? A $19.8 Billion Deficit. Next year projected —$19.7 Billion (Fiscal Update , Ministry of Finance, Table A1.2)

This is the guy who broke the law (Conflict of Interest Law), not once but four times. (Report of the Commissioner)

This is the guy who got his aides to pressure his Attorney General to change the decision of the independent prosecutor and provide a favour to Quebec headquartered SNC Lavalin.

This is the company whose wholly-owned subsidiary has been banned by the World Bank from participating in any World Bank financed projects for ten years because of the company’s bad behaviour. (World Bank Statement)

This is the Company that has been fired by Chile’s State Owned Copper Company for poor quality work and lack of timely work . (Press Release of the Chile Company)

Isn’t there someone left in the Liberal Party of Canada who will tell this Princeling his time is up?

To quote the bard with some changes, "Out, out, brief candle. A poor player that struts and frets his life upon the stage"

And Let’s hope, "and then Is heard no more"’

Trudeau threatens to sue Opposition leader Scheer

April 8, 2019

Now he is really feeling the heat. Our Princeling is threatening to take Opposition Leader Sheer to court .
For what? For saying that the PM politically interfered with the SNC Lavalin Issue.  
Sure, that is what the PM did. 
Sheer for his part has responded to the PM’s threat, essentially saying: "bring it on."
This threat was not some intemperate utterance in the heat of debate but a letter from the Princeling’s lawyer.
Imagine that! 
You have the PM staff, staff from the Minister of Finance, and the Clerk of the Privy Council all contacting the Attorney General and her staff to change the SNC Lavalin decision that had been made by the independent Prosecution Service.
What is that if it is not political interference?
Sheer’s lawyer responded as reported by the Canadian Press:
In response, Scheer's lawyer, Peter Downard, wrote back Sunday that Scheer "will not be intimidated" and is simply performing his "constitutional duty" to hold the government to account.
If Trudeau is serious about suing, Downard said he must immediately take steps to preserve all relevant documents and to notify all members of his government, past and present, who've been involved in the SNC-Lavalin matter that they can expect to be called to testify.
If Trudeau does not proceed with the threatened lawsuit, Downard said Scheer will conclude that Trudeau "has properly acknowledged that Mr. Scheer's statements were appropriate and grounded in evidence before the Canadian people."
Our Princeling and his lawyer, the PM’s supporters and other apologists for the PM should read what is on their own Government website concerning the Public Prosecution Service:
Role of the Prosecutor
Prosecutors play a key role in the Canadian criminal justice system. This role is quasi-judicial in nature, imposing on prosecutors the duty to be objective, independent, and dispassionate. They must see that all cases deserving of prosecution are brought to trial and prosecuted with competence, diligence, and fairness. Prosecutors must be of integrity, above all suspicion, and must exercise the considerable discretion bestowed on them fairly, in good faith, and without any consideration of the political implications of their decisions. While they must be advocates, their role is not to seek convictions at any cost, but to put before the court all available, relevant, and admissible evidence necessary to enable the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

Oh that naive Victoria mayor and students

April 6, 2019

Is it only one me or do others see the blatant hypocrisy being played out at our Universities and Municipal Councils?

Take the Victoria Times Colonist today with headlines concerning the mayor opposing fossil fuel subsidies and the students opposing investments the university has in fossils fuel companies.

If the Mayor is really serious she should stop all asphalt paving in her city. How about that your worship? Oh, and those buses that burn fossil fuels ? How about all those homes and businesses that use that dirty natural gas?

Meanwhile, your worship, you must not support electric vehicles either because they depend on cobalt, 70 per cent of which is mined in Africa where people are exploited and the mines do not follow responsible environmental procedures. And if you think hydro is environmentally responsible talk to the people up north who have thousands of acres of land in their area flooded and the steel transmission lines with all those wires which would hardly meet the standards of the mayor and the students.

I understand the students because many of them have been taught by people like the mayor. And we can hardly depend on the University since many there teach partial science often supporting the students hypocritical positions and failing to provide a balanced and comprehensive approach to our world. What student has been exposed to Johan Norberg’ book ‘ Progress ‘ in which we find :

"The death toll from great famines declined to 1.4 million during the 1990s. In the twenty-first century, thus far, the death toll is near 600,000 – just two per cent of what it was 100 years earlier, even though world population is four times bigger than it was then. These modern famines are the result of armed conflicts in countries such as Sudan, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo."

Or That

"The proportion of the world population with access to an improved water source has increased from 52 to 91 per cent between 1980 and 2015. Since 1990, 2.6 billion people have gained access to an improved water source, which means that 285,000 more people got safe water every day for twenty-five years. Depending on how fast you read, another 300 to 900 people will have got access to safe water for the first time before you have reached the end of this chapter."

Without those fossil fuels most of this progress would be impossible.

Brian Peckford is a former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, now living in retirement in Nanaimo, B.C.

Newfoundland – between a rock and a hard place

April 4, 2019

As many of you know, I am a Newfoundlander, a descendent of English West Country fishermen and farmers from east Scotland via Cape Breton.

And I was involved in its politics from 1972 to 1989.

I spearheaded with others (competent dedicated public servants) the Atlantic Accord, a groundbreaking, “unconstitutional” Agreement between the governments of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador whereby the Province’s offshore oil and gas resources are developed in the first instance for the benefit of Newfoundland and Labrador. The Province receives royalties as if the resource were on land. This Accord has a joint management structure with the board headquartered in the province and with a special declaration that Newfoundland and Labrador is to be the “principal beneficiary.”(Section 2(c))

This is a truly historic arrangement with nothing like it in the long-troubled resource history of the Province. The place was used as the resource base for West Country merchants in England, and it was only in the middle nineteenth century that we gained our own parliament. Successive Governments of the late nineteen and early twentieth centuries made bad deals relative to the railway and the forest industry, and this continued right up to and including Confederation with Canada — highlighted by the transfer of effective control of the fishery, the chief industry, to the new Federal Government.

The cyclical nature of the fishery, its extensive geography and its obvious reliance on fickle international markets, meant a rather unstable economic enterprise. Add to that poor Government leadership, and you have a society that saw a consistently low standard of living.

Confederation was to change all of that, and the generous Federal social programs did much to take the harsh edge off the rural fishing way of life.

However, the first Premier, Liberal Joey Smallwood, was eager to “industrialize or perish,” and the fishery was not a priority. Many “inappropriate” industries were introduced to the Province, almost all that failed. Further resource development deals were begun in mining and processing, culminating in bad deals with shady promoters like John Doyle and John Shaheen. But topping it all off, was the development of the Upper Churchill River in Labrador — the consequence of which saw almost all the electricity generated sold to Quebec for $2 a barrel oil equivalent prices for 65 years —no escalators, no re-openers. The economic rent lost to Newfoundland is estimated by experts to be somewhere between $500 million and $1 billion annually. Most of this can be found in my first book, “The Past In The Present.”

Fast forward to the first Progressive Government under Frank Moores, 23 years after Confederation — a new approach, a new philosophy, an aggressive pursuit of Provincial rights and fairness, a new emphasis on the fishery and a say in the management of it with the federal Government to whom we had transferred effective control. Additionally, a new aggressive approach on the burgeoning offshore oil and gas potential and the assertion of our jurisdiction over it.

Notwithstanding a defeat of those jurisdiction claims by the Supreme Court, the successor Government (led by yours truly) to Frank Moores successfully negotiated through the back door what we were unable to get through the front door on offshore oil and gas resources off our shores. Hence, The Atlantic Accord was born containing principles that hitherto-fore were thought impossible to accomplish. And many in the Province at the time thought were impossible to achieve. An achievement contrary to the resource deals of the past. This is all documented in my second book, “Some Day The Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will No More.” Billions of dollars flowed to the Province — over $20 billion directly in royalties so far, and many millions in industrial spin off and taxes and thousands of new jobs.

The Province, though, resorting to behaviour of the past, has not managed this new found unexpected wealth well. Added to the ground fish industry collapse, successive Provincial Governments have squandered this opportunity. The public service has ballooned to the point where it has thirty percent more Provincial public servants than the Canadian Average, and the per-capita debt is the highest in Canada at $27,799. The Provincial deficit was almost one billion dollars last year. The population has decreased from 580,000 in 1984 to 519,000 in 2016. 

Then, as if the Upper Churchill fiasco was insufficient, the Province launched the Muskrat Falls project on the Lower Churchill River which has turned into another resource disaster. A Special Judicial Inquiry is attempting to find out why the capital cost has doubled ($6 billion to $12 billion) — severely straining the Province’s financial resources for generations to come and seeing, this time, neighbouring Nova Scotia, receiving electricity from the project with lower prices than what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will pay.

It is into this circumstance that the Province now finds itself with a Provincial election pending and looking to the Federal Government for help, hand firmly out for whatever comes along.

Meanwhile the Federal Government, for its part, is looking at its own election this year and with falling political fortunes in Atlantic Canada and a loan guarantee on the troubled Muskrat Project.

What can be done for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to combat its financial fortunes and enhance its own political standing? How can the Federal Government show that it “cares” and, in the process, attempt to arrest its falling political standing?

Presto—-remember that 8 per cent interest the Federal Government took in the first oil project, Hibernia, which turned out to be very profitable?

And so it came to pass that the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland with great fanfare, and as if a new day was dawning, signed a new deal to “allow” Newfoundland and Labrador to access some of the money the Government of Canada has made on its Hibernia interest.

Remember that locked in deal of 65 years on the Upper Churchill?

The Newfoundland Government has done it again! Now its 37 years.

Remember the no re-opener clause on the Upper Churchill? None here either.

The amount Newfoundland receives is fixed. Total $2.5 billion over 37 years, which averages $67 million annually. The Province’s budget in 2017/18 was $8 billion, deficit $900,000 million. What does one think these will be in 2056?

If the price of oil rises and more revenue is generated Newfoundland does not share in that extra revenue. From the Agreement, ‘The annual payments are fixed and will not change over time.

But what about opportunities to change the equalization arrangements or enhance joint management provisions both referenced in this new deal?


George and brother Jack own an inshore fishing skiff. They use a cod trap to fish as their ancestors had done for generations before them. One spring with good weather they started fishing early and set their trap. Steaming back into the harbour after hauling their trap, they pulled up at the stage head. Someone there hailed the boys in the boat:

‘How did it go?

The boys answered:

‘Water haul.’

And such has been repeated again in this No Deal.

The Past In The Present.

Brian Peckford is a former Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, now living in retirement in Nanaimo, B.C.

The city's legal costs are ballooning

April 1, 2019

I have been wondering for some time about legal costs incurred by the City given the legal matters with which the city council has been involved the last couple of years. For example, we all know of the many personnel matters and ones involving homelessness .

Municipalities like to invoke the client-solicitor concept found in Section 14 of the Freedom Of Information Act to refuse to provide such costs . If it is a "live" matter obviously there is a valid argument to withhold such costs. But if the matter is over and one is just looking for the costs and not the people involved then the costs should be made available. 

In trying to get to the crux of this matter I checked out whether there was any court decisions on the matter. And yes there are some and they confirm that under the circumstances mentioned above the costs have to be provided if requested. Note Attorney General of B.C. Adjudication F 18-35 August 14,2018.

"The applicant requested the total amount of legal costs incurred by the Province in a high profile lawsuit. The Ministry of Attorney General withheld the information on the basis of  s.14 (solicitor-client privilege). The adjudicator held that the presumption that the requested information was protected by solicitor-client privilege had been rebutted and required the information to be disclosed to the applicant."

I have therefore received the city’s legal costs for 2106 and 2017. The year 2018 will be available after April 30 when the city’s finances will be completed for that year. 

In 2016 the city legal costs were $532,809.

In 2017 the city’s legal costs were $850,883.

An increase of $318,075 in one year. Or 59 per cent. 

It will be interesting to see what the 2018 costs were. I will follow up after April 30 and publish those numbers as well.

Trudeau smothered under evidence of SNC Lavalin

March 30, 2019

Wow! SNC Lavalin —Raybold’s Extra Evidence — Go To Standing Committee on Justice And Human Rights And Read For Yourself! All 43 pages.

Like many of us have said already: unless Judy Wilson Raybould is an out and out liar and creator of fantastic stories, what she provides in more written testimony, along with e-mail and texts and audio, demonstrates a desperate and unethical Prime Minister’s office. 

Political Interference after a decision had been made and knowing that never had an Attorney General interfered in the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and knowing that the very Foundation of a democratic System is the independence of the prosecutorial service, and the sanctity of the rule of law. 

She had made a decision, communicated it — was 100% sure of her position and yet they hounded her to change it and follow another course, fraught with political intrigue and spin. 

 Some of my ‘favourites in the 43 pages:

 Minister Morneau aides —-their ignorance of following the law

The PM aides saying comments like forget the law, we are interested in jobs. 

Judy Wilson Raybould ‘s characterizes the talk she is having with the Clerk and Secretary of Cabinet —‘ it is entirely inappropriate and it is political interference’ —-and its is just like she had said nothing given how the Clerk continues to respond.

The incident where Gerald Butts, the PM’s chief of Staff falsely claimed that the Honorable Kim Campbell had buckled to her PM, Brian Mulroney, in the Milgaard case, hence Raybould should now buckle to her PM. Ms Raybould spoke to Ms. Campbell who denied this and had also had already denied it in her book. So first, two wrongs don’t make a right if it was true, and two, according to Campbell it was false.

Clerk of Privy Council threatening saying to Raybould the PM "will get it done, one way or the other" and later this is "a collision course."

The Clerk unaware in December of correspondence on the whole affair from Director of Prosecution that was delivered to the PM office in September. 

After the December 19 meeting that Raybould had with the Clerk, the next incident was when the PM on January 7, 2019 informed her that she was being shuffled from her Attorney General Portfolio —-the clerk’s threat had been realized—the PM ‘ will get it done one way or the other.’ Of course, up to now, because of the furor that ensued his way, luckily to this point, has not been realized. 

There is the explanation by Ms Raybould of the PM’s offer of The Indian Affairs portfolio ——which she had made clear many times earlier she would never accept. So for the PM to offer it then was, a sinister ploy to use against her when she refused. And sure enough the PM minions have tried to spin that against her when in fact it was a matter of principle for her concerning being unable to implement the Indian Act. 

And for last I kept deliberately this: the interaction between the PM’s office and Minister Raybold’s office where the PM’s office indicated that if the Minister would go along with the PM they could get people to write opinion pieces (you know, placed in those newspapers and magazines we all know) that would support the Minister’s decision. You know the ultimate of spin and framing the issue in ways that promotes the Government’s agenda. This is devious in and of itself, and smacks of arrogance that they could get the press to comply. 

Sir Walter Scott comes to mind; The tangled web we weave when first we practice to Deceive.


SNC Lavalin fired from mining project in Chile

March 28, 2019

You read that right – beleaguered Canadian Company SNC Lavalin has been fired by state-owned copper mining company of Chile, Codelco.

SNCLavalin was completing a $350-million contract for the Chilean company but apparently the Chileans had had enough. Citing construction delays and quality issues, SNC Lavalin was fired.

Of course, many of us here in Canada are not surprised. I mean, we would believe almost anything negative that might surface about this company given its recent history.

The World Bank has banned SNC Lavalin’s wholly owned subsidiary from doing further work on Bank financed projects for ten years as a result of irregularities with the subsidiary. Then there is the company’s work in Lybia which is the subject of legal activity in Canada. Of course, there is also the allegations regarding wrongdoing on SNC Lavalinprojects in Quebec.

The scandal in Canada surrounds the federal government’s unethical actions to try to overturn a decision by the Justice Department which disallowed SNC Lavalin from availing of a Deferred Prosecutorial Agreement and hence allowing the company to escape court proceedings.

What is really disturbing is the efforts by apologists for the federal government who continue to try and divert attention from the government’s dirty hands using all kinds of subjects, the latest being the alleged dispute over the appointment of judges.

Canadians are not fooled.

A head scratcher - Canada's investment priorities

March 27, 2019

Canadians may have noticed that Heather Reisman of Indigo Books fame and Gerry Schwartz founder and chair of Onex Corporation, a private equity firm, have donated $100 million to the University of Toronto. 
I suppose its heresy to criticize the largest such donation ever to this university. Obviously there is no doubt that these two people are generous and are to be praised for this. But just what are the best decisions to make to invest this money? 
A news item on the donation says:
‘The gift will help construct a 750,000-square-foot complex designed to anchor U of T’s unique cluster of world-leading artificial intelligence scientists and biomedical experts, its world-class entrepreneurship network, and the country’s largest concentration of student- and faculty-led startups.
The gift will also support the launch of the newly-conceived Schwartz Reisman Institute for Technology and Society, whose mission will be to explore and address the ethical and societal implications of AI and other emerging technologies. 
The Institute will facilitate cross-disciplinary research and collaboration and will draw on U of T’s signature strengths in the sciences, humanities and social sciences to explore the benefits and challenges that AI, biotechnology, and other technological advances present for our economy, our society and our day-to-day lives.’
Sounds awfully impressive, n’est-ce-pas? I just wonder if all this bricks and mortar is necessary.
I am unsure what the answer is but I would have liked to have seen some acknowledgement of Canada’s very poor position globally when it comes to innovation and research and development and perhaps to study that first so we know just what it is we have to do to arrest our laggard performance . 
Take, for example, our university business schools. Where do we rate globally?  In 2018, according to the Financial Times rating system, the first university business school to make the list is McGill (Desautels School of Business) in Montreal at 78th place. We do not have a business school that breaks the top 50 in the world. Next is the University of Toronto (Rotman) at 86th. 
And I do not see any mention of the interaction of these new facilities and the business school. Uh? 
Or take another example, The World Bank does an annual Ease of Doing Business, scoring countries around the world. In the time it takes to get an electrical permit we rate 162. In getting a construction permit 64th. Scoring all factors in determining ease of doing business Canada ranks 22. This doesn’t cut it in today’s world. 
Or, just how competitive are we? According to the World Economic Forum we don’t rate in the top ten. What’s really worrisome is that our chief trading partner, the U.S., is number one in the world. The UK, with all its political troubles, was eighth. 
Here is what the WEF has to say about ‘our ‘ Innovation:
"The country is fairly innovative (75.0, 13th), but not yet an innovation powerhouse. It trails its neighbor and other leaders, Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan (China) by 10 points. Among the causes is the relatively low spending on R&D (1.6% of GDP, below the OECD average of 2%, and less than half the share of the biggest spenders). As for the softer drivers of innovation and competitiveness, Canada ranks first in terms of diversity (81.7). Yet its level of ICT ( Information and Communication Technologies) adoption is very low (68.6, 34th) and represents the weakest aspect of Canada’s performance. The cost of mobile data and services is one of the highest among advanced economies, which hinders adoption.’
Then there is the hugh problem of taxation and regulation. We are moving in a direction on taxation and regulation which retards investment and growth and innovation and entrepreneurship. Note the recent study by the Fraser Institute in which it highlights that on almost every income level Canadians pay higher income taxes than Americans. 
Canada’s Rising Personal Tax Rates and Falling Tax Competitiveness finds that Canadian workers across the income spectrum—and across the country—pay significantly higher personal income taxes than their American counterparts. In fact, at incomes of $50,000, $150,000 and $300,000, among all 61 provinces and states in Canada and the U.S., the 10 highest combined personal income tax rates are in the 10 Canadian provinces.’
And have you noticed according to another Fraser Institute Report?
Canadian Foreign Direct Investment: Recent Patterns and Interpretation finds that the amount invested by Canadians abroad has increased 73.7 per cent since 2013, while the amount invested by foreigners in Canada over the same period has declined by 55 per cent, signalling Canada has become a less attractive place to invest over the past few years.’
Additionally, regulation in the last few years has stifled any new oil and gas pipelines from being undertaken from The Northern Pipeline project to Energy East. 
So when our business leaders, government and universities get together to invest I would like them to have these statistics in front of them and then make decisions as to how this country can improve these numbers. And then invest accordingly. 

Chair Of Parliamentary Committee
off base on SNC Lavalin scandal

0323 - I don’t know if anyone else is going to "take on" Anthony Housefather, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but I sure am.

Housefather has an article in the National Post yesterday trying to defend his committee and its performance in the SNC Lavalin affair. Given the players involved in this scandal and the way they have tried to pressure people one has to wonder if he is doing this on his own.

Housefather spends a lot of ink talking about Deferred Prosecutorial Agreements. Sir, you are deflecting from the main issue here. It is not about the nature of such agreements. It is whether you and your Liberal majority have allowed relevant witnesses to speak, especially the person at the center of the scandal, the former Attorney General. And whether you have called other people who were involved in the matter. On both counts you have not.

How then can you expect Canadians to be reassured that justice has been done or seem to have been done when you shut down further witness testimony? Especially from those directly involved in the issue?

And no, no Mr. Chair, it is not a disagreement of some interpretation of what happened. Again a diversion, used too often these days. And we don’t need reference to a 1951 Speech in the House of Lords for authority. 

A decision had been made by the Director of Prosecutions which subsequently the court has upheld as within her responsibility so to do. The Minister supported that decision. That should have been the end of it. But it wasn’t . The Prime Minister and his minions tried to interfere after the decision was made. That’s why we talk of a nation of laws and an independent interpretation of them, isn’t it?

And the quote from the Lord in the British House of Lords won’t cut it.

People do not like to remember that the Supreme Court Of Canada rebuffed the sitting Prime Minister’s Dad on attempting to unilaterally patriate our Constitution.

Why? Because "convention" is a part of the Constitution as well as what is written. And convention said you cannot unilaterally do this. A custom had been established where the provinces had to be involved.

And anyone who has served in the executive of a Canadian government knows that in the instance of a decision by the Director of Prosecutions and confirmation by the Minister the matter is closed. That is our practice, custom, our convention.

The issue is even more egregious in that the Secretary of Cabinet and Clerk of the Privy Council who is supposed to be above and beyond engaging in political interference participated, and with the support of the Prime Minister. Such independence is convention, too.

No, it is not clarification of rules as the chair would lead us to believe that is at the heart of this matter. It is following those that so clearly exist right now and are an integral part of our system of Government.

June 20, 2019

Federal Budget: We can’t pay our
way so we just keep borrowing

You will hear a lot about the latest federal budget over the coming weeks and months and especially as the election heats up.

Few reports will tell you that we cannot pay our way. That is, we must borrow every year to cover the spending the government incurs.

From the Government’s documents Table A2.4 in Fiscal Update

In 2017/18 -Took In $308B-Put Out $330B

In 2018/19–Took In $332B-Put Out $347B

In 2019/20-Take In $338-Put Out $355B

In 2020/21-Take In-$351B-Put Out-$368B

In 2021/22-Take In -$366B-Put Out -$378B

In 2022/23-Take In-$380B- Put Out-$389B

In 2023/24-Take In-$395B-Put Out -$402B

Add up the differences of what we put out and what we take in over these years and you get $110 billion "under water."

That’s $110 billion extra debt. Add on existing debt and you get a grand total of $761 Billion.

Don’t count on that because since most of the numbers are projections and as we know this government is not good at that. They had projected we would be balancing our annual deficit by now, and look, we just incurred $14.8 billion of debt this past year. As you may notice, the further out the government projections the less the negative balance. Its called "let’s pretend." Numbers out that far mean close to nothing.

As the Parliamentary Officer has said, there is no certain time in the future that one can say that we will be paying our way in that year. 

Just imagine if you ran your household like this?

May 19, 2019

Diversionary tactics, mission accomplished

It all makes sense when you realize the Federal Liberals are no different now than when I was involved in Canadian Politics.

The more things change . . . masters of the devious!

There was this big huddle in Ottawa a week or so ago to reset the plan, Liberal style.

1. Make sure the Liberal dominated Parliamentary Justice Committee is on side re: SNC Lavalin. Critical to stop any more leakage here. No more witnesses etc.

2. Make sure the Clerk of the Privy Council resigns. Very important he takes the fall.

3. Get a reliable Liberal who looks good with the public to come on as adviser on Attorney General stuff.

4. Get Morneau, Minister of Finance, to beef up the goodies in the budget.


1. Committee stopped all activity on SNCLavalin
2. Clerk resigns
3. Ann McLellan appointed
4. Budget goodies delivered — $23 billion new spending

Mission accomplished.

More shenanigans with Trudeau govt:
One partisan leaves and another cometh

What an insult, what a joke. Our Princeling has lost it. 

Michael Wernick, the partisan, supposed-to-be-non-partisan, Clerk of the Privy Council says he is resigning his position. Oh, he’s not pushed out mind you. He is resigning of his own volition. Believe that and I have another tropical island for you to buy. He’s got to go because he engaged in shameful, partisan, unethical behaviour at the very least. He says he is being perceived as being partisan.

Oh, ya? Perceived? Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Wernick. And yours were partisan. This is no subjective reality, but a very real objective one.

Then what does this in over-his-head PM do to gain some non partisan “affection”? To establish some “ethics” at the highest levels?

Goes out and hires a dyed-in-the-wool Partisan, Ann McLellan, who served in one of the most-partisan Liberal administrations of all time, the Chrétien administration. 

It was Chrétien who got the Business Development Bank President, Francois Beaudoin, to resign because he questioned a loan the Bank was giving to Chretien’s former associates. The President went to court and won his case against the Government, having his pension and severance restored and later a settlement agreement approved.

What’s McLellan been doing lately?

Here is what a CBC story says:

According to the Liberal Party, McLellan will now no longer host a planned March 31 fundraising event to help female Liberal candidates run federally.

Oh, helping Women get into politics? No, Just Liberal women. 

So, it is not an exaggeration to say that our Junior has triggered the phrase “out of the frying pan into the fire.”

He needs to follow Wernick out the door. Not for being non partisan but for being unethical.

He’s fumbled the ball so often that in this instance the referee would have to call the game off.


March 17, 2019

There is something wrong when ...

There is the UN Human Rights Council, dominated by countries that violate human rights every day — UN Records The UN General Assembly or the Security Council do nothing about this travesty — UN Records 

Many nations signed an environmental agreement with no enforcement. Most nations cannot meet the provisions contained in the agreement. Many have already violated its provisions — Agreement itself, European Governments records. 

Europe is trying to maintain a nuclear agreement with the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet, Iran, and which is building military bases in Syria —Agreement itself, and Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an expert in the field, President of International American Council on The Middle East. 

Europe hides the problems of their immigration policies especially Germany and Scandinavia — Gatestone Institute, Swedish PM in 2017, Germany was forced to set up special agency on anti Semitism. 

A Majority of countries in NATO do not live up to their obligations — NATO records. 

The only democracy in the Middle East is denounced regularly by the UN, while non democratic countries in the region get a pass — UN Human Rights Council records 

Many so-called democratic countries provide money to non democratic Arab organizations that want Israel eliminated —- UN Records 

Knife-related crime in London, England is at all time high, more than 160 incidents annually per 100,000, totalling more than 50,000 this past year, according to the UK Government Home Office. 

China is allowed to sell its goods to countries with lower tariffs than the tariffs they charge to goods coming to its country — World Trade Organization 

Europe buys substantial natural gas from Russia and then says it serious about opposing Russia in invading Ukraine and annexing Crimea —  admitted by the governments of Germany and Russia. 

Venezuela is imploding and Yemen is a disaster and Syria is another world, supported indirectly by many nations who do business with Iran — Reuters News, Associated Press, Wall Street Journal 

Most Cobalt for electric cars comes from environmentally unfriendly, undemocratic country of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Its freedom rating from Freedom House is 6.5 with 7 being the worst and 1 being the best. 

Freedom in the World (Authored by Freedom House) has recorded global declines in political rights and civil liberties for an alarming 13 consecutive years, from 2005 to 2018. The global average score has declined each year, and countries with net score declines have consistently outnumbered those with net improvements.

The International Panel on Climate Change keeps changing its numbers as to the effect of climate change — IPCC Reports.  

The British people vote to leave the EU and the PM and Parliament produce and negotiate ideas to flaunt the people’s vote and try and stay in.

The Canadian Prime Minister breaks the law four times and his Minister of Finance twice and they get fines of $200 and $100 respectively. 

 The Pope lectures the world on goodness while ignoring the lack of it in the priesthood and runs one of the wealthiest and most secretive organizations in the world.

Comment: Rabbi's anti-Semitism argument is not valid

I enjoy reading Brian Peckford’s opinion pieces. They are concise, informative & above all else, a good read. However, I take exception to the piece written by Rabbi Prof Fischer.  I believe the Rabbi got it wrong.

Yes, the anti-hate resolution did not name the Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar, to complete the censure. And I don’t believe it should have. Instead, it condemned ALL Hate. Does that not include anti-Semitism? You would have to be naïve to think that it would exclude anti-Semitism. In this case, give the woman a break. She’s a rookie; she’s been in govt for all of 3 months. Maybe she is an anti-Semite, but maybe she didn’t know how her words would be interpreted in the public arena. I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see what she says and thinks going forward.

So the Democratic Party’s answer was to condemn hate, but not the rookie. We can’t condemn every outburst that may or may not be anti-Semitic. Sooner or later, that becomes wallpaper, or ‘the boy crying wolf’. The resolution as proposed was the right thing to do.

Unlike the Republicans who finally removed Rep Steve King from his Congressional Committee assignments after years of blatant racism. So unlike the Rabbi, if I were an American Jew, I wouldn’t be so quick to abandon the Democrats. 

J Steen

March 13, 2019

Federal Court hands
Lavalin a big 
190310 - It Is difficult to underestimate the level of defeat SNC Lavalin has suffered at the hands of the Federal Court .
The company had sought to overturn the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to deny them the negotiation of a deferred Prosecution Agreement . This decision was supported by the former Attorney General Jody Wilson Raybould and hotly contested by the Prime Minister’s Office in unethical and likely illegal interventions made by that office. 
Here is the court’s understanding of the issue presented by the applicants , SNC Lavalin :
‘The Applicants allege in their Notice of Application for Judicial Review that the DPP unlawfully exercised her discretion in refusing to invite the Applicants to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement. The Applicants assert that they met all the conditions and criteria set out in the relevant Criminal Code provisions to permit the negotiation of such an agreement and that there was no reason for the DPP not to invite the Applicants to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement.’ 
Here is the courts answer in Summary:
‘For the reasons that follow, I find that the Application shall be struck as it has no reasonable prospect of success in the context of the law and the governing jurisprudence and taking a realistic view. 
The well-crafted arguments of the Applicants have been carefully considered, as the reasons below will demonstrate. 
However, the law is clear that prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for abuse of process. 
The decision at issue—whether to invite an organization to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement—clearly falls within the ambit of prosecutorial discretion and the nature of decisions that prosecutors are regularly called to make in criminal proceedings. The jurisprudence provides many examples of decisions found to be squarely within the prosecutor’s discretion and the decision at issue is analogous. The other issues raised in this motion follow from the finding that the decision is one of prosecutorial discretion.’
Pretty clear stuff and if you read the rest of decision it gets embarrassing . That any legal team representing SNCLavalin would put such a flimsy case like this forward to a court is mind boggling.
Reading from the decision :
‘The Respondent ( that ‘s the Court, my words) notes that the Criminal Code includes many examples where a prosecutor exercises their discretion and there is no requirement for the prosecutor to justify each decision. Courts have recognised that such a requirement would bring the administration of justice to a standstill.’
And more
‘The jurisprudence noted above is merely a sample of a long line of cases that have clearly established that prosecutorial discretion is not subject to review by the Court and have established the broad scope of prosecutorial discretion, including providing examples of what is encompassed and noting that the examples are not an exhaustive list. 
The jurisprudence has also established that the role of the prosecutor is quasi-judicial. The prosecutor conducts the prosecution and all that is included with independence and without political or judicial interference. 
The Court does not act as a supervising prosecutor given the division of powers and the origins of prosecutorial discretion and because, as noted in Krieger, the Court would not be as competent as the prosecutor to consider the various factors involved in the specific decision.’
Then, how about this? The SNC Lavalin lawyers tried to argue the word ‘may’ really meant ‘shall 
‘The Applicants argue that the use of ““may”” in section 715.32 should be understood as ““shall””; it is a power coupled with a duty. The DPP is required to consider the factors. If the factors are established and extending an offer to negotiate a remediation agreement would meet the statutory objectives of the regime, the prosecutor shall do so.
The Applicants note that Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Interpretation of Statutes, 6th ed (Markham, ON: LexisNexis, 2004) at para 4.64 explains that the use of the word ““may”” can be interpreted as a duty once all the conditions for the exercise of the power conferred are met. 
The Applicants also point to jurisprudence where ““may”” has been interpreted as ““shall”” or ““must”” (R v Lavigne, 2006 SCC 10 at para 27, [2006] 1 SCR 392 [Lavigne]).122]  
But the court judgment says 
‘That ““may”” means ““may”. 
And finally 
The statutory language conveys that the decision to invite an organization to negotiate is within the prosecutor’s discretion, albeit guided by several factors.’
The full 18 page decision should be read in total and can be found at www.fct-cf.gc.ca

American Democrats appear
on the road
 to political suicide

190308 - The numerous committees of the new House of Representatives is going after everything that is Trump, based on rumour and innuendo. Especially going after the Trump family is likely to backfire. Dissatisfied with what seems like a Muller Inquiry conclusion of no collusion, the Democrats seem beside themselves to get something big that will stick. This is a risky business and we already see Trump having a field day with this juicy fodder.

Their advancement of the Green New Deal that is fraught with huge tax increases and severe economic dislocation. There is zero chance to go non-fossil fuel in the foreseeable future, for example. It is fantasy cooked up by naive, protected, socialist urbanites whose real world experience is an extended subway ride.

The dismantling of the health care system is similarly disruptive with very questionable results. If Canada is any example, we have 4.5 million without a doctor and some of the longest wait times in all the OECD, not just to get an operation at a hospital, but to get an appointment with a specialist. My family has had that experience in the last couple of years where very necessary procedures saw wait times approaching two years, causing extra expense to go elsewhere.

The Democrats are still blocking nominations to the executive of the Government, two years after the election, and hundreds are waiting to be confirmed. Of course, by doing that you ensure that large parts of the Government remain leaderless. If this is not anti democratic and seditious I don’t know what is.

But perhaps the most disturbing development is the rise (as in Europe and around the world) of anti Semitism in the corridors of power. We all know where this led in its extreme form not a hundred years ago. The Congress of the US in its House of Representatives have members who have expressed anti Semitic comments.

The Democratic Party that now controls the House, rather than condemn those responsible, passes a general resolution on discrimination rather than condemn those people (Democratic representatives) who uttered anti-Semitic remarks. That is a complete abdication of the Congress’ responsibility and leadership. Everyone knows what was said, everyone knows what should be done, but no one will act with honesty.

Rabbi Dov Fisher gives us a lesson. It is long but worth the read:

The Democrats’ “anti-hate” resolution is the ultimate insult. A vicious newcomer to Congress, spreading one Goebbels-like Nazi trope after another finally was to be censured. And then the Democrat Jews got their awakening.

Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer, 08/03/19 08:24 | updated: 08:21

Rabbi Prof. Dov Fischer is adjunct professor of law at two prominent Southern California law schools, Senior Rabbinic Fellow at the Coalition for Jewish Values, congregational rabbi of Young Israel of Orange County, California, and has held prominent leadership roles in several national rabbinic and other Jewish organizations. He was Chief Articles Editor of UCLA Law Review, clerked for the Hon. Danny J. Boggs in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and served for most of the past decade on the Executive Committee of the Rabbinical Council of America. His writings have appeared in The Weekly Standard, National Review, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, American Thinker, Frontpage Magazine, and Israel National News. Other writings are collected at www.rabbidov.com.

“It’s About the Benjamins, Baby”

If I were in Congress, I would have voted on Thursday against the Democrats’ so-called “anti-hate” resolution. That resolution insulted American Jews and all other decent Americans. It also marked the date that will live in infamy – March 7, 2019 – when the formal political realignment of Jews away from the Democrat Party begins its second wave. 

Sorry, honey, but Jews are not part of Intersectionality. And it will get worse, much worse, in the years ahead. 

The realignment will take some time. It took the Deep South more than a century, from 1860 into the 1970s, to stop bullet-voting Democrats. Ethnic Catholic blue-collar Americans, many of whom arrived here between the 1830s and 1860s from their European lands of birth, did not shift voting patterns to the Republicans until the 1980 Reagan election, subsequently reinforced in 2016 when Donald Trump better spoke to their world views and social values than did the intersectionalist message of the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton candidacy. West Virginia has seen a total transformation as well. 

And now the Jews, 90 per cent of whom arrived here fifty years later, between 1881 and 1914, are moving into the second phase of their historic realignment away from the Democrat Party that once welcomed them at Ellis Island. The first phase has seen the complete realignment by Orthodox Jews, who now are overwhelmingly Republican.

Realignment takes time, and it takes trauma. Newcomers arrive from overseas and align with a political party. They become committed to the party as they do to sports teams. Like so many in California, I still root for my native New York teams, the Mets and Yankees, more than three decades after relocating. I despise the Dodgers because they left my Brooklyn hometown for Southern California (uh, just like me . . .) Chicago expatriates I know here root for the Cubs. None of us cared that a Los Angeles team was in the Super Bowl because, for New Yorkers in Los Angeles, the Giants and Jets had a miserable year, and my Chicago friends were one kick away from seeing Da Bears go forward.

And so it is with politics. For many, politics is not only about ideology but about family and generations. Your great-grandfather was a Democrat, and so was everyone on his block. When they arrived at Ellis Island, the Democrats were there, speaking the Old World language while the Republicans were playing tennis or putting on the greens at their restricted country clubs. So everyone on great-grandpa’s and great-grandma’s block was a Democrat. And so were grandpa and grandma.

And their kids — our parents — all followed, now fully American-born Democrats. Everyone in the neighborhood was a Democrat, whether it was the Italian enclave of Bensonhurst or the German neighborhood of Yorktown. Whether the Polish wards of Chicago or the Irish neighborhoods of Boston. If you were more traditional, you voted for moderate Democrats, and the Kirsten Gillibrands played that game. In many communities, even entire cities, the Democrats were the only game in town. 

In Jersey City, the way to organize for Reagan in 1980 was by joining with Democrat Mayor Gerald McCann in Democrats for Reagan — because there were no Republicans. In Brooklyn, conservatives with Republican identity like Assemblyman Dov Hikind made a career as “Reagan Democrats,” then “Bush Democrats,” then Dole and McCain and Romney and Trump Democrats — because there was no GOP game in Brooklyn.

If you wanted access to a Congressional representative or the state assemblyman in such places, you had to be a Democrat. If you wanted to get your kid some experience as a political intern, whether locally or in D.C., it had to be through the local Democrat. If you wanted a politician to speak at your church or temple, you had to be connected with the Democrats. Someone would brag that he or she personally knew a councilman or a state senator or even higher — and that meant having to be a Democrat. It was the same for Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, German Americans, and Jewish Americans.

By the way, this likewise is the reason that so many African Americans illogically are bound at the umbilical cord with the Democrats, even though they always do profoundly better under Republicans. In my community, I know one idiot rabbi who is so overwhelmed that he wrote a letter to Bill Clinton and that Clinton wrote him back, that he is a Clinton apostle for life. I know another rabbi of similar narcissistic pride who somehow got Hillary Clinton to attend his family’s Passover seder when she was campaigning for votes in his district. To this day, he is a Clinton Democrat for life — because Hillary had a piece of matzo at his Seder. Consider the foibles of human nature: Twelve years of his yeshiva schooling, five more years of post-secondary Advanced Torah study, four or five more years after that of rabbinic-seminary training, and the highlight of his life is that Hillary ate a piece of matzo at his table. By the way, she also feted Suha Arafat, wife of Yasser, and hugged Suha after Mrs. Arafat publicly charged that Israelis were poisoning the wells. 

As Ilhan Omar would say: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby”.

That is how politics works, especially Democratic identity politics. In the 1960s and 1970s, the formula in New York City was the same every four years, when the big city-wide elections came. The top of the ticket in the quadrennial municipal elections, held the year after the Presidential elections, was for three offices: Mayor, President of the City Council, and City Comptroller. Always the same formula: someone Italian for mayor, Irish for City Council president, and a Jew for comptroller. Then, four years later, they would switch the top two: Irish for mayor, Italian for City Council president, and a Jew to handle the money. It’s always about the Benjamins, baby. 

(Note that Obama stereotypically would name Jews to be Secretary of Treasury and to head the Federal Reserve Board.) So a mayor might be named Robert Wagner and another, less successful candidate, was Mario Procaccino who got beaten by the alternate Italian, John Marchi. Paul O’Dwyer as City Council president. And Harrison J. Goldin or Abe Beame as comptroller. It was not until Beame, a Jew with roots in England, bucked the system by proving that Jews have no more idea than non-Jews do when it comes to balancing a government budget that a Jew got elected mayor in New York. Once that broke with Beame’s election, then an Ed Koch could do it, as could a Michael Bloomberg.

Jews became Democrats for the same reason that Irish Catholics did in Boston, that Italians did in New York and Boston, that Poles did in Chicago, that Germans did elsewhere in the Midwest. The Democrats played the identity card from time immemorial. But for Jews it was more. Extreme right-wing politics always worked out badly for Jews: pogroms under the Russian tsars, centuries of hate under German kaisers, persecution under extreme theocracies like the Holy Roman Empire. Right-wingers as far back as Rome always persecuted Jews. And that extreme-right-wing tragedy would be confirmed again later in the mid-Twentieth Century under the Nazis and the Mussolini fascist allies. 

By contrast, some Jews had not yet all gained the political sophistication that would come as they soon would learn that Marxism and Communism were every bit as bad, and often worse. Stalin was every bit as bad to the Jews as Hitler — every bit. Karl Marx was every bit the Jew-hater as was Streicher, Goebbels and Himmler. The only difference was that Stalin had a New York Times publicist, Walter Duranty, covering up his crimes against humanity — Stalin murdered millions of Ukrainians — and Stalin thankfully died on the eve of his planned campaign against the Jews.

So Jews, like other ethnic immigrants from Europe, started off Democrat and stuck with it as we stick with our sports teams. Just as Southerners kept voting Democrat into the 1950s and 1960s, long after the parties had realigned. Still, if you were in Alabama or Mississippi, that was where the political power and access was. That was where government funding lay. Your senator, your Congressional representative, even your local dog catcher was Democrat — and so were you.

Like a divorce after a long multi-decades marriage, it takes a traumatic moment, sometimes many, to break it up with finality. An adulterous affair. A physical beating. And sometimes even the adultery and the spousal battering will not end the marriage. But there are divorces. There are times when someone says, “Blessed is the God who redeems and saves. I am the hell out of here!” And that moment hit the Deep South when George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon. It hit blue collar European-ethnic Catholics when Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter, then Walter Mondale. And now it has hit the Jews of America.

Orthodox Jews always are the bellwether of the Jewish community because we adhere to Judaism. If Jews are society’s “canary in the coal mine,” we are the canary’s canary. We wear identifying garb, whether a fedora and long earlocks or simply, as I do, a knitted yarmulka. We eat only kosher food, only in kosher restaurants. We walk to shul on Sabbath, push our baby carriages within regions encompassed by special boundary designations (“eruv”) that we construct at great expense with city approval. While the long-lost and assimilated Jews like George Soros, whom we despise, and Bernie Sanders dance with the dictators and marvel over the wonders of socialist bread lines, we the Orthodox already are placing our orders for special “shmurah matzos” seven weeks before Passover.

And it is this bellwether community that realigned two decades ago and more to the Republicans. More than 90 per cent of Orthodox Jews voted for Mitt Romney against Obama. Donald Trump’s strongest voting bloc in 2016 was Orthodox Jews, and he will get even more support in 2020. The Pew survey has found that Orthodox Jews will comprise a majority of all New York Jews within two generations.

A vicious newcomer to Congress, spreading one Goebbels-like Nazi trope after another finally was to be censured. And then the Democrat Jews got their awakening.

As the realignment unfolds, the trauma now hitting the next wave of American Jews has hit front-and-center with the fight within the Democrat Party over passing a simple resolution condemning Jew-hatred. For the old-time Jewish liberals who put their lives and souls into the Democrat Party, this was to be their validation, as the party of their great-grandparents, zaydes and bubbes, parents, and selves would stand up for them as they always had stood by their party. A vicious newcomer to Congress, spreading one Goebbels-like Nazi trope after another finally was to be censured. And then the Democrat Jews got their awakening:

1. The Democrats will not name the Jew-hater.
2. In fact, the Democrats will not condemn anti-Semitism outright. Instead...
3. The Democrats will condemn everything except apple pie.

A resolution against “all hate” is not a resolution against anti-Semitism. Rather, when the challenge is a Nazi recitation about Jews and money, Jews and world dominance, Jews and dual loyalties. and when the response is that, well, “all hate is wrong,” then that diluted resolution is an insult to American Jews, an insult to all other decent Americans, and it is a piece of garbage that I would have voted against if I were in Congress.

That is how Jew-hatred and anti-Israel bias works in the United Nations. Hamas terrorists murder innocent Jewish civilians, and the U.N. responds by condemning “all” violence. Terrorists from Abbas’s Palestinian Authority murder an innocent Jewish woman in a forest and rape her because she is a Jew?  Well, the U.N. condemns “all rape.”  AnIslamic Jihad murders Jews at a bus stop? Well, “we hereby condemn all murders at bus stops.” 

Try that on the African American community when a Caucasian police officer wrongfully shoots an innocent Black citizen. As the street protestors chant “Black Lives Matter,” try mollifying them by passing a resolution that “ALL lives matter.”  Of course all lives matter, but the moment when a racist murder takes place under the color of law, the demand of the hour is to condemn anti-Black racism, not all racism.

American non-Orthodox Jews now are living through a trauma. The Democrats into whom they invested everything have turned on them by walking away from them. Sorry, honey, but Jews are not part of Intersectionality. And it will get worse, much worse, in the years ahead. The new-era Democrats now are holding Israel to standards that are not even expected of Iran. They would boycott and sanction Israel but not boycott or sanction Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Putin’s Russia, China, or Venezuela. They still will take Jews’ money, and this last generation of die-hard Jewish Democrats like George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, and what is left of them in Hollywood and Broadway, from which they likewise are starting to get pushed out, will keep donating to the grave. 

But a new generation rises. They see. And they understand. And the realignment begins.

One day the Democrats walked away from the world that had attracted Ronald Reagan. And so they left. They abandoned European ethnic Catholics, and so they have left. They have all-but-criminalized the status of “White male,” and they have left. 

American Jews now are packing their bags, and the Orthodox Jews who left for the Republican camp long ago are restraining ourselves from saying “Toljaso! Toljaso!” 

Instead, like the Jews of the United Kingdom who now vote 70 per cent conservative and the Jews of Israel, who have voted dominantly for conservative governments for the past forty years, these Jews are being welcomed in to the Republican party. And as for those Soros-types who will not budge but instead will die with a Democrat donkey engraved on their tombstones, just as former New Yorkers cling to the Yankees and Mets, and as former Chicagoans cling to the Cubbies to their very last breath, they may go to the grave satisfied in knowing that they gave their lives to a political party that could not simply condemn anti-Semitism.


Liberal government trying
to defend the indefensible

Thank God for SNC Lavalin, otherwise we might never have known just how unethical this Federal Government really is.

The irony of it all!

As a result of SNC Lavalin eagerness to see more flexible means to handle their likely guilt, we now know just how unethical this Federal Government really is. And this was validated in spades Wednesday by the appearance of former principal secretary to the PM Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick, Clerk Of The Privy Council.

I mean The Prime Minister breaking the Conflict of Interest Act four times as it relates to Aga Khan and his interests with the Federal Government was thought to be a one off.

Canadians are nice.

But this should have been a warning. If anyone read the Ethics Report one can see just how hard the Prime Minister’s lawyers tried to persuade the Ethic Commissioner of no ethic violations. Yet, to anyone with half a brain reading the Conflict Of Interest Act and then looking at the Prime Minister’s actions, it was blatantly obvious.

And now watching and listening to the Prime Minister’s buddies (because that is who they are), like the PM ethics lawyers, were trying to defend the indefensible. Appearing before a Parliamentary Committee and saying they did everything correctly puts a whole new meaning on the word “gall” don’t you think? Brazen, even. Could we say delusional?

Butts is very much a part of the swamp having served in other highly political roles especially as Principal Secretary to Ontario’s Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty ‘s Government, the one that helped to see the Liberal Party fortunes in that Province disintegrate.

Wernick has been around the Federal Public Service since 1996 and should know better. But what is clear now is that his power increased with Trudeau and with that power the lines of ethics got blurred.

Unless Jody Wilson-Raybould is an out and out liar and is bad at keeping notes, what the “buddies” said Wednesday demonstrates that a complete overhaul of the Government system is long overdue. A culture of loose ethics and the wink and the nod has taken deep root. Senior people can no longer separate what constitutes ethical standards and what does not.

And perhaps even worse is the Prime Minister’s surrogates and apologists and the PM himself seem willing to sacrifice honesty and integrity on the altar of economic expediency and the PM refuses to lift the full gag order that would allow Wilson-Raybould to fully tell her whole story.

And now as I write, another twist: Wilson-Raybould has indicated she is prepared to respond immediately at the Parliamentary Committee concerning the testimony of the Prime Minister’s buddies but the Liberals who hold majority have said no. And we all know who told them to say no.

This is not my Canada, nor do I think it is that of the majority of Canadians.


What has happened to the
concept of 
right and wrong?
When you strip it all way isn’t right and wrong what the whole SNC Lavalin issue is all about?
We have laws in this country. When you abide by the law you do right. When you violate these laws you do wrong. 
One: A Canadian company is alleged to have done wrong under our laws. They have been charged. So let the courts hear the matter and a verdict will be rendered. 
There are companies every day in our country appearing in our courts charged with breaking the law. And the courts are dealing with them. 
There are many cynics who have said to me: "Don’t tell me there is justice out there. Ah, yes one for the rich and another for the poor".
How do you answer those people if SNC Lavalin can get special treatment like that fancy Prosecution Deferral Agreement when many companies are being tried and found guilty every day and are levied punishment in the normal course of law? 
Two: The Prime Minister, his staff, the clerk of the Privy Council, the Minister of Finance and the chief of staff are being investigated for ethics violations since all intervened in a matter that had been settled and beyond established boundaries as it relates to decisions of the Attorney General and the Prosecutorial Service. Evidence suggests they did something wrong under our Conflict Of Interest Act. Part 1, Section 9 says:
9: No public office holder shall use his or her position as a public office holder to seek to influence a decision of another person so as to further the public office holder’s private interests or those of the public office holder’s relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests".
The Ethics Commissioner is investigating and a report will be rendered. Sadly, there is little punishment in the Act if there is a breech of it. Remember both the PM and the Minister of Finance violated the Conflict of Interest Act already and got less than speeding-ticket-like fines of $100 and $200. 
Three: Many legal scholars say another wrong was committed or law violated. Under the criminal code section 139(2) 
‘(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) (which is not relevant here, my words) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years".
Many legal scholars argue that what the Prime Minister, his staff and the clerk of the Privy Council, and a staff person with the Minister of Finance did, was wrong in that they obstructed the course of justice when they intervened with the Attorney General in a course of justice that had already been decided by the Minister and the Prosecutorial Service. 
Tragically, no charges have been laid on this alleged Criminal Code violation. 
So what we have here are issues of basic right and wrong under the law —The Conflict of Interest Law and under The Criminal Code law. 
Citizens of Canada don’t want the spin and fancy legal maneuvers. They just want our leaders to get on with pursuing our laws of right and wrong in this instance. Let our legal system function.