Prime Minister Carney

It is hard to believe that Prime Minister Carney's approval rating is high, given his failed policies and personal ethical breaches. He has been unethical in his blind trust in personal wealth. His deep public policy beliefs are based on the thoroughly discredited myth of “Net-Zero”. It is an environmental religion which has basically deepened Canada’s expanding cost-of-living crisis and poverty trends.

The Prime Minister has delivered no major projects for Canada, despite boastful announcements and facilitation of the Parliamentary Opposition that presses to get things done. Carney (the banker) has also been wrong on every major economic call. His Budget of November 2025 and the Economic update of April 2026 have been rated as international failures, as his unsupported spending, deficits and debt have led Canada into a serious red zone. 

Why is Mark Carney politically supported when his performance has been so poor? There are a few overlapping reasons why Carney can maintain relatively strong personal approval numbers even while many Canadians feel the economy is weak or unaffordable. The key point is this: voters often separate personal leadership impressions from macro-economic pain, especially during periods of perceived global instability. The spectre of US President Trump looms large for Liberal supporters.

Carney has signalled that Canada is moving away from its relationship with the USA and is instead seeking closer ties with Europe. Since Trump, the historically solid relationship between the US and Canada has deteriorated to an historic low. Carney has deftly used Trump for his domestic political advantage. From tariff trade wars to claims that Canada should become the 51st state, Trump’s media image has been managed to burnish the perception of Carney as Canada’s defender, and any opponent is denigrated as an odious MAGA follower.

Carney’s personal brand is stronger than the government’s record. Carney entered politics with an unusually strong résumé: -former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, and was viewed by many as competent and serious, and not seen as a traditional partisan debater. That matters because voters often ask: “Do I trust this person to manage uncertainty?” rather than: “Are all economic indicators currently good?”

In polling, "competence," "stability," and "international credibility" can outweigh dissatisfaction with local affordability—at least temporarily. Many voters blame global conditions, not only Ottawa. Trump's economic policies have successfully excused Canadian job losses. Even Canadians who are angry about housing costs, grocery prices, food bank usage, and stagnant wages do not necessarily attribute all of it directly to the federal government. A share of voters sees the causes as  -global inflation after COVID, high immigration pressures, supply chain issues, energy and trade disruptions, and broader western economic disruption from war. Since similar affordability crises exist in the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and parts of the United States, some voters conclude: “This isn’t uniquely Canadian.”  The rationalization softens political blame.

Carney also benefits from contrast politics. Approval numbers are often relative to perceived alternatives. A leader does not need voters to think that things are great. They only need enough voters to think that he is safer or more predictable than the alternative. If the Conservatives are viewed as: too ideological, too aggressive, insufficiently experienced, unclear on policy, or emotionally idealistic, then a centrist technocratic figure can find political support regardless of the dour economic fundamentals. This is common internationally: weak economies sometimes still generate incumbent support when Opposition Parties fail to build trust.

Additionally, media framing biases and elite consensus matter. Carney has long had a positive reputation among the financial media, corporate leaders, international institutions, and legacy media commentators. Such agendas create an unearned aura of expertise and trust. Most voters do not read budget tables or fiscal updates directly. They absorb simplified impressions through headlines, interviews, social media clips, and elites’ commentary. If the dominant narrative becomes: “Canada faces challenges, but Carney is experienced and steady,” that can coexist with poor household sentiment and real-life experience.

Moreover, Canada’s economic pain is unevenly distributed. The cost-of-living crisis is real, but it is not experienced equally. The severest pain tends to hit young recent graduates, younger renters, lower-income workers, recent entrants to housing markets, and urban households with debt. Yet older homeowners often gained significant asset wealth, and public sector workers may feel more stable, and higher-income households remain relatively insulated. The Liberals can therefore maintain respectable polling even while a substantial minority experiences severe economic stress.

Additionally, voter sentiment often lags economic reality. Political opinion can trail economic conditions by many months. If voters believe that inflation is slowing, central bank rates may fall, a recession may be avoided, and markets are stabilizing, they may mistakenly reward perceived stabilization, even if conditions remain objectively difficult. People react strongly to directions, momentum, and emotional tone, not just to absolute conditions.

Canadians historically reward managerial moderation. Canadian federal politics has often favoured calmness, institutionalism, incrementalism, and perceived competence over highly ideological or confrontational politics. Carney fits that tradition closely. He has been seen as the experienced adult, economically literate, internationally connected, and non-populist in tone. That style appeals strongly to suburban professionals, older voters, moderate Liberals, Red Tories, and some business-oriented centrists, even amid dissatisfaction.

However, the political tension in Canada is real. What makes the current moment politically unusual is that subjective household stress is extremely high, food bank usage is historically elevated, housing affordability is deeply strained, yet broad political collapse for the Liberals has not fully materialized. That usually means one or more of the following. Voters are unconvinced by alternatives; they still trust the leader personally, they want to believe the myths, they rationalize the crisis as global rather than national, or the political administrative consequences have not fully arrived yet. Historically, governments can maintain approval during economic deterioration for quite a while until sentiment suddenly shifts. Polling can remain stable for months, then move rapidly once voters collectively conclude that conditions are not improving.

Carney’s personal polling numbers reflect a broader political phenomenon: voters do not always evaluate governments primarily through detailed policy analysis or fiscal metrics. They often vote through a mix of identity, emotional comfort, risk perception, media framing, and comparative trust.

Conservatives correctly have strong negative views of Mark Carney, shared by many centre-right critics and by voters deeply concerned about affordability, energy policy, deficits, and elite governance. But the reason his support remains relatively resilient is that many Canadians do not accept all of those premises, or they weigh them differently.

Many voters do not see "net zero" as a discredited environmental theory, even though aggressive climate policy raises energy prices, suppresses resource development, increases living costs, and weakens industrial productivity. The believers assume climate transition policy as economically inevitable, internationally necessary, tied to long-term industrial competitiveness, and supported by some scientific consensus. So, when Carney promotes "net zero" without even naming it, some voters do not interpret it as ideological extremism. They mistakenly interpret it as modern economic management, an alignment with Europe and international finance, or preparation for future energy markets. Whether those policies ultimately succeed or fail economically is still politically contested. It is also a political divide within the current Liberal Caucus.

Unfortunately, ethical controversies often matter less than opponents expect. The April Economic Update revealed a troubled administration, but the national conversation moved on within ten days. Allegations involving blind trusts, conflicts of interest, elite financial networks, or insider relationships often resonate strongly with the politically engaged voters. But average voters frequently tune out complicated ethics disputes unless the issue is simple to understand, there is obvious personal enrichment, or the media narrative becomes overwhelming. (Gomery Commission). Complex financial arrangements rarely elicit the same public reaction as cash scandals, criminal investigations, or direct evidence of corruption.

Many voters conclude that all senior politicians and financiers are connected to wealthy networks. That creates cynicism rather than political collapse. Elite credibility still matters in Canada. Carney’s background gives him credibility among financial institutions, universities, major media, international organizations, urban professionals, and parts of the managerial class. A segment of Canadian voters still values technocratic expertise, credentials, institutional endorsements, and polished communication. Some critics may see Carney as an out-of-touch global banker, while supporters see him as a competent steward during uncertain times. The same traits produce opposite interpretations depending on their worldview.

Another explanation is that Opposition critiques may not yet feel safe to low information swing voters. Even when voters are somewhat dissatisfied, they still question alternatives. Governments can survive poor economic periods because the opposition parties appear too combative, insufficiently detailed, ideologically rigid, or risky to moderate suburban voters. These supporters uncritically accept the government's comforting reassurances that all is under control and that the government is taking care of things.

In parliamentary democracies, elections are emotional comparative judgments, not objective report cards. A voter can simultaneously believe that affordability is terrible, government spending is excessive, and yet still prefer the incumbent over the opposition.

Historically, Canada’s political culture is cautious and incremental. Canadian politics traditionally rewards moderation, calm, knowledgeable presentation, institutional continuity, and managerial competence. Carney’s communication style has been aligned with that culture: measured, data-driven in tone, internationally fluent, low-drama, and financially literate. Even critics who dislike his policies often acknowledge he mostly appears composed and knowledgeable, and that matters politically.

Media ecosystems shape perceptions differently. That is why the Carney administration is maneuvering law and regulation against bloggers and independent political commentators. People now consume radically different political realities. A voter who follows conservative independent media, fiscal hawks, anti-globalist commentary, or energy-sector critics sees Carney as an obvious failure. However, a voter who consumes mainstream national media, international financial commentary, or legacy policy analysts instead sees stability, seriousness, and difficult but necessary trade-offs. Modern politics increasingly involves competing narratives rather than shared factual interpretation.

Moreover, economic suffering does not automatically create political realignment. History shows that populations can endure prolonged decline, debt expansion, housing crises, and falling living standards without immediate electoral revolt. This may unfold because voters may feel fragmented, pessimistic, uncertain about alternatives, or psychologically adapted to decline.

Consequently, political systems may change only when an Opposition becomes broadly trusted, the current dilemma becomes undeniable, or a symbolic event crystallizes public anger and characterizes the larger group. Until then, incumbent support can remain surprisingly durable despite widespread dissatisfaction. Perception of “failure” is not universal. Some Canadians are team brand supporters, regardless of performance.

Many comfort themselves with emotional pablum that unemployment remains manageable by historical standards, that inflation has eased from its peak, that Canada avoided a deeper recession, that an energy transition away from oil and natural gas is necessary, that deficits are justified during restructuring, and that global conditions constrain every Western government. So, political support persists partly because the electorate itself is divided on diagnosis and responsibility.

Canada has a deep divide between voters who see Canada in dangerous structural decline caused by elite policy consensus, and voters who see Canada as navigating a difficult global transition imperfectly but responsibly, with a leader who will take care of them. That divide is now central to politics not only in Canada, but across much of the Western world.  Conservatives hope that many will discover that government policy affects them; and consequently Canada suffers under a Prime Minister who is image over substance.

Carney is illusion - Poilievre is real

 

Carney is all illusion. He represents the same old Liberals, and the same old failures about the economy. The Prime Minister likes to blame world affairs for his failings. The G7 countries have the same world economy, yet he has delivered the second-highest unemployment in the G7, the worst household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7, and the only shrinking economy in the G7. We have had 100,000 lost jobs in the last two months alone. Why is it that after the Prime Minister promised that he would be the first, he is the worst in the G7?

This should make Canadians question the effectiveness of Liberal economic policies and feel motivated to seek change. 

Those people who stash their cash in tax havens (Carney-Brookfield) have never had it so good. Tell that to the single mother who walks down the grocery aisle. Talk about jobs. The Prime Minister compares us to the United States. But when we do an apples-to-apples comparison of unemployment, it is higher in Canada than it is in the US. In fact, Canada has the second-highest unemployment in the G7, the worst grocery inflation in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7 and the worst household debt in the G7. Those are the facts. Carney promised we would be first, but he is the worst.

Canada is now facing a fourth term of the most destructive government Canada has ever known. Carney as a messiah? You are joking! Nothing has changed, and nothing will improve if Carney continues. It's the same old government, run by the same inadequate people, with the same policies that turned a once-successful Canada into a post-national state, with a strangled resource sector and zero hope for young people. 

Antisemitism is just below the surface, sometimes exploding in our streets as our flag is burned amid chants of “death to Canada.”  The Liberal administration did this. Canadians have never been so divided. A resurgence of separatism has sprung in Québec, and the same sentiments are now in Alberta. 

To the south is a President famous for smelling weakness in his opponents, who is ready to pounce on our debilitated nation for a greater USA advantage.

Canadians should stop believing that Carney is the man to save us. The evidence is that he has no clue. Carney is a multimillionaire who made it in central banking, consulting and advising. He has supported investing in tax havens abroad. His loyalty is to the US dollar and the companies whose boards he sat on. His companies left Canada for the United States and took loans from China.  Furthermore, it has now been exposed again that the Carney administration is compromised with Chima.

Imagine what Canada would be like right now if it had spent the last few years becoming one of the greatest energy suppliers to Europe and Asia, replacing Russian gas. If our trade partners had been diverse and wide-ranging. If our government had been living within its means, ensuring public services were efficient and effective. Suppose our productivity had been at the top of the OECD scale, and if our borders had been secure with well-equipped border services. If Immigration systems were not broken. Conservative policies that focused on energy independence, fiscal responsibility, and border security could have been the reality, benefiting all Canadians.

Imagine a Canada that had been fielding strong armed forces, with forward-deployed Arctic units, aircraft, and submarines able to defend our long coastlines, and with our leaders known as strong allies who had met their commitments to NATO. However, the sad prospect is only more lies and Liberal corruption. Trump would have behaved differently towards Canada if we had prioritized Conservative policy over the last 10 years! We still have a chance to fix it.

Liberals made Canada irrelevant

 

For Canada's best interest, the ‘anti-Trump Syndrome’ peddled by Liberals is disproportionate and inappropriate.  Prime Minister Carney and his agitators promote it.  They magnify it, believing voters are emotional and dumb, and that it is a vote-getter.

Liberals have a whole team to denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.  It is a set of incentives of both attraction and compulsion.  They are hell-bent on power and control, just like any dictatorial regime, as they manipulate our democratic system to promote their ideological cause.  Ethics do not matter, as voters seem to give them a pass by swallowing their fibs and excuses.  It’s all a brutal power game of performance -Liberal style.

Then the USA makes a courageous move to say 'enough' to the murderous excesses of Iran.  Finally, someone is prepared to take on all the risks, invest considerable resources, and make sacrifices to uphold international law regarding Iran.  It is clear that the war is about regime change and providing the means for locals to take back their stolen country.

But the Liberals, who have no coherent foreign policy, try to straddle the fence, revealing their moral emptiness.  In view of what the world has suffered from Iran since 1979, they muse about 'why the war'. …incredible.  These Liberal narcissists, who are about their own power and control, can't handle a simple moral question.

Carney’s first statement on the war in Iran reflected some realities.  However, in view of their electoral vote-getting policy of "Trump Syndrome”, he could not be seen to endorse either Donald Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu strongly.  So, he stumbles around trying to find some way to reconcile supporting the war without actually supporting it, while also being forced to acknowledge that we may have to join it.

In five days, Prime Minister Carney gave very different positions on the Iranian military operations.  It revealed his inexperience and ideological deficits.  First, there was hedged support for the USA military incursion.  The next day, Carney backtracked somewhat, calling for diplomacy.  Then he made himself look ridiculous by calling for a ceasefire.  Later, he mused that an invasion violates international law (there was no invasion at that point).  Then, elliptically, he said that Canada might eventually have to enter the war.  It was an unbelievable lack of principled diplomacy and foreign policy created by nightly popularity polling.

International law has severe limits when dealing with tyrants like Iran, who give the law no regard.  Iran's religious fanatics are similar to gangland activity, for regardless of international law, they will extort and murder to continue their enterprise.

As the prime minister put it at the start of the joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran: “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.”

When Poilievre made the same argument in support of Israel doing the same thing in the fall of 2024, the Liberals suggested it would trigger a broader war.  They accused the Conservative leader of not wanting peace in the Middle East.  The record reveals Liberal unprincipled dissembling.

The Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition reflected longstanding Conservative Party positions that characterize Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and a threat to regional security.  Canada designated Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 2012 and severed diplomatic relations the same year.  Pierre Poilievre says the Conservative Party is in support of allied military and diplomatic efforts aimed at countering Tehran's reign of terror, while voicing solidarity with Iranians seeking political reform.  Conservative policy is clearly in support of regime change in Iran without weasel words or qualifiers.

Nobody is waiting for Canada's ideological position and fence-sitting opinion concerning the take-down of the Iranian regime.  Nevertheless, Carney does a rhetorical pirouette for his feckless supporters.  Carney’s unprincipled musing tries to be anti-Trump and not support a war that was not approved by the UN, while reluctantly admitting the heinous nature of the Islamic regime and its murderous ideology.

The regime in Tehran is the principal source of terror in the Middle East and around the world.  It tried to build nuclear weapons to annihilate our allies.  It massacred tens of thousands of its own people.  It orchestrated the attacks of October 7, 2023, in Israel, and murdered Canadian passengers on Flight PS752, sought to kill prominent Canadian leaders, and ruthlessly targets Canadians of Jewish and Iranian descent who oppose the regime.  This war is not about faraway radicals, for many Iranian regime supporters are here in Canada, as they have used our weak immigration system, and formerly used their Embassy in Canada as a base of espionage.

What implications might Canada's prevarication have for diplomatic relationships with other nations?  We expect truth and realism from a national leader.  We do not want an ambiguous policy driven by overnight popularity polls.  We don’t need leadership that embarrasses this country with flip-flops at a time when we need stability at the helm.  Liberals have made Canada weak and irrelevant.

 

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre at Runnymede

 

Runnymede, UK

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre is having a great time in Europe and getting media coverage.

Too many Canadians wouldn't know that our Bill of Rights, our Charter of Rights, and our entire constitutional and Parliamentary structure owe their foundation to the British system and the Magna Carta.  For decades, Liberal governments have tried to downplay the British roots of our democracy.

In the video linked below, Pierre Poilievre relishes the history and tells the story engagingly.  Every Canadian should watch this video and pass this page along.

I’ve had the pleasure of sitting in the Canadian House of Commons, participating in debates, and hearing rulings from the Speaker that trace back to documents such as the Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights of 1689.  I get emotional every time I see this video.

Runnymede is a water-meadow alongside the River Thames in the English county of Surrey, just 32 km west of central London.  It is notable for its association with the sealing of Magna Carta.

The name Runnymede is derived from the Middle English runinge (taking counsel) and mede (mead or meadow), referring to a place in the meadows used for regular meetings.  The Witan, Witenagemot, or Council of the Anglo-Saxon Kings of the 7th to 11th centuries met from time to time at Runnymede, especially during the reign of Alfred the Great (871–899).  The Council usually assembled in the open air. 

The Magna Carta, Charter of English liberties, was granted by King John on June 15, 1215, under threat of civil war and reissued with alterations in 1216, 1217, and 1225.  By declaring the Sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the liberties of "free men," the Magna Carta laid the foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence.

The Magna Carta affected common and constitutional law, political representation, and the development of parliaments.  Runnymede's association with the ideals of democracy, the limitation of power, equality, and freedom under law has attracted the placement of monuments and commemorative symbols there.  The location is now a minor tourist attraction.

Magna Carta (Medieval Latin for "Great Charter") is a royal charter of rights sealed by King John of England.  First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, it was to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons who demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties.  It promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.

Many later attempts to draft constitutional forms of government trace their lineage back to Magna Carta.  The British dominions, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and formerly the Union of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, reflected the influence of Magna Carta in their laws.  The Charter's effects can be seen in the laws of other states that evolved from the British Empire --the USA.

Magna Carta continues to have a powerful iconic status in the Commonwealth countries, being cited by politicians and lawyers in support of constitutional positions.

It was a written law intended to limit the Crown's capricious power.  In 1867, the British North America Act (Canadian Constitution) was ‘similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom’.  From that phrase, the spirit and heritage of the Magna Carta were passed down into the formation of Canadian law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFiHlsITkTA

 

Iran

 

I have many friends in the Canadian Iranian protest movement. I was advocating regime change from the mid-1990s. As an elected MP, I openly supported Canadians who worked for regime change. Many of these families had suffered directly from the regime, including the disappearance of their relatives, extortion-based arrests, physical torture, and murder. Over the years, there has been public support of MPs from Conservative, Liberal, and Bloc benches for the unified message of opposition to the Islamic regime that captured Iran in 1979.

The 1979 bloody revolution led to the replacement of the Imperial State of Iran by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The ousting of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran, marked the end of Iran's historical monarchy.

The published letter from the Prime Minister is appreciated. Sadly, Canada still has a few Iranian subversive people who are ideologically in the regime’s camp. There is a long history of political factionalism within the expat Canadian-Iranian community. 

Some of the historical markers were the media and political discussion around the Iranian arrest, torture and murder of Zahra Kazemi in 2003, and the forced closure of the Iranian Embassy in Canada in 2012. Canada finally delisted the Mujahedin-e-Khalq PMOI from the official government terrorist list in 2012, as they were the main Iranian democratic opposition movement to the regime, which the Islamists vilified.

On February 28, 2026, Canadian Prime Minister Carney issued a statement.

“The Canadian government is closely following Iran-related hostilities throughout the Middle East and urges all Canadians in Iran to shelter in place. Canadians in the wider region should follow local advice and take all necessary precautions.

Canada’s position remains clear: the Islamic Republic of Iran is the principal source of instability and terror throughout the Middle East, has one of the world’s worst human rights records, and must never be allowed to obtain or develop nuclear weapons.

Canada and our international partners have consistently called upon the Iranian regime to end its nuclear program, including at the 2025 G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis and with the United Nations’ reimposition of sanctions in September.

Despite diplomatic efforts, Iran has neither fully dismantled its nuclear program, halted all enrichment activities, nor ended its support for regional terrorist proxy groups. Canada stands with the Iranian people in their long and courageous struggle against Iran’s oppressive regime. Canada has listed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist entity, and has sanctioned 256 Iranian entities and 222 individuals in response to the regime’s repression and its violence both against its own people, and persistently, beyond its borders. Canada reaffirms Israel’s right to defend itself and to ensure the security of its people.

Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security. The Canadian government urges the protection of all civilians in this conflict. We will take all possible measures to protect our nationals and Canadian diplomatic missions throughout the region."

Iran has a violent history. The present regime took power through religious and violent means. During the most recent revolution in Iran from 1980 to 1983, opposition to Islamic values was purged by the government, including massacres. The regime then began to train and financially support terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and other Palestinian groups, such as the Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). They were in the process of building nuclear weapons and were close to putting the systems together.

These Iranian leaders have come to their end in a similar violent way to coming to power. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dead. The war is on, but it remains unclear whether the political entities that can gain control and perhaps write a new Constitution will be able to bring peace and order out of a history of chaos.

The announcement of a Provisional Government by the National Council of Resistance of Iran to transfer sovereignty to the people of Iran and establish a Democratic Republic based on Mrs. Maryam Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan, is encouraging, but they do not have control. We can only hope and pray for the citizens of Iran.

Carney historical denialism

 

Prime Minister Carney promotes revisionist history while being smarmy about the USA. Carney is into denialism about Canada's origins. He derided USA Secretary of State Marco Rubio for his implied references to historical Christian nationalism when he spoke about the similarities of values between the USA and Europe.  

In contrast, Carney went out of his way to claim that Canada has civic nationalism, not the USA's historical character. I don't know what audience Carney was pitching to. However, Carney’s underlying attitude helps explain why Liberal Canada is not as successful as it could be. There is a lack of humility and accountability from the Canadian Liberal cadre. 

Prime Minister Carney does not want to know or express Canadian history. Lynette Bloedow says Bob Marley, the famous Jamaican who made Reggae a world-renowned music genre, quoted an African proverb in one of his songs. It said, 'In the abundance of water, the fool is thirsty.'  I want to put my own spin on it in relation to our politicians and the Peace Tower (Parliament). In the abundance of Scripture verses carved in the building, our politicians appear to be God-hating pagans. Every single day, politicians like our Prime Minister Mark Carney, walk right by the Peace Tower. They are not aware of the Scripture verses preaching the gospel to them from the Peace Tower, nor the Christian history laid down by our forebears.

Let me explain the contexts of just two of the 25 Scripture verses from the Peace Tower. These are in the West Stained Glass Window. One Scripture verse says, 'Thou shalt make thy way prosperous’. This comes from Joshua 1:9. The next Scripture verse, 'Wise in heart and mighty in strength', is from Job 9:4. But when Joshua 1:9 is read in context from verse 6, that verse in the window has a very specific meaning.

6 Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them. 7 Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper withersoever thou goest. 8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. 9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

When Job 9:4 is read in context from verse 1, it reads: 9 Then Job answered and said, 2 I know it is so of a truth: but how should man be just with God? 3 If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. 4 He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered?

In recognition of the sacred, at the opening of the daily sitting of the House of Commons, the Speaker reads a prayer while all stand. Prayer has been part of the daily House proceedings since 1877. When finished, the House pauses for a moment of silence for private reflection. “Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, King Charles, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen.”

(Forseth) Why is this important? Because of what just transpired on the world stage. Our Prime Minister does not want to acknowledge our history. He does not express humility or accountability. He promotes the concept of "Civic Nationalism" to distance Canada from the USA, thereby implying that Canada is superior in mind to the USA, a claim Carney derides as mere "Christian Nationalism".

In my view, Canada is a constitutional monarchy under the authority of a Judeo-Christian God. We were established as "The Dominion of Canada," as referenced in Psalm 72:8: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."

By legal definition, governance flows from the Crown. The Crown derives its authority from God, who is by definition the God of the Bible and no other. The King of Canada recently received his power and authority to become King, in a Christian Church with a Christian liturgy and many prayers, and thereby received a Christian Crown. Among numerous Christian symbols, he humbly prayed, "God of compassion and mercy, whose Son was sent not to be served but to serve, give grace that I may find in thy service perfect freedom and in that freedom knowledge of thy truth. Grant that I may be a blessing to all thy children, of every faith and belief, that together we may discover the ways of gentleness and be led into the paths of peace, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

While the Canadian administration is secular, non-partisan, and does not promote any religion, in 1998 the Supreme Court of Canada identified supporting principles that are included as unwritten elements of the very fabric of Canadian law: federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms opens with the following preamble: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”  It is the God of the Bible to the exclusion of all others.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio addressed the Munich Security Conference, held from February 13 to 15, 2026. In his address, he spoke of Europe's common Christian heritage and how it gave rise to the Americas. He pointed to a common bond and a common destiny.

In contrast, our PM Mark Carney derisively labelled the Robio speech as promoting "Christian Nationalism". Carney claimed that Canada does not have Christian Nationalism but rather "Civic Nationalism." What is this Canadian fiction that our PM promotes? Mark Carney does not know our Christian history and our essence as a people. In fact, we have a great Christian Heritage. We should know our Canadian history, political origins, and cultural foundations. The Christian ethic is the ancient struggle for responsibility, accountability, justice, freedom, and neighbourliness, as every soul is equal before a loving and just God.  Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love others as much as you love yourself. Matt 22:37-39.

(Rubio)  “Under President Trump, the United States will once again take on the task of renewal and restoration… And while we are prepared, if necessary, to do this alone, it is our preference, and it is our hope to do this together with you, our friends here in Europe," said Secretary of State Marco Rubio as he delivered remarks at the Munich Security Conference in Germany. Rubio's remarks focused on a shared heritage of the transatlantic relationship with Europe, reforming the United Nations, European defence, mass migration, and securing supply chains. He also touched on the need for a relationship with China and negotiations to resolve the Russia-Ukraine War. His remarks were similar to those given by Vice President JD Vance a year earlier, as both stressed the importance of not losing a shared culture to mass migration. This implies the benefits of Christian heritage and its positive values.

Mark Carney deliberately chose to deliver his rejection of Christian nationalism to a Montreal audience, declaring that Canada is built on "civic nationalism," not Christian values. He downplayed our deep Christian heritage in favour of vague "inclusivity" and shared cold winters. But he avoided the very first words of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes the supremacy of God.

How does that square with erasing God from our founding story? Yet when speaking to Muslim communities, Carney has no trouble wrongly equating their faith with Canada: "The values of community, of generosity, and yes, of sacrifice. These are Muslim values; these are Canadian values."  Our Christian roots become minimized, but Muslim values are proudly declared "Canadian values"? Like his predecessor, Carney is rewriting history to fit a secular, arrogant, boastful, cultureless internationalist character.

Canadian society wasn't built on multiculturalism. It was forged by faithful Christian settlers who carried the supremacy of God into our laws, our motto, and our very identity. The freedoms and rights which flow from Christianity were foundational for the acceptance of waves of immigration, while with compassion, they tried to consider aboriginal peoples. To respond to "the French fact" and Quebec separatist sentiment, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced "multiculturalism" in 1971.

Carney's "civic nationalism" is a hollowing out of the soul of the nation that has kept us strong. Carney emphasized the importance of protecting our rights and our system of respecting all the people who live here. Speaking at the unveiling of Canada's Defence Industrial Strategy, Prime Minister Mark Carney addressed the characterization by some in the Trump Administration of "Christian nationalism," and he made it clear that Canada is not of that nature.

Carney explained that Canadian nationalism is "Civic nationalism," that is respectful of people of all faiths, those with no faith, and respectful of the rights and diversity of Canadians. Carney said, "Mr. Rubio has spoken, and the American administration from time to time talks about Christian nationalism. It is not Canadian nationalism. Canadian nationalism is civic nationalism."

Carney may try to rewrite who we are as Canadians because he does not like being humble or accountable, as our King is. Canada is one of the oldest constitutional monarchies in the world. Our newly added Charter in our Constitution that guarantees rights and freedoms, begins with a recognition of the supremacy of God. Our national anthem says, “God keep our land glorious and free!” We are a Dominion under God, inspired by Psalm 72:8: "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth."  This is also echoed in Canada's motto: 'A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for 'from sea to sea').

Moreover, our Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written enactment, without that context, may be misleading.

In practice, there have been other sources of unwritten constitutional law:

Conventions:

Constitutional conventions form part of the Constitution. They include the existence of the office of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and the requirement that the Prime Minister either resign or request a dissolution and a general election upon losing a vote of "confidence" in the House of Commons. The existence and power of political Parties in the House of Commons is mostly unwritten.

Royal prerogative

Reserve powers of the Canadian Crown, being remnants of the powers once held by the British Crown, were reduced over time by the parliamentary system. Primarily, these are the Orders in Council, which give the government the authority to declare war, conclude treaties, issue passports, make appointments, make regulations, incorporate, and receive lands to the Crown.

Unwritten principles

Principles that are incorporated into the Canadian Constitution by the preamble of the Constitution Act 1867, include a statement that the Constitution is "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom", much of which is unwritten. Unlike mere conventions, these are justiciable. Amongst those principles most recognized as constitutional are federalism, liberal democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Others include responsible government, representation by population, judicial independence, no taxation without representation, and parliamentary supremacy. Also, the Governor General's unwritten powers are very broad but kept in reserve.

The government's philosophy is important and goes well beyond an academic discussion. It reflects the underlying political attitude and motives and explains why Canada has been financially unsuccessful since 2015. 

Canadians are hurting. In response, there is a lack of humility and accountability from the Canadian Liberal cadre. The evidence is that the Liberal Party's style of secular humanism and civic nationalism does not meet the Canadian human challenge of 2026.

Political Correctness Is Illegal

Main Mall Greenway - UBC

 

Political Correctness Is Illegal, Say These Professors Suing Their University

A group of academics at the University of British Columbia say the school’s D.E.I. (diversity-equity-inclusion) policies and practices, which include land acknowledgments, violate a law that requires universities to be “nonpolitical.”  

Article by Pranav Baskar Feb. 19, 2026 New York Times

Job candidates required to describe how they would advance “decolonization.”  A video that suggests starting meetings by identifying oneself as a “settler” on unceded native lands.  A political scientist who says he was instructed to teach game theory “from an Indigenous perspective.”

Each, a practice at the University of British Columbia, is now evidence in a lawsuit brought against the school by a group of professors who claim such social-justice efforts violate a provincial law requiring universities to stay out of politics.

The suit, filed last spring and currently under review by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, has set off a major legal and cultural battle at one of Canada’s top universities, in which each side accuses the other of trying to push an activist political agenda in the name of free speech.  The suit raises important questions about when public speech in a democratic society is political.

The professors who petitioned the court say the university’s measures promote a campus culture that punishes contrarian ideas and pressures academics to endorse progressive political positions with which they may disagree.  They seek to ban the university from a broad range of actions that include requiring job applicants to commit to diversity principles; and the making of so-called land acknowledgments, ceremonial statements which often precede public events and that note Canada is the ancestral land of Indigenous people.

The professors’ case hinges on a decades-old provincial law, called the University Act, which mandates that universities be “non-sectarian and nonpolitical in principle.”  But the law does little to clarify the bigger question before the court: What counts as political?

“In recent years, university administrators have given in to the calls to take political positions,” said Josh Dehaas, a lawyer for the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a libertarian organization, who is representing the professors suing the university.  “In this particular era, the pressure they have given into is often progressive causes.”  Before 2020, he added, an accomplished academic did not need “to commit to D.E.I. principles to become a professor at U.B.C.”

In a brief submitted to the court, the university argued the professors have not shown proof of harm to their careers or liberties, and denied that either land acknowledgments or D.E.I. policies constitute “political activity” under the law.

Land acknowledgments, the university says, reflect a “legal fact” rather than a political belief — the property occupied by the university was never ceded via treaty by the original Indigenous occupants.   Furthermore, it says, no one on campus is mandated to make such pronouncements.

The university also says written statements by job applicants about their commitments to D.E.I. are not used as “screening tools.”  However, it adds, those statements can be used to disqualify a candidate who fails to uphold its principles.

The four professors bringing the suit have years of teaching experience at the university and include instructors of philosophy, political science and English. In hundreds of pages of affidavit material, the group portrays a university climate in which speaking out against left-wing positions risks professional consequences.

“When people in charge of the hiring, firing, and promotions are taking any side, that infringes on academic freedom,” said Mr. Dehaas, their lawyer.  “The pressures are so strong that they become de facto mandatory.”

The university has long been at the forefront of the movement to support the inherent rights of Canada’s Indigenous people.  The Vancouver campus is home to the Xwi7xwa Library for Indigenous studies, which according to the school’s website is “located on the traditional, ancestral, unceded territory of the hən̓q̓əmin̓əm̓ speaking xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) people.”

Of the university’s 72,692 students across two campuses in Vancouver and Okanagan, 2,500 identify as Indigenous, according to the academy’s latest enrollment report.  And the leaders of another local tribe, the Sylix nation, condemned the lawsuit as regressive and insulting.

Andrew Irvine, a philosophy professor at the university’s Okanagan campus, who is among those suing the school, has in his public writings about academic freedom taken positions that critics say trivializes the history of Indigenous people and racism.

In response to such criticism Professor Irvine wrote in a National Post article that the response from Indigenous groups mischaracterized his position.  He said the professors take no view on land acknowledgments other than that they are political in nature, and that “our case in no way attempts to override or diminish Indigenous rights.”  The campus is divided — unsurprisingly, the professors who brought the suit might say — along political lines.

 

Viewpoint: United Nations-aligned laws create two-tiered society

'The public must understand the principle that legal capacity creates its own unending demand'

Feb. 11, 2026

Powell River-Sunshine Coast MLA Randene Neill, who is also BC’s minister of water, land and resource stewardship, made no additional explanations or assuaged public anxiety with her answers to Powell River Westview Ratepayers Association on Feb 6.

Neill was invited to respond to written pre-submitted questions about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. BC premier David Eby has said the government will be amending DRIPA before the summer break of 2026 to scale back the power courts have in shaping reconciliation efforts. Recent court decisions have created confusion about what the act means in practice. Eby said his government is also planning to appeal the court decision to defend private property rights, but no documents have been filed.

However, Eby does not admit his legislation created all the legal problems. He won’t admit DRIPA is not fixable, and that the legislation cannot pretend to be one thing (social reconciliation -peace -certainty -trust) while being another —a big highway to unending demands. The NDP is the only government in the world that has made such enabling legislation at the behest of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Meanwhile, BC Conservatives want to repeal DRIPA, claiming the government has continued to cause uncertainty by signing land-use agreements with First Nations without widespread public input, consultation and social approval. The NDP claims settlement deals are the business of government to government, and that the public is only peripherally relevant to the process.

DRIPA is dividing British Columbians, say BC Conservatives, and people are being left to wonder whether land access, development rights and long-standing property law can change overnight, without significant public debate.

Eby says Indigenous claims to land title predates the DRIPA legislation and First Nations title was not invented by DRIPA. He said it is grounded in Canada's constitution and repealing DRIPA would remove the road map they have with First Nations for how to resolve matters outside of court. It would bring more conflicts in the court and slow projects down. Repealing DRIPA would return us to a darker, conflict-oriented time and set us back a generation in our relationship with First Nations, Eby said.

However, in my view, under the guise of “reconciliation,” the province is being reshaped—not by democratic consensus, but by ideology embedded into law.

For example, the Cowichan Ruling of 2025 was a decision legitimizing aboriginal title over private property homeowners in Richmond, based on questionable hearsay evidence from 150 years ago. This ruling, influenced by NDP provincial government “practice directives” prioritizing Indigenous reconciliation claims, discards the established rule of law and creates unequal treatment based on race. It is certain that every legal loophole and advantage will be always exploited to the sole advantage of the claimants.

Residents of Okanagan Falls, a community that is 97 per cent non-Indigenous, were blindsided to learn their efforts to incorporate and become a city have now subjected them to DRIPA. The neighbouring Osoyoos First Nation has claimed it wants Okanagan Falls’ name, and potentially street names, changed to their preference. They also want crown land removed from proposed city boundaries.

The public must understand the principle that legal capacity creates its own unending demand. United Nations-aligned laws create a two-tiered society, where a privileged group’s legal authority takes precedence over the interests of the majority. That’s not reconciliation—it is one-way capitulation, including implied social guilt.

At the ratepayers meeting, Neill said she would vote for amendment and not the repeal of DRIPA. The Conservatives alternative is to completely repeal and replace with more traditional negotiation processes.