More billions

Canada's immigration system is a mess.  So is our "management" of asylum seekers.  Both are destroying the country's economy and culture.  This headline tells you all the proof you need about the latter:

And that number doesn't even include the extra $1.5 billion given provinces to deal with their own messes.  So that's $2.6 billion and we're absolutely nowhere on either file.  As I keep saying, countries have borders for a reason.  Why can't we enforce them?

The department of immigration used to be called, "Employment and Immigration".  Remember that?  Immigration was tied to employment needs.  What a concept!  But successive governments since the fifties have mucked it up with all sorts of other categories which have nothing to do with benefiting Canada -- you know, family unification, humanitarian grounds, blah blah blah....

Right now it is estimated that we have 500,000 illegal migrants in Canada, working and hiding in various sectors.  Legal immigration is also currently projected to be 500,000, so we have equal numbers in both categories.  That's dumb.

What are we doing at the borders?  The country currently budgets $224 per illegal per day.  Do the math, it's ridiculous.  Most are staying in federally-funded hotels -- some fully-booked for this purpose alone, like in Cornwall -- which means that ordinary Canadians can't enjoy them.  As I say, the whole thing is ridiculous. 

So far, Carney is doing zilch about the whole expensive shambles.  Is it just me, or does anyone else see how weak he is?  He has no presence, no gravitas and no leadership on any file.  Jim Balsillie says Carney's working with outdated economic models from the seventies, which bear no relation to how economies must be managed today.  I'm no economist, but that sounds about right.  By the way, Carney is no economist either, in case you thought he was; his PhD is in philosophy.

As I say, if you voted for the guy, hang your head. 

As an aside, why did he hang out and have a sleepover in his jammies with Doug Ford at the latter's cottage during the recent fed/prov meeting in Huntsville?  What an idiotic thing to do!  Talk about no judgement, that just undermines the whole process because obviously he and Dougie cooked up some side deals no one else was privy to.  As I have said, Dumb.      

I don't care!

That's my newest go-to comment on just about everything.  "Did you know that so-and-so has moved to Timbuktu?" B will say.  "I don't care!" I will shoot back.  'Cause I don't.  

These days, I have to focus on the little bits of minutia and data I need to remember in my ever-shrinking brain because they're important to me.  Stuff to do with my kids or grandkids, getting B's next batch of pills ready, finding my bathing suit, towel and goggles, checking to see if I'm out of wine.  You know, important stuff.

So, when I was in line at the bank the other day -- because their on-line system is for computer PhDs only -- I was more than a little annoyed by the guy behind me who started up a conversation.  "I don't care!" I almost screamed.  In the space of about 10 minutes I knew this guy's entire life story.  Where he was born, how long he'd lived in Cochrane, where he had just vacationed, all his ailments, aches and pains, where he gets his hair cut, what his dog did this morning, what his departed sainted wife was like....and on-and-on-and-on!

I don't care!!

Why do some people feel the need to vomit up their lives to complete strangers?  Don't worry, I was unfailingly polite and feigned sincere interest because that's how I was reared, but I just wanted to get to the teller, do my business and get the hell out of there.

So, with apologies to that guy in line, "I don't care!"

You knew it was futile

What was Mark Carney thinking when he decided to "consult" mostly after-the-fact with Indigenous leaders about Bill C-5?!  He rammed the bill through Parliament before it rose without adequate consultation with the natives.

Would any consultation ever be adequate?  Rhetorical.  Here is a letter I sent to 'The Globe and Mail', which didn't get in:

____________________________

Dear Editor,

While Indigenous leaders claim to support major infrastructure projects, their initial position is most often one of protest.  Mention the word "project" and the blockades, placards and press conferences shift into gear.

Consultation, cooperation and compromise are the only way forward.  However, "consultation" does not mean "veto" and this is where things fall apart.  I hope Mr. Carney's upcoming meeting with First Nations leaders bears fruit and allows industry to get moving with haste on key partnerships for resource development projects. 

But to make it happen, the old "us versus them" paradigm must be jettisoned.

Nancy Marley-Clarke

7 Glendale Way

Cochrane, Alta

403-710-9122 

________________________________

I knew it wouldn't because The Globe is increasingly woke these days, but I live in hope.  We need to strengthen and grow our economy, but the natives NEVER agree to anything.  Ever!  

You know who owns all native reserves?  The Crown.  Look it up.  "Native reserves in Canada are indeed on Crown land.  The legal title to reserve lands is held by the Federal Crown (the Government of Canada) for the use and benefit of a specific First Nation.  While the Crown holds the title, the land is set aside for the use and benefit of the First Nation."  

This is something Indigenous leaders apparently don't know.  They think it's their land.  It isn't, but the media never calls them on this inconvenient fact -- much to their shame.

So, why does every politician have to stand up and offer a "land acknowledgement" every time one stands up to make a speech?  Why do they always say, "We acknowledge we are on the ancestral lands of the...blah, blah, blah...nation."  Unnecessary because, as I say, it's Crown land owned by the Federal government.  

According to Chief Vernon Watchmaker of the Kehewin Cree Nation, "Bill C-5 centralizes power in Ottawa, lets cabinet override environmental laws, ignore treaty and inherent rights.  "This is not modernization, it is colonization in 2025. "  The problem is, chief, Ottawa does have power over what happens on Crown land.  You don't own it.    

"We must give free, prior and informed consent before anything is built," Watchmaker added.  The snag is that natives think this means they have a veto.  They don't.  Of course, Carney held the meeting behind closed doors, with no media access.  That was also dumb.  This isn't the bank, Mark.  The public has a right to know what you're up to.

Now nine Ontario First Nations have filed a lawsuit to have Bill C-5 struck down and have called for an injunction.  And as if that isn't enough, Carney now also has to consult with Métis leaders as well.  That'll go well.  Not. 

Chief Joey Pete of Sunchild First Nation in Alberta told a news conference that treaties must be honoured.  "We have to revenue share.  These are resources stolen from us illegally.  They were all ours to begin with."  

Really?  What were you doing with them?  Rhetorical.  Of course, natives want to share in the revenues, but will put no money up front to develop them.  

They vow more protests.  Of course they do.  At this rate, nothing will be developed and Canada's vast wealth will continue to be locked in the ground.  But the natives don't have any skin in the game; their billions will continue to flow from Canadian taxpayers regardless of what's developed or isn't.  The wealth we give them doesn't depend on getting anything to market.

A good solution would be for the Federal government to calculate what the yearly income of a project rejected by a native reserve would be and then deduct that amount from the $32 billion handed them every year.  In other words, you don't want that pipeline, here's how much your allotment will be reduced because of your objection.  That might have an impact.  Will the feds do that?  Never.

"There's gold in them thar hills," but it'll never get anywhere.

So once again, we're check-mated and doomed.  Poor Mark, aren't you glad you're the PM?  Not only are you getting pummeled by Trump, you're getting drubbed right here at home. 

 

Woke Insanity

This just shows you how incompetent the Federal Library and Archives is.  How can you remove historical documents if you are an archive??!!!  I don't know why I received this notification, but it highlights just how "woke" and insane Canada has become.  

This was sent to me by the 'Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy', located here in Alberta.  The chief archivist who is dismantling the historic record of Canada is Leslie Weir:

Needs to be fired.

Dear Nancy,

I am writing to you about one of our key priorities at the Aristotle Foundation: educating our fellow Canadians about why knowing history and learning from it is important.

This past week, two items crossed my desk that illustrate why it’s so critical to know history and learn from it. 

The first was a Blacklock’s story about how 7,000 pages were removed from the federal government’s Library and Archives Canada website. That included historical information about the RCMP, initially based on the complaint of one 'Toronto Star' reporter, Jacques Gallant.

The reason? The Chief Archivist told her staff “outdated historical content no longer reflects today’s context and may be offensive to many.”

What??!!  You're an archive!  You can't scrub history!

I tweeted about this on X (formerly Twitter) and noted the following: “This of course misses the point: Historical writings exist, including views in a previous era. To scrub that is to send history down an Orwellian memory hole in favour of a presumed omniscient interpretation of millennia of human history today.”

It turns out plenty of Canadians share our concern at the Aristotle Foundation—and yours—that nuance and context matter to history. Plus, it’s hard for people to learn from history when it’s “cleansed” because it might be “offensive.” As of this writing, 116,000 people viewed my X tweet.

This is positive. It shows Canadians care about our history. It reveals how many also think that erasing history because previous generations of Canadians were imperfect is immodest in the extreme: All of us are imperfect as well.

If you’d like to see the danger of being perfectionist about the past, watch our “George Orwell comes to Canada” video which has already been viewed by 18,000 people.

Aristotle Foundation

Good for him

CBC anchor Travis Dhanraj nailed it when he resigned.  He slammed the CBC for its culture of controlling journalists and editorials -- but mostly for being shameful Liberal backers.  He claims his attempts to interview Conservatives were routinely overruled and prevented him from practicing objective journalism, but he really let them have it and it's about time.

The taxpayers fund the Mother Corp to the tune of $1.2 billion per year and Carney just handed it another $205 million!!!!  The latter went a long way towards boosting free PR for the Liberals in the last election campaign.  Imagine handing the CBC more funding while it was covering an election you're running in!  

What do I always say about the odious Rosemary Barton?  David Cochrane?  Adrienne Arsenault?  Dhanraj doesn't mention any names, but we all know who he's talking about.  Ya, those three.

And then there's ex-president Catherine Tait -- she of the orange hair and smug, arrogant mien.  As I have blogged, I babysat her when she was a toddler and she was a spoiled brat back then. 

Arriving for her swaggering appearance at a Parliamentary hearing into CBC's out-of-control finances.

The CBC needs to cut the obscene bonuses its executives hand themselves.  Tait herself makes $520,000 a year, or $43,000 a month.  $43,000 a month!$%@#!!!  Under her are two exec vp's who make about $400,000 each and three ordinary vp's who pocket about $350,000!!!!!  Last year, just to top it all off, they handed themselves $16 million in bonuses!!!!!

But Dhanraj outed the whole bunch and kudos to him.  Now lawsuits are flying and it will be delicious to watch Tait, et al, squirm and face the music in court.  I can't wait!  An MP has called for a parliamentary committee investigation into the mess.  As I said, it'll be fun to watch!

__________________________

The latest incomprehensible move is that net-zero-green-lunatic Carney has come out publicly and said there's a "good chance" a pipeline will be built.  Just as he vowed Canada would become, "An energy powerhouse," he's weaseling his words again with "good chance".  A "powerhouse", but in what kind of energy?  A "good chance" smells like no chance to me.

His energy pronouncements always come with a "wink wink nudge nudge", which means they are not sincere.  

You'll notice it's not guaranteed.  The fact that Carney has kept Bill bill C48, aka the Tanker Ban in place off the coast of B.C. -- thank you David Eby -- means that any oil getting out of Alberta will not get past the West Coast.  Duh!

People need to wake up and realize the guy's a charlatan.  It's been revealed that he has major financial holdings in at least a 100 companies that could put him in a conflict of interest as PM, so he will have to recuse himself from debates on a myriad of files.  

It's not a good sign for the country if he continues to vote on issues that will influence the personal finances of this multi-millionaire.  As I said, if you voted for this fraud, you were had.

________________________

A word about Canada's doctor shortage:  I dearly wanted to go to medical school, but didn't have the math marks required at the time, so I lost out on my dream.  Frankly, why do you need math to practice medicine?  I have no clue!?  

Ironically, when I recently found my birth family, I discovered two of my five sisters are physicians.  I guess it's in the genes.

____________________________

Another word:  Wimbledon.  Spotting the great Stephan Edberg in the Royal Box, I long for the days of serve-and-volley magnificence; he and Martina were beautiful to watch.  Now it's all pound, pound, pound from the baseline until someone hits it out, or into the net. 

(Note: Alcaraz is the exception; he has all the shots.) 

The other thing is if you play hard-court tennis on grass, you'll fall on your ass, as so many players are doing.  Today's players don't practice on grass, so they're in trouble a lot of the time.  

The magnificent Edberg, my all-time favourite.

Ah, call me old-fashioned.....

I love Shania

...but she has had way too much work done on her once-beautiful face, in my opinion.  She was parade marshal here for the Stampede and then headlined the grandstand show.  I bet she was fabulous, but she no longer looks like herself.  I know she's battled Lime Disease, but that does not affect the face; she should have left it alone.

Shania today.

 

The original Shania

Anyone who's local, including us, does not go to the Stampede.  Outside of the Rodeo and the Chucks, it's just another garish side show and midway.  And the prices!  $30 for a hot dog and a beer!  Insanity!  We watch the rodeo on YouTube and it's fabulous!  

We're also watching Wimbledon.  If I have to listen to Aryna Sabalenka screaming on every shot, I'm going to scream louder!  Who permitted this freak show in the first place!?  It was Monica Seles who started it all and it has only become worse.  That's not tennis, in my old-fashioned world.  It's more like wrestling, or fighting in the parking lot fighting after last call.

And then there's Ben Shelton's wife-beater shirt.  What's that all about?!  When did Wimbledon start to permit sleeveless monstrosities like this?  They have also begun to permit the ladies to wear colour underwear.  It's a slippery slope, folks,  until full colour dress sneaks in and Wimbledon -- the last vestige of civilized tennis -- becomes just another tacky tournament.  

I am disappointed.  We were there a number of years ago to watch Federer defeat Andy Roddick in the men's final.  It was thrilling and no one wore coloured underwear. 

________________

On a personal note, chatting on the phone with an old friend of mine, she said, "Poor so-and-so, she had four kids!"  Really?!  I was supposed to feel sorry for this woman!!??  Her husband was a successful architect and mayor of Rockcliffe, for Gawd's sake.  How tough could it have been?  She didn't work outside the home, so I'm not getting out the crying towels.

I had two kids and two step kids, of whom I had custody.  I also worked fulltime, travelled and had to navigate B's ex, who was a nasty obstacle at every turn.  So don't tell me to be sympathetic to a rich woman who had four kids and stayed home.  Not gonna happen.

I have always worked.  I remember when I first got married (may Bob rest in peace) and said to myself, "There is no way I am going to ask a man for $2 for nylons."  I have never lived on a man's money and never will -- unlike Gloria Steinem, who had a rich guy finance her various projects.  

Yep, the Queen of Women's Lib was underwritten and supported by a man!  You could not make that up.  So, next time she's blabbing on about liberation and empowerment, remember who's paying for it.

   

 

Just puttin' it out there. Again.

Once again, my wicked step-daughter, Sarah Leslie, is bringing her mother to our cottage -- our sacred place, the place the six of us enjoyed as a blended family for 25 years.  It's so wrong.  She first pulled this evil stunt seven years ago; I haven't spoken to her since.  It's gotta be about money, I reckon 'cause the mother will be paying.  

B's divorce was of the classic "From Hell' variety.  Even though it's been 45 years, I wince every time it crosses my mind, which is never unless something triggers the nightmare -- like inviting Madame Darth to our hitherto, happy, blessed place.

"Please don't make this ugly," B pleaded.  "It's war!" she shrieked in reply.

So it wasn't like he and the ex parted amicably.  She argued over every toss, every cookie crumb.  "I don't want to be Mrs. Marley-Clarke, but I'm keeping your name."  Huh?!

"You have to read 'The Woman's Room' to understand how liberated I am and what a feminist I've become, but I want your money and your name."  Huh?!

"I want full custody and you can see the kids when it suits me."  Really?!  To drive that one home, she changed the locks and left with the kids one afternoon when B was scheduled to pick them up.   

It was the last one that killed her off.  The psychologist who interviewed all of us decided her fate.  He wrote, "Diana Marley-Clarke sees the world in two colours, black and white, with her holding the latter colour.  I have confidence that Brian Marley-Clarke would share custody, but I don't have the same confidence in Diana Marley-Clarke.  Hence, it is majority custody to the husband."

Thank you Dr. L.  She was diagnosed as being a malignant narcissist and ended up with two nights a week and every third weekend, so that didn't turn out too well for Mrs. "Me Me Me".  So, as I say, it was never friendly and cuddly after that.  Frankly, I deserved a Mother's Day card from her for raising her kids.  (Note, even though we had majority custody and she was a millionaire, we still had to pay her a fortune.  WTF?!)

To say the arrangement was strained would be a breathtaking understatement.  Her lawyer even wanted us to quit the club and cancel our summer vacations so she could get more money.  So, yes, when Sarah invites her to that place, I see red because I see it as a defilement.  As an added bonus, she went after my money and even tried to go after my parents'!

So, you bet it angers me when she goes up to our cottage.  By the way, it is a private club and step daughter is not a member, thus has to mouch off of a member --  usually a childhood friend whose family has been there for generations.  This means that one of the scarce and highly-sought-after cottages is not available to an actual member for the three weeks she plants her a-s there.  

And, of course, she rents it using her maiden name of "Marley-Clarke".  That's because B was on the board for nine years and president for two.  In fact, he was the guy who saved the club from financial ruin and his name and reputation remain highly-regarded up there.  So hey, why not dine out on the moniker at club dinners and take advantage of the reverence in which he is still held!?  What a good look that will be when the daughter of a former president is seen lurking behind the clubhouse sneaking a smoke.

Oh, did I forget to mention she is a heavy smoker?  Can you imagine smoking while you're pregnant?!  Rhetorical.  

Anyway, that's off my chest.  However, it needed to be said because step-daughter needs to be outed as the wicked sociopath she really is, devoid of any shred of integrity.  All I can say is the apple doesn't fall far..............

____________________

p.s.  I asked B's permission to post this.  At first he worried it might destroy his relationship with his daughter.  What relationship, I asked?!  She NEVER EVER calls you!  EVER!  So, he agreed because he knows how used and abused we have been by an ingrate.  Just read it to him and he said, "Good."   

 

50 years...

....after the report on the Status of Women, we are still penalized for the biological function of bearing children.  It's appalling!

This was the headline today.

Despite being against the law and the labour code to fire a woman while she is pregnant or on maternity leave, it's still happening!  It happened to me 50 years ago, when I was pregnant with my first child.  I was up for a job at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and came first in the competition.  But when they discovered I was pregnant, what did they do?  They cancelled the competition.  Cancelled it!

Cutely, while I was on maternity leave -- called unemployment leave back then -- they reinstated the competition and hired the guy who had placed second.

I kid you not!

I complained to the department of labour (how ironic) which sent a knuckle-wrapping letter to the president.  He did nothing.  Nothing changed.

Pregnant with my second, I was in another job and permitted six months' unemployment leave -- not maternity leave -- with a substantially reduced salary.  When I returned, I discovered someone else sitting in my office doing my job.  I was given another and that was that. Again, nothing done.

Because I'm me, I clawed my way back up the ladder and ended up doing very well.  But my male colleagues had passed me by and were earning considerably more.  I don't think I ever caught up.

I remember being offered a job in the Privy Council, but had to turn it down because with young children, I knew I could not put in the 12-hour days required.  Even if you weren't doing much, you still had to be there from seven to seven.  And even though I had a live-in nanny, I had to be home by six so she could sign off.  Yep, another opportunity missed.

To the generations of women who came after me and for whom conditions are much improved, I say you can thank my cohort for paving the way, for going to the barricades so you could enjoy slightly better outcomes.  Sadly, according to the stats, it appears they are still falling far short.

A survey from 'Moms at Work', a community and advocacy organization for working mothers, found 15 percent of Canadian women who take maternity leave are dismissed, laid off, or have contracts not renewed during pregnancy, leave, or upon return to work.  

That adds up to 25,000 women losing their jobs every year, three times the layoff rate of the general population!!!!  25,000!!!!

Yes, women are still heavily penalized for having children -- both while pregnant and after.

To "You've come a long way, baby", I say, pshaw!  

Don't take it from me

Take it from veteran columnist and financial writer Diane Francis.  

"At a moment when Canada most needed to tread carefully, we've managed to score a classic goal on our own net," she writes.  She is talking about Carney's latest gaffe in cancelling the Digital Services Tax (DST) on American tech companies, passed a year ago.  

"The decision to start collecting the DST while we were engaged in delicate trade and security talks with the US has put us on the defensive and handed President Trump a convenient stick to beat us with," agreed former Chamber of Commerce CEO Perrin Beatty.  

In negotiations, contentious issues should be negotiated between the two parties -- not unilaterally imposed by one nation just before talks begin.  Duh!  Why didn't Carney understand this?  At least he should have kept the tax in abeyance as a bargaining chip, but not implemented, while negotiations were underway.

But Carney is a global banker -- not a negotiator and certainly not a politician.  Trump, of course, is a master of both.  Carney is used to dealing with "yes men" from the top down.  Politics only succeeds from the bottom up.

So, having won the election with his "elbows up" refrain, he has now switched to "knee down".  What a joke.  What a disappointment for all those who voted for him.  They were duped.

And to add insult to injury, he has not heeded the first rule of negotiations, which is that you do not put up a "D" team against an "A" team.  But sure enough, he has appointed his "D" team to lead the charge:  Kristin Hillman, a career civil servant and diplomat, most recently ambassador to the US, and Dominic LeBlanc, a professional Liberal politician, well-known tippler and bosom buddy of the hapless disaster Justin Trudeau.  Neither has any experience in business, trade, investment, entrepreneurship, technology or finance.  

We're in deep trouble with Carney

They will be eaten alive by Trump's team, headed by US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, a successful entrepreneur, self-made billionaire, technology expert and philanthropist who was named "One of the world's 100 most influential people."  Hillman, hitherto familiar with only diplomacy and playing nice, will end up battered, bruised and bloodied after Lutnick gets finished with her across a table.   

Wow, way to go!

I have said from the get-go that Carney would be a calamitous prime minister.  So far, I have been proven right.    

Still at it

When I was DG of Communications for Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), we were continually dealing with the Indigenous, who ignored and contravened every regulation designed to support the fishery and prevent over-fishing that would decimate species.

Naturally, the natives thought our scientists were inferior to their elders and just continued to flout the law, with predictably devastating results.  They're still at it.

The Globe carried a feature on the illegal harvesting of baby eels (elvers) in Halifax by local Indigenous.  While non-Indigenous fishers obey the laws and regulations, local natives believe they are above them.  A much sought-after delicacy for sushi around the world, one kilogram is worth about $5,000, so the illegal fishing continues unabated.

The sticking point is the 1999 "Marshall ruling" that determined First Nations had treaty rights to fish and hunt to earn a "moderate livelihood".  Those last two words are the problem.  What's a "modest livelihood"?  A second decision was supposed to clarify that all harvesting was to be subject to federal regulations to ensure conservation.  That second decision is also being ignored.

People like the chief of the Millbrook First Nation told DFO that his community won't abide by federal regulations that limit the catch of elvers and is instead asserting his right to earn a "modest livelihood" from his harvest.  Who does he think he is?  And how dumb to risk species decimation?

Just for the record, the Millbrook reserve received a $19,331,413 land settlement in 2019.  This in spite of the fact that all reserves sit on Federal Crown land, given to the Natives for their use.  Yep, we are paying the Indigenous land settlements when we own the land!

Millbrook also collects $1,337,527.61 in property taxes (again, why?) and was handed another $12 million for economic development and community projects.  The photo below captures just how much "economic development and community projects" have been carried out.  It's a joke.  

The scientists I worked with were frustrated and I assume still are.  "Even though it's been 25 years, we are still trying to figure out the scope and nature of the right as it's actually implemented on the ground," said UNB law professor Nicole O'Byrne.  "People have different interpretations of how broad that should be, how it should be regulated and in whose interest."

Said another ignorant law-breaker, "It's our right to fish." 

Non-Indigenous fishers have been trying in vain to get Minister Joanne Thompson to step up and curb the illegal fishing.  She hasn't.  Could that be because she's a dyed-in-the-wool Newfoundlander and committed environmentalist who can't see the forest for the elvers?

If you want to know how the Indigenous are treating their pristine, protected environment, here's a picture worth a thousand words:

A member of the Pictou Landing First Nation with his harvest on the "pristine" Millbrook First Nation.  That's where the $12 million has got them.

And so, the insanity continues.