Who Speaks For Canada?

 

Answer – it is the Canadian Cabinet along with her Majesty…the latter in more of a ceremonial sense.

How many voices does the Cabinet have?

But one.

The principle of Cabinet Solidarity is engrained in our Constitutional Monarchy system of Government.

So what gives with Denis Lebel, Federal Minister of Infrastructure, Communities, and Intergovernmental Affairs saying this past Monday that he is okay with Quebec separating on the basis of a bare majority – that is to say 50% plus 1 vote?

Does that not contradict the position of Prime Minister Harper and the rest of Cabinet?

It most certainly does – in fact Canada’s Cabinet is on record as recognizing a referendum result that is clear – which presumably would not entail a simple majority of 50% plus 1 -  and in that regard is in keeping with the Clarity Act which calls for “a clear majority” result.

This language is admittedly vague but can be argued that it does not allow for the bare majority vote supported by Minister Lebel.

So who speaks of Cabinet in this case?

Lebel or the rest of Cabinet?

A rhetorical question.

But Lebel’s stated position seriously undermines the Federal Cabinet – especially since he is also Harper’s Quebec Lieutenant.

So what to do.

Usually in such serious circumstances the offender is asked to step down from Cabinet.

More often, the offender himself has the integrity to do this without prodding as was done by Michael Chong when he resigned from Cabinet when it decided to recognize Quebec as a distinct nation.

What is obvious here is that Lebel’s personal belief mirrors that of the NDP Party more than it does his own.

If push comes to shove – with Quebec’s independence quest, things are going to get messy and we now know, the separatists have a friend on the inside.

And another reason for Cabinet Solidarity.

It would not be surprising if many of you were not aware of this – given the important Senate disputes occupying the time of our politicians and the media.

Heaven for bid – issues of real concern to our country receive our attention.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

 

Harper’s Nemesis

 

Mike Duffy.

And the “Duff” will likely take him down.

In all of this, it is passing strange that Stephen Harper – one of Canada’s greatest critics of the Senate, could well end up falling on his sword for appointing Duffy and a few others as Senators.

After all, it was Harper who desperately wanted the Senate to be either an elected body or go the way of the Great Dodo. (The Provinces blocked him in the former while the Liberals stood against him in the latter).

From the very beginning Harper pledged Senate Reform and even promised not to appoint another Senator unless he or she was elected in their province of origin.  When but a couple came forward, he was forced to get into the appointment business since to do otherwise would leave his party’s agenda at the mercy of Liberal Senate Majority.

So from my perspective Prime Minister Harper has the cleanest hands of all when it comes to doing something with the current Senate and its bunch of ne’er-do-well hangers-on. 

That leads me back to the Duff.

Today he came out to blame his female staffer – “suffering from post partum depression” as the reason his accounts were improperly filed.  I am not speaking about his housing expenses – since I concede that there is much ambiguity surrounding that issue.

Rather I am speaking about his apparent charging both the Conservatives and the Senate for his travel expenses at the time of the last election.

I am also referring to his “disabled friend” whom the Duff paid $65k for in the words of that friend “doing nothing”.

Many are coming out now in defence of Duffy saying he is being scapegoated – the same who said just a week earlier that Harper had to get rid of Duffy et al to restore the integrity (?) of the Senate.

You cannot have it both ways – you cannot stand in Harper’s way when he initially set out to reform the Senate and then later demand he jettison certain wayward Senators – and once done – be critical of the doing.  It is absurd. 

It unfortunately, is also the way politics works.

And Mike Duffy knows this fully as well as the fact that one is appointed for political purposes and can be summarily dismissed for those self same purposes.

I suffered a similar fate earlier in my governmental career but I was dumped for the sole fact that I was deemed to be a Tory when a Liberal Government came in.

I digress.

As I have said in an earlier blog – I think Mr. Harper may have slipped up.

He announced soon after it was revealed that he had no prior knowledge that his Chief of Staff had given Duffy the tidy sum of $90k to repay the Senate.  (You remember this – Duffy first telling the media that it was his own money and that he and his wife had decided to voluntarily pay back the Senate etc etc).

As I said in my earlier Blog – I find it difficult to believe that the Prime Minister did not have advanced knowledge of this questionable loan.

I said then and I stand by it, Mr. Harper is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

I fear though that given subsequent revelations that several in his office knew in advance – along with Duffy’s now apparent vindictive attitude, we may be on the verge of a startling revelation.

One that could very well spell the end of Harper’s Prime Ministership.  

It would be too bad since, in all of this, Harper – despite what you may think of him on a personal level – is one of the very few good guys left on the Hill.

And I will tell you something else – if worse does come to worse for Harper – he too knows how the game is played – and I predict he will accept his fate without a whimper.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

Who’s On First ?

 

I have had an arrangement with a local chiropractor here in Ottawa and part of that arrangement is that he bills directly to my one and only and seldom used credit card.

Well the chiropractor did such a good job that most of my aches and pains have vanished so I decided to discontinue treatment.

Given that I do not trust computer programs etc. I thought that it would be safe to call my credit card provider and ask them to de-authorize this monthly charge – i.e although I trust my chiropractor – it would not surprise me in the least if further charges inadvertently got charged to my credit card account.

With that brief background, let’s now listen in on my call to the Credit Card Company:

Nice lady answers the phone and I explain that I wish to de-authorize the regular monthly payment to my chiropractor.

Nice lady responds “No can do”.

“Why not ?” I reply.

“Because you have an agreement with your chiropractor to make these monthly payments” she informs me.

“But that agreement is between my chiropractor and myself and has nothing to do with your credit card company”.

“Sorry” she says.

“Okay then – let’s just cancel my card – I can at least do that, can’t I ?”

“You most certainly can sir but it won’t stop the monthly deductions” she asserts.

“Let me get this straight – I can cancel my card with you but you will still honour the monthly deduction”.

“Precisely” she states.

“Dear lady I have a contract with your credit card company – I decide to whom I want you to make payments and in return for that I pay your monthly statement.  Why I have decided that you cease making payments to my chiropractor is quite frankly none of your company’s business”.

This is met with silence.

“Make I speak with your manager”

In due course her manager comes on the line.

“May I help you”.

I explain what I had earlier explained to their lady agent and her manager begins with the following …

“Your agreement with your chiropractor has nothing to do with us”.

“Finally” I reply – “we are in agreement”.

“So what I can do for you?” manager inquires.

“De-authorize the monthly payment”

“No can do” he responds.

“Why not” says I.

“You have approved the monthly deduction” he states.

“Yes I have and now I want de-approve it”.

“You have to cancel it with them first” he responds.

“Okay then, just cancel the card”.

“Won’t do you any good since we will still honour the monthly charges as they come in”.

“You have to be kidding – as you stated at the beginning my contract with the chiropractor and my contract with your company are two distinct contracts… they have nothing to do with one another.”

“You are quite correct but we will still process the monthly charge”.

“Even when my card is cancelled”.

“Correct”

“Well sir, you can go ahead and do that – just don’t expect me to pay your monthly statement”.

“Your credit will be damaged sir”.

“And I will let the Credit Bureau know of the stupidity leading up to it”.

Silence.

“Okay how do you see this being handled” I asked with frustration.

“Cancel your contract with your chiropractor and then let us know at which point we can de-authorize the monthly charge to your credit card”

“And how do you suggest I go about cancelling that contract”

“That is entirely between you and your chiropractor … your contract with him has nothing to do with us”.

“But you just told me to cancel that contract and then you will de-authorize the monthly payment – so I just want to make sure I cancel it in a way in which your company finds acceptable. For instance, can I cancel the contract by telephone?”

“Yes you can”.

And then I call you and tell you the contract has been cancelled”.

“Precisely”

“But how can I prove it has been cancelled other than by my telling you it has?”

“We will ascertain at that point whether or not a telephone cancellation is sufficient”.

“So it may not be sufficient”

“Precisely – we will have to involve another department here to determine that.”

“Can I speak to that other department now – so I can avoid any mis-steps”.

“No – you must first cancel your contract with your chiropractor”

“And this is the contract that your credit card company has no interest in”.

“Precisely”

“Have you ever watched the skit between Abbot and Costello called ‘Who’s On First’ ?”

“No – I do not see how it would be relevant to our discussion Sir”

“Just listen to it”

As I see it …

‘K.D. Galagher’

Finally … A Politician With Some Common Sense.

 

As in British Prime Minister David Cameron and his plan to drop all those under 25 years from the roles of the dole and unemployment insurance.

Rather, he wants these loafers to either get a job or continue in school / job training & apprenticeship.

What a novel sensible idea.  If allowed to be implemented, it would - with one fell swoop – end what too often ends in a life time of dependency on the State.

I can just hear the left wing now moaning and groaning about how inhumane this would be, but in fact, it would restore their dignity and self reliance. 

It would also save the Treasury a great deal of money.

In contrast, food stamp usage in the United States has ballooned to over 50 million citizens under the current occupant of the White House and those on Government Assistance exceeds 100 million – 1/3 of America’s population.

In order to have a healthy vibrant society, we need to have as many as possible positively contribute and PM Cameron’s proposal will go a long way indeed to ensure that this happens.

In the current Nanny State Mentality evident here in Canada and in the West generally, it is difficult to see this happening.

Too bad; especially for those for whom they are intended.

As I see it…

‘K. D. Galagher’

 

Spitting into the Wind …

 

I would have preferred stronger language however …

Am of course speaking of the little guy currently occupying the White House and his about to be released attack on Syria.

It will do nothing nor mean anything.

There was a time a couple of years back when it would have been timely – i.e. topple an enemy leader and show the world that the West has no time for truly bad guys.

Now positions have hardened so in the fields of Syria we find two bad guys – tweedle dee and tweedle dum as it were – aka the Government of Syria along with extreme Iranian backed thugs on one hand and on the other side – Al Qaeda backed extremists.

You have to wish that both sides lose at this point.

So here is where the dear little guy enters the picture.  So what should he do?

But first let’s take a step back:

The west, led by the United States, has declared war on Al Qaeda this despite the fact that the little guy who currently occupies the White House refuses to define who exactly Al Qaeda consists of.

In addition there are three nations which are bitter opponents of the West  - namely, Iran, Syria and North Korea.  (China and Russia are in line to join this select group).

Given this we in the west should be doing everything in our power to defeat these 3 countries and this one terrorist group.

So this takes us back to the situation in Syria.

When the trouble started there two or so years ago – the U.S. should have taken President Assad out – rather than Libya’s harmless clown Gaddafi.

It would have shown to the world – especially to muslim terrorists and to the other 2 rogue states that it does not pay to plot and scheme against Western Democracies.

The opportunity was squandered by the little guy who currently occupies the White House in his mistaken belief that he could befriend these psychopaths.

Moving ahead today – he finds himself drawn into a conflict where both sides are his stated enemies.

Some say – including many of our distinguished military that we should sit on our hands and let the two devils go at it.

Humanitarians amongst us say we have to do something because Assad has stooped to using chemical weapons.

Obama has let it be known that he wants to do a 1 to 3 day surgical strike – meaning an air strike to diminish Syria’s ability to strike the rebels from the sky – e.g. by planes / missiles.

If he goes ahead with that plan – after the surgical strike – things will return to normal – and the current conflict will be guaranteed to go on and on.

Hence the title of Spitting into the wind.

So Galagher, what should the West do?

As I have said, Assad should have been taken out at the very beginning … before the current positions hardened.

Failure to have done that – leaves only the solution of imposing a no fly (no missile) zone over Syria for the remainder of the conflict – similar to that imposed by NATO on Libya.

This will even the match and reduce civilian causalities including the horrendous gassing of Syrians that we just witnessed.

The Little Guy’s surgical response will come and go. 

Eventually though the no fly zone will be imposed.

By all means – a boots on the ground approach should never happen ever.  We have seen plenty of evidence in this new century and last – that it no longer works especially in non-democratic countries such as these.

Regardless though of what action is now taken by us – evil will be the eventual winner in Syria and the real losers will be the Syrian people themselves.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

 

Young Trudeau is now 2 for 2

 

I am shocked …he is the only federal leader who has unequivocally come out against Quebec’s plan to legislate against basic religious freedoms.

Do you suspect their reticence has anything to do with the fact that 77% of Francophones are four square in favour of these proposed restrictions?

If you don’t believe that you are likely members in good standing in the flat earth society.

But the fact is, Trudeau is the only one with the courage enough to come out in favour of religious freedom despite the fact that it could hurt him electorally in his home Province.  He has said publicly that Quebec’s position makes it the laughing stock of the world. 

(Something his late father would have said despite my personally dislike for his policies generally).  

Indeed, Trudeau’s chances for success rest upon his doing well in that very province: – simply stated, if he does not take away a large number of those Quebec seats currently in the NDP column he is most unlikely to come victorious.

So what gives?

I am not sure but the fact remains – he has taken a righteous stand while the rest duck and hide.

Another poll shows that over 40% of Canadians generally support Madame Marois and her PQ cronies.

It is hard for me to imagine how quickly we in Canada and indeed in the West are so quick to give up our hard earned freedoms.

So mark me two for two for Young Trudeau.

If he keeps this up …who knows what the future holds.

As I see it …

(next blog – what should NATO do in regard to Syria)

‘K.D. Galagher’

 

Flying High …

 

Young Trudeau, that is, with his admission this week that he has tried ……….hold it…….. Marijuana.

Imagine – just like many – dare I say most – Canadians.

The oldsters – are aghast.

But even though I fit in that category ..in this case.. I am on YT’s side in his wish to see the drug legalized.

In truth I support the interim step of decriminalization but only in the sense that it would be a temporary stop leading to full legalization.

I am not so sure that Harper – given his following ambiguous statement, does not believe as I do but I leave that assessment for another time.

He said upon learning of YT’s statement – this revelation speaks for itself.  Whatever that was intended to mean.

In past Blogs I have spoken out against the criminalization of MJ for the main reason dear reader – is that it does not work.  Anymore than prohibition did the dirty thirties.

Again I say, the War on Drugs was lost a long time ago.

That does not mean I will run out and buy a dimes worth any time soon – I abhor its use and would be most disturbed if any of my friends or love ones got into it.

And for the record – I, unlike YT, have never tried the stuff.

But thanks to its current criminalization – it is so easy to obtain.

Criminals are making a bundle off of the MJ trade and the Cops are also able to pad their ranks in their futile attempts at stamping it out.

So the winners in the current criminal regime are the bad guys and the good guys.

The losers are the rest of us -  the users and if you will – the taxpayers since we lose out on the major tax revenues that could be reaped in a legalized regime – cigarettes and booze anyone.

Users, I believe, would be much better off since with legalization, the focus would turn to treatment and advertising the ill effects of drug use and heaven knows with the monies saved on wasted policing and lost tax revenues – their would be plenty of dough around to do the job.

Moreover, bringing the issue out in the open would allow society to bring its influence to bear on users much the same way it has in ostracizing cigarette smokers.

Simply stated, it will become far less cool to inhale dirty smoke if it becomes legal to do so.

As you know, I am at heart a Libertarian so if in the end someone wants to impair their life via the use of marijuana – well that’s their decision – they are only hurting themselves.

In addition, there are so many areas where we need good policing such as with regard to Human Trafficking.

Young Trudeau is on to something here but it is just about the only thing he has said with which I agree.

As I see it…

‘K.D. Galagher’