Posts Tagged ‘news’

Calm Is Not Inaction

Posted: December 26, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

For some people, it’s about shopping and deals and doing Christmas all over again at full speed. When I was growing up, it meant visiting people. We would see what gifts they’d received, sit on unfamiliar couches, and eat again. Today, in our house, it’s much simpler. Hot turkey sandwiches, as many desserts as you want because there are always more than we’ll ever finish, and absolutely no pressure to do anything at all.

And before anything else, I want to say this. Yesterday was a good day. In fact a really good day. Time with my core family. Laughter. Familiar rhythms. I felt gratitude in my whole being as much as in my head. I don’t take that for granted.

It’s from that quieter place that I finally listened to Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Christmas messages this morning. Both of them. One to Canadians and one to the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. What struck me wasn’t a soaring line or a sentimental turn of phrase. It was the tone. These were serious messages. Intentionally so. Not bleak nor alarmist. But grounded in the reality that we are living in a moment that does not reward denial or fluff. Historically, Christmas addresses tend to soften the edges, to reassure, to smooth, to wrap things gently. This one didn’t do that. There was a deep vein running through both messages, and it felt deliberate.

Carney spoke about hope and light, absolutely, but always in the context of darkness already acknowledged. He spoke of unity not as a slogan, but as a necessity. And when he addressed the Armed Forces, there was no romanticizing and no abstraction. He spoke about sovereignty and security as things that are not guaranteed but rather defended daily, by people spending this holiday far from home.

What’s been interesting to watch since is how some of the commentary has reacted to that seriousness. There’s been a lot of talk about tone, about how measured it was, how sober, how unadorned. Some have praised it and some seem unsettled by it. And that, too, tells us something.

We’ve become accustomed to leadership that either performs reassurance or manufactures outrage. Loudness is often mistaken for action. Constant visibility is confused with effectiveness. In that environment, calm can look like absence, and restraint can be misread as inertia.

I don’t think that could be further from the truth here. It’s not just that Mark Carney doesn’t suffer fools though I think that phrase fits more than people are comfortable admitting. It’s that he operates in a way many of us have forgotten how to read. We see composure and assume things must be calm. We see deliberation and assume nothing urgent is happening. We hear careful language and decide that nothing meaningful is underway.

None of that is true.

Quiet leadership is not passive leadership. Calm does not mean complacent. And seriousness delivered without theatrics does not mean inaction. In fact, it often signals the opposite. That work is being done methodically, deliberately, and without the need to narrate every step for public consumption.

Carney understands the seriousness of the global moment we’re in. He doesn’t need to name every actor or spell out every threat for that to be clear. Donald Trump’s shadow looms whether spoken or not. Vladimir Putin doesn’t require explanation. Alliances are shifting. Europe is repositioning. Power is being tested. History tells us that when predators circle one another, one eventually consumes the other.

But what I keep coming back to, especially on a day like today is that right now, I care most about us.

Canada has never been strongest when we’re loudest. We’ve been strongest when we’re steady. When we resist the urge to turn inward on one another. When we recognize that domestic turmoil is not a sign of independence or strength, but a vulnerability that others are always willing to exploit.

I staged the image I’m sharing here. My son’s very used military boots, an old Canadian flag, the Christmas tree above. What I didn’t notice until after I uploaded it was the flag outside, still flying on the pole in our front yard, visible through the window. The flag wasn’t staged and that part wasn’t a planned statement. There’s a light snow falling this morning, the kind that softens everything without erasing it. Standing there, looking out, it felt deeply emotional in a way that’s hard to explain, quiet, steady, unmistakably Canadian.

That’s why the tone of Prime Minister Carney’s messages matters so much. They weren’t designed to soothe us into complacency or to whip us into fear. They were designed to orient us, to remind us that seriousness is not something to be afraid of, but something to rise to.

And yes, Alberta more than anyone needs to hear this. Not as a rebuke, and not as a lecture, but as a reminder born of lived experience. We do not get through what lies ahead by fracturing. We get through it by recognizing seriousness when it’s offered honestly, even when it isn’t wrapped in comfort or spectacle.

This Christmas, the Prime Minister spoke to Canadians like adults. He didn’t promise ease. He didn’t perform reassurance. He acknowledged reality, and trusted us to sit with it.

On a Boxing Day that’s quiet, full of leftovers, and heavy with reflection, that feels exactly right.

I’ve been wrestling for days with how to write about Venezuela.

I went down the research rabbit hole. Oil, sanctions, nationalization, corporations, authoritarianism, currency, and eventually hit an uncomfortable but honest wall: this is not a story that fits neatly into the 750–850 words I usually work within. This story can’t be flattened and things are escalating fast.

Then last night, I was given a gift. Another writer, Gordon F.D.Wilson, shared a piece that did what I was struggling to do. Through an aviation story (you know that got my attention), he captured the danger of what happens when the wrong people are in the cockpit and everyone else is strapped in as passengers. I’m not going to rewrite his work. I strongly encourage you to read it yourself. What is clear to me through my own research and his brilliant words, is that Venezuela matters far beyond Venezuela.

Let’s start with what is not up for debate. Venezuela is ruled by an autocrat. Nicolás Maduro is a corrupt, authoritarian leader who dismantled democratic institutions and presided over immense human suffering. But the story being told about Venezuela right now keeps shifting, and we need to pay attention. At first, we were told recent U.S. actions were about drugs. Fentanyl was even framed as a kind of weapon of mass destruction. Then the focus quietly moved from drug boats to oil tankers. By that point, fentanyl had vanished from the narrative altogether. We were no longer talking about drugs. We were talking about oil, shipping lanes, trade, currency, and power.

That’s the moment the explanation stopped making sense, and the behavior starts to matter more than the justification. The United States government did not lose Venezuelan oil. A U.S. corporation did. That is a distinct difference.

Venezuela’s oil sits on Venezuelan land. That doesn’t excuse corruption, mismanagement, or authoritarian rule, but it does implicate the claim that oil was “stolen” from the United States. Foreign investment does not equal permanent ownership of a country’s natural resources. If it did, sovereignty would be little more than a polite illusion.

This is where the history becomes too complex for slogans. Venezuela’s story involves decades of corporate dominance, oil nationalization, OPEC, sanctions, internal decay, and a slow, chilling slide from democracy into autocracy. If you want to see how an elected leader consolidates power over time, start with Hugo Chávez and work forward. But complexity is precisely what power prefers to erase.

Which brings us to the new U.S. National Security Strategy. This document quietly reframes America’s role in the world. Less global steward and more hemispheric enforcer. The Western Hemisphere is framed as America’s neighborhood its responsibility, its sphere.

That language should make every resource rich country in the Americas pause. The security doctrine shift, enforcement follows. And enforcement rarely arrives with clean explanations. One day it’s fentanyl. The next day it’s sanctions. Then it’s China. Then it’s oil. The story keeps changing. The actions do not.

And I can’t stop thinking about what this logic implies for Canada. I know what you’re saying “Canada is not Venezuela.” But Canada is resource rich. Our energy sector is deeply integrated with the United States. Our oil is traded in U.S. dollars. Our economy has been intertwined by design. If foreign investment quietly becomes conflated with ownership, if access starts to look like entitlement then sovereignty becomes thinner than we like to admit. The moment corporate loss is reframed as national injury, the line between partnership and pressure starts to blur. Let’s just say the phrase follow the money has never been more applicable. Your response President Trump?

This is where Wilson’s aviation metaphor lingers with me. We’re all passengers, distracted by turbulence in the cabin, while decisions are being made in the cockpit. The danger isn’t only the autocrat we can see. It’s the systems, incentives, and cronyism that decide who gets to fly the plane and whose laws apply when they become inconvenient.

I don’t have all the answers but I am seeking to understand. This situation is evolving, and the oil, currency, and enforcement implications are genuinely complex. But I do know this. Simple stories are being told about Venezuela right now, and simple stories are almost always dangerous. Especially as they relate to the United States right now. The Art of The Deal meets Follow The Money. So…if you want the deeper dive, the longer read that traces the full arc and asks the hardest questions, I strongly encourage you to read Gordon F.D. Wilson’s piece.

And this morning I need us to pay attention to what the U.S. leadership is counting on us not noticing, especially now, when people are tired, distracted, and trying to tune out the news over the holidays. But are we paying attention to who’s actually flying the plane, before the turbulence becomes something much worse.

Last week in the House of Commons, Canada’s Secretary of State for Sport, Adam van Koeverden, delivered a speech that was sharp, funny, and painfully accurate. And for everyone still defending Pierre Poilievre and the style of politics he has perfected, it was a reminder of exactly what that legacy is in the words of MP van Koeverden.

“Mr. Speaker, remember when the Grinch tried to steal Christmas? He drove all the way up to the top of Mount Crumpit because he had everything that he needed, and he was going to throw the gifts that the Whos deserved because he thought they didn’t deserve to have nice things. It’s kind of like the leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker. For 25 years, he’s had dental care because he’s had a job here in the House of Commons, so he votes against dental care for 9 million Canadians. He’s got secure housing. He lives comfortably at Stornoway in government-owned housing, so he votes against affordable housing for millions and millions of Canadians. My Christmas wish is that the leader of the Conservative Party comes back in January with a heart that’s grown three sizes and tries to help a Canadian for once in his 21 years.”

That is Poilievre’s political biography in a paragraph. He is a man who has enjoyed every structure of public stability while dedicating his career to denying those same supports to everyone else. And rather than come back after he “won” or, let’s be honest, acquired his Alberta by-election in a riding that any Conservative could win in a coma, did he return with a better attitude? A vision? A grown heart? Anything?

No. He returned with the exact same tone, and the same fixation on Justin Trudeau that his followers can’t seem to let go of, despite the fact that Trudeau isn’t even in politics anymore. It has become some kind of reflexive obsession, a default setting they can’t reset, and it would almost be funny if it weren’t so detached from the reality the rest of us are living in.

For the continued supporters of Pierre Poilievre note that in 21 years he has not produced a single original idea. Nothing substantive, nor visionary. Nothing that withstands even casual inspection. Ask his supporters to name a policy, and they can’t. They can only tell you who they dislike. The only people insisting he’s “leadership material” are perched so far on the right flank of conservatism that competent global diplomacy looks like a threat to them.

Meanwhile, the same voices who accuse the Liberal government of being “socialist” conveniently forget that Canada’s core social programs that they likely embrace, such as unemployment insurance, public healthcare, old age security, and the Canada Pension Plan are exactly the kinds of systems they claim to oppose. And let’s not forget the single biggest fiscal challenge of the past five years, COVID. I would pay good money to see the statistic showing how many small government Conservatives cashed their CERB cheques without hesitation. Canadians across every political stripe were grateful for that “socialist” support when they needed it. Funny how ideology melts when the deposit hits the account.

Because here’s the uncomfortable global truth. There is no Conservative leader right now who would receive the level of international respect Mark Carney does. Could one emerge? Possibly. But the only route to international visibility available to the current Conservative movement is alignment with Donald Trump’s authoritarian worldview and Vladimir Putin’s destabilizing ambitions. That’s the company they’ve chosen.

And that should worry all of us. Leadership in 2025 is not just about the economy. It’s about safety. Economic strength collapses without geopolitical stability. Trade dies without trusted alliances. Investment evaporates when partners can’t count on you. Safety is the foundation of everything, and right now, Conservative politics offers no path to a safer Canada.

Meanwhile, we have a Prime Minister who is respected internationally, who is navigating one of the worst tariff crises in decades, and who does understand the complexity of global economics. Mark Carney is not perfect, no leader is, but he has the credibility Canada requires at a moment when credibility is currency.

And yet, the Conservative Party marches forward behind a man whose political compass points only toward resentment and reduction. A man who has had every benefit of public life yet opposes extending those same benefits to the people who fund them. A man who believes anger is a national strategy.

But unlike the Grinch, this story doesn’t end with a heart growing three sizes. In fact, if anything, every year he sounds more like the guy standing on the hill screaming about the downfall of Whoville while offering exactly zero ideas for how to fix it. A man who wants power with all the enthusiasm of someone who’s never bothered to figure out what he’d do with it once he had it.

Perhaps, perhaps, the spell is weakening. There is growing speculation that January could bring not just a new parliamentary session but a new Conservative leadership race. And if the Conservative leadership team has any instinct for political survival, they see the writing on the wall.

But then comes the real question. If not Poilievre… then who?

Andrew Scheer? You could replace him with a lump of coal and get more heat. A rising star? From where? This caucus has hollowed itself out. Jason Kenney? No love lost there, but compared to today’s far-right chaos, he now looks moderate, (don’t worry I’m not fooled). This says everything about the state of the party.

Adam van Koeverden’s Grinch analogy landed because Canadians recognize themselves as the Whos down in Whoville. Just trying to build something together while a man on the mountaintop insists we don’t deserve it. But unlike the Grinch, this story doesn’t end with a heart that grows.

And if that’s the best the Conservative Party can offer in a moment this dangerous, then it’s not a government in waiting. It’s a loud distraction for people who’ve stopped looking for real solutions.

There’s an expression I’ve used for decades. I don’t know who first said it, but it has stayed with me longer than most political slogans or news cycles ever will. ‘If you blame others, you give up the power to change.’

When I first started using it, it had nothing to do with politics. It was about people I knew, family, friends, community members, who faced difficult circumstances. We’ve all known those situations where two children grow up in the same home with the same opportunities and the same challenges, and one rises despite adversity while the other drowns despite prosperity. Circumstance isn’t destiny. Choice is always part of the picture, small, incremental choices about how we react, how we cope, and how we move forward.

But somewhere along the way, this human truth got swallowed by something much larger. Blame has stopped being an individual habit and has instead become a societal norm. It’s now a default setting, a reflex, a cultural posture. It doesn’t just show up in personal relationships or family dynamics. It shows up everywhere now. In politics, in public discourse, in online communities, in the way we talk to strangers and the way we talk to ourselves. It has become the new standard, and an unhealthy one.

And nowhere is that more obvious than in the way politics is now practiced. Over the past decade, politics has increasingly become a performance of victimhood. Not genuine suffering, but strategic grievance. In the United States, Donald Trump has practically built an empire out of it. You hear his refrain daily. Joe Biden this, Crooked Joe that, on and on and on. It’s a relentless drumbeat of pointing fingers outward to avoid ever turning the mirror inward.

And here in Canada? We’re not immune. Pierre Poilievre has turned Justin Trudeau into his entire personality. Ten plus years of the same line: Trudeau broke it, Trudeau ruined it, Trudeau is the cause of every pothole, every grocery bill, every global shockwave, every structural issue that existed long before he was even an MP. There is never a solution, only a scapegoat. And if he ever stopped blaming, he’d have to start explaining, which is far more difficult.

But this isn’t just about them. The real danger is what this style of politics does to us. When leaders model blame, they normalize it. They give society permission to adopt the same posture. And suddenly we are a nation, and a generation, encouraged to externalize everything. Everything becomes someone else’s fault. Someone else’s failure. Someone else’s responsibility to fix.

It creates a kind of moral paralysis.

If everything is always someone else’s doing, then nothing is ever within our power to change. The story becomes fixed. Our agency disappears. And once agency disappears, cynicism fills the space it leaves behind.

This is not the country I grew up in. It’s not the country many of us tried to build. And it’s certainly not a healthy model for young people, because when the only thing they hear from politicians is blame, how on earth are they supposed to learn accountability? How are they supposed to believe they have influence over their own lives, let alone their communities?

If society keeps modelling the opposite, if our political culture keeps rewarding the loudest finger pointer instead of the most honest problem-solver, then we shouldn’t be surprised when the entire public starts behaving the same way.

Leadership is not about who can yell “not my fault” the loudest or who can dig up the oldest grievance. Real leadership is quieter than that. It’s steadier than that. It’s the person who wakes up and without pageantry puts one foot in front of the other and deals with the issues actually in front of them. No excuses. No endless rehashing of who messed up what ten years ago. Just the work.

That’s the kind of leadership I prefer: the kind that solves instead of performs. The kind that owns responsibility instead of outsourcing it. The kind that doesn’t need an enemy to justify its existence.

Because the alternative is exactly what we’re living through, a political landscape where deflection has replaced direction, grievance has replaced governance, and blame has become the cheapest currency in public life.

And honestly who is driving that trend? Donald Trump has built an entire political identity around never taking responsibility for anything, ever, even when the consequences are catastrophic. Pierre Poilievre has spent more than a decade scripting every sentence around Justin Trudeau as if reciting a grievance is the same thing as offering a plan. And Danielle Smith has turned deflection into an art form, blaming everyone from judges to civil servants to the federal government rather than simply governing the province she was elected to lead.

This is not strength. This is not vision. This is not leadership.

We deserve leaders who face the hard truths, not run from them. Leaders who build instead of burn. Leaders who don’t need a scapegoat to feel powerful — and who understand that their job is not performance art but public service.

And we deserve leaders who model that for our children. Because whatever behaviour we normalize at the top quickly becomes the behaviour young people believe is acceptable. They watch how we speak, how we react, how we handle conflict, how we take, or avoid, responsibility. If all they ever hear is blame, then blame becomes the cultural default.

We deserve a society that refuses that path. A society that understands that blame might feel satisfying in the moment, but it is a dead end. It does not move us forward. It does not solve a single problem. It keeps us exactly where we are, frozen in place, circling the same resentments, repeating the same grievances.

And it brings us back to the line I’ve carried through decades of my life, a line more relevant now than ever. “When we blame others, we give up the power to change!”

Alberta’s Road Ahead

Posted: November 30, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Today, I’m reaching out to a group that might not think of me as “their” voice, but I believe you are. I write from a progressive point of view, yes, but I am not far left and never have been. I am a centrist, maybe philosophically a little left, and most people who follow me are the same: grounded, pragmatic, and driven by fairness over ideology.

But this post isn’t for the usual audience. It is specifically for those Albertans who once proudly called themselves progressive conservatives or small-c conservatives, people who understood conservatism as careful stewardship, not chaos; community, not division; country, not grievance. I need you to hear this before Alberta follows the path unfolding south of us. And to my regular readers, who know I work hard to be fair and fact-driven: I’m asking you to put party labels aside. Think instead about your philosophy, your values, the things you believe when you think about your family, your neighbours, and the country we share. Because I need to say this plainly: the word “conservative” tastes bitter in my mouth these days. Not because of its history, that I respect, but because of what extremists have turned it into.

And I know many of you feel the same. You are not extremists. You are not separatists. You are not Christian nationalists. You are not part of this radical takeover. You represent the Alberta I know and love, and you deserve to hear the truth about what is happening inside the party you once believed in.

What happened at the UCP AGM in Edmonton this weekend was a defining moment. In truth the moment it became undeniable that the UCP is not simply “right-leaning.” It is controlled by an extreme-right faction whose language and goals mirror the dangerous movements tearing the United States apart. And they are not hiding it anymore. Their conversations about divisiveness and separation aren’t fringe now, they are escalating. And we need to be honest about why as even Danielle Smith has lost her audience. She will not be leading this party forward. She is now a liability to the very forces she once empowered. And that leaves Alberta staring down something far worse than “better the devil you know,” because what’s waiting in the wings is far more radical, far more determined, and far more dangerous.

That reality hit me hard during the recent discussions around the pipeline memorandum of understanding between Alberta and Canada. Let me be blunt: that pipeline, framed that way, is never going to happen. And the separatists know it. They are shifting, regrouping, and preparing their next move.

But here is where you need to stop, breathe, and listen. Those separatists do not define this province. Not now. Not ever.

And this circles us back to Forever Canadian. When Thomas A. Lukaszuk and team launched the Forever Canadian campaign, I knew we were responding to something real. But this weekend hit me like a freight train with the realization of just how vital that work was, and how vital it still is. We proved something timeless, something that matters more than ever and is especially true to the quote from Margaret Mead. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Forever Canadian wasn’t loud. We didn’t have deep pockets. What we had were real Albertans who wanted this place to remain part of Canada. Our strength wasn’t in noise. It was in purpose, unity, and integrity.

So yes, right now it may look like the separatists have the upper hand. But loudness is not strength. Money is not legitimacy. Coordination is not public support. A fringe is still a fringe, even when it shouts.

As we wait for the constitutional ruling that will determine whether this extremist faction can legally push a separation agenda, I need to speak personally. This is not the Alberta I expected to live in during the later chapters of my life. And I refuse to watch it fall into the hands of people whose vision would tear this province apart. This weekend left me asking, over and over; what can I do? I can write which I do. I can speak,often boldly. And I will not sit still and watch this happen. I still have something to give. Maybe more than one thing and I am ready to take on whatever tasks are needed to keep this province whole, sane, democratic, and Canadian.

And I believe with absolute certainty that most conservatives do not want what is happening inside their party. So I am asking, genuinely and urgently, please speak out. If what you saw this weekend unsettled you or frightened you, you are not alone. And you do not have to stay silent. We have a decision to make about the future of our province and it has to be made now.

Forever Canadian was never a one-time campaign. It was the first line of defense. Now we must choose whether it was a moment or whether it becomes a movement. I know where I stand. And after this weekend, I know exactly why we must stand together again. This moment feels like a long Alberta prairie road, the storm rolling in on one side, sunlight fighting on the other. We can still choose which way we go. But we have to choose now.

Between a rock and a hard place! Yesterday was quite a day. Alberta and Ottawa, two traditional sparring partners, suddenly stood shoulder-to-shoulder long enough to sign an energy memorandum of understanding, not a memorandum of agreement. One does not magically turn into the other. Canada has a long, proud tradition of signing MOUs with great pomp, flair, and photo ops… only for the “U” to quietly pack its bags and never become an “A.” Depending on who you talk to, this is either a long-overdue breakthrough, the beginning of the end for environmental policy, or proof that Mark Carney “finally caved.” I’ve heard it all, I live in Alberta, my husband works in oil and gas, everyone knows I believe strongly we have an obligation to the environmental protection of the planet, and trust me, no one here is quiet.

But the claim that Carney “threw the baby out with the bathwater”? Please. The baby’s fine (so far). The tub isn’t filled. The faucet isn’t even turned on yet. This MOU was political choreography. Alberta needed to feel seen, Danielle Smith needed a headline, and Carney needed to show he understands the economic stakes. But the moment the ink dried, the real work shifted westward. Because nothing, and I mean nothing, is moving without British Columbia and the Indigenous peoples of B.C. agreeing to it. And that is not something Alberta can yell its way through.

Now, here’s where I land, and I’ll be honest, it’s not a simple place. I understand the economic argument. Alberta has been told “transition” for decades while carrying a massive share of this country’s revenue. And yes, we need new markets; relying on the United States as our one and only customer was a naïve strategy. Alberta has failed to promote alternative energies and that needs to be part of any conversation. I have serious environmental concerns, and they’re not small ones. Carbon capture has promise, but promise isn’t proof. Pipeline safety on a rugged coastline isn’t a slogan; it’s math, engineering, and risk that must be measured, not wished away. If someone wants me to believe this can be done safely, they’d better bring more than talking points. I’m open to listening, but not to blind faith.

And that’s why today’s announcement feels less like a yes or a no and more like a “well, let’s see.” A private sector proponent still has to appear. A major projects process has to be navigated. A reworked carbon pricing agreement has to materialize. And Indigenous nations, including coastal nations, have to consent. They can’t be pressured, nor bypassed and must have consent.

Meanwhile, in B.C., the reaction has already ranged from skeptical to incredulous. Some communities want growth; others see this as Alberta’s reward and B.C.’s risk. And let’s be honest: that’s not a dynamic that sells well at the best of times.

Add to that the internal fallout, including a cabinet resignation rooted in environmental alarm, and it’s clear this isn’t just a provincial fight. It’s a national conversation wrapped in competing long-term visions, with no easy consensus and no shortcuts.

And here’s where I am this morning, and I’m not going to pretend it’s comfortable. Economically, I understand why Alberta wants this. We need new markets. We need to stop pretending the United States is a stable or reliable customer. An additional pipeline to tidewater could give us leverage we haven’t had in decades. I’m not blind to that. I live in a province built on this industry and married to someone who works in it. But the environmental risks are real. Not theoretical, not hysterical, real. A coastline spill would be catastrophic. And no politician waving a pen in Ottawa or Edmonton changes the fact that Indigenous nations have both constitutional standing and international protections under UNDRIP. Without their consent, this project doesn’t just slow down it stops. Add to that a little practical reality check: There is no proponent. Oil prices aren’t high enough to attract one. And until someone with billions of dollars raises their hand, this entire conversation is a hypothetical one presented as momentum.

Meanwhile, just last week the Premier of B.C. said they would consider increasing capacity on the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, a project already built, already operating, and already moving barrels west. Somehow that wasn’t treated as the headline opportunity. And maybe it should have been.

Carney and the country are in a hard place. A place between economic urgency and environmental responsibility. Between national ambition and on-the-ground reality. Between wanting to move forward and recognizing all the reasons we should not. I still believe Carney knows what he’s doing. I just hope this doesn’t cost him more inside his own caucus on the way through, because the stakes for this country, economically, environmentally, politically, are too high to lose steady hands now.

And so for the moment, I’m doing what most Canadians are doing: watching and thinking and waiting. Trying to find that landing spot between hope and worry. It’s not easy, it’s not neat, and it’s not resolved. I feel on the edge of something, uncertain of its shape, and unwilling to look away.

There are days when I worry we’re watching democracy get chipped away one unhinged Truth Social post at a time. Today was one of those days. Donald Trump, the man who dreams in capital letters and tantrums threatened Democratic lawmakers with arrest and execution because they did a video reminding military members to follow the law. That’s it. A group of veterans saying, “Your oath matters,” and Trump coming back with, “Hang them.” Not metaphorically. Literally.

And whenever something like this happens, the predictable chorus of extreme media voices kicks in. Left, right, and everything radicalized in between. People who treat politics like sport commentary, who defend the indefensible if it benefits their team and attack the reasonable if it threatens their scoreboard. I’m not talking about mainstream conservatives or progressives; I’m talking about the loudest, angriest, most hyperventilating commentators who seem to think democracy is a game show they’re trying to host. They spin and they excuse and they normalize. And they make it harder for ordinary people to see what’s right in front of them.

So let’s step out of the noise and into reality, Canadian reality.

Earlier this year, when Trump said he was going to “get Canada one way or another,” I spoke with people who’ve actually served. Friends, and people in my family. People who fought beside Americans in Afghanistan. And they all said the same thing at that time which was something I took some temporary comfort in: “The U.S. military leadership won’t follow an illegal order. Their oath is to the Constitution, not to the man. They wouldn’t invade Canada.

And I still want to believe that. But then came the Pentagon meeting a few months ago where Trump told senior commanders that if they didn’t fall in line, they could walk out the door. And if they did? They risked losing rank, pensions, and honours. Decades of service wiped away because they refused to bend to his personal will.

That’s not “leadership.” That’s coercion and the hallmark of someone who sees himself as a ruler rather than a president.

Today’s explosion over a simple reminder of legal duty only reinforces that. In my opinion nothing in that video was radical. Nothing was partisan. Nothing was even controversial. The message was something every soldier in North America learns on day one, your oath is to the Constitution, to lawful authority, not to the emotions of the person sitting in the big office.

This principle goes all the way back to the Nuremberg Principles, the foundation of post-WWII military law: “Just following orders” is not a defense for unlawful actions. Military personnel must follow lawful orders and challenge unlawful ones. And while yes, there are exact procedures depending on rank and context, the principle remains the same. It is the bedrock of a professional military.

Which is why there is absolutely nothing wrong with that video. It simply restates the oath Trump wants people to forget. And this is where my fear kicks in. Because not every enlisted person, especially the youngest ones has the background or confidence to distinguish between legality and politics. Many join because it’s their path to an education, a steady income, a future. That’s not a criticism, it’s the reality of recruitment demographics across the North America. Young people are trained to follow orders, not to decode the emotional storms of a man who treats the presidency like a spotlight he refuses to step out of.

Now imagine being a junior soldier hearing the Commander-in-Chief amplify posts calling lawmakers “traitors” and saying “hang them.” Imagine being a senior officer knowing your oath obligates you to refuse unlawful orders, while also knowing your entire career could be erased by the man issuing them. Imagine being a military family watching this unfold, knowing the oath your loved one swore is becoming a political drama. Imagine being an American soldier today.
It terrifies me. And here’s the Canadian part that should terrify you: Fifty percent of Canada’s Conservative base says they support Trump’s agenda and behaviour. Half. So if you’re in that 50%, I’m speaking directly to you: Is this what you endorse? A leader who demands personal loyalty from the armed forces?
A leader who suggests elected officials should die for reminding troops to follow the law? A leader whose outbursts require cleanup crews to appear on television insisting he “didn’t mean it”?

Because here’s the truth: It doesn’t matter if that soldier in the image below is Canadian or American, the oath is the same. In Canada and the United States, soldiers swear an oath to the law, not to the person who holds power.
The words differ slightly, but the meaning is identical: lawful authority first, democracy first, constitutional duty first. Not the ego of someone who thinks he’s above all three.

I’ve read pieces of my son’s papers from Royal Military College. Things like law of armed conflict, conflict theory, technology and warfare. And the lesson across all of it is simple and unwavering:

A professional military stands above political emotion. If Donald Trump, or anyone like him, expects soldiers to replace their oath with his ego, then democracy across this continent is in danger.

This isn’t about left vs. right. This isn’t about Democrats vs. Republicans. Liberals vs Conservatives. This is about the line between law and power, and who we expect our soldiers to follow. And that scares me. It scares me a lot.

UPDATE: I need to stand corrected. Rumour now has it that this will pass the Senate. And if that’s true, it doesn’t reassure me. It confirms every darker suspicion I had. Because for the Senate to suddenly fall in line, something behind the scenes has shifted, and not toward justice. If anything, it tells me the machinery working in the background is even more insidious, more self-protective, and more calculated than I thought. Whatever deal has been made, whatever pressure has been applied, whatever narrative Trump has pre-scripted it’s worse than the version I was bracing for.

There is nothing I can say today about the Epstein file that hasn’t already been chewed up and spit out by every podcaster, blogger, Substack warrior, news anchor, and the never ending parade of self appointed truth tellers on social media. This story has been dissected, divided, incinerated, resurrected, and re-packaged more times than any of us can count. And yet here we are again, walking right into another so called “moment of reckoning” as Congress gets ready to vote this afternoon. So yes, I’m putting my thoughts down before the two o’clock gong sounds, not because my voice will change anything, but because the hypocrisy rolling through Washington today deserves to be stamped, labeled, and called out with full accuracy.

Let’s begin with the most predictable part: Donald Trump did not suddenly wake up and decide that transparency is good for democracy. The man has never acted out of moral clarity in his life. If he’s supporting the release of anything related to Epstein, it’s because he already knows exactly what he can protect, what he can bury, and what he can spin. He doesn’t do anything unless he can tighten his grip in the process. So the idea that he is suddenly on the side of “letting the truth out” is laughable. If he is allowing this door to open even a crack, it’s because he has already controlled the narrative.

I am not accusing him of having sexual relations with underage girls. I have no proof of that, and I don’t pretend to. What I can say, because it’s indisputable, is that he was there. He knew who Epstein was. He knew what Epstein was widely rumored to be. Trump was not some naive bystander wandering into the wrong circles. At absolute best, he was passive. At worst, he was complicit through silence, proximity, and willful ignorance. And that alone is enough to demand scrutiny. But apparently demand and receive are very different things when you’re dealing with a man who has trained an entire political party to kneel before his whims.

Which brings us to today’s vote in the House. Suddenly, Republicans have permission to support releasing these documents. Not because they grew spines. Not because they found moral purpose. Not because the victims deserve justice. No. They are supporting this because Donald Trump has told them it is safe to do so. Their king, their god, their idol, their living embodiment of whatever twisted movement they’ve built; well he said yes. So they obey. And with his blessing, they can now pretend they’ve been warriors for truth all along.

But don’t be fooled. Because once this leaves the House, it enters the building where accountability goes to be stalled, smothered, and diluted beyond recognition: the United States Senate.
This is the chamber where Trump’s influence runs deepest. This is where loyalty to him isn’t just encouraged; it’s required. Many of these Senators owe their careers, their fundraising machine, and their political safety to him. And the minute anything threatens his interests, they lock step like soldiers guarding a fortress. There is no scenario where a full, unfiltered release of Epstein files passes through that chamber while Trump still commands the Republican Party. None. Please prove me wrong.

I already knew this would hit a wall, until I made the mistake of listening this morning to Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, a man who manages to combine sanctimony, dishonesty, and self-righteous slime in a single breath. According to him, he has been in “discussions” with his Senate counterpart, and the Senate has “concerns.” Let’s translate that into plain language: this is going nowhere. The Senate will delay it, stall it, bury it in committee, or strangle it with amendments. Whatever the method, the goal is the same: make it look like they tried, without ever allowing anything real to surface.

And in all of this political maneuvering and reputation saving, what gets lost, what always gets lost, is the truth that there were victims. Real people. Real children. Young lives that were manipulated, coerced, abused, and then ignored by the very systems supposedly built to protect them. They were failed by prosecutors, by police, by powerful men with more money than conscience, and by every person who looked the other way because confronting the truth would have cost them something. These young women have carried the weight of this for years. Some were silenced and some were pushed into the spotlight to relive nightmares the world dismissed as gossip or scandal. They deserve more than selective transparency. They deserve more than curated disclosures crafted to protect the rich and powerful. If there is going to be a reckoning, it should centre them, not the men scrambling to shield themselves from consequences.

And yes, I’m saying this from Canada. We may be north of the border, but we’re not blind to the fallout. For decades, America was the example, the country that claimed to stand for law, truth, fairness. But this? This contortion of justice and loyalty? This is not the America we once measured ourselves against. And if any echo of that ideal was still hanging on, this behaviour snaps the last piece off. We care because what happens there never stays there, and because victims, on any side of any border, deserve better.

So yes, the House vote will happen today, and yes, it will pass. But the pass itself is hollow if it’s designed to go no further. What matters is whether the truth escapes the Senate, where Trump’s grip is tightest and where the incentives to protect him are strongest. And let’s be honest: he would never green light anything he feared. He is not suddenly embracing openness. He is repositioning. He is gaming the system. He is controlling the floodgates, not opening them.

This is not justice nor courage nor accountability. This is control, strategic, deliberate, and calculated. If anyone wants to celebrate today as some watershed moment, ask yourself who benefits. Ask who is still in control. Ask who gains when the public believes something meaningful has happened even when nothing has. Because Donald Trump has never once allowed truth to obstruct his own survival. And he isn’t about to start now.

Canada Geese

Posted: November 15, 2025 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

This crisp late-fall day has the last of the stubborn geese circling overhead, honking like they’re still debating whether they should go south this year. And honestly, given the state of things, who can blame them for hesitating? So many stayed last year. Maybe the ones still lingering on the canal took one look at the southern border and said, “No thanks, we’ll risk the frostbite.” They’re out there bobbing on the water, perfectly content, not looking the least bit anxious about moving on.

And yes, I hear you. “Nancy, what on earth does this have to do with anything?” Well, apparently more than I realized, because my brain seems to be looping back to the United States whether I mean to or not. And today, what I keep circling around is the moral cesspool that is the Epstein file situation.

Let me start with something I’ve said before and I will not soften here: I’m not sure there is a more repugnant human being walking this planet than Donald Trump. Inside politics, outside politics, take your pick. The man is rot.
But here’s where we weaken ourselves: when we focus solely on trying to label him a pedophile. I don’t know what he did or didn’t do sexually, and I don’t pretend to. What I do know, and what any thinking adult can see is that Donald Trump knew exactly who Jeffrey Epstein was, and exactly what he was doing.

You cannot orbit that world and be oblivious. You cannot spend years around the man and be unaware. Epstein did not become wealthy through brilliance or talent. He didn’t finish school. He was a mediocre Wall Street guy who somehow ascended into extreme wealth and extreme access.

And there is only one explanation that makes sense: his business model was procuring young girls for powerful men. That was his commodity, his leverage and his power. And that is why “follow the money” matters here in a way that truly exemplifies that phrase.

Because is not only about sex crimes, as monstrous as they are. This is about power, money, leverage, and protecting wealthy men whose reputations, careers, and political futures rest on keeping those files sealed. Some of those wealthy men are allies of Donald Trump. Some are donors. Some are defenders. Some are simply adjacent in ways that make everyone very, very nervous.

Now Trump has announced he wants an “investigation” but only into a small, cherry-picked group of Democrats he personally despises. He wants the process sliced to his convenience, weaponized for his grudges, and stripped of its full truth.

And how anyone sees that as fair, moral, or acceptable is beyond me.

If we are serious about justice, then every single person in those files must be investigated. Every billionaire, every celebrity, every politician and every hanger-on. I don’t care if they’re 97 years old and bedbound, if they hurt children, they answer for it.
And yes, Donald, that includes you. If you’re innocent, fling open the vault and prove it. People who are innocent don’t limit investigations. People who are innocent don’t curate lists. People who are innocent don’t fear daylight.

After the last U.S. election, the one that devastated me, I said something I’ll repeat again: Senators, congresspeople, look at your daughters and granddaughters when you vote. Because you have already failed them once. Do not fail them again. Two things matter now: Every Epstein file must be released. Every document, every ledger, every associate. Not some. Not the convenient ones.
All of them. AND Donald Trump must say he will NOT pardon Ghislaine Maxwell, a convicted sex trafficker. If he refuses to do that, then he is telling the world exactly what, and who, he is protecting.

And let me sharpen the line that needs no misinterpretation: This request to open the files will pass Congress, and will hopefully pass the senate. But if this reaches Trump’s desk and he blocks transparency, that is not confusion. That is not bureaucracy. That is not “procedure.” It is a choice, a deliberate act to protect himself, his allies, and any powerful man whose name appears where he doesn’t want it to.

He is not shielding America from scandal. He is shielding himself from accountability. There is no other story.

And that brings me back to the geese. They’re still out there on the canal, doing what geese do: watching the water, watching the temperature, responding to the world exactly as it is. They don’t only fly south out of tradition or habit. Actually they move when nature tells them it’s time, when the freeze takes hold, when the signals become impossible to ignore. They survive because they read the conditions honestly.

Americans are standing in that same moment. The water is cooling. The ice is forming. The warning signs are right in front of them. The geese will lift off when the freeze becomes undeniable.
The question is whether Americans will finally do the same, not by fleeing, but by refusing to let lies, secrecy, and power bury the truth any deeper.

Here’s what Mark Carney did today.

In a rapidly shifting global landscape, the Prime Minister announced the launch of a new Major Projects Office (MPO) headquartered in Calgary (any comments Premier Smith), with additional offices opening in other major Canadian cities. Backed by legislation already passed this June, the MPO is designed to fast-track nation-building projects, ports, railways, clean energy initiatives, and critical mineral developments. It will create a “one project, one review” approach, reducing approval times to a maximum of two years while upholding environmental standards and Indigenous rights.

Even more, the MPO will help structure financing through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Growth Fund, and the Indigenous Loan Guarantee Program, alongside private capital and provincial partners. In other words: real planning, real coordination, real jobs, real growth.

That’s leadership. It’s about building something Canadians can see, touch, and benefit from. It’s about the future.

And meanwhile, here’s what we got from the Leader of the Opposition. Pierre Poilievre stood at a podium and gave Canadians a 30-minute “tough-on-crime” sermon, complete with dramatic tone, perfect salt-and-pepper hair, and rehearsed theatrics. His message? Fear. He painted pictures of home invasions at 2 a.m., of parents forced into split-second life-or-death choices, of a system that punishes victims instead of criminals.

Now, crime is real. The trauma of an intrusion, the fear of glass shattering in the night, that’s real too. I don’t dismiss it. But my greatest fears aren’t criminals breaking into my home. I’m more afraid of tornadoes ripping across the prairie, wildfires swallowing forests, and hurricanes flooding communities. I’m more afraid of global instability, Gaza, Ukraine, and the uncertainty of a world where Trump makes decisions that affect Canadian lives. I’m more afraid because my own son serves in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I know exactly what “instability” can mean for families.

Poilievre doesn’t go there. He doesn’t want to. Because that would mean confronting Trump, confronting climate, confronting complexity. Instead, he leans into American-style “stand your ground” rhetoric, promising to rewrite Canadian law to make lethal force a presumed right.

And to me that is NOT leadership, that’s mimicry. We don’t need to become a northern knockoff of the United States. Their gun culture, their obsession with armed self-defense, their endless cycle of mass shootings, that’s not who we are.

Pierre knows who he’s talking to. He’s speaking to his Conservative base, shoring up support after losing his seat in Ottawa and facing a leadership review. He’s not speaking to Canadians as a whole. And that’s the difference.

When I listen to Mark Carney, I don’t hear someone only talking to Liberals. I hear someone talking to Canadians. He compromises where necessary. He thinks before he speaks. He takes the 10,000-foot view, not the 10-foot spotlight. He knows that being Prime Minister isn’t about playing to the bleachers. It’s about carrying the weight of a nation, even when it means taking on allies, critics, or his own party.

Poilievre, meanwhile, is stuck in performance mode. He hammers away at the one note. But when you only stare at the narrow circle beneath your feet, you miss the horizon. And right now, Canada’s horizon is where the real challenges lie.

Where does he stand on Gaza? On Ukraine? On Trump’s tariffs? On Canada’s economic sovereignty? We don’t know. And I suspect that’s intentional. It’s safer for him to stick with crime monologues than to risk alienating his base by talking about the big picture.

So let’s be clear about what happened today: Mark Carney announced a nation-building office to accelerate infrastructure, clean energy, and jobs. Pierre Poilievre delivered a half-hour performance about fear.

That’s the contrast. One builds, one blusters. One leads, one performs. And I, for one, don’t feel safe leaving Canada’s future in the hands of a performer. Because when the storm clouds gather, and they already are, I want a leader, not an actor waiting for applause. I choose hope over despair.