Dec. 31, 2022


We want to hear your views on any of the topics in The Daily Buzz and to comment


Sep. 11, 2022

There are three things the new leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, can do today to prove that the politics of his party has changed — not just a new face.


Commit his caucus to introduce a resolution in the House of Commons which opens on September 19, supporting a citizen led independent national inquiry into the mandates and lockdowns by Governments concerning the so-called covid pandemic. Were they necessary, was science followed and were they constitutional? Was there a better, cheaper way? Were all the deaths and injuries from the lockdowns unavoidable? Are the ongoing deaths and injuries from the covid vaccines necessary? Were there cost benefit analyses done or are there any under way now to determine whether such mandates were indeed good public policy? 


Commit as the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada that he will recommend in writing to his Party that they begin immediately to ensure that annual, audited financial statements of the Party are published on the Party’s website and available to all. 


Commit that as Leader of His Majesty’s Official Opposition in the House of Commons, he will at the first opportunity, the House reopens September 19, to introduce an amendment to the Conflict of Interest Act whereby any Member of the House of Commons who violates any provision of this Act as determined by The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner or a Canadian Court cannot serve in that legislative chamber. 

Prompt positive action on these three issues will determine whether there is just a new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, or whether Canadians have a new reformed major political party in this country. 

If, in fact, the new leader commits to these new reforms then we as Canadians can recommend other elements in my Magna Carta, other strong new measures in education (civics as a subject mandatory in the schools. Although education is under Provincial jurisdiction the federal Government now like health care, financially supports education in the provinces), and protecting Canada’s sovereignty in any International Agreements and reform to the Judiciary. 

Sep. 6, 2022

First, The Unconstitutional Imposition of provisions of the Emergencies Act by a Liberal Government earlier this year involved an Act introduced into Parliament and passed by a Conservative Government in 1985. So we have the two major political parties involved in this travesty of justice. This draconian measure to put down peaceful civil disobedience by truckers, their families, friends, and supporters in the nation’s capital is indeed momentous and inconsistent with Canada’s adherence to democratic principles.  

Second, the requirement of another provision of that Act calls for an Inquiry:

‘63 (1) The Governor in Council shall, within sixty days after the expiration or revocation of a declaration of emergency, cause an inquiry to be held into the circumstances that led to the declaration being issued and the measures taken for dealing with the emergency.

Report to Parliament. (2) A report of an inquiry held pursuant to this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament within three hundred and sixty days after the expiration or revocation of the declaration of emergency.’

That’s it ! 

So this requirement which many think checks the power of the Government in the execution of the Act is just the opposite – it puts the Government in control of the whole inquiry process 

Who is the Governor in Council?? The Cabinet  – The Government of Justin Trudeau in this case. 

We had this unbelievable display of Government and police power as a result of acts of civil disobedience and the Parliament gives that Government the power to set up an Inquiry to investigate itself? 

Are you joking? You don’t mean Canada ? Because Canada is a democratic nation  – -where Parliament on behalf of the people rules. Well, no!

And it gets worse !!!

The Government that stole our freedoms gets to appoint the people who will conduct the Inquiry into that theft.

And, thirdly, it also sets the terms of reference of what will and will not be examined and how it will be examined? Are you with me? 

So the Government through a Cabinet order: 

‘And whereas, under subsection 63(2) of that Act, the report

of the inquiry shall be laid before each House of Parliament within 360 days

after the expiration or revocation of the declaration of emergency;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council,

on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, 

(a) directs that a Commission do issue, for the period ending

on March 31, 2023, under Part I of the Inquiries Act and

under the Great Seal of Canada, appointing the Honourable

Paul S. Rouleau to be a Commissioner, to conduct an inquiry

under the name of the Public Inquiry into the 2022 Public Order

Emergency ("Public Inquiry"), which Commission must –  –  –  

So a Commission of inquiry is established with a Commissioner. By a Cabinet Order – by the Government! 

I quote directly:

(i) direct the Commissioner to examine and report on

the circumstances that led to the declaration of a public

order emergency being issued by the federal government

and the measures taken by the Governor in Council

by means of the Emergency Measures Regulations and

the Emergency Economic Measures Order for dealing

with the public order emergency that was in effect

from February 14 to 23, 2022;

(ili) direct the Commissioner to set out findings and lessons

learned, including on the use of the Emergencies Act and

the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures

taken under the Emergency Measures Regulations and the

Emergency Economic Measures Order, and to make

recommendations, as pertains to the matters examined in

the Public Inquiry, on the use or any necessary

modernization of that Act, as well as on areas for further

study or review,’


So what does the Commissioner examine? Well, it seems to go out of its way to comprehensively capture all the trucker’s convoy’s activities even though some of the points involved have proven to be false in testimony before a Parliamentary Committee. like foreign involvement. 

‘Direct the Commissioner to examine issues, to the extent

relevant to the circumstances of the declaration and

measures taken, with respect to 

(A) the evolution and goals of the convoy and

blockades, their leadership, organization and


(B) the impact of domestic and foreign funding,

including crowdsourcing platforms,

(C) the impact, role and sources of misinformation

and disinformation, including the use of social media,

(D) the impact of the blockades, including their

economic impact, and

(E) the efforts of police and other responders prior to

and after the declaration,’

And for the Government? Not near as specific and leaves it up to the Commissioner : 

‘The appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures ‘ by the Government. 

Anything about following the Constitution ? No, just appropriateness and the Commissioner gets to define that. 

Anything about breaking the law? 

That’s not allowed to be examined by the Commissioner because its forbidden right in these terms of reference 

‘Direct the Commissioner to:

(A) perform their duties without expressing any

conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or

criminal liability of any person or organization,’

And no specific mention even of ethics or the excessive power given to health officials.  

Nothing about the science. 

Were proper rules of science followed? 

What science was used?  

What science was ignored though available ????

How about the impact, economic and psychological, on the truckers, their families, all those who supported peacefully the movement. 

The use of police power, and using the banks to freeze peoples’ accounts. 

What about Section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms –  – -part of which reads that you can only exempt the rights and freedoms defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if you can ‘demonstrably justify ‘ such violation consistent with the values of a ‘free and democratic society. ‘  

And make no mistake  – people’s rights and freedoms were violated. 

Nothing in the terms of reference addressing that. No demonstrable justification!!

 The only thing that come close to any sort of accountability of Government in the terms of reference is the following  – which I quoted above but will quote again: 

‘(11) direct the Commissioner to set out findings and lessons

learned, including on the use of the Emergencies Act and

the appropriateness and effectiveness of the measures

taken under the Emergency Measures Regulations and the

Emergency Economic Measures Order, and to make

recommendations, as pertains to the matters examined in

the Public Inquiry, on the use or any necessary

modernization of that Act, as well as on areas for further

study or review,’

 That keeps it pretty general don’t you think?  

Don’t get too specific with the Government and pose terms to get at the embarrassing issues like the science and the constitutionality. Nothing to force these matters to be studied! 

And then the Commissioner gets to hire and fire whom he wants. Quote:

(v) authorize the Commissioner to:

(A) adopt any procedures and methods that they may

consider expedient for the proper and efficient

conduct of the Public Inquiry, to accept submissions

in the manner they choose, including electronically,

and sit at any times, in any manner and in any place

in Canada that they may decide, – 

(B) at the Commissioner's discretion, grant any

person who in the Commissioner's assessment would

provide necessary contributions to the Public Inquiry

and satisfies the Commissioner that they have

a substantial and direct interest in the subject matter

an opportunity for appropriate participation in it 

(C) recommend to the Clerk of the Privy Council that

funding be provided, in accordance with approved

guidelines respecting the remuneration and expenses

and the assessment of accounts, to any person

described in clause (B) if, in the Commissioner's view,

the person would not otherwise be able to participate

in the Public Inquiry, and

(D) at the Commissioners' discretion, engage

the services of the experts and other persons referred

to in section 11 of the Inquiries Act, and pay them

remuneration and expenses as approved by

the Treasury Board,’. 

Government through the Privy Council office controls a lot 

This so-called inquiry now called Public Order Emergency Commission to file its report by February 6, 2023  – just over four months from now. 

Big agenda for 4 months with Christmas season in the middle of it. 

And the Commission is already delayed in its start up date. 

Meanwhile the Commissioner, who one would think would have to be politically independent, no conflicts or perceived conflicts ( justice must not only be done, but to be perceived as being done) has as part of his biography that: ‘He was a partner with the law firms Heenan Blaikie from 2000 to 2002.

This is the law firm with which Pierre Eliot Trudeau, the present PM’s father, was involved on his retirement from active politics. 

This is all wrong – giving to the Government the role of appointment of the people to conduct an inquiry into that Government’s actions and then to give Government the power to determine the terms of reference to be used?  

Am I being a conspiracy theorist? Am I being disloyal, a bad citizen to want my Federal Government held accountable in an objective fashion? 

Canada has entered a new world  – -one of the misuse of power, of democracy being abandoned. This isn’t accountability, transparency, or the adherence to the two principles that are to guide The Charter of Rights and Freedoms – -the SUPREMACY of GOD AND THE RULE OF LAW. 



The Public Order Emergency Commission has a website:

I urge everyone to review this website and the full cabinet order establishing the Commission and those now employed by the Government to operate it. 

Aug. 31, 2022

When you have newly-resurrected Green MP Elizabeth May lamely saying perhaps we should have a Parliamentary debate or it might be appropriate to do so concerning spending money on war, you know we are in trouble as a democracy 

They are all feeding out of the public trough with little accountability. This is a Party that many thought held some promise to hold the political middle in our country and then they go and blow it all by showing everyone they cannot transition to new leadership, and who says if you are a member of the Party and you request it, the Party’s financials will be made available to you. How do you like those potatoes? Lots of transparency here. 

A recent article in the Hill Times shows the state of our Parliamentary system — an MP even suggests that the Parliamentary Committee on Defence should be involved in Government decisions to spend money and send Canadian soldiers to be engaged in the useless war in Ukraine, one of the most corrupt nations in the world. 

Here is the headline to that news story

Some MPs hope for more transparency on Canada’s military response to invasion of Ukraine’

So MPs are now a coterie of hope. 

No, no, do not as an elected MP demand that Parliament debate the deployment of soldiers to a useless war, just hope !! 

And to elaborate:

‘With media reports of Canadian special forces troops operating on the ground in Ukraine and the announcement of successive military deployments in response to Russia’s invasion, there has been limited willingness for increased parliamentary consultations, though some MPs are hoping that will change.’ 

If that does not reek of Executive Government I don’t know what does.

To continue: ‘Largely absent has been a loud call from the opposition benches to hold debates or votes on the missions. In the past, the opposition has called on the government to consult the House of Commons even in cases of non-combat deployments.

When the then-Conservative government pushed for special forces to be deployed in Iraq to train local fighters against ISIS in 2014, both the NDP and Liberals pushed for a vote. The Conservatives called for a debate in the House over Canada’s deployment of peacekeepers to Mali in 2018.

The lowly, ineffective NDP MP can only bark as her leader and Party abdicate their responsibilities as a opposition party – listen to her complain 

NDP MP Lindsay Mathyssen (London–Fanshawe, Ont.), her party’s defence critic, said she is constantly pushing for greater accountability and transparency, noting that all the parties are of the same opinion in support of Ukraine.

She said she has been discouraged and frustrated about some of the information that is not being released about Canada’s response to the Russian invasion.

She said the NDP wants to scrutinize all deployments abroad, but she said they recognize the executive jurisdiction over the deployments’ day-to-day operations.

Beyond the military response to the war, Mathyssen said there needs to be transparency over the effectiveness of the sanction regime and when Canada’s embassy will reopen in Ukraine. She added the government needs to be more clear about the tracking of weapons being sent to the combat zone.

She said it’s possible for the Liberal government to bring the non-combat deployments to the House for a debate.

“If I don’t know what’s going on, how am I supposed to ask the right questions?” she asked.

She said the House Defence Committee could be used far more effectively.

‘Those committee meetings could be held in camera. All Parliamentarians don’t want to put the men and women [of the military] at risk. They don’t want to jeopardize any sort of strategic gains no matter the operation,” she said. “You could use those in-camera sessions a bit more within that committee to achieve more of that accountability.”

Whistling in the dark. 

You think Parliamentary Committees could be used more effectively? Uh?? 

And her party does not publish audited financial statements on their website. And she is arguing for accountability and transparency?

If she had any spunk she would go to her leader and say this in unacceptable – and get as many feeble souls with her as she can and get out of that Party if integrity and responsibility is not restored. 

Some chance!

And Elizabeth May, that former tenacious political fighter, now submerged in the double speak of Ottawa exclaims she would like to see the House hold votes on Canada’s military response to the invasion.

 ‘I think it would be appropriate to have votes on specific military engagements of Canada in defending Ukraine,” she said. 

My my, I suspect she thinks she has now discharged her parliamentary responsibilities and all is well with the world. Let the war continue and our tax dollars be spent, while 5 million Canadians have no family physician – people dying and injured from experimental vaccines excused by a compliant press and professional organizations from coast to coast, all feeding off some Government trough directly or indirectly.

And then the spin is suffocating – read this in the same article;

‘The New York Times and Global News have also reported that Canadian special forces troops are operating on the ground in Ukraine for training and to arrange the shipments of weapons and equipment. The Canadian government has not confirmed nor denied those reports. Chief of the defence staff Wayne Erye told the CBC earlier this month that Canada is “never going to talk about discreet or sensitive special operations or confirm or deny them,” citing risks to Canadian soldiers and feeding Russian disinformation.’

Note, the Government ‘has not confirmed or denied’ and most brazenly it is an unelected spokesman for the Government who responds, not a Minister, not a parliamentary Secretary, not the adolescent PM who calls us racists, not an elected MP in a parliamentary committee. But the Chief of Defence Staff who will protect his behind all the way to the next promotion.  

Ah, and now lets go to those experts who are always around to chip in their bit for democracy – can’t have a news article without the arm chair experts can you? 

Rideau Institute president Peggy Mason, a former ambassador for disarmament, said deployments should involve parliamentary consultations even when they are non-combat in nature.

‘The fact that they are non-combat missions should make the issue of transparency easier, because, of course, there’s always the operational component when there’s an active combat mission,” she said.

Mason said the real problem is that Parliamentarians want to show their absolute support for Ukraine and, thus, have concluded that there doesn’t need to be parliamentary scrutiny and transparency.

‘Believing that it is right to support Ukraine doesn’t translate into [saying] that every single action that a government takes purportedly in support of Ukraine is the right action or a good action or an appropriate action,” she said. “In my view, it is an abdication of responsibility by Parliamentarians to apparently have made this decision.” 

Carleton University professor David Carment, who studies Canadian foreign policy and conflict mediation, echoed Mason saying there needs to be more transparency and accountability in Parliament over the deployments.

“Unfortunately, there is very little room for dissent … or debate,” said Carment, editor of the Canadian Foreign Policy Journal.

He said without the parliamentary debate, what is missed are conversations about the potential long-term consequences of Canada’s actions. 

“Canadians need to be apprised of the actions the government is taking, and more specifically, the cost involved in doing these kinds of things,” he said. “Most of these announcements have been made without much public debate.”


Who thought that in 2022 academics in Canada would be talking about parliamentary oversight about spending money on a real war. One would have thought it would be a given – because you know we are so much more democratic that that ugly beast to the south. They actually have House and Senate Committees and brave Governors who exert their powers under the Constitution. 

So as I have previously written, the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary, in mangling our Constitution, the three pillars of our democracy, have failed us and we waddle around seeking leaders in old mainstream parties that have failed us and perpetrate our democratic failures. 


Aug. 19, 2022

Joe Clarke, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Stephen Harper – What happened to them ?  

I was a campaign leader in Joe Clarke’s leadership campaign, I supported Brian Mulroney in federal elections, and Campbell and Harper. 

Where is their freedom moxie now? They have all fled the coop.

Remember when Mulroney as prime minister fought against Apartheid in South Africa, for freedom and rights for the native black population? 

When Harper talked of smaller government, the individual! Of equality for all regions of the country. 

I focus on these two former Conservative prime ministers because they both spent the most time leading a federal government. Both supported the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Now, nowhere to be found.

Harper makes a brief statement endorsing one of the present candidates for leader without one word about the flagrant violations of the Charter by governments across the land. Of the doctors who have been maligned, the many who have been injured from delayed surgeries, some died, those injured from experimental vaccines, some even died. Peoples’ jobs and security.  

And Mulroney supporting the vaccine mandate for MPs, swallowing the Liberal/NDP falsehood that it was safe and effective in October 2021 (CTV) in an interview while ignoring the study by our own Professor Douglas Allen of Simon Fraser University in April of that year. It shows after reviewing 80 studies that the cure was worse than the disease in any cost benefit analysis. 

But we all know that these two ‘leaders’ have sold out to the globalists interests.

One has only to look at their post PM history.

Mulroney has been busy on all types of Corporate Boards from Archer Daniel Midland, Barrick Gold, to a Communist Chinese Trust and Investment company, big banker J.P. Morgan Chase and Harper involved internationally in security and cyber technology in Israel and the United States. And who knows what other companies and countries? 

So they are out making money and enhancing their business interests and using their considerable influence to please their international corporate clients. 

Their interests now in defending Canadians rights and freedoms is secondary to their desire to make money and gain global acceptance.  

They have abandoned their advocacy of democratic principles which they so quickly adopted when looking for votes. They have let down the people.  

History will not be kind.