Most Canadians are ignorant.....

 .....about our constitution.  I reacted to a letter in 'The Herald' the other day about some guy saying we don't need the Queen and we should dump the Monarchy.  Really?!  How do you suppose we do that?!  Here's what I wrote, published today:

Since it's hard to read, here it is:

"Dear Editor,

" It’s not simply a matter of firing the Queen as Head of State.  To do so would require a complete overhaul of the Canadian Constitution Act accompanied by complicated and interminable federal/provincial negotiations.  These would have to result in the agreement of all provinces and territories at the same time and even then, the provinces and territories would have another three years in which to change their minds.  That’s the law.

"The last time the constitution was opened up, it was simply to patriate it from Britain.  Those of us who were around then remember the exercise was fraught because opening the constitution for one thing meant opening it up for everything and anything else.  That’s when the pandora’s box bursts, with premiers making much mischief to please their electorates and fatten their coffers. 

 "So, no the Queen will remain as Head of State because to change anything would simply be too complicated.

"Nancy Marley-Clarke"

_________________________

My letters always go in "as is", which is why so many are published 'cause it's less work for the editorial page editor.  When it comes to all things "constitutional", I get all my material from B because he was one of the people who held the pen on The Constitution Act of 1982.  Why Canadians are not taught this subject is a mystery to me?!  What I had forgotten to include in the letter was the fact that after the provinces agree, two-thirds of all Canadians would have to vote in favour.  So, as you can plainly see, it will never happen.

I know many of my friends have as strong opinions as I, but none write letters to the editor.  Why is that?  It doesn't take courage to put your beliefs and thoughts out there.  I wish other like-minded friends would do it.   

Is she serious?!

 Here's the headline in today's 'Globe and Mail':

Is Tam serious!?  She's the "approach" that she says has to be changed!  Also saw her on TV yesterday, holding a press conference to release the Health Agency's annual report, and she talked about what had gone wrong and what needs to change.  Whaaaaaaat?!  Could not believe my eyes and ears!  She's what went wrong.  She's what needs to be changed.  Trudeau should have fired her a long time ago.  But, of course, he's a "feminist" and a guy who resolutely doubles down on every bad decision he makes, so she'll stay.  Did anyone notice that a couple of people who worked for Tam resigned?  Either they knew the place was a mess, or they were dumped as the cause.  The 'Globe's' editorial today asks this question:

Tam's how we got here.  

Let me tell you, back in the day, Ministers were fired for messes like this and Hajdu should also have been dumped months ago.  But, of course, she's another female and won't be -- in spite of the fact that on top of her disastrous handling of this file -- including laughingly caught on camera hanging out at Pearson without a mask -- she has bungled the whole sorry mess.  This is the Health Minister, for Gawd's sake!  

The third candidate for the waste bin is the incompetent Lucki.  I'm with the natives on this one.  Her handling of the Nova Scotia lobster fiasco, along with other national messes and tragedies, is grounds for her to be cut loose.  And don't get me started on the ridiculous Freeland!  Knows everything about everything and never listens to anyone.

All these women set the rest of us back 50 years.  

    

Back to the future

 "Remember when we worked in Transport Canada and ran the federal presence for EXPO '86," I said to my dear friend in Ottawa on the phone tonight.  "Remember we used to fly to Vancouver every month swanning around in our mink coats in the Hotel Vancouver, praying no religious animal-rights lunatic would spray us with green paint?"  

"Oh God, yes," she laughed.  "Mine was only female pelts," she bragged.  I have no clue what gender mine was, but I loved that mink coat.

So, after having had a root canal today, I rewarded myself with a mink coat.  

I tried to buy one in freezing-cold Calgary, but couldn't!?  What's up with that?!  Left messages and emails and no one called me back.  So, I went on Amazon.  Sure enough, a New York retailer was only too happy to take my $4,700!  I will be getting my beautiful, full-length mink shortly.  I am thrilled!  

What's money for?!  Can't wait to wear it!  Mink is the warmest fur, but also the lightest.  

___________________________________

Just wanted to post a few observations about my stepdaughter.  No judgments, you be the objective judge:

1.  In the nine years we have lived here, she has visited once;

2.  She never phones her father; B has to actually make appointments and wait days to call his grandchildren in Houston.  Even then, when he waits all day, they usually aren't home when he calls;

3.  We couldn't visit our cottage in Quebec this summer because of COVID, but she did and stayed in the cottage we had booked.  No thank you whatsoever.

4.  We have spent about $75,000 for B (and me a few times) to fly to Washington and Houston many times and sponsor his daughter and grands.  Never a thank you.

As I said, you be the judge of the disrespect B (who cares about me?!) has suffered.

I do.

Senator Sinclair is right

 "I want to reassure the people of Nova Scotia, the Mi'kmaq and all Canadians that we are managing this issue," said the usually MIA Brenda Lucki, RCMP commissioner.  I burst out laughing!  She actually said this in the face of the unspeakable violence taking place over the lobster fishery, in which people are being seriously assaulted and buildings burned to the ground while the RCMP stands around doing nothing.  

Managing it!?  She's managing it into the ground.  While failing to stop a group from attacking two storage facilities holding native catches, throwing rocks, setting a van on fire and restraining fishermen, Lucki didn't even address the criticism of the force's weak and non-existent response.  Didn't even address it!  All she said was that the RCMP was "deeply concerned by the acts of violence".  Deeply concerned!?  A police force charged with dealing directly with it is "deeply concerned"?!

Gawd!  Of course the problem is that some judge back in 1999 in the Donald Marshall case ruled that Indigenous people were entitled by treaty to earn a "modest livelihood" in the fishery.  What does "modest" mean"?  That's the sticking point.  The other problem is that natives think they can fish out-of-season, which will eventually destroy the stocks.  The cod stocks fiasco anyone?    

Senator Murray Sinclair said, "It's the same old song and dance, 'We're working on it, we're investigating it.'  Her response flies in the face of the evidence."  He's absolutely right.  When confronted with the violence, the RCMP said it was there to "observe and keep the peace".  What a joke!  Lucki has been absent from a number of confrontations in Canada -- starting with the shootings in Nova Scotia to the Snowbird crash and the tragic loss of life in B.C. to this latest debacle.  

She should resign because sadly "feminist" Trudeau definitely won't fire her.  She's a disgrace to the uniform and her gender and sets women back 50 years.  

______________________

Here's another couple of issues 'The Globe and Mail' devotes too much space to and about which I don't care:  Whatever is happening in Nagorno-Karabakh and Nigeria.  What has any of this to do with Canadian national issues?  Who cares? 

One issue I do care about is the rampant scourge of "cancel culture" in Canadian universities.  The latest uproar is over a professor's use of the "n-word" in teaching a class about how various groups and cultures have taken back use of such words as "queer" and "n-gger".  Apparently, she had the audacity to actually speak the word and people went insane!  The University of Ottawa is the same rabid place that forbade US arch-conservative Ann Coulter from speaking a few years ago.

What has become of places like Ottawa U and Queen's -- where MacDonald Hall has been purged of the name of Canada's first and founding prime minister.  That's an outrage!  At Ottawa U, the president, Jacques Fremont, said he will be making "meaningful" changes to ensure people feel "safe".  Students have been told they can switch classes if they feel they are suffering "microaggression".  WTF?!!

Apparently, now white professors do not have the right to freedom of expression.  That basic principle has now taken a back seat to the "right to dignity" of minority groups.  Academic freedom in my book includes the freedom to offend, even if that most definitely was not this professor's intention.  Fremont suspended her and said she could have chosen not to use the full n-word.  "But she did and is now facing the consequences."

As my six-year-old granddaughter says, "What an idiot."  Yes, she picked that expression up listening to my outbursts in the car from the back seat.

"The consequences?  What is that supposed to mean?" writes Konrad Yakabuski in today's 'Globe'.  "That she was asking for online harassment and threats directed at her by daring to treat her students as adults?"  He posits that if these people are so offended, perhaps a university classroom is not the place for them.

Many professors signed a letter supporting this professor, but many were too afraid to come out publicly in support because of "the consequences".  This is beyond acceptable.    

      

Absolutely no objectivity

 Watching 'The Sunday Scrum' this morning, the panelists were asked about their thoughts on the lobster fishery mess in Nova Scotia, where licensed fishermen and local natives are literally at war.  One of the panelists was a black woman, the other a native.  Predictably, both reverted to standard and predictable positions:  The Black woman blamed colonialism and the native blamed the Whites and RCMP.  

Why is it that people from these demographics are incapable of being objective?  That was a rhetorical question.  Moving onto the Julie Payette scandal, in which taxpayers have been fleeced for more than $100,000 in legal fees to defend an incompetent governor general from a lawsuit alleging she mistreated staff and created a toxic workplace, my first question is, "Why do we have a governor general whose imperious behaviour puts her in this position?"  My second question is:  "Why did Trudeau appoint a woman who disgraces the Queen and tarnishes the position?"  My third question is:  "Why did the PM's staff not properly vet this woman to find out what was in her background?"

In commenting, the Black "expert" actually said, "Frankly, I don't think we need a governor general."  Wow!  How ignorant.  The governor general is Canada's Head of State, representing The Crown in Canada.  To eliminate this position, Canada would have to become a republic, which would involve a massive overhaul of the constitution and impossibly complicated negotiations with Britain, the provinces and territories.  Never going to happen.  Why do uninformed people just throw comments like that around willy-nilly?  And why do the other journalists and moderator on the panel not say something?  Do none of them know how the constitution works?  Another rhetorial question.  

To the third question, it is well-known that when she was still married and living in a Washington suburb, police were called numerous times to her residence to respond to "domestic disturbances".  That I know for a fact because I have a friend who was one of the officers on the force at the time.  My overall assessment, shared by those in-the-know, is that she is an hysteric, out-of-touch and insane.  (Reminds me of B's ex.  Thank G-d we no longer have to deal with that lunatic; 10 years was more than enough of that bull-sh-t.)  

But back to native issues.  Got a feed about the 'First Nations Child and Family Services" program and just for fun, googled the numbers and annual reports -- my favourite hobby horse on this file.  The budget for this nonsense was a whopping $1.1 billion in 2018-19, rising to $1.4 billion over the next six years!  First of all, why are such an inordinate number of native children in care in the first place?  (Another rhetorical question.)  This money is to, "ensure the safety, security and well-being of Indigenous children."  Isn't this the parents' responsibility?  Ah, but let's not quibble about fundamentals. 

The organization's principle aim is to reduce the number of native children in care, yet the budget is going up?!  Again, let's not quibble.  

The report says the funding is to be managed and controlled by First Nations.  That's an issue, in my view, allowing the inmates to manage the asylum, as the expression goes.  The problem has steadily grown worse since the program was introduced.  Instead of improving the situation, funding has exploded from $449.5M to what it is now.  That's a 69.7% increase with no apparent improvement in the lives of native children.  

In 1998, 7,220 children were in care.  Now that number is up to 9,078, with average annual maintenance costs per child a ridiculous $41,353.10!  And that does not include post-adoption costs and other expenditures on prevention and operations.  Think about it:  A majority of entire Canadians families live on much less than what is forked out for one native child.  And I'm not even going to get out the calculator to figure that one out.  Too depressing.

Folks, it's your money, but Cindy Blackstock sure has done well hasn't she!  The program's home page contains a big, conspicuous "donate" button.  With their track record and the tax dollars they already chew up, I wouldn't give them one cent.      

 

      

Not pretty

 Sporadically watching the grilling of Amy Coney Barrett by the US Senate Judiciary Committee, I am disgusted by the performances of Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein.  Although both know the Republican majority will approve her appointment, they nonetheless continue to ask ridiculous questions they know she can't, or won't, answer.  

With a peerless record and pedigree, she steadfastly sticks to the facts, saying she will not answer hypothetical taunts on cases she has not heard.  Harris and Feinstein keep harping on about abortion, LGBTQ rights, health care and other issues completely unrelated to her qualifications for the position.

They can't attack her on race because of her seven children -- SEVEN! -- two are black.  And they can't attack her on religion because last time anyone checked, religious freedom is enshrined.  It is jarring to see two women attacking another.  It doesn't do us any good and renders our gender shrill and more anti-woman than any man could accomplish.

Coney Barrett does not believe judges should make law.  She believes this is the role of political, elected officials.  She believes -- and rightly so -- that the role of the judiciary is to enforce the law.  This is in sharp contrast to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who stepped outside her authority and imposed her own wishful beliefs on decisions rendered.  That's exactly what Beverly Mclaughlin did over and over again.  Who do these people think they are?  

I am very impressed with Amy Coney Barrett and her steely resolve.  She is articulate, poised and precise.  Good choice.

Other women these days are not impressive.  For example, once again the incompetent Brenda Lucki is dodging and avoiding the issue of the lobster fishing debacle in Nova Scotia.  She is nowhere to be found, just like she was MIA when that shooting rampage happened in New Brunswick and the Snowbirds crashed in BC.  She's the reason Jason Kenney wants to get rid of the RCMP and create an Alberta provincial police force:  Incompetence.

I also am not impressed with new secretary general of Amnesty International.  Ketty Nivyabandi says she has a single agenda:  Anti-Black and Indigenous racism.  Frankly, there's a lot more to focus on.     

Amazing refugees!

 Before I talk about a family of Syrian refugees who came to Canada destitute four years ago, I want to talk about the 1942 movie, 'Mrs. Miniver'.  That's how I feel these days, when B goes out to do battle in the grocery stores, just as Walter Pigeon did in the movie.  While  I stay on the home front and do household chores and cook, he slaves in the trenches risking life and limb to keep the larder full.  Aren't the grocery and liquor stores amazing!  They have kept us all stocked and for that I am very grateful.  

But back to the Syrian refugees.

The folio story in 'The Globe and Mail' today was a wonderful account of a Syrian family who arrived in Calgary four years ago and three days after landing, was starting to experiment with growing different kinds of vegetables in their new backyard.  Vegetable farmers in their native country, they were determined to become vegetable farmers in their new country.  And boy, have they succeeded!  Given a corner of a canola field northeast of Calgary when they started, they have since donated 952 kilograms of beets and other fresh produce to the Calgary Food Bank.

952 kilograms!  Now they tend six acres and all five children are part of the enterprise.  This year, they grew approximately 9,100 kg of food, most of which they sold, but a generous amount of which they donated to the food bank.  The father applied for, and was granted, a permit to build a greenhouse, which he hopes to expand to seven.

This is a beautiful success story of a family that arrived in Calgary with nothing, but which has flourished and given generously back to the city that welcomed them.  

This is a lesson natives should learn from.  They have vast tracts of land in the form of the reserves they inhabit.  Why don't they take the initiative and do something useful and productive with them?  Why not indeed?

Guess we should ask Perry Bellegarde that question.  Instead of asking for more, give back, Perry.  Show some gratitude and do something for your people and the rest of Canada.  Here is the family of which I write, hard at work:

  

Sad

 This is monstrosity is Barbara Amiel.  A wonderful writer, married to Conrad Black, she has now debased herself with a few too many face lifts.  She actually used to be gorgeous, but now looks like a cadaver.  Her face skin may actually have previously been around her neck, so high has it been pulled up and fastened to her hairline.  

Speaking of Conrad Black, I went to Carleton at the same time as he.  He used to hang around the canteen, trying to get a date.  Couldn't.  Funny what money will do.  

But what are the questions?

 Everyone seems to know the answers to what ails natives, but no one ever asks the questions?  Sans question, the answer is always "more money", but isn't $16.8 billion enough for 1,674,000 natives?  I'd think so, but no one ever mentions this.  Why?!

Read a sad story in 'The Globe and Mail' today about six Inuit women who were being sentenced for public drunkenness.  All had large families, but here they were being charged for abandoning their children while in drunken states.  As a mother, this disturbs me greatly.  

Then we have the story of Joyce Echaquan, the native woman who filmed her own death in a hospital in the Maritimes.  A mother of seven, she was also found drunk and on Meth in the public thoroughfare.  Again, no one ever mentions the problem:  Remote reservations where there is nothing to do but collect money, drink and do drugs.  

What does the media talk about?  How she was tortured and left to die.  Why did the nurses and orderlies tell her she had no one to blame but herself?  Because that was the truth.  To be so dismissive of, and fed up with, Ms. Echaquan, they must have seen countless cases such as hers.  Is it any wonder that they simply threw up their hands and tried to treat her?  The easy answer was to fire a couple of people, so that's what they did.  Ms. Echaquan, however, remains a mother-of-the-year saint.   

The media NEVER talks about the huge resources given natives.  NEVER.  Today on 'Power Play' Evan Solomon interviewed Bob Fife and all Bob went on about was how 34% of all inmates are native, yet represent only 2% of the population.  Why is that, Bob?  Ever asked yourself?  No, because that's another question no one ever answers.  Again, remote reservations in which there is nothing meaningful to do.  And the other question is:  Why are they stuck on these reservations?  Because that's how their leaders get money via The Indian Act.     

And then we have the never-ending marches about 'Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Children'.  The RCMP stats tell you who's murdering them:  Their own relatives.  Look them up.  It's all so wrong and tragic for natives to be treated and duped like this by their own leadership.  They are the ones who suffer, not their leaders.  Perry Bellegarde should hang his head in shame. 

           

70 years

That's how long it has taken for the Ring Road to become operational.  Why?  Because a couple of feet of it had to pass through Tsuu T'ina land and no government had apparently offered the residents enough money to let it go through.  

Actually, when I call it "Tsuu T'ina" land I mean Crown Land because all native reserves are on Crown Land, given them for their exclusive use.  But $225 million was all it took for them to finally agree to let it be built.  Oh, and another $68 million given to the few families that actually have to move.  The entire population of Tsuu T'ina is 2,052.  Do the math:  That's $144,249 per resident -- over and above what we give them every year.  What do they receive as a matter of course every year?  $16,800,000,000 for 1,674,000 million natives.  Do the math again and weep.  

That's an outrage!  

Unless I am reading the definition of Crown Land incorrectly, or the Indian Act, Canada owns the land, but we had to fork over $293 million to people who don't even own it??!!  What am I missing here??!! 

Today, one resident cut off his braids in protest on behalf of his family that had to be displaced.  Here's what this reserve looks like and the "sacred" land they had to leave:

What a waste of two beautiful braids.

___________________________________

The big hullaballoo story here is about a school principal using the "n" word while teaching a class about avoiding the racial slur.  She apparently asked black students why it was OK for them to use the word, but not whites?  One of the students recorded the class (illegal, but who cares) and all hell broke loose!  A full-on investigation into this teaching moment has now been launched.  "There is no context that makes it acceptable for a white person to use the term," said Calgary's BLM spokesperson.  "This is the worst," one student railed.  "This is a power issue, where the principal has power over the students who have absolutely no power."

Really?  These days, students have all the power.  And anyway, who would ever use the word in daily conversation?  No one.  Adam Massiah, CEO of the United Black People's Allyship (there's a non-word for you, if ever there were one) said it was just another example of how systemic racism exists in Canada and in the educational system.  "White people can never use the term," he stressed.  "It parallels the historical context of the oppressor claiming power over the oppressed."  

Man, am I out of it!     

_________________________________________

On another note, does this sentence, part of a movie review in 'The Globe and Mail', make any sense to you?

"One of the greatest challenges of any biopic must surely be how to show the span and impact of a life, legendary or otherwise, within the length of a feature runtime.  Clocking in at just shy at 2 and 1/2, 'Frida' director Julie Taymor's latest film, The Glorias, confronts this obstacle with a heavy hand that elides complexities in favour of an idealistic and, some might say, ironically depoliticized view of its focus -- women's rights activist and trailblazer Gloria Steinem."

Me neither.