Dec. 31, 2021


We welcome your comments

Feb. 27, 2021

You may have noticed a CBC story by Elizabeth Thomson highlighting a recent release of previously secret documents by the U.S. State Department. They detail comments made by former U.S. Ambassador Thomas Enders to his bosses in Washington on the situation in Canada just after the Quebec election where the separatists gained control in 1976. 

Enders recounts a conversation he had with the late Paul Desmarais, a powerful business magnate in Quebec and in Canada and friend of Trudeau. Enders indicates to his superiors in that memo that Desmarais told him Trudeau wanted the Desmarais business interests to be curtailed in Quebec in an effort to show the new Quebec Government that with this separatist victory business would not be business as usual. 

Of course, CBC goes to the most likely person to disagree with this story, Trudeau Sr.’s good buddy Marc LaLonde who held many Cabinet Posts in Trudeau administrations. LaLonde dismisses the information saying it was a misunderstanding by Enders. A rather lame excuse, I submit. Enders would not send such information to his bosses in Washington if he was not sure of the content. Ambassadors have to be sure of their information. 

The article also goes to another source for reaction, Graham Fraser, a senior fellow at the University of Ottawa. Fraser thinks that there was a lot going on at the time and that was just one of many ideas floating around. Of course, Fraser or LaLonde were not privy to the Enders/ Demarais meeting. They are just speculating and naturally defend Trudeau. 

The article also talks to present business people who are a part the Demarais business empire, insisting that none of the Demarais’ businesses moved from Quebec at the time. 

That’s hardly the point – Trudeau Sr was obviously actively seeking ways to delegitimize a duly elected Government in Quebec. 

Well, Trudeau was using Desmarais in many ways because he was sent secretly to pressure me in the early 1980s. 

Desmarais called me saying he was on his way to Paris but that he intended to ‘drop’ down in St. John’s (Newfoundland) shortly (a few hours) and wished to see me. He arrived late at night. I sent a car and driver to Torbay airport to pick him up. 

He informed me that the Prime Minister was very concerned about my positions on a number of matters, the offshore, and the fishery, in particular. The PM wanted me to know that these positions were damaging and that he wanted me to refrain from these positions. That the PM was very serious. 

I felt affronted and told Demarais that my positions were well thought out and contained in public documents that the PM had seen and with which his ministers were fully conversant. That I had no intention of changing my positions in any significant way but, of course, was willing to further discuss and negotiate. Newfoundland wanted its new-found offshore oil treated as if it was on land and that the Province wanted more say over the fishery. I asked that this be communicated to the PM.

The meeting ended, Desmarais Flew on to Paris for meetings, he said, with the French President. 

I recite this now as a result of the Enders story, so that it’s on the record, and to indicate that Trudeau Sr used Demarais in many ways, my encounter being another example. 

Of course, the Province never did get a deal on the offshore with the Trudeau Government but did succeed with the subsequent Mulroney Government, enshrining the principle of treating the resource as if it was on land. Unfortunately, changes to Fishery management remain outstanding these many decades later.

Feb. 23, 2021

Monday (10:30 PST, Feb.22) in the House Of Commons, Canada’s Government refused to endorse a toothless Opposition motion to declare that China is committing genocide against the Uyghur people. Weak, shallow Mark Garneau, that once proud able Canadian, has succumbed to the Liberal hypocrisy virus, and speaking on behalf the so-called Government, abstained from the vote. 

As CTV reports:

“Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did not participate in the vote. Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau abstained on the record while the rest of his cabinet colleagues were absent.

“I abstain on behalf of the Government of Canada," said Garneau when he made his position known.”


So China knows for all to see, the Canadian Parliament, without the government, endorses a motion by the opposition affirming that China commits genocide against the Uyghur people. 

In other words, nothing to worry about here. The Government even refuses to vote on a motion that had no force or effect except as an idea. And Canada’s government wouldn’t even do that. Forget the mountains of evidence. 

In the inner offices of the Communist Party of China there must be glee and celebration.

This soft, ridiculous pro-China Canadian Government is an embarrassment and its actions shameful. The people of Canada should be ashamed of this behaviour. 

What did we get for Trudeau praising the Chinese system a few years ago?

What did we get for agreeing to partner with China in the development of a Covid vaccine? 

What did we get when Trudeau’s government agreed to buy medical equipment, defective it turns out, from China to fight their virus? 

What do we get in not banning Huawei technology? 


A Huawei executive is on trial in Canada simply because the international community forced the government and there is an extradition treaty. 

Meanwhile, two Canadians remain behind bars in China on false charges. 

And China breaks international rules in the South China Sea, violates its promise on Hong Kong with democracy disappearing there, and it makes its critics disappear or cower to its undemocratic repressive regime. 

But the Canadian Government, nevertheless, is firmly in the clutches of Beijing. 

As National Post journalist, Tristin Hopper, said in a telling, biting article, Canada can do little, if anything anymore, from no oil and gas to our own people in the east, to no clean water to many aboriginal people, to producing three flawed, bloated, hydro-electric projects that once was our strength, to outspending all OECD countries in the Wuhan Virus crisis and yet we have no home grown vaccine, coming 40th in availability and delivery. 

And in the last few days the International Monetary Fund is making negative noises (an earlier Trudeau helped cause similar IMF noises in a former era, which we are supposed to forget), and the Conference Board of Canada is even speaking up about our shaky financial situation. 

And then to top it all off, unelected Public health officers across the nation, with the active support of their governments, continue to tear to shreds our Charter of Rights and Freedoms ignoring real science and the advice of 754,399 concerned citizens, 13,399 medical and public health scientists, and 41,405 medical practitioners, all of whom affixed their name to the Great Barrington Declaration seeking a more focused approached than what governments are doing. 

We spend, pontificate, procrastinate, create another Committee, Royal Commission, create more regulation (Bill C-69) and impose new taxes (carbon taxes) and pat ourselves on the back. Mine is getting rather stooped from fellow Canadians patting me on our “good” fortune as I embarrassingly murmur “what about our debt, what about our lack of competitiveness, what about our freedoms, and what about our grandchildren”?


Feb. 22, 2021

This dancing around the issue of China’s obvious genocide is not only embarrassing but morally unsustainable. 

Canada's House of Commons was to vote today on a Conservative Party motion saying that China is committing genocide against the Uighur population. The U.S. has been the only country to do so and that in the dying days of the Trump administration. Of course, CBC’s Arron Wherry downplays this American move by saying that there were lawyers in the State Department who disapproved of this move. No names given, of course, or direct quotes but trying obviously to demean the U.S. action. Of course, the Biden Administration is soft on China and the likelihood of a repeat declaration is remote, I suspect.

But I hear my fellow Canadians say we are better than the Americans, we stand up for human rights etc. Well, that has not been the country’s strong point lately, now has it? 

The Federal Government has still not made a decision on using Chinese technology in our developing digital industry. It is clear that Huawei technology is controlled by the Chinese government, that we have our universities heavily involved in China, and that our PM some years ago praised the Chinese system – and even this past year we were willing to co-operate with the Chinese in developing a vaccine to combat their own exported virus and actually bought defective medical equipment from them. We even had the Heath Minister defend the Chinese in the Wuhan virus situation. 

So it will be interesting to see if the Liberals vote for the Conservative motion. Of course, it eans little, except to have the Government on record verbally. 

Sadly, it takes an opposition motion to do even this. 

The government is silent and has not introduced such a motion, and in that silence, doesn’t that tell all? 

There is never a ‘good’ time in the ebb and flow of international relations to take a principled stand. And Canada, like most of the world, picks and chooses what it wants to be honest about. 


Feb. 21, 2021

The BC Supreme Court has ruled against an injunction sought to prohibit religious worshipping in B.C.  Judgment issued February 17. 


Alain Beaudoin, Brent Smith, John Koopman, John Van Muyen, Riverside Calvary Chapel, Immanuel Covenant Reformed Church, and Free Reformed Church of Chilliwack – Petitioners


Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia and Dr. Bonnie Henry in her Capacity as Provincial Health Officer for the Province of British Columbia – Respondents

Before: The Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson

Our unelected Public Health Officer tried in the court, with the support of the Provincial Government, of course, to get an injunction against certain Christians so that they would be unable to worship in their churches. 

The full hearing of the case is to be head in March, but in the meantime, Dr. Henry wanted to get an injunction to stop any worshipping  in the churches . 

Here is part of what was said before the judge quoting from the judgment: 

‘The petition is scheduled to be heard beginning March 1, 2021. It is at that time that the merits of the parties’ respective positions will be heard. For now, the respondents seek an injunction in the following terms: 

1.  A prohibitory interlocutory injunction that no person may and, in particular, Brent Smith John Koopman, John Van Muyen and the members, directors, elders and clergy of the Riverside Calvary Chapel, Immanuel Covenant Reformed Church and Free Reformed Church of Chilliwack, B.C. must not permit the following premises of the petitioner churches:

a.       8-20178 96 Avenue, Langley, British Columbia;

b.       35063 Page Road, Abbotsford, British Columbia; or

c.       45471 Yale Road West, Chilliwack, British Columbia;

or any other premises to be used for an in-person worship or other religious service, ceremony or celebration, or other “event” as defined in the Jan. 8, 2021 Order of the Provincial Health Officer, Gatherings and Events (“the PHO Order), as amended or as repealed and replaced except:

d.       in accordance with the PHO Order;

e.       as permitted by further order of this Court; or

f.        as permitted by an agreement under s. 38 of the Public Health Act.

2. A prohibitory interlocutory injunction ordering that no person may and, in particular, Brent Smith John Koopman, John Van Muyen and the members, directors, elders and clergy of the Riverside Calvary Chapel, Immanuel Covenant Reformed Church and Free Reformed Church of Chilliwack, B.C. (collectively, “the Religious Petitioners”) must not organize, host or in any way facilitate or participate in an in-person worship or other religious service, ceremony or celebration, wedding, baptism, funeral or other “event” as defined in an Order of the Provincial Health Officer, except:

a.       in accordance with the PHO Order;

b.       as permitted by the further order of this Court; or

c.       as permitted by an agreement under s. 38 of the Public Health Act.

3 A prohibitory interlocutory injunction ordering that Brent Smith, John Koopman, John Van Muyen must not be present at an in-person worship or other religious service, ceremony or celebration, wedding, baptism, funeral or other “event” as defined in an Order of the Provincial Health Officer, except:

a.       in accordance with the PHO Order;

b.       as permitted by the further order of this Court; or

c.       as permitted by an agreement under s. 38 of the Public Health Act.

4. An order authorizing any police officer with the appropriate authority in the jurisdiction in question (“the Police”) to, in their discretion, detain a person who has knowledge of this Order and of whom the Police have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person is intending to attend a worship or other religious service, ceremony or celebration prohibited by this Order in order to prevent the person from attending the worship or other religious service, ceremony or celebration.

5. An order that the parties to this proceeding and any other persons affected by this Order may apply to this Court for a variation of the Order and that, unless the court otherwise orders, any application to vary must be brought on notice to the parties in accordance with the Supreme Court Civil Rules. B.C. Reg. 168/2009. 

6. The order is to remain in force until varied or until final determination of the Petition on the merits and expiry of all applicable appeal periods.’

Chief Justice Hinkson Judge said No! 

“You haven’t made your case because the Provincial Prosecution Service in another similar case – the B.C. Prosecution Service declined to initiate criminal prosecutions on the basis that it was not required in the public interest “given the nature of the offences and the passage of time during the COVID pandemic”. 

So the Judge said: "I am left to wonder what would be achieved by the issuance of an injunction in this case. If it were granted and not adhered to, would the administration of justice yet again be brought into disrepute because the B.C. Prosecution Service considers that it would not be in the public interest to prosecute those who refused to adhere to the orders sought from this Court?’

One lives in hope that the March hearing will see the Justices apply the provisions of the Charter of rights and Freedoms of our Constitution of freedom of religion, assembly and association so that we can return to some form of order and freedom in this part of our country.