Sept 5, 2026 Reza Pahlavi -no answer

 

Pahlavi

In January, when authorities in the Islamic Republic of Iran systematically gunned down thousands of protesters amid a nationwide uprising, many nations duly condemned the violence. They spoke out about the need for comprehensive political change to free the Iranian people from decades of tyranny. Since that massacre has faded from the international community’s memory, international leaders have been silent about the Iranian regime’s underlying behaviour of political murder and human rights abuse.

The regime’s repression of dissent has continued following Iran’s latest uprising, with more than 40 people, some as young as 19, executed for political and religious crimes. Dozens of others are on death row, with more expected to join unless there is serious international pressure that compels the regime to halt or scale back its murder spree.

It is incumbent upon Western governments to be consistent in the messages they send to anyone with the power to influence Tehran's practices. They must join multilateral pressure on the regime, including greater economic sanctions, diplomatic maneuvering, referrals to international courts, etc. All Western governments should be expected to denounce the evil administration and call for regime change. They should support the military goal of denying nuclear weapons development.

The importance of the message is now amplified by reports that Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran's last Shah who was deposed in the 1979 revolution, is planning to visit various countries in mid-September to build a personal following. If any prominent politician or institution gives him a platform to promote himself as the would-be national leader, following the mullahs’ regime, it would be a great disrespect to the sacrifices made by patriots who have fought for freedom and democracy in Iran, long before the inception of the Islamic Republic.

The population will never forget the brutal legacy of torture and execution of political dissidents during the time of the Shah, the last king of Iran. He ruled with an iron fist through a one-party dictatorial system, supported by the notorious secret police SAVAK.

Throughout his current propaganda campaign, Reza Pahlavi has been deliberately evasive about his father's legacy and its impact on the role he might play in a future Iran that trades theocratic dictatorship not for democracy, but for the restoration of the Shah's throne. He has tried to use meetings with Western politicians to lend legitimacy to his claim for a throne and to push his agenda. Fortunately, initial media interest in his opinion and project has faded.

Pahlavi has not only continually refused to disavow the political executions and violent repression of dissent that were pervasive in Iran before the revolution, but has expressed pride in his father's record and his heritage. In so doing, he has been acting as if the Shah’s record can be erased from the history of human rights violations in his homeland. Political prisoners were systematically tortured, and opponents were silenced through fear. The reality is that many of the victims are still alive, and a good number of them now reside in Canada and the USA.

Democratic expat Iranians take pride in their commitment to human rights and human dignity and hold democratic principles of freedom as the foundation of society. They refuse to become a stage for the whitewashing of authoritarian rule, of the past or present.

Political leadership should condemn the political executions in Iran, and use the upcoming annual United Nations General Assembly meeting in late September to address the pressing human rights catastrophe in Iran in general, and the wave of political executions specifically. They should also avoid taking sides regarding Iran’s future, and stay away from presumptive figures like Reza Pahlavi.

Political leadership should stand with freedom, justice, and self-determination for Iranians, and not with any past or present machinery of repression. Reza Pahlavi cannot be seen as an alternative for Iran. A monarchical dictatorship has no place in Iran’s future. Rather, Iran must become a secular, multi-party, functioning free democratic State.

Reza Pahlavi is not an option for specific reasons...

1. Absence of an Organized Political Structure Inside Iran

Successful democratic transitions do not occur spontaneously. They require organized movements, networks, and institutions capable of mobilizing society. There is no evidence that Reza Pahlavi commands an organizational infrastructure inside Iran. He does not appear to have a structured political organization, a network of cadres, underground resistance structures, or operational channels capable of mobilizing supporters inside the country. Thousands of political activists were imprisoned, tortured, exiled, and executed for opposing both the monarchy and the current religious dictatorship. Yet there is no identifiable network associated with Reza Pahlavi that has engaged in organized resistance inside Iran.

Without these elements, his leadership claims are wishful, symbolic, and personal. A credible political alternative must demonstrate organizational capacity and social roots, not merely temporary media visibility. If there is no organized struggle in Iran connected to him, what force or organization would actually carry out political change that identifies him as their leader?

2. Soundbites Without Strategic Substance

Reza Pahlavi's public messaging consists of broad slogans about unity, democracy, and national reconciliation, but he has failed to provide concrete strategies for regime change, which diminishes his credibility as a serious political alternative.

Pahlavi has failed to answer these questions. His political discourse remains merely aspirational, rather than operational. Instead, he openly called on the USA and Israel to launch military strikes on Iran, describing them as "humanitarian intervention."

More fundamentally, the hollowness of his democratic sloganeering is perhaps most starkly illustrated by his own roadmap for the post-transition period, which would concentrate the powers of the executive, legislature, and judiciary in the hands of a single individual—Reza Pahlavi himself—an arrangement fundamentally at odds with the separation of powers that lies at the heart of democratic governance.

3. A Polarizing Figure in a Multi-Ethnic Society

Pahlavi monarchy was marked by centralization, cultural suppression, and assimilationist policies, leaving a legacy of deep mistrust among significant segments of the Kurdish, Azeri, Arab, and Baluchi populations.

Reza Pahlavi's public positions have reinforced these concerns. When five Kurdish political organizations formed a coalition to coordinate their activities and advocate for Kurdish rights within a democratic Iran, Reza Pahlavi responded with a strongly worded statement accusing them of separatism, warning that such actions could be met with the deployment of an army, even though he commands no military force.

Such rhetoric echoes the centralizing and coercive instincts historically associated with monarchic rule in Iran. Rather than addressing legitimate demands for equality, cultural recognition, and political participation, it reinforces fears among ethnic communities that a restoration of monarchy would once again prioritize centralized authority over pluralism and democratic inclusion.

4. Reliance on the Regime’s Security Apparatus

As far back as 2002, Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly suggested that he was in direct communication with elements within the security forces, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij, who, in his view, could play a decisive role in bringing about political change. He does not understand political Islam.

This raises a profound contradiction. The IRGC and related institutions are the very structures responsible for decades of repression, including the suppression of protests, mass arrests, and violent crackdowns. A political transformation that relies on these institutions risks reproducing authoritarian power structures under a different name. The claim has no legitimacy.

5. Unsubstantiated Claims of Mass Defections

Reza Pahlavi has repeatedly claimed that large numbers of security personnel, sometimes cited as 160,000, have joined his cause. However, there is no credible evidence supporting these claims. No organizational structure representing such forces has been identified, no command hierarchy exists, and no operational activity has been observed. Indeed, during the January 2026 uprising, when the regime security forces opened indiscriminate fire on protesters, not one of these ghost recruits showed up.

In his Reuters interview, he backtracked and downplayed his earlier claim of having direct communication with the IRGC, insisting that the contacts were recent, informal, and via direct messages on social media.

6. A Pattern of Failed Political Initiatives

Over the past four decades, numerous political initiatives launched by Reza Pahlavi, including alliances, charters, councils, and opposition coalitions, have repeatedly collapsed or faded without producing meaningful political results. This repeated pattern raises questions about organizational capacity and leadership effectiveness.

7. Eroding Confidence Among Financial Backers

A July 2026 Reuters investigation reported growing disillusionment among some of Pahlavi's Iranian-American financial backers. Members of a private WhatsApp group of prominent businesspeople had discussed supporting him after the January protests, but fewer than ten ultimately contributed, providing more than $3 million in total. One member told Reuters that some participants lacked confidence that Pahlavi was "the right guy."

Reuters further reported that some donors became frustrated after Pahlavi listened to, but did not follow, their advice to do more to unify the opposition and to condemn violence and harassment by radical supporters. One donor, who had expected greater attention to the advice of financial backers, said he had not contributed again, adding: "We're all business people. You want to have a return on investment."  This episode suggests that doubts about his leadership extend beyond political critics to individuals who have provided substantial financial support.

8. Questionable Political Networks

Many individuals within Reza Pahlavi's political circle come from the former security apparatus or monarchist networks associated with the old order. These associations reinforce perceptions that his project represents a restorationist movement rather than a democratic alternative.

9. Failure to Confront the Crimes of the Past

A credible democratic leader must demonstrate a willingness to confront historical injustices. Yet Reza Pahlavi has never acknowledged the crimes committed under his father's rule, including the widespread repression carried out by SAVAK. Instead, he has repeatedly portrayed the 1979 revolution, an event involving millions of Iranians, as an act of sedition, while speaking in glowing terms about the Pahlavi era despite its record of systemic corruption, censorship, imprisonment, and execution of political opponents.

During three recent visits to Europe, he publicly stated that he was proud of his father's legacy and of everything his family had done. In his interview with Nieuwsuur/NOS television, he said his father was one of the greatest leaders Iran has ever had. He refused to admit that the present occupation of Iran by political Islam was the result of his father’s failure to lead into a Constitutional Monarchy and a fully democratic State.

10. Violence, Intimidation, and SAVAK Symbolism Among Pahlavi Supporters

Growing concerns have emerged regarding the conduct of segments of Pahlavi's support base. In several European countries and in Canada, journalists, activists, and political opponents have reported threats, intimidation, and acts of violence linked to some of his supporters. Major media outlets, including two articles in the Guardian, Germany's ARD, and Sweden's public broadcaster, have documented incidents ranging from online harassment and threats against journalists to physical assaults at political gatherings. Particular concern has focused on the reappearance of SAVAK symbolism at pro-monarchist rallies, with critics warning that the glorification of the Shah's former security apparatus is fundamentally at odds with democratic values.

These concerns intensified following the murder of Iranian activist Masoud Masjoodi in Canada. Before his disappearance, Masjoodi reportedly received hundreds of threatening messages because of his opposition to Reza Pahlavi. Canadian police later arrested an Iranian couple who had openly expressed support for Pahlavi and the monarchy, and they were charged with first-degree murder and are awaiting trial.

The cumulative pattern of threats, violence, and the public display of SAVAK insignia has prompted increasing scrutiny from law-enforcement authorities, journalists, and former allies, many of whom question whether these developments are compatible with the democratic principles that Pahlavi claims to champion.

Conclusion

Taken together, these factors raise serious questions about the viability of Reza Pahlavi as a democratic alternative, or even as a transitional leader. Political visibility and fame, drawn from his father's infamy, cannot substitute for a principled, value-driven movement, a social base inside Iran, and a detailed and credible strategy for national liberation. His unsubstantiated claims of mass defections, contacts with elements of the IRGC and Basij, and repeated failed political initiatives undermine any credibility.

Equally troubling is his unwillingness to confront brutal repression under his father's rule, alongside the glorification of the monarchy and SAVAK by segments of his support base. Iran's future cannot be a return to its past. A credible alternative must break with both the Shah and the Sheikh, and establish a democratic republic based on popular sovereignty, pluralism, equality, human rights, and the Iranian people's ability to determine their own future through elections.

 

Harsh but true.

 

Harsh but true.

The July 2026 Fraser Institute report reveals that the top 20 percent of income-earning families in Canada pay nearly two-thirds of the country's personal income taxes and more than half of total taxes.

Alternatively, the myth-loving political lefties have an information diet of envy and resentment. They lie when they say "make the rich pay," as they promote the fantasy that higher-income earners do not pay their fair share.

There is a common myth that top income earners do not pay their share of taxes and that increasing taxes on this income group is effective in generating additional government revenue.

However, high-income families already pay a disproportionately larger share of all taxes-nearly two-thirds (65.3 percent) of personal income taxes and over half (58.3 percent) of total taxes-demonstrating they contribute their fair share and supporting the case for limited government.

In contrast, the bottom 20 percent of income-earning households pay only 0.7 percent of all federal and provincial personal income taxes and 1.7 percent of total taxes in Canada. This is due to the tax system's rate structure, where the share of taxes owed increases as income rises.

Raising taxes on high-income earners ignores the economic consequences of rate increases and the predictable behavioural responses to high tax rates or new taxes. In response to a tax increase, many will change their behaviour to reduce their taxable income through tax planning or evasion, delaying investment, or going elsewhere, resulting in governments raising less revenue than anticipated. High taxes turn incentives on their head.

A high tax economy reduces Canada's competitiveness with other industrialized countries, especially our largest trading partner, the United States. Increasing taxes on high-income earners makes Canada a less attractive place to live, to work, and to invest, while causing lower-income people to struggle in a harsher economic context. Society becomes more divided between the haves and the have-nots. It is more than money, as debilitating socialism has negative social consequences for everyone.

Highly skilled and productive people, such as entrepreneurs, technical engineers, corporate managers, doctors, scientists, and software developers, will migrate to where the opportunities exist and the economic climate is most favourable. The underlying government ideology about the cost and size of government means everything for national success and the general standard of living. The proven axiom is that the more extreme the socialist government behaves, the worse off are people, especially lower-income earners and those who need public assistance.

There are common misconceptions perpetuated by the political left in Canada that top income earners pay little in taxes and that increasing taxes on this income group is an effective way to achieve economic justice and generate significant additional revenue for expanded social benefit programs.

In Canada, top income earners already pay a disproportionately large share of taxes, whether through income tax or other levies. This reflects our shared value that those who succeed should contribute more, consistent with Canada's progressive tax system. However, the balance has gone over the tipping point.

In contrast to the federal government's stated expectation, the tax increases that Ottawa imposed on top income earners yielded less revenue than policy-makers predicted, as affected taxpayers adjusted their work and social behavior over time. Also, investment plans changed. A similar result will occur if the governments decide to increase tax rates further. The time-proven principle applies. High taxes, especially a steep progressive tax system, are not as beneficial as advertised, as they especially hurt lower-income earners and do not maximize revenue potential.

Income inequality did not come from 'exploitation' or some evil financial controllers. It stems from economic growth driven by a free enterprise system, which has lifted more people out of poverty than all government programs combined. Capitalism—free enterprise, not cronyism—has fueled the innovations that improve our lives.

From electric power, the automobile, the airplane, and air conditioning to Uber, 3D printing, and SpaceX: all marvels of modern civilization came from the pursuit of profit, not government planning and excessive regulation. Even the iPhone, Internet service, and the platforms that clueless activists use to promote leftist ideologies were all built by capitalists. Yet socialism is making a comeback in popular thought. Why?

It is very easy to make unrealistic promises. It costs nothing to promise free stuff. It takes little thought to get applause by saying, 'eat the rich,' 'cancel student debt,' or 'a home is a human right.' But history shows that socialism, despite these promises, leads to economic decline, shortages, and loss of freedoms. Why do people risk everything to escape socialist regimes like North Korea or Venezuela? Because socialism always fails.

Idealist political philosophies, once applied, always sour. The socialist system is inefficient and becomes inhumane because it is built on false ideas. It takes away the incentives and also accountability to produce and improve, because it violates human nature by denying the right to ownership and business initiative. Open competition and marketplace choice help make the self-renewing system work. In the longer term, socialism can only be maintained by institutional coercion and violence.

Those who are unfamiliar with history often imagine socialism as voluntary, communal sharing. It sounds kind and generous. In practice, socialism disrespects human dignity, destroys autonomy, and puts economic and social power into the hands of unaccountable politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats. When that happens, what usually follows is abuse, corruption, waste, poverty, misery, and hopelessness.

Take seriously the life stories of those who have survived socialism. Ask the Eastern Europeans why they risked their lives in attempts to escape their socialist countries after WWII. Why do the North Koreans pay smugglers to sneak them out of Kim's paradise, risking torture and execution? Find out what the Venezuelans think of socialism while waiting in line for hours to buy toilet paper. They previously had an oil-rich developing economy that socialist demagogues ruined.

For over a century, people who tried socialism have always voted against it with their feet. They build boats to move their families from controlled economies to the free-enterprise Western economies. No one is running from capitalism, because it yields freedom and opportunities to pursue a good life. Socialistic philosophy may sound reasonable in an academic lecture and TikTok clips, but it ends in repression and more poverty.

Capitalism has its blemishes, but market forces and commerce law moderate it because it evolves organically from market interactions among flawed human beings, and that is also why socialism is not the solution. Canada's founders got it right. The pursuit of peace, order, and good government means the freedom to try, to fail, to learn, and to thrive, without a heavy-handed government deciding who gets what. It is our moral duty to secure that legacy for our children.

Canada has been a political and economic free-enterprise democracy that calls for free markets, limited government intervention, privatization, deregulation, and free trade. The philosophy emerged especially following the Second World War through the work of economists such as John Kenneth Galbraith, Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman. After the economic crises of the 1970s, confidence in Keynesian economics was somewhat diminished. This allowed conservatism to gain prominence. It became mainstream under Margaret Thatcher in the UK, Ronald Reagan in the US, and Brian Mulroney in Canada. 

Globalization boomed with the rise of free trade agreements such as NAFTA. William Vickrey, Michael Walker, and Stephen Harper took wise economic thought and practice in the Canadian context to the next positive level. However, recent stresses have led governments to adopt more interventionist approaches, which will likely do more harm than good. The hopes for wise financial administration from academic Mark Carney have completely faded.

The typical Canadian leftie is a self-satisfied voter who believes they are morally superior. They will not see themselves for the hypocrites they are. They have internalized a haughty, condescending loathing toward Conservatives, inventing myths that Conservatives are uncaring, prejudiced and exclusionary. Their spiritual socialism dwells on stories of caring for the disadvantaged and street people, and on defending the exploited members of the community who need social justice. They often buy into radical environmentalism. However, their policies create the very social conditions they decry. Their mythical construct is part of marketing efforts to attract new members to their "cause". 

They wrongly believe that they alone “understand” the connection between morality and social justice. They say acceptance of diversity, equity, inclusion, and cooperation will not develop overnight, as they keep reassuring themselves that a more humane society will never emerge through top-down legislation. They speak of "people power", yet they actively seek political control. 

The lefties wrap themselves in their myths when they regularly lose at the ballot box. The radicals accept that they will never form a national government, yet remain loyal to their "religion", regardless of contrary factual data and measured evidence. 

Spiritual socialists are a fundamental part of the early origins of the prairie social gospel, as seen in the long-forgotten early CCFers like James Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, and their Regina Manifesto of 1933. The CCF aimed to create a "co-operative commonwealth" that would address the inadequacies of capitalism by promoting social ownership. The Liberal Party is full of lefties, and the Canadian tragedy is how non-Communist socialism with Marxist sentiments has gained traction in Canadian politics. In elections, they have often been the spoilers.

They advertise themselves as building a more just, equal, and sustainable Canada within a global community. Internally, among themselves, they can be nasty, controlling, duplicitous, manipulative, discriminatory, and very prejudiced. It is the politics of envy and resentment, as the spirit of Marxism has its dark side.

In Canada, the economic numbers are bad and worsening across social measures and financial metrics. However, socialism as a religion and its general following persist, despite the evidence. It has been observed that "the lefties" would allow Canada to burn to the ground before admitting error and changing voting patterns. Such is politics-as-religion for the ideological left in Canada.

Add your comments. They will appear after 48 hrs.

 

Liberals hide from accountability

 

Liberals shut down debate over Carney condo 'bailout' probe at ethics committee.

On July 7, 2026, a motion at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (ETHI) arose from a government announcement to take ownership of thousands of unsold condos in BC. There were also claims that several condominium developers attended a recent Liberal party fundraiser in Vancouver, paying $1,775 per ticket, which appeared to be insider government access and benefit for a price.

The Liberal MPs of the House Ethics Committee blocked debate with a 5 to 4 vote, limiting transparency on the government's plan to buy unsold BC condominiums from stressed developers. Recent MP floor crossers over to the Liberal Caucus changed the voting membership on all Commons Committees. Now the manipulation of Parliament is under Liberal control.

The partially explained plan would see ‘Build Canada Homes’ and ‘BC Housing’ partner to convert 2,200 unsold condo units into affordable housing. The plan received significant criticism from housing advocates and political commentators who have called it a "bailout" for developers who had speculated on rising prices.

However, a Liberal MP moved a motion to adjourn debate on the issue, arguing that summer is not the best time to tackle it and that committee members should be in their constituencies. They claimed that a more fulsome plan will be released in a few months.

Conservative MP Aaron Gunn called for testimony from Vancouver developer Bob Rennie, Housing Minister Gregor Robertson, and others, noting that Prime Minister Mark Carney's previous role as chairman of Brookfield Asset Management raises questions about conflicts of interest in the condo plan.

Gunn’s motion also called for Duncan Wlodarczak, chair of the Liberal Party of Canada in British Columbia, to testify. Wlodarczak worked for Vision Vancouver, the party Robertson represented while the city's mayor.  Wlodarczak is currently chief of staff to the president of Onni Group, a Vancouver-based real estate developer.

Canadians' trust in government transparency is at stake with the Liberal plan to bail out billionaire condo developers in the fifth-most-unaffordable housing market. This raises serious ethical questions that the public deserves clear answers to.

The prime minister and BC. Premier David Eby has also said that these purchases would be for distressed assets bought at "below market rate," although no details have been made public. Eby also said the city of Vancouver would not be included in the program, which would target the Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, and the Okanagan.

The condo initiative appears to be is a massive bailout for developers, raising questions about accountability and conflict of interest. The public's confidence in the government's commitment to responsible affordable housing is at risk, and many see the maneuver as a failure of ethical standards.

Conservative MP Gabriel Hardy also noted that on June 3, Brookfield Asset Management, the firm Carney chaired before becoming prime minister, partnered with Concert Properties to invest in eight industrial properties in British Columbia. The $1 billion-deal occurred just a few weeks before the condo conversion program announcement. Hardy pointed out that Concert Properties owns interests in several condo properties in Burnaby, B.C. Consequently, the ETHI Committee should involve the Lobbying Commissioner, for even the appearance of a conflict of interest warrants a proper investigation. Canada is still a land of law and ethical rules and standards.

 

 

 

In Tense Ethics Hearing, Conservatives Say Brookfield Partnered With Vancouver Condo Developer 15 Days Before Carney's Bailout — and Call Brookfield as a Witness

By Sam Cooper, July 7, 2026  -  The Bureau    thebureau@substack.com

OTTAWA — In a contentious ethics committee, Conservative MP Aaron Gunn moved Tuesday to summon Vancouver condo marketer Bob Rennie, federal Housing Minister Gregor Robertson, and major developers connected to Rennie’s fundraiser for Mark Carney as witnesses in an urgent parliamentary investigation of the Prime Minister’s multibillion-dollar British Columbia condo bailout. A second Conservative, Gabriel Hardy, then walked the committee through a timeline that ended on the most pointed suggestion of the hearing.

Hardy asserted that Brookfield — the asset-management giant Carney chaired before entering politics — became co-owner in a deal with Concert Properties, a developer holding dozens of condo projects in the Burnaby glut zone, fifteen days before the bailout was announced.

Gunn’s motion, put to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, calls for no fewer than six meetings this summer into what the governments have styled the Canada–British Columbia partnership on condo conversion — the June 18 plan to buy more than 2,200 unsold Vancouver-region condominiums with public funds.

The witness list reaches from the political architects to the industry’s commanding heights: former Vancouver mayor and now Carney housing minister Gregor Robertson; British Columbia Housing Minister Christine Boyle; Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim; Rennie, whom the motion identifies as the figure “often called Vancouver’s Condo King”; Duncan Wlodarczak, chair of the Liberal Party of Canada in British Columbia and chief of staff at Onni Group, one of the province’s largest developers; the Urban Development Institute; Concert Properties; and Brookfield Asset Management. The motion further demands that both governments produce any agreement between them on the condo program, and any agreement between either government and any developer or lender, immediately upon finalization.

Gunn’s motion would put the bailout’s contracts — which developers, which units, at what price — before Parliament as they are signed, answering the questions the governments have so far declined to address.

It asserts that Carney’s plan would “bail out developers, bankers, and investors by using taxpayer dollars,” that it “will not make housing more affordable, but will prevent a price correction from taking place, preserving high prices for developers rather than lowering them for British Columbians trying to enter the housing market,” that “forcing home buyers to compete with their own tax dollars while raising housing prices for the benefit of developers is not in the interest of Canadians.”

The Liberals, he said, “never campaigned on spending more than a billion dollars in taxpayer money to give a handout to their wealthy developer friends.” The plan, he argued, means developers “wouldn’t have to lower prices and God forbid sell at a loss,” and raises “some pretty obvious ethical questions that I think deserve answers — such as, if the Liberals didn’t campaign on this policy, why are they suddenly deciding to pursue it now? Whose idea was it? Who lobbied for it? Is this being planned for more Canadian cities? And maybe most importantly, which well-connected developers, big banks and foreign investors stand to benefit the most?”

“I also have to point out how insane the generational inequity of this policy truly is,” Gunn added. “Handing out huge sums of money to developers who have made billions over the past 20 years, paid for with tax dollars by those who are still trying to enter the housing market for the very first time. It is yet another generational transfer of wealth that creates no new units of housing while rewarding those who built and priced condos that nobody could afford.”

Conservative member Gabriel Hardy followed, pressing the case for urgency before the money moves.

The announcement came June 18, two days before Parliament adjourned, for the purchase of 2,200 unsold condominiums at a per-unit cost Hardy placed near $660,000.

Hardy then laid out the timeline, beginning with the Rennie fundraiser The Bureau has reported on. “An evening with Carney,” he told the committee. “It cost $1,750 to meet Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, in his office. No journalists — that’s often what happens, no journalists, behind closed doors. Don’t worry, our prime minister is full of virtue. But 17 main developers were there. And they all have one thing in common: thousands of condos unsold.” That was February 2026, Hardy said. In March 2026, he continued, a BC Housing document speaks to a meeting involving British Columbia’s housing minister. In May 2026, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported a 76 percent surge in unsold completed condos in Metro Vancouver — concentrated, Hardy stressed, in Burnaby and Richmond. “Remember that,” he said, “because it’s important.”

Then came June 3. “Brookfield becomes co-owner” in a deal with Concert Properties involving eight industrial properties, Hardy told the committee — and he was careful with the distinction: “Just to be clear, the co-ownership is not for condos with Concert Properties.” But Concert, he noted, “has projects in the region, including 50 in Burnaby. Fifty condo buildings in Burnaby.” Fifteen days later came the bailout announcement. “For Brookfield, 15 days before the announcement, they are becoming co-owners with this condo company with thousands of condos that haven’t been sold,” Hardy said. “And then all of a sudden there’s announcements in cities and sectors that would interest Brookfield and in which Brookfield has made investments. Should we investigate? Yes.”

That, Hardy said, is why Concert Properties was named in the motion. “Concert Properties, who created a partnership with Brookfield 15 days before the announcement, will be among the developers from whom the government will be purchasing these condos in the fall. These are just facts. They’re not presumptions. They’re not accusations.” The prime minister, he noted, has said developers did not request the program from him directly.

Hardy then turned to the prime minister’s ethics screen — the conflict-of-interest wall meant to separate Carney from decisions touching Brookfield. The screen, Hardy told the committee, has been “activated 17 times. So, these are direct employees of the prime minister who trigger this screen. So, there are potential conflicts of interest.” The committee, he said, had shared eight documents on potential conflicts involving the prime minister. “For a year — and I’ve been here for a year — we’re seeing that things are shady with the prime minister,” Hardy said. He offered a pattern he said kept recurring: “The prime minister often finds a way to be involved in everything. And I’ll give an example. In Mirabel, there was an announcement for planes. 28 days earlier, Brookfield became co-owners of a business that needed planes desperately in Mirabel. The committee hadn’t been able to ask questions on that, because every time that we table a motion, we’re told that we’re conspiracy theorists.”

That, he said, is why Brookfield Asset Management sits on the witness list: “One might wonder — is it actually a coincidence that Brookfield is always around? These questions are legitimate, and we need to receive answers.” The government members, he said, “are doing everything that they can so that we don’t move forward... We were able to work in a certain way before they became a majority. And now, since they have the majority, they are ensuring that these investigations don’t happen.”

“Make no mistake,” New Democrat Jenny Kwan, appearing at the committee, added. “It is a bailout for developers, even though the prime minister wants to pass it off as affordable housing. No one is buying it. The prime minister admitted as much at the announcement. He said, quote, ‘Developers are stuck.’”

Kwan said she rarely agrees with her Conservative colleagues, but backs the argument for an ethics probe in this case. Carney’s framing of the plan, she said, “sounds like a board member from Brookfield Asset Management, rather than the prime minister.”

The government side’s response, through the meeting’s opening stretch, came as procedure rather than argument.

Before Gunn had finished reading his motion’s clauses, Liberal member Bardish Chagger raised points of order over the French translation of the motion and its distribution; further interventions questioned the speaking order and the room’s audio, forcing Gunn to restart his reading repeatedly. The chair, Conservative John Brassard, said “I know what you’re doing here. I know what you’re doing to disrupt the meeting and that’s fine. You can continue it because people are watching.”

One of the new Liberal members, Wade Chang — who intervened early Tuesday on the speaking order — represents Burnaby Central, part of the region where the unsold-condo glut is concentrated.

The witnesses Gunn seeks sit at the center of the proximity pattern The Bureau has documented. Rennie hosted “An Evening with Mark Carney” at his Vancouver offices in February — a fundraiser whose Elections Canada filing lists 146 attendees paying up to $1,775 each, among them at least 17 of the province’s leading developers and former premier Christy Clark. A number of those developers hold unsold inventory in the Vancouver region’s glut — the same distressed stock the program proposes to buy. British Columbia government records show a briefing note headed “Rennie Meeting” was opened for Premier David Eby’s office in the same month. On a Postmedia panel in March 2025, Rennie said he was “working with Carney” on a plan to let foreign buyers back into the condo market through a federally backstopped rental pool.

More to come.

I have observed on Facebook and in my columns, that Carney has not appeared to have behaved ethically in his position as Prime Minister.  The evidence seems clear from the extensive documentation by blogger Youtuber “moose on the loose”, that on many occasions, Brookfield becomes better positioned to take advantage of private investments, soon after the Prime Minister has travelled and signed a new MOU (memorandum of understanding). 

Some have exclaimed that Carney is a financial liar and crook.  Liberal voices answer back, saying such allegations are merely extreme partisanship without evidence.  The legacy media has also done its part to never discuss or shut down any conversations about the appearance of many conflicts of interest by Carney in the last year. 

Of great importance to the economic future of BC and Alberta, the announcement of another pipeline to the coast was welcomed.  However, the caveats of the need for decarbonized oil in order to get approval, again placed Brookfield in the centre of such investment requirements.

There seems to be far too much economic activity generally prepositioning Brookfield over the last year, for it to be mere smart business.

Prime Minister Mark Carney - antisemitism

On Monday, June 1, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney spoke out against antisemitism at the Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto. The nice-sounding speech was the Liberals' admission of their poor performance in providing peace, order and good government.

While Carney decried antisemitism, he ignored the responsibility of his administration for the current violence and social hate that is openly displayed in our communities. He also revealed the ideological backdrop of Liberal weakness, which has yielded our tragic social situation.

Carney said, “Canada was not founded on a single creed, race, language, or faith.”

In some respects, his sentiment is wrong.  Canada’s Constitution opens with the words - “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”  Canada is founded on the Westminster model of governance, which is a Constitutional Monarchy. Therefore, Canada is inherently a Christian country in law. We have a Sovereign from which all government authority flows. Our Sovereign receives authority to reign from God, from a Christian Crown in a Christian church, with a Christian liturgy and prayers of supplication, acceptance, and blessing. It is exclusive in nature, recognizing that there is only one creator God to whom we are accountable and from whom we exist. It is that Christian base that gives the ethic of neutrality of governance and freedom to all faiths.

In addition, Carney said, “In Canada, state neutrality does not empty the public square but ensures that no conception of the good — including humanism or atheism — is privileged by state power, and that every Canadian has the freedom of conscience to live as they believe.”

His statement misses context. Historically, there have been criminal code limits on public expressions of belief. Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code specifically address hate propaganda and public incitement of hatred. These provisions prohibit advocating genocide, inciting hatred against an identifiable group, or promoting violence based on hate. In addition, 264(1) prohibits harassment causing fear. There are also Human Rights Codes that limit cultural, political, and religious expression. Canada has sufficient laws to fulfill its duty to maintain peace and order, but the Liberals have not delivered them.

Carney further pursued his inherent denialism by saying, “This means that the state—above the responsibilities we all have as citizens—has a special responsibility to ensure that no culture, faith, race, gender, or identity is threatened or suppressed.”

He fails to address the main source of Canada’s dilemma directly. There is a religious political belief held by those who illegally protest in our streets, calling for violence against Canadians. These perpetrators do not accept Canadian cultural traditions and they openly defy our social contract. These disloyal people were encouraged to come to Canada by the Liberals, and then they have done little to defend our Canadian social core. Canada reaps the consequences that Carney speaks against, but for which his government has been responsible.

Carney admits that, “Last year, over two-thirds of all religion-motivated hate crimes were directed at Jewish Canadians who make up only 1% of the population. To that end, I am pleased to announce the launch and membership of Canada’s new Ministerial Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion to be chaired by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, Marc Miller. The Council has a clear mission: to combat racism and hate in all their forms, and to guide the Government of Canada as we build a fairer, more just, more inclusive country.”

The problem is that the Council tasked with solving antisemitism includes members with histories tied to groups and causes that are viewed as hostile to Jews or supportive of designated terrorist organizations.  In addition, he did not mention whether his own government’s past funding of antisemitism would be investigated.

In typical Liberal moral relative fashion, Carney said, “Differences generate friction. Accommodation of competing claims is real work. We will always have our legitimate debates about where the lines properly fall. But those debates are part of how our pluralistic country sustains itself.”

It is incredible to believe that in Canada, according to our Prime Minister, hate and violence towards Jews is just a feature of a healthy debate in a pluralistic society.

Carney does not admit that their Immigration policy and lack of social defence have emboldened the insurrectionists and hatemongers. Capacity to offend creates its own demand for more offending.

Carney repeats an ideal which they have failed to apply to immigration screening. He is culpable by his own admission. "When you come to Canada, you bring your faith, your tradition, your language, your story. You leave behind your wars and your animosities.”

“This means that no Canadian going about their daily life should be held responsible for the actions of any government, wherever they may be. Whether they are on the subway, in a store, at a hospital, at a university, in a synagogue, a mosque, a gurdwara, or a temple.”

Carney is admitting the tragedy that he is presiding over, without any contrition for his government's role in creating it.

“This requires holding political debates in Parliament and in the public sphere, and not targeting private businesses, homes, and communities. The covenant runs in every direction. Antisemitism breaks it. Islamophobia breaks it. Burning churches breaks it. Transphobia breaks it. The targeting of any Canadian for their faith, their origin, or their identity breaks it.”

Carney does not admit that there are religious-political beliefs that are publicly acted out with violence, which defy our laws and cultural core. His repetition of the myth of Islamophobia for the illusion of balance only emboldens violence.

Carney concludes, “Each failure has taught us something about what it means to be the country we aspire to be. That means protection. That means outlawing and policing hate. That means preventing radicalization and addressing institutional biases. That means restoring Canada's promise by ensuring each of us has the space and confidence to be our whole selves and thrive. Canada promises a country in which Indigenous Peoples, Muslim Canadians, Black Canadians, Sikh Canadians, Christian Canadians, Queer Canadians — every Canadian — can be visibly themselves without fear. Canada promises a country where our differences are nurtured, not managed, where our differences are honoured, not suppressed. Where our differences are lived out in common, not pushed to the margins. That is the covenant we are renewing today. And which we must all honour with our actions.”

Carney’s speech is an admission of failure, as Canadians know our present state is far below what is required. The significant antisemitism and community violence, shootings, arsons, and targeted murders have especially emerged since 2015, when Liberals came to power. The typical Liberal response is another talk-shop Council.

Carney’s speech is without admission of Liberal error and responsibility. His Liberalism mischaracterizes the inherent legal nature of Canada. He also ignores our cultural essence. He speaks of ideals. However, of deep concern is the lack of renewed commitment to defend Canada with hard power and authentic law enforcement to protect all of what Canada is and means. 

Canada is suffering from a shortage of consequences for perpetrators, not analysis.  Social peace and community is sustained not by reports, but active accountability.  Canadians need leadership that is clear and direct.  Those who glorify terrorism, threaten citizens, and promote violence, must be deported if they are not citizens, and others must face the full force of the law.

Citizenship carries responsibilities as well as rights.  Multiculturalism is not a licence to import ancient prejudice and hatreds.  Canada’s urgent predicament demands more than speeches; it demands courageous moral clarity and a government that will defend the nation.

 

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 discredited myth of “Net-Zero” economic policy. It is environmental spending which has deepened Canada’s 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. Canada is now the worst of the G7 suffering homemade economic recession. 

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, 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.