No, No, No The BC Budget Is Not Balanced .

No, No, No The BC Budget Is Not Balanced .

CBC news today—‘The B.C. government is promising continued balanced budgets —————‘

And even the Government says it.

This trickery should stop .

Both the Liberals and the NDP keep trying to fool the people.

The Budget is everything the Government does with your money and others money.

It is made up of what it spends on operating , you know keep the lights on , the maintenance of everything the Government is involved in —it is called the current account budget.

Then there is what the Government builds —the roads and bridges, the hospitals and schools, the court houses etc—-it is called the capital account budget

Both together make up the Budget .

What the Government is talking about is that it is balancing the CURRENT ACCOUNT BUDGET —with a small surplus.

All the capital account budget is borrowed minus the little bit of operating surplus that is applied against it.

That’s why on page 63 of the Government ‘s own documents we see :

The Total Debt of the Province is $70, 638 Billion in 2019-2020 , this past year.

It goes in this year 2020-2021 to $76, 392 Billion .

Then to $82, 063 Billion in 2021-2022.

Finally, in the last year of the forecast period 2022–2023 the Government says the debt will be $87, 596 Billion.

That is from $70, 638 Billion to $87, 596 Billion over the forecast period.

That is just about $17 billion more —-in borrowing because all the revenue ( except a tiny amount of surplus) was spent on operating.

So rather than a surplus each year in the budget there is a deficit.

If you just include what you spend to operate your house , then a small surplus .

But if you include what you spent on a new car, a vacation, other capital spending then you are in a deficit.

And don’t you have to calculate all your spending, just not some of it?

Of course!

We all know that for there to be a real surplus the debt would not rise each year as we just saw in the budget documents.

Common Sense Update —Coastal Gas Pipeline Project Dispute/Crisis

Common Sense Update —Coastal Gas Pipeline Project Dispute

On Sunday in a blog I tried to provide some clarity as to what is going on regarding what is now a crisis. Here is an update that I hope further clarifies.

The BC Government has approved a large LNG project at Kitimat , BC . It is a plant and terminal. Natural gas is brought to the plant by pipeline , processed to liquid, loaded aboard LNG Tankers at the marine terminal and sent overseas. The construction at Kitimat is underway.

The natural gas for the plant has to be shipped by pipeline from near Dawson Creek, B.C. to Kitimat , a distance of over 600 kilometres—-east to west.

Approval has been given by the Government of B.C. for this pipeline and construction is underway. 20 elected aboriginal leaders ( band councils) who live along the pipeline route have approved the project signing agreements with the pipeline owner.

The aboriginal group Watsuwet’en aboriginal group in the area of the pipeline have a Watsuwet’en Hereditary Chiefs Organization that claim that their approval of projects on their traditional land must be given by them in accordance traditional custom and, that their approval has not been given. And they have tried to stop the ongoing construction. The BC Government and the pipeline owner have gone to court and have been successful in getting court injunctions indicating that the present efforts to stop the project are illegal. Others groups sympathetic with the hereditary aboriginal group have blocked railways in various parts of Canada, bringing passenger travel and freight commerce to a halt .

According to Canadian law , reaffirmed by a recent Federal Court of Appeal decision on the expansion of the Trans Mountain project , there is no veto power existing with Aboriginal Groups to stop resource projects . Resource project proponents must do meaningful consultation and meaningful accommodation with Aboriginal groups who are affected as outlined in a number of decisions by the Supreme Court. If appropriate consultation and accommodation happen, projects can proceed.

However, one aboriginal group ( Tsilhqot’in), through the courts has won ( 2014) ‘title’ to land in another part of BC. This is the only ‘ title’ award so far in Canada by an aboriginal group. In this title status, a title holder can refuse a resource project . But the proponent can, under the court decision awarding title, appeal this decision and, if the proponent meets certain prescribed conditions, can go ahead with the project in the public interest of Canada.

From what I can determine the Watsuwet’en Hereditary Group are doing ——- is CLAIMING TITLE ——- since they think they meet the requirements that were in play for the first title award in 2014 by the Tsilhquot’in .

But CLAIMING title and HAVING title are two different things . At least that is what I think.

There is now an established process for an aboriginal group to follow to try and get title to land but as yet the Watsuwet’en have not proceeded along that route.

It seems the Federal Government will not enforce the court injunctions and wants to negotiate with the Watsutwet’en.

The laws of Canada as interpreted by the courts have been violated but Governments are not prepared to see the injunctions issued by the courts enforcing the law followed up and acted upon.

A complicating matter is that Canada through the Federal Government of Justin Trudeau has approved the UN Declaration of The Rights of Indigenous Peoples which contains provisions which give the indigenous people an effective veto over any development that affects them on their traditional land.

A final wrinkle is the Watsuwat’en Group have just launched a court action alleging the Environmental process by the Province that saw a permit being issued to the pipeline owner was flawed.

It is obvious that we are entering a new era where precedents are being set by Governments in their dealings with Aboriginal groups which see laws and court injunctions abandoned for a new negotiating process , the rules of which seem to being made up on the fly as the process moves along .

That is as I see it at 4:14 pacific time , February 18, 2020.

The website of the hereditary Watsuwet’en Chiefs is www. Watsuweten.com

Astounding: PM Excludes Conservative Leader of the Official Opposition From Meeting On Protest Crisis .

Astounding: PM Excludes Conservative Leader of the Official Opposition From Meeting On Protest Crisis .

We have heard it all now.

The PM makes a statement in Parliament on the crisis in Canada over protests about the Coastal Gas Link. The Official Opposition Conservative Leader provided a response.

The PM calls a meeting of Party Leaders outside the Parliament —but not the Conservative Leader . He was not invited.

This is the official Opposition Leader for Canada, Leader Of the party with the second largest number of seats and the largest number of votes in the last election.

Why wasn’t he invited . The message I am am getting is that because Mr. Sheer , the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative Leader, had a different opinion of how the crisis should be handled , that this disqualifies him from attending the meeting.

There you have it!!

The party leaders , Liberal, Bloc, NDP, Green, have a view on how to handle the crisis and they are not prepared to have another leader with a contrary view to sit down with them in a private meeting to discuss the crisis.

The Irony of it all, the very leaders who are talking dialogue, do not want any.

Big Decision From European Court

From Gatestone Institute

Spain: European Court Approves Summary Deportations of Illegal Migrants

by Soeren Kern
February 17, 2020 at 5:00 am

The Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are binding on all 27 member states of the European Union — ruled that in order for migrants to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner.

The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for those who believe that sovereign nation states have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to enter their territory.

“The ECHR’s ruling determines that a nation state has the right to defend its borders. When someone is dedicated to violating those borders, the nation state has the right to return that person to their place of origin as quickly as possible.” — Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, spokesman for the Vox Party, February 13, 2020.

It remains unclear if the ECHR’s ruling will have a deterrent effect. Migrants, often using extreme violence, are increasingly using the tactic of mass attacks against the border fences in Ceuta and Melilla in an effort to overwhelm border police.

Migrants, often using extreme violence, are increasingly using the tactic of mass attacks against Spain’s border fences in Ceuta and Melilla in an effort to overwhelm border police. During the past 18 months, thousands of migrants equipped with gloves, spike shoes and makeshift hooks have attempted to scale the fences.

In a landmark decision that will have potentially seismic implications for immigration policy in Europe, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Spain acted lawfully when it summarily deported two migrants who illegally tried to enter Spanish territory.

The Strasbourg-based court — which has jurisdiction over 47 European countries, and whose rulings are binding on all 27 member states of the European Union — ruled that in order for migrants to benefit from certain human rights protections, such as access to lawyers, interpreters and the right to remain in Europe, they must first enter European territory in a legal, as opposed to an illegal, manner.

The ruling, which effectively authorizes European governments summarily to deport illegal migrants immediately at the border, transfers some decision-making powers on immigration back to European nation states. The ruling is being viewed as a major victory for those who believe that sovereign nation states have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to enter their territory.

The Spanish case dates back to August 2014, when hundreds of migrants from sub-Saharan Africa stormed the border fence at Melilla, a Spanish exclave in North Africa. After spending several hours perched on top of the fence, two men, one from Ivory Coast and the other from Mali, climbed down and were handcuffed by Spanish border police, who handed them over to Moroccan authorities.

The two Africans said they were never given a chance to explain their personal circumstances or receive help from lawyers or interpreters. In February 2015, with the help of human rights lawyers, the pair took their case to the ECHR.

In October 2017, the ECHR ruled that summary deportations were a violation of European law. The Court determined that Spanish border police had failed to verify the identity of the migrants, or to provide them with access to lawyers, translators or medical personnel. It ordered Spain to pay each of the men €5,000. In December 2017, Spain’s previous center-right government appealed the ruling.

On February 13, 2020, the ECHR unanimously reversed its previous judgment. In a statement, it explained:

“The Court considered that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorized location, taking advantage of the group’s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants — assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention — had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct.

“In so far as it had found that the lack of an individualized procedure for their removal had been the consequence of the applicants’ own conduct, the Court could not hold the respondent State responsible for the lack of a legal remedy in Melilla enabling them to challenge that removal.”

The ECHR added that the two men could have applied for visas, or for international protection, at an official border crossing or at Spanish embassies or consulates in Morocco or in their home countries.

The ECHR’s decision has been greeted with outrage by human rights groups and other proponents of uncontrolled mass migration to Europe. Amnesty International, in a statement said:

“Today’s judgment is very disappointing. These two men were marched back to Morocco as soon as they entered Spain, with no chance to explain their circumstances, no chance to request asylum, and no chance to appeal their expulsion.

“That the court has today decided that Spain was within its rights to do this, because the men entered the country irregularly, is truly a blow for refugees and migrant rights. People must have access to asylum procedures and to appeal any decision, regardless of how they entered the country they wish to seek sanctuary in.”

Wolfgang Kaleck, General Secretary of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, said that the ECHR’s ruling will be perceived as a “carte blanche” for summary deportations elsewhere in Europe:

“Push-backs at the border to Morocco are a longstanding Spanish practice, which has become a model for other states along the European Union’s external land borders.”

Writing for the constitutional law blog, Verfassungsblog, Spanish lawyer Carlos Oviedo Moreno, accused the ECHR of racism:

“The ECHR…distinguishes between legal and irregular entry into the territory of a State and attaches to it the consequence of placing some people outside the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights….

“The consequence of such reasoning is perpetuating borders as no-rights places for very particular groups: (black) migrants, people from the Global South, the undesirable minority excluded from the benefits of global free movement encouraged for everybody else.”

Others welcomed the ECHR’s decision. “Borders must be defended,” said the Mayor-President of Melilla, Eduardo de Castro, of the libertarian party, Ciudadanos (Citizens). “Countries must defend their sovereignty and territory.”

Officials in Ceuta, another Spanish exclave in North Africa, also welcomed the ECHR’s decision. Alberto Gaitán, spokesman for the Ceuta government, which is led by the center-right Popular Party, said:

“The ruling protects our right and obligation to preserve and defend the integrity and inviolability of our border as well as the actions carried out by our border police and national police, who have our respect, backing and support.”

Congresswoman Teresa López, who represents Ceuta for the conservative party Vox, the third-largest party in Spain, added:

“The ECHR has sided with common sense in the defense of a well-defined border, which is one of the essential conditions for the stability of any state. The court has responded with common sense to the fact that the massive and violent assaults on the borders of Ceuta and Melilla are collective actions in which the assailants consciously and voluntarily place themselves in a situation of flagrant illegality.

“In reality, the so-called express deportations consist of each country being able to defend its borders and its inhabitants with all the legal and proportional means at their disposal. Since its creation, Vox has called for Spanish police and border guards to be provided with all material and legal means to protect the Spanish border.”

Vox parliamentary spokesman Iván Espinosa de los Monteros described the ruling as “a victory for Spain and for the rule of law.” He added:

“The ECHR’s ruling determines that a nation state has the right to defend its borders. When someone is dedicated to violating those borders, the nation state has the right to return that person to their place of origin as quickly as possible.”

It remains unclear if the ECHR’s ruling will have a deterrent effect. Migrants, often using extreme violence, are increasingly using the tactic of mass attacks against the border fences in Ceuta and Melilla in an effort to overwhelm border police. During the past 18 months, thousands of migrants equipped with gloves, spike shoes and makeshift hooks have attempted to scale the fences. Notable recent incidents include:

July 26, 2018. At least 800 migrants from sub-Saharan Africa tried to scale the fence at Ceuta. A total of 602 managed to enter Spanish territory. The migrants used unprecedented violence against Spanish law enforcement. Eleven police officers were injured when migrants attacked them with quicklime, homemade flamethrowers, sticks and sharp objects, as well as with urine and excrement.

August 22, 2018. A total of 119 migrants successfully scaled the fence at Ceuta, after taking advantage of a diminished police presence on the Moroccan side of the border during a Muslim holiday.

October 21, 2018. More than 300 migrants tried to scale the fence at Melilla; 200 migrants, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, successfully entered Spanish territory.

May 12, 2019. More than 100 migrants tried to scale the fence at Melilla; 52 migrants, mostly from Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Mali, successfully entered Spanish territory.

August 30, 2019. More than 400 migrants tried to scale the fence at Ceuta; 155 migrants, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, successfully entered Spanish territory.

September 19, 2019. At least 60 migrants tried to scale the fence at Melilla; 26 migrants, mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, managed to enter Spanish territory.

November 18, 2019. A people smuggler transporting 52 migrants — 34 men, 16 women and two children — reached Spanish territory after driving his van at full speed through the border gate at Ceuta. The driver, a 38-year-old Moroccan with French residency, was arrested more than a kilometer inside Spanish territory. The migrants, who claimed to be from Congo, Guinea and the Ivory Coast, were taken to a migrant processing facility in Ceuta.

January 19, 2020. More than 250 migrants tried to scale the fence at Ceuta; two dozen migrants and police officers were injured.
Spain’s new government, comprised of a coalition of Socialists and Communists, recently removed razor wire, known as concertina wire, from the border fences along Spain’s frontier with Morocco. The government ordered its removal after migrants who tried to jump the fences suffered injuries from it.

Police and border patrols agents have warned that without concertina wire, the border will become even more vulnerable to mass incursions than it already is.

Vox leader Santiago Abascal said that the government’s plan was part of a broader effort to undermine national sovereignty in favor of globalist mass migration. He called for replacing the fences with concrete walls to secure the border better:

“The borders in Ceuta and Melilla are permanently violated by avalanches of immigrants. We are going to propose a reform of the immigration law to be able to expel an immigrant immediately if his documentation is not in order. We believe that the best protection is a concrete wall that is high enough for security forces to control the border.”

Espinosa de los Monteros blamed the government for encouraging mass migration. “We are not against immigration,” he said during an interview with Spanish public television. “We are not even against the illegal immigrants. It is not their fault that an irresponsible government has called them to come here illegally.”

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute.

p.s. I visited Ceuta a few years ago. A lovely small city where many different ethnic groups and religion peacefully live.

Dear Britain, Trusting Huawei Is a Terrible Mistake

Dear Britain, Trusting Huawei Is a Terrible Mistake

January 29, 2020

COMMENTARY BY

Klon Kitchen

Klon is a senior research fellow for science, technology and national security.
Heritage Foundation , Washington, DC

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. Huawei is an extension of the Chinese government and a part of Beijing’s explicit “civil-military fusion” strategy.

2. Chinese law says that all information that transits, is stored on, or in any other way touches the networks of a Chinese company is considered “Chinese information.”

3. This decision will now set the conditions for how other nations in Europe will make this choice.

To the people of Britain,

I do not know many of you personally, but I am your friend. For more than 15 years, I worked alongside your military and national security professionals to hunt down al-Qaeda senior leaders, to help respond to the 2007 terrorist attacks in London, and to more broadly secure our respective peoples and our shared values. We are bound by blood and history and our futures also are inseparably linked.

It is because of these strong bonds that I am writing this to you. Friends, the decision taken today to allow the Chinese—particularly the Huawei telecommmunications company—to build your 5G wireless networks is a terrible mistake. That may sound a bit melodramatic—but it is not.

Huawei is an extension of the Chinese government and a part of Beijing’s explicit “civil-military fusion” strategy, where government and industry work together to expand the power and influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Do you think the British intelligence services would relish the opportunity to build and to manage China’s domestic telecommunications networks? Of course they would. It would be an unparalleled opportunity to collect and exploit troves of data that could ultimately prove decisive in understanding and shaping one of the West’s most important geopolitical adversaries.

So why on earth has your nation allowed the Chinese to deploy the functional equivalent of this capability in the United Kingdom? It is a catastrophic vulnerability to one of the world’s premier cyber aggressors and this is why the United States is pressing hard for you to reconsider.

Central to the British Government’s decision has been the assertion that the cybersecurity risks can be mitigated. While many experts disagree, there are enough credible voices making this argument that you might be understandably confused or sceptical of dire warnings. But suppose Chinese 5G networks are rendered completely secure, has the threat gone away?

Chinese law says that all information—even your information—that transits, is stored on, or in any other way touches the networks of a Chinese company is considered “Chinese information” and, therefore, must be made available to the country’s intelligence services. Huawei’s assurances that your information is protected from these laws are not credible and the fact that these networks can be technically “secured,” will do nothing to change this fact.

Others point to the potential costs or lost economic opportunity that would accompany denying Chinese access to your 5G networks. These costs would indeed be significant and there is little that can be done in the near-term to prevent this—though it can be managed.

But whatever these costs may be, they pale in comparison to the losses of security, sovereignty, and intellectual property that will most assuredly be extracted by Huawei. Why bother with the struggle of leaving the European Union only to run into the arms of the communist Chinese?

Even more, if you think this choice is expensive now, imagine the bill in five years when the nation realises Huawei has been siphoning your information and exporting it to the CCP just as they did in 2012 with the African Union headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

More fundamentally, this decision will now set the conditions for how other nations in Europe will make this choice. The risk is that other governments will follow Britain in opting for Chinese technology and Beijing will have secured a strategic foothold that endangers the long-term security of the entire European Continent.

Before making his decision, your Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, asked, “What is the alternative?” In one sense, this is a perfectly reasonable question for serious leaders to ask. A reasonable answer might be to encourage the development of a British telecommunications company that is able to provide for the nation’s long-term needs.

On the other hand, “What is the alternative?” is never a reasonable response when your friend has been warning you not to put a loaded gun to your head.

In the last several weeks, the United States has sent messages from our President, our Vice President, multiple lawmakers, and many intelligence and national security leaders—all with the same plea: friends, please, put the gun down.

I hope for your sake I am wrong—but I fear this is a decision you will come to regret.

This piece originally appeared in The Telegraph on 1/28/20

Derek H. Burney: Enough is enough. Clear the blockades, restore the rule of law Dialogue is no prescription for those who refuse to listen because they believe themselves to be custodians of the only truth

Derek H. Burney: Enough is enough. Clear the blockades, restore the rule of law
Dialogue is no prescription for those who refuse to listen because they believe themselves to be custodians of the only truth

National Post

Derek H. Burney
February 17, 2020
10:52 AM EST

It is times like this when Lucien Bouchard’s claim that “Canada is not a real country” has an eerie ring of truth. Protesters of many stripes have the upper hand in pockets of the country. The rule of law has been parked in the cupboard. Rail lines are blockaded and services suspended. A provincial legislature was shuttered. The country’s economy is crippled. The national interest has no defender. The preferred solution is not a return to order and apprehension of the offenders. Rather it is “dialogue” — as remote and amorphous a prescription as the lowest form of sophistry; one that often can be a euphemism for vacillation and the evasion of responsibility.

A government that seems incapable of enforcing the rule of law or asserting the national interest has lost the will to govern. It has effectively ceded the right to govern. Dialogue is no prescription for those who refuse to listen because they believe themselves to be custodians of the only truth. They break the laws of the land with abandon, certain that they will face no consequences. Many of their complaints have been addressed extensively by the courts and by the responsible regulatory agencies and have been endorsed by duly elected band councils. Yet nothing but abject capitulation is what is being demanded.

Grievances of many kinds — a few of which may have strands of legitimacy — are used to justify what we are witnessing in various parts of the country, vestiges of mob rule— the antithesis of democratic values we supposedly cherish. Opposition to pipelines — the safest and most efficient means for transporting oil and gas — has gone from irrational to hysterical. Our competitors in the U.S. and Australia, among others, can barely suppress outright laughter as they watch the folly of Canada strangling the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of its citizens who prefer to work rather than to protest. India and China mock us openly by plowing ahead with increased coal production while espousing empty commitments to the Paris Accord.

Abetted by too many who are responsible for education in this country, the vilification of our resource base and support for fanciful climate-change “aspirations” march in tandem. But to what end? Can the 1.4 per cent Canadian tail really wag the global dog? Without genuine commitments from the major polluters, the climate-change crusade is rapidly becoming a fool’s game.

The words on the Peace Tower carry an ominous caution: “When there is no vision, the people perish.” Today, we have neither vision nor leadership. Instead of a clear sense of direction, we wallow in save-the-world mantras and mythologies. Instead of leadership, we hear feckless platitudes. Our law enforcement agencies are idled, awaiting the direction no one in government seems willing to give. In the absence of firm political leadership, fingers are pointed everywhere except where they belong.

A minority government should not mean that we have no government. So, when Parliament reconvenes after yet another “break,” our Prime Minister returned after yet another junket, will there be a call for action? Don’t hold your breath. Perversely, the tolerance for inaction in Canada seems to be at an all-time high.

We are slip-sliding towards a national paralysis with the same degree of complacency and indulgence that brought us to this self-made crisis — policies that have stunted our competitiveness, set region against region, hollowed out our global image and left us squabbling over peripheral issues. The most precious elements of our existence atrophy from sheer neglect.

The priorities for any Canadian government are national unity, prosperity and security. We are lagging on all three. Tensions are smouldering in western Canada as efforts to develop their major energy resource are negated or stymied by oppressive regulations and malign neglect. Our economy is anemic, and our security is compromised by the unwillingness of those who purport to govern to uphold the law. Before we try to save the planet, we need urgently to refurbish the national fabric.

We need a firm combination of panache and purpose:

1. First and foremost, the government needs to restore public order, not through nebulous calls for dialogue, but by action. Declare that “Enough is Enough.” Restore our national transportation system and empower all federal law enforcement agencies, and if necessary the military, to uphold the rule of law. Instruct them to institute clear “cease and desist” ordinances, incarcerate offenders and deport non-Canadian protestors. Draw a line in the sand instead of having sand kicked in our face.

2. Second, instead of wallowing in a litany of historical grievances — real and perceived — and vacuous platitudes about reconciliation, pledge to provide clean water and basic medical services to all native reserves within a definite timeframe. Offer to work with native leaders who share the view that improving the well-being and livelihood of native people should be the overriding priority.

3. Stimulate and support responsible energy initiatives like the Coastal GasLink and Teck Resources Frontier oilsands project, which will bring billions of dollars of needed investment and provide economic benefits for western Canada, including for several native communities. Any mention of an aid package for Alberta as a substitute for project development would be as offensive as it is impractical.

Most of all, give real meaning to the “Peace, Order and Good Government” clause of our Constitution and prove that Lucien Bouchard was wrong. Canada is and can be a “real country.”

A career foreign service officer for more than 30 years, Derek H. Burney is a former Canadian ambassador to the U.S. and chief of staff to Brian Mulroney.

Now We Have It —The Answer Was There All The Time -‘Infrastructure Disruptions ‘and ‘Incident Response Team ‘—

Now We Have It —The Answer Was There All The Time -‘Infrastructure Disruptions ‘and ‘Incident Response Team ‘—

Sure , how stupid are we?

I mean the answer was there all the time . Our protests and law breaking are almost over ——

Just call a committee( now there’s a canadian word for you) an ‘Incident Response Team ‘ and the problem ‘infrastructure disruptions’ and presto ——-

That’s what our Princeling is saying —-

This is becoming so ridiculous as the political correctness goes in overdrive. This excuse for a PM flies in from Senegal to utter these words . Now that he is going to stay and not go to Barbados what other ‘ diction gems’ will be thrust upon us? Our language will be greatly enhanced with his presence ——you think???

Just ‘infrastructure disruptions’ —-Is that right Mr. PM?

No its not!

It is indigenous protests closing down large swaths of our railway system and court injunctions being ignored, and people signalled to be laid off.

And ‘Incident Response Team ‘ —-can you believe it?

Like , do you think ‘emergency ‘ should enter the picture? Perhaps even ‘crisis’ ———-

Anyway , should not the full cabinet of the Government be involved ? Or does the Cabinet really exist anymore —-the PMO rules everything these days.

Shouldn’t there be a designated debate in Parliament about what’s happening in our country as laws and injunctions are callously being violated?

Is this a Parliament Democracy? Is this a representative and responsible form of Government?

One would think the lowly MP’s from all sides of the House would get up enough courage to demand a debate in Parliament !!

The week is not starting off very well.