Your middle-of-the-week bounty ...
Carney's installation is more of the same that we've had for ten years.
For some reason, people voted for ten more years of this:
The election of Trump resulted in a surprising epiphany as many key federal Liberals, a government that presided over the demise of Northern Gateway and Energy East. There was sudden recognition of the strategic importance of a pipeline to the Pacific; also the urgent need to remove inter-provincial barriers to enhance internal trade.
Carney’s response — instead of removing the layers of legislation and regulation that hamstring the future of the energy sector — he passed Bill C-5. BTW, our brilliant PM, who, in his own words, “I understand these things better than others,” should know almost everything has an oil base.
The stated reason for the autocratic and unprecedented Bill C-5 was to gain power to accelerate projects to “build Canada.” In other words, override the legislation in place. It is fair to say that Canadians are underwhelmed. It is absolutely accurate to say that Westerners are disappointed and angry.
Carney has hired several high profile experienced people, including Tim Hodson, a respected investment banker who lived for a time in Calgary and was elected. But a funny thing happened on the way to the church — instead of utilizing Bill C-5 as advertised, his evolving position now requires consent from every aboriginal band and province through which such a pipeline would be constructed. He did that with the full knowledge (and the cynical side of me suspects collaboration) of the vehement opposition of the Premier of British Columbia, whose slim majority depends on the support of radical MLAs and allied eco-terrorists.
Rumours persist that the pipeline will go forward. But will it likely require lower emissions oil that Carney claims buyers are clamoring for, “Buyers of Canada’s resource — oil and gas, steel, and aluminum — are increasingly looking for low carbon sourcing?” What nonsense — even Central Canada buys oil from both Alberta and Saskatchewan, as well as many other sources by tanker without low emission conditions.
The strategic imperative and agreement to remove inter-provincial barriers also became old news as the Carney government soon thereafter introduced legislation, at the insistence of Quebec, enshrining the dairy cartel and provincial Marketing Boards from any international trade agreements. The fact that all parties supported this legislation again demonstrates where power lies in Canada and how legislation that benefits Quebec is inevitably favored even if it damages the rest of the country.
Not just a committed global climate soldier, this demonstrates Carney is a politician who can quickly turn an important national strategic objective into a self-serving political opportunity. Carney has endorsed the Federal Liberal power game — give to Quebec and receive political support. From a Western perspective, this is repugnant and sleazy, but effective in denying any voice for almost half the country.
The above are recent and blatant examples of our current leadership, and only the tip of the iceberg as we are already aware of too many comments from our Prime Minister which do not coincide with the facts. He follows his own “human values,” not trusting market values, which are always the aggregation of the values of everyone. Do we need his top down values; did we ask for them?
Also:
The Department of Housing admits it faked a construction site as backdrop for Prime Minister Mark Carney’s promise of “faster, smarter” home construction. The department billed taxpayers $32,707 to have contractors install a temporary structure for television cameras: “The homes have since been disassembled.”
**
Conservative MP Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park-Fort Saskatchewan, Alta.) yesterday accused cabinet of taking steps to pad job creation figures under the Canada Summer Jobs program. Genuis pointed to a federal guide that recommended employers keep postsecondary students on the payroll for as little as eight weeks: “You’re trying to artificially show a high number of jobs created.”
(Sidebar: they may be planning this sort of thing again.)
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly never read a Stellantis contract that awarded the automaker $15 billion in subsidies, her deputy yesterday disclosed. Joly had defended the agreement following the company’s October 14 announcement of 3,000 job cuts: “Who is the boss?”
When did Freeloader represent her constituents? When?:
Chrystia Freeland may still hold a seat in the House of Commons, but politically and geographically, she appears already gone. With her new appointment as CEO of the Rhodes Trust in Oxford beginning in July 2026, Freeland is positioning herself for a future far outside Canadian public life while continuing to occupy a taxpayer-funded parliamentary seat she no longer intends to defend or actively represent.
It is a move that feels less like public service and more like a carefully timed exit from accountability.
The Rhodes Trust has confirmed the role is full-time and based in the UK. That leaves little room for interpretation.
A full-time job in Britain is not compatible with full-time representation of constituents in Toronto.
Yet Freeland has given no indication she plans to step aside, call a by-election, or allow her riding to choose someone willing to actually show up. Instead, she is set to spend the next year collecting her MP salary while preparing to relocate overseas.
Freeland’s departure from cabinet in 2025 was framed with emotional language about gratitude and democratic renewal.
At the time, she insisted she wasn’t leaving politics entirely and would continue to serve her riding.
But now that she has secured a prestigious new position at one of the world’s most exclusive institutions, that promise looks like political theatre rather than commitment. She said the right things while negotiating her next opportunity, then walked away from responsibility once her future abroad was locked in.
Some in government may be happy to pretend nothing is wrong. After all, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s minority Liberals are two seats short of a majority.
Losing Freeland’s seat, even temporarily, risks triggering a by-election the Liberals might lose, further weakening the government. So politically, it is convenient for her to remain where she is.
But what benefits the Liberal Party does not necessarily benefit Canadians, and it certainly does not benefit the people of University–Rosedale.
Freeland’s defenders have already begun building a narrative that her global experience justifies her continued presence in Parliament.
They point to her work as a Rhodes Scholar, her international career in journalism, her time as a senior minister, and her ongoing role as Canada’s special envoy for the reconstruction of Ukraine.
The implication is that she operates on a higher plane than ordinary MPs, and her value lies in symbolism and influence rather than constituency service.
But representation is not symbolic. It is practical. It requires being present, being accountable, answering to the people who elected you, and doing the unglamorous work of responding to concerns about housing, transit, taxes, crime, immigration bottlenecks, and day-to-day governance. A riding does not need a celebrity ambassador. It needs an elected representative. That basic expectation is now in question.
Freeland’s move reflects a growing pattern among political elites, particularly within the Liberal Party.
Elected office is treated less as a responsibility and more as a pipeline to international organizations, corporate boards, and exclusive fellowships. When political careers end, the next stop is rarely retirement.
It is usually Davos, the UN, the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, or, in Freeland’s case, a centuries-old scholarship foundation rooted in Britain’s most powerful academic network.
In this context, her refusal to resign immediately feels less like service and more like entitlement. If she knows she is leaving, and if she admits she will not run again, why hold onto the seat. The answer is unpleasant but likely accurate. The Liberals need the number, and Freeland prefers a quiet, dignified glide path to her next role rather than answering to voters who might reasonably feel abandoned.
The airhead is coasting.
I don't think people are horrified by abortion.
They happily numb and culturally schizophrenic.
Cultures like that don't live long:
“Your health has to be in danger? ...they don’t ask you anything? You don’t have to prove you’re at risk?”
“No, absolutely not. Just let us know and we refer.”
The employee’s tone is perfectly calm. Routine, routine, even. A woman 22 weeks pregnant is asking about ending the life of her preborn child on the cusp of viability, for no reason whatsoever, and the response is as monotone as confirming the time of her next appointment.
This scene plays out in Toronto. Then in Montreal. Then in Vancouver. Three cities. Three clinics. Three nearly identical conversations.
The grainy undercover footage doesn’t shock with gore or screams. It doesn’t need to. Its horror is deeper, born from the quiet of routine. Late-term abortions in Canada can be arranged with the same energy as booking a haircut.
The videos show how easily late-term abortions are obtained. No medical justification is required. No extraordinary circumstances. Just a date, a signature, and a hospital referral.
The casualness is the first unsettling piece of the story.
The second comes from the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI), the independent national agency that compiles hospital discharge data. And this is where the quiet dread becomes something else entirely.
Every year, Canada performs hundreds of late-term abortions after 20 weeks.
Most years, it’s over a thousand.
These aren’t theoretical figures. They’re the hospital’s own numbers — clinical, coded, and impossible to wish away.
Most hospitals use induction — induced labour and delivery — after a feticidal, heart-stopping injection is administered to still the heartbeat of the fetus. And sometimes, despite the intent of the procedure, the child is born alive.
The CIHI data captures this as well; buried a little deeper in its tables are the lines marking how many of these late-term abortions end in a live birth. (CIHI lists 123 live-birth outcomes in Canada, excluding Quebec, last year.)
What CIHI does not capture is why those abortions were performed. Politicians and pro-abortion activists, though, assure the public that late-term abortions “almost never happen,” and if they do, they occur only in dire medical emergencies.
The videos say otherwise. And so does the data.
A 2023 Quebec study found that nearly one in three abortions between 20 and 29 weeks (30.9%) were performed for “other” reasons — not for fetal anomalies, nor for life-threatening maternal emergencies.
The reality matches exactly what the undercover videos show: late-term abortion in Canada is often elective.
In most every horror story, there is a moment when the reader realizes the monster is not outside the window — it’s already in the room. Since 1988, when the Supreme Court struck down Parliament’s abortion law — not to enshrine abortion as a right, but to compel legislators to act — Ottawa has done nothing. For nearly four decades, federal legislators have abandoned their responsibility.
**
People usually deflect when they are caught:
Frederique Chabot, executive director at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, took issue with anti-abortion activist Alissa Golob secretly filming OBGYNs in conversation about obtaining a late-term abortion. (Golob was 22 weeks pregnant at the time and posing undercover as someone interested in obtaining one.)
Chabot called these “American tactics,” which is beyond parody. She accused Golob of trying to make OBGYNs look like “back-alley, sketchy” operators — which isn’t really what I got from Golob’s videos, incidentally, so it’s interesting Chabot would go there.
(Sidebar: what are "American tactics"? Is there American walking too?)
Dr. Lynn Murphy-Kaulbeck, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada, told Toronto Today the videos were nothing more than “disinformation.” She didn’t explain what was disinforming about them.
Pro-abortionists never do.
Were they to be so forthcoming, the illusion is gone.
Please - Canada did nothing when 332 people were blown up.
Iranian-born, Israeli terrorism expert Beni Sabti says the persistent presence of anti-Israel Hamas supporters in Canadian streets, their intimidation of Christians through mass prayers outside of churches and their open threats to the media are well-known forms of Islamist aggression. According to Sabti, Canada should be concerned about the possibility of its own October 7. ...
“Exporting the revolution, giving birth to and exporting terrorist groups is part of the Iranian regime. The names (of the groups) are not important. Terror is the most important mission inside and outside Iran, outside is even more important,” he says. “These regimes have to reflect their image, superiority and power, in order to expand. Iranians actually co-operate with Russia and China. They learned it from them.”
B.C.’s public school teachers are being encouraged by their union to bring gay, trans and even drag queen themes to outdoor education, as part of their larger mission of “queering their pedagogy.”
I would advise actual teaching of actual subjects, but, you know, BC, so ...
No comments:
Post a Comment