Another Pierre Poilievre slogan?

In his address to the Conservative caucus, Pierre Poilievre claimed Mark Carney used a slogan to attack Poilievre for sloganeering. Poilievre insinuated this was very ironic. It would be, if it were true.

There is no evidence that Mark Carney has used the phrase "A slogan is not a plan" in a public speech or statement. All attributions of this phrase to Carney come from political opponents (notably Pierre Poilievre and Conservative MPs) and media commentary, who claim that Carney "took great delight in saying that 'a slogan is not a plan'" during the campaign.

Carney, as leader of the Liberal Party, positioned himself as a steady, policy-focused alternative to Pierre Poilievre's slogan-heavy,populist rhetoric. Now, we can add the slogan "A slogan is not a plan" to the long list of Poilievre slogans such as "Axe the Tax”, “Bring it Home”, “Fix the Budget”, and “Stop the Crime.”

The media has been taken in by Poilievre again. The CBC journalist, Benjamin Lopez Steven, reported something to the effect (the original report has been taken down):

On the campaign trail, according to Poilievre, Mark Carney frequently criticized Poilievre for his slogans. Carney repeatedly said "a slogan is not a plan," according to Poilievre. Laughing, he turned the tables on Carney saying, “I’ll point out that that is a slogan.” The crowd roared and CBC reported Poilivre had turned the tables on Carney with his witty attack.

One problem: Carney never used the phrase repeatedly. In fact, he may have never used those exact words. This is a Poilievre fabrication but no surprise here. It is just the latest of his famous slogans. Poilievre can take a bow. He is now writing slogans for the Prime Minister or at least trying.

The CBC has posted a correction.

Christians and Extremism

I used to think that religion, on the whole, was a force for good. How does one find fault with folk who believe they should “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”? You can’t. But, do Christians put their words into action? In the past, I would have said, yes. Today, I am not so sure.

I have three close relatives who are working very hard to turn me against the organized, Christian religion. I see Donald Trump as the devil incarnate. When I started seeing pro Trump evangelicals popping up on my Facebook feed, I contacted the source, a relative. He took offence, telling me that Trump was not as bad as many believe. I haven’t heard from him since.

The other two, I believe, see Trump as a King David kinda guy, deeply flawed but being used by God to accomplish godly ends. Me? I don’t see Trump as a tool of God but as a spiritual danger. Christ himself warned, “False messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive . . .”

These thoughts rekindled thoughts I had as a child in the early ‘50s. I wondered how Christians could join the Crusades or to take part in the Spanish inquisition? I decided to revisit this question and others and find an answer.

The First Crusade was a Church creation. Announced at the Council of Clermont in 1095, Pope Urban II appealed to European Christians to go to war with the infidels and reclaim Jerusalem. And who were the infidels? They were "the other": Muslims, Jews, pagans and heretical Christians. 

Between 1095 and 1272 there were at least nine major crusades. As many as 3 million people, soldiers and civilians, died in these holy wars. Not all died by the sword. Many succumbed to disease and starvation. It was ugly.

The above does not include the 1212 Children's Crusade which was not sanctioned by the Church. From 5,000 to 30,000--the exact number is unknown--children, adolescents and poor peasants marched off to war under the protection of Jesus Christ. They never reached the Holy Land. Many were sold into slavery. Others died of hunger and disease. Very few returned home. So much for the protection of God.

Wholesale Christian sanctioned violence reappeared in 1478 with the start of the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish Crown was the power behind the Spanish Inquisition but the Church, true to form, gave its support. The Vatican had been running smaller, more focused, inquisitions for years.

A Dominican friar, Bernard Gui, wrote the book on how to conduct a proper inquisition. Gui was not as vicious nor as brutal as his reputation would have us believe. He only had about 40 people burned at the stake. Sadly, other inquisitors were not as strict at adhering to the guidelines.

The Inquisition lasted centuries, not wrapping up until 1834. Three and a half centuries of hatred hidden under a patina of Christian piety. Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity, often under duress, were early targets. Later, Protestants were victims.

A preferred methods of extracting the "truth" was "water torture." Waterboarding, similar to water torture, was used by the CIA and military interrogators at American run detention centers such as Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and black sites. As they say, what is old is new again.

I was learning that openly evil conduct by Christians is not an aberration but a feature of Christianity and of religion in general. Believers rarely acknowledge the hate within but it is feature never-the-less of many, if not most, religions

In writing this blog post, I learned there is a common connection between holding religious views and supporting some damn ugly policies. For instance, a Pew Research Center survey, completed about three months into President Donald Trump’s second term, found that among his evangelical followers,

• 72% approved of the way Trump is currently handling his job as president.

• 69% rated the ethics of top Trump administration officials as excellent or good.

• 57% said they trust what Trump says more than what previous presidents said.

For folk like me, these are jaw-dropping numbers, but not to others. Today, my relatives are finding it difficult to drop their support for Trump. I see them as wearing blinders. They think I am the one wearing the blinders. Maybe, to a certain extent, we all are wearing blinders.

I find it interesting that all these relatives are deep into extreme religious views. I'd call them evangelicals even though they might protest. Evangelicals frighten me and their God creeps me out. This is the God of "Its my way or the highway" beliefs. I asked AI for its take on this. It said:

"That’s a really insightful observation! It’s true that some strands of evangelical theology can definitely give off that "my way or the highway" vibe. This is especially evident in the way certain evangelical groups or leaders present the exclusivity of salvation through Jesus Christ. For many evangelicals, salvation is only found through faith in Jesus, and the stakes are often presented as incredibly high—either you accept Christ and follow the path to salvation, or you face eternal separation from God (commonly referred to as hell)."

Looking deeper into this, I discovered there are psychological and sociological factors at play here. These forces reinforce a rigid worldview and encourage resistance to accepting the beliefs of others.

• Cognitive Closure: Many extreme evangelicals want certainty and clarity, especially about complex social issues. This is why they turn to religious doctrines and authoritarian rhetoric. The clear, black-and-white nature of these beliefs simplifies complicated matters.

• Moral Absolutism: The belief in moral absolutes (e.g., abortion is wrong under any circumstances, marriage is only between a man and a woman) is a defining feature of religious extremism. Inflexibility and intolerance soon follow, making it easier to justify extreme actions—like enacting restrictive laws—framed as being in service of a higher moral law.

• Authoritarianism: Many people who exhibit evangelical beliefs also exhibit authoritarian tendencies, favouring strong leaders who promise to restore order and protect traditional values.

• Group Dynamics: Religious extremists often draw very strict lines between those who share their faith and those who do not. They view those who do not conform to their religious or political views as dangerous or immoral. This encourages extremism when the group feels threatened.

This bring us to my next childhood question: "How did Christian Germany embrace Nazism and commit the most unchristian acts?" I found some of the answer in "Facing History and Ourselves" and the post "Protestant Churches and the Nazi State."

Some German Christians called themselves “storm troopers of Jesus Christ.” The Nazi leadership urged Protestants to unite into a national church under the centralized leadership of Ludwig Müller, a well-known pastor and Nazi Party member. Many German Protestants embraced these changes. By supporting the German Christian movement and Müller, they could continue to practice their faith while showing support for Hitler. In a national vote by Protestants taken in July 1933, the German Christians were supported by two-thirds of voters, and Müller won the national election to lead them.

Christ is not an antidote for political poison but instead a strong belief in Christ can be a marker for those most at risk. Being among the strongest, most vocal of the faithful appears to confer no protection. 

Letters written by German soldiers reveal many invoked God and Christian beliefs. For example, in Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying" (by Sönke Neitzel and Harald Welzer), interviews and writings from German POWs reveal many soldiers saw themselves as good Christians. They reconciled their faith with committing brutal, vicious actions by falling back on the concepts of duty, nationalism, and even divine destiny.

And what is divine destiny, you ask. Divine destiny is the concept that a person, group, or even a nation can have a preordained purpose or fate set by God. Believers think God has a specific plan for them, or humanity. People follow God's will to fulfill that destiny.

Sermons given by German clergy frequently praised the government, and church announcements expressed not just support but “joyous cooperation” with the Nazi Party. It seems religious piety among German Protestants was a strong predictor of support for the Nazi Party.

Scholarly Sources To Consult:

• "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919–1945" by Richard Steigmann-Gall – explores how both elites and ordinary Nazis integrated Christian ideas.

• "Between God and Hitler: German Protestantism and the Nazi State" by Matthew D. Hockenos – covers Christian responses to the Nazi regime.

• "Letters from the Wehrmacht" (various collections) – contains firsthand expressions of faith, duty, and nationalism.

---

Turning our attention to the United States, we quickly find ourselves immersed in a complex story of protestant religious extremism going back decades. During the time of the slave trade and later during the era of segregation, Christian beliefs were invoked to justify and defend both the slave trade and segregation.

 

But, you don't have to go back decades to find movements supported by protestant religious extremism. Think of the Christian nationalism movement so popular today. This is the belief that the United States is fundamentally a Christian country and that the laws and political policies should reflect Christian values.

 

Christian nationalists believe in moral absolutism—there is a divinely ordained moral code that must govern our Christian society. This leads to intolerance. For example, opponents of abortion, right-to-life groups, are not expressing a religious or personal view but a fundamental belief, a core belief that must be enforced at all political levels, municipal, state and national. 

 

Donald Trump courted the evangelical vote: In the United States, Donald Trump used promises to protect Christian values, such as addressing the moral problem of abortion. He said he would protect the country from liberal or progressives and woke social policies.

 

Trump's authoritarian tendencies, such as his contempt for the press, his disregard for the separation of powers, and his push for Christian nationalist policies, point to a troubling trend to merge religious extremism with political extremism. It has happened in the past and it never ends well.

 

Political and religious extremists share some goals. They both want to restore what they see as lost greatness and both want to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. After President Donald Trump gave his victory speech, dozens of his loyal supporters filled the lobby at the Palm Beach Convention Center to sing "How Great Thou Art."

On the campaign trail, Trump encouraged the mixing of religion and politics. He proclaimed that he would “protect Christians in our schools and in our military and our government” and in “our public square.”

If you are religious but not evangelical, you may think you are getting off scot-free. Absolutely not. According to the AP, 6 in 10 white Catholics voted for Donald Trump as did 6 in 10 Mormons. Trump's support rises to 8 in 10 when one polls white evangelical Christian voters. This is an absolutely staggering margin of support.

In Canada, evangelicals have shown strong support for Pierre Poilievre over Mark Carney. A 2024 Angus Reid poll indicated that 73% of evangelical Christians planned to vote for Poilievre's Conservative Party, compared to just 5% for Justin Trudeau's Liberals. During the 2025 federal election, Poilievre visited multiple churches in Liberal-held ridings.

In contrast, Mark Carney, despite being a former central banker with a reputation for steady leadership, did not have a significant evangelical base. His campaign focused more on economic stability and national unity, particularly in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's trade threats, rather than on religious or social conservative issues. Carney won but just barely.

Mark Carney and his wife, Diana Fox Carney, have been prominent figures in the global environmental movement, leveraging their expertise and platforms to advocate for sustainable policies and practices. Mark and Diana Carney are greens and believe it is possible to be both green and financially successful.

On the other hand, Pierre Poilievre is not green and proud of it. If elected, he promised to bring back plastic bags and drinking straws. He argued for recycling rather than banning. In truth, many plastic bags and straws are not recyclable due to contamination, size and material type (usually polypropylene). Both take centuries to degrade during which time they shed and breakdown into the microplastics now found in the human body.

Why do evangelicals choose Poilievre over Carney? I found more reasons than I care to list. I would bore you. Let’s examine only two controversial subjects: the carbon tax and the banning of plastic bags and straws.

• -- The carbon tax is an act of government intervention associated with progressive Liberal Party policy and anti-capitalist climate activism penalizing targeted industries.

• -- Even if the carbon tax is rebated, people perceive only the upfront cost, not the long-term climate or economic offsets. They go with their common sense which is more accurately called common nonsense.

• -- Approximately 80% of Canadians got more back in rebates than they paid out in carbon tax costs. Conservative politicians (like Poilievre) framed the carbon tax as a "tax on everything", heightening misconceptions that it disproportionately harms working-class families.

• -- Climate policy is sometimes seen as part of a "secular" or globalist agenda, conflicting with their world view.

• -- The ban on plastic straws and bags is seen as another example of government overreach. Bringing back plastic straws and bags is a common sense move to restore personal choice.

• -- Environmental bans are associated with urban elites, bureaucracy, and "woke" values.

Poilievre's messaging around freedom, anti-tax, and individual responsibility aligns strongly with evangelical political values. For many evangelicals it is the economy first and the environment second.

I am getting a glimpse into why Trump and Poilievre do so well with evangelicals and other religious folk. It is not reassuring.

NYT video

https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/canada/100000010113524/how-metas-news-ban-could-disrupt-canadas-election.html?smid=url-shhttps://www.nytimes.com/video/world/canada/100000010113524/how-metas-news-ban-could-disrupt-canadas-election.html?smid=url-shareare

I voted for one my heros: Mark Carney.

Yesterday, my wife and I voted. I voted for Mark Carney. My vote was not influenced by the debates nor by the campaigning leading up to the election. I voted for Mark Carney because he has been one of my personal heroes for years. I am so excited by the prospect of having Carney leading country. Having Carney at the helm gives me hope. (Oh, how I pray the Liberals win and with a clear majority.)

Writing a glowing take on Mark Carney is difficult because he has accomplished so much. Where does one start? I'm going to pick his time at Brookfield Asset Management (BAM),one of world's great asset management companies and a Canadian one. Canadians can be proud.

I like to think of myself as green and I look for green concerns in others. Carney is green as is his wife, Diana Fox Carney. While heading Brookfield Asset Management, Carney gained fame and respect for his strong preference for ESG investing, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing.

Under Carney's leadership BAM favoured companies that took a measured approach to how they interacted with the natural world. Carbon emissions, energy use, waste management, pollution control and resource conservation and more were all considered when making investments.

I have an axe-the-tax relative who, thanks to the simplistic blather of Pierre Poilievre, believes one must be prepared to sacrifice the environment, to a certain extent, in order to have a successful economy. She does not want to see companies saddled with green costs that might cause them to curtail investment or something worse, like leaving Canada.

Carney had shown that being green and successful are not mutually exclusive. Addressing social concerns and believing in empathetic governance are also possible. Companies should care about workplace conditions such as employee health and safety and much more. When it comes to governance, executive compensation, board diversity and independence, transparency, shareholder rights, anti-corruption policies, and ethical conduct, all are important.

And what did Pierre Poilievre say about BAM? In three word, nothing of value. He attacked BAM. He took delight in pointing out that BAM took advantage of its Bermuda connection to escape paying Canadian taxes. What he was really pointing out was that he, Poilievre, seems to be completely ignorant of how business works.

Let me repeat what I discovered using Perplexity: "Carney said that the funds are set up so that the income generated by the investments is not taxed first at the fund level in multiple countries and then again when distributed to Canadian investors.  

Instead, the income "flows through" the Bermuda-registered funds to Canadian entities, which then pay the appropriate taxes in Canada. This structure is intended to ensure that taxes are paid once, in the proper jurisdiction, rather than multiple times at different points in the investment chain.

"The beneficiaries of the funds—such as Canadian teachers, retirees, and municipal employees whose pensions are invested—do pay taxes on their pension income in Canada. Therefore, the use of Bermuda is not about evading taxes but about optimizing the tax process so that Canadian investors are not taxed repeatedly on the same income." 

As a long-time Brookfield investor, I can assure you that Carney speaks the truth. The Bermuda connection was not news to me. If Brookfield did not take advantage of the Bermuda tax loophole, Canada might collect more corporate tax but shareholders and pension funds would receive smaller dividends and would see a capital gains reduction due to diminished after-tax profitability of the company.

Let's summarize what remains to be said about Mark Carney and it will be a long summary.

• 1965: Born in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories and grew up in Edmonton, Alberta
•  1988: earned a Bachelor of Economics from Harvard University
•  1993 and 1995: earned a Master’s and a PhD in Economics from Oxford University
• Moved on to Goldman Sachs, working in major financial centres including London, Tokyo, New York, and Toronto, eventually becoming managing director of investment banking.
•  2003: appointed Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada and briefly was Senior Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
•  2008: Governor of the Bank of Canada (At this time, he and the Hon. Jim Flaherty, worked together to successfully guide Canada through the global financial crisis.)
• 2013: Governor of the Bank of England

Carney can add to his resume the time spent as chairman of the Financial Stability Board, chairman of the Committee on the Global Financial System at the Bank for International Settlements, head of Brookfield Asset Management and even more.

I would like to add one more plus to Mark Carney's resume: Diana Fox, now Carney. What a remarkable lady to have in one's corner. 

• She holds degrees from Oxford and the University of Pennsylvania.
• She met her future husband, Mark Carney, at Oxford University, where she played on the women's hockey team and Mark Carney was backup goalie for the men's team.
• She has held senior roles at think tanks in Canada and the UK, focusing on energy and climate policy.
• She has worked as an agricultural researcher in Africa and for the charity IPPR.
• She served as executive director of Pi Capital in the UK.
• She has held leadership roles including vice president of research at Canada 2020 think tank and director of strategy and engagement at the Institute for Public Policy Research in London.
• Since 2021, she has been a senior advisor at Eurasia Group and to climate-focused funds such as BeyondNetZero and Helios Climate.
• She has served on the boards of several not-for-profit organizations, including Save the Children, Friends of the Royal Academy, Ashden, ClientEarth, the Shell Foundation, and BeyondNetZero. (I personally like Save the Children. I have supported two children for years,)
• She was described as an "eco-warrior" by The Daily Telegraph in 2012 due to her environmental activism and criticism of global financial institutions.

And what has Pierre Poilievre done? Other than attack-dog politics, not a lot. His biggest claim to fame, in my estimation, is his talent for oversimplifying complex issues with simplistic chants like axe-the-tax, spike-the-hike, Canada first, jail-not-bail plus many more. He also like name-calling, for example Sell-out-Singh. This school yard bully talk forms the base of  Pierre Poilievre's rhetoric. Canadians deserve better.

God is Dead!

For those of us old enough to remember the late '50s and '60s, there was a "God is Dead" movement at that time. According to The Guardian, the movement reached its zenith in April 1966 when Time magazine published a cover asking in large red letters over a black background: Is God Dead?

I admit I did not have much interest in the question, nor much interest in the answer. It was clearly an attack on organized religion, especially Christian. A teen at the time, the whole argument seemed so esoteric. Too philosophical.

The Guardian says this about those times:

"Ultimately, the death of God movement fizzled after only a few years in the limelight. It turned out to be a last gasp of the liberal Protestant theology that was quickly losing ground in American culture and politics to a more literalistic evangelical tide."

Now, jump ahead to today and I find myself embracing a modified "God is Dead" philosophy. I was raised an Anglican. For me, God was Anglican. I had a friend who was evangelical. Some Sundays I took a break from attendance at my church and attended his. I also attended large, hall-filling evangelical events with my boyhood friend.

These events, so important to the Christian Missionary Alliance members and the Seventh Day Adventists folk plus others, were ignored by the Anglicans. The feeling seemed to be ignore the evangelicals and they will go away.

The Anglicans were wrong. The evangelicals did not go away. Rather than wither, the movement grew. We were foolish to have ignored it. Today, to an increasing extent, evangelicals rule. Today, the God I was raised to worship, the God of my Anglican Church, is, if not dead, awfully quiet.

I have relatives who are evangelicals. They send me Internet links to preachers they follow. They believe I will profit from listening to these evangelical preachers—if only I listen. Often, I don't. I find that I do not recognize their Jesus. My gut tells me these folk are misdirected, misinformed or worse, they are fakes, frauds, false prophets. Con men.

Anglicanism in my day sought a balance of scripture, tradition, and reason. This approach was far less dogmatic than that of the evangelicals today.

Literal interpretations of the Bible, encouraging believers to drill deep into The Book, only leads to confusion. At least, this is what I was told in the '50s. Listen to your minister, I was told. Otherwise, you will find yourself deep in confusion rather than faith. At best, evangelicals were debating the trivial; at worse, they were venturing into heresy territory.

For instance, the evangelicals, I knew, believed in the "end times." Many of the hall-filling events centred around the "end times" and the "rapture." According to my minister and his deacon, the end times was a misreading of the Bible. It was a heresy that just wouldn't die. It had been promised for a thousand years. Clearly, it had not happened and I was assured it wasn't likely to happen in my lifetime either.

Faith healing was another concept foreign to Anglicans. Faith healing was held in contempt by Anglicans as it was seen as profiting from exploiting the desperately ill. God gives us the strength to fight disease. Surgery fixes it. Given the choice between a faith healer, like Oral Roberts, or a surgeon like the one who repaired my badly worn heart, I go with the surgeon every time. If I thank God, it is only in passing.

My father had heart disease. Our minister offered spiritual and emotional support. His doctor offered nitroglycerine. Taking nitro relieved the pain better than prayer. That said, God did eventually end the pain. Dad died.

So, was my God cold? Indifferent? No, not in the least. The old God of the Anglicans was not into making a lot of promises that he would not keep. My God was a realist, a teacher, a leader . . .

The Anglican God, the Anglican Jesus, spoke of loving one's neighbour as one's self. Showing compassion and actively caring for those in need was a core belief. If I had to put God on the political spectrum, God would have been left of centre.

Let's look at a few religious hot-buttons. Let's compare today's evangelical God to the God of my youth.

Public Housing: Some evangelicals are wary of tax-dollar assisted public housing. I have a friend who falls into this category. A good example would be Scott Turner who runs HUD under Donald Trump.

 

Turner was an associate pastor at Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas, a prominent evangelical megachurch. As a Texas state legislator, Turner consistently voted against initiatives aimed at aiding the poor and expanding affordable housing. He called welfare "dangerous, harmful" and "one of the most destructive things for the family."

 

Sidebar: I was raised in a government subsidized Wartime Housing project. My father was a department store salesman. My mother was a stay-at-home mom. Although my dad always had a full-time job, he worked hard, his jobs paid very poorly. I don't believe he ever made more than $5000 in any given year. Often he made much less. 

 

Today, I believe one of his great granddaughters is firmly against such government funded housing. Without public housing I wonder where my sister and I would have lived and how my parents would have kept their pride intact.

 

My God, my Jesus, was in favour of taxpayer-funded public housing.

 

Single Payer Health Systems: Contrary to what you may have read. Single Payer Health Systems are not socialist. It is a form of universal healthcare where the government pays for all covered healthcare while the providers are private. Think of it as healthcare insurance for all with no fine print. No loss of coverage due to preconditions.

Many evangelicals believe in personal accountability and self-reliance. If you can afford better healthcare, you should be able to have it. It is a multi-tiered, capitalist system. You get what you can pay for. Haven't got much money? You won't get much healthcare.

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler found that many who lack insurance coverage in the United States die as a result. It is probably safe to say more than 70,000 Americans, aged 18 to 64, die annually from lack of healthcare.

One might think the number of Canadians dying from lack of healthcare would be zero. It should be but it isn't. The number is not as high as in the U.S. but thousands of Canadians still die annually because of failures in the Canadian healthcare system. Wait lists are so long that people die while waiting.

My Jesus, I believe, would opt for the single payer system. Based on the data I found, the average cost of a comprehensive health insurance policy for a family of four in the United States is approximately $24,301 per year. This amount is less if the payments are employer supported.

In comparison, Canadians only spend half of what Americans do, hence the healthcare problems. No money. I believe Jesus would be in favour of raising taxes in this instance. Canadians are getting a free lunch here, or at least a low cost lunch, and it shows. The taxes, of course, would be progressive.

Sidebar: I have had robotically-assisted open heart surgery for a leaking heart valve; I have had two pacemaker/ICDs implanted and I may well live long enough to get a third; I've had a broken hip repaired with a titanium implant; I've had lifesaving emergency minimally-invasive surgery for a totally obstructed bowl; And the list goes on. In the States, I would be have died.

Free will or freedom of choice: Think of the Covid-19 vaccine. In Canada, it was, for the most part, mandatory. A lot of evangelicals were incensed by this. Anger over the mandating of covid vaccine was a big force in driving Justin Trudeau out of power. In their view, Trudeau was intent on taking freedom of choice away from Canadians. 

 

The "Freedom Convoy" participants were heroes in their eyes and Trudeau a socialist dictator. I thought taking an action that could damage, possibly irreparably, his political future was brave, gutsy, a moral choice. My Jesus would have smiled and applauded.

 

This contrasts with the evangelical Jesus, who is quite willing to sit on the sidelines while his followers seek the "truth." Many evangelicals didn't join the fight against covid immediately. No, they first sought the truth. They asked questions and listened to everyone saying anything. Everyone is worth a listen. Really? Everyone?

For instance, they learned the vaccine was rushed to market. It wasn't. Research on mRNA technology began in the 1980s and large advances were made in the following decades. Science was ready. Evangelical Christianity wasn't.

 

The Jesus of my youth was in favour of community safety over individual rights. I believe he would have seen the evangelical take to be simply selfishness. A bit of the me first philosophy leaving a stain on Christ's followers.

I could go on but I will stop here. I am finding it difficult digging into the death of my God. When my evangelical friends and relatives talk about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, they claim, "It is very complex." Some even repeat Trump's and Putin's talking points.

 

My Jesus finds it easy to denounce the killing, maiming, raping and kidnapping being done by the Russians as wrong. It is not complex. As Christians we should be doing all we can to put an end to it and that does not mean bowing down to evil. I believe my Jesus would have challenged the Russians when they threatened Crimea. My Jesus would have hoped his followers would have taken immediate action, stopping the killing before it started. My Jesus has a spine.

 

Reading what I wrote, I have changed my mind. God, my Jesus, the Jesus of the early '50s may be dead to many now but it is only temporary. He will be rediscovered—resurrected. Reborn. You can't keep a good God down.

 

Do you want to know more? Check out this link: God is Dead.

Do we have a "right" to build ourselves a single family home?

I have a close relative who has opinions on everything. When we chat, especially online, we get into long, tedious discussions that lead nowhere. You see, I, too, have opinions on everything and my opinions do not agree with hers. Oops!

She is big on personal freedom. Don't infringe on my space. Period. Governments pass rules and regulations setting the rules we live under and thus governments infringe on her personal freedom. She had an example.

In a small community where she lived, a percentage of homes had to be town houses, a percentage semi-detached and single family homes could only use X amount of land. These rules were not enacted by the town but forced upon the town by the provincial government. She felt a small village should be allowed to plan its own approach to urban expansion and not be forced to adhere to urban-use guidelines devised by the Provincial government.

This sounds reasonable but is it?According to the Ontario Farmland Trust, in the past 35 years, Ontario has lost 2.8 million acres (18%) of its farmland to non-agricultural land uses like urbanization and aggregate mining.

And the rate of farmland loss is increasing rapidly. The loss was 319 acres per day according to the 2021 Census of Agriculture, and may well be more today. 

I was raised by an ex-farmer living in Essex County, Ontario. It was the early '50s, 70 years ago, and he and my mother complained about urbanization way back then. They saw the agricultural land of Essex County as some of the best in Canada. Today, when I drive around Essex County, the substantial loss envisioned by my parents is obvious.

My relative does not understand that when she hates government for infringing on her right to build a single family home on as large a chunk of land as she can afford, she is hating me. The government should be, but all too often isn't, the voice of the people. In this case, it is. It represents my voice and the voice of others who feel as I do. If it were left to me to write the regulations, even my home, which I love, would never have been built. (Don't tell my grandchildren.)

I live on a finite planet and I hope my descendants will be able to eke out a good life on this planet for thousands of years to come. Sadly, I don't believe the planet I am leaving my granddaughters is in good shape. It is an indisputable fact that the earth is not as healthy a planet as when I was born. And the planet then was nowhere near as healthy as it was when my grandparents were born in the mid 1870's. Now, jump ahead and I ask you, "How healthy will our planet be in a millennium?)

_________________________________________________

The idea of losing farmland frightens me. On the other hand there are folk investigating alternatives. Greenhouses immediately come to mind. The following is from the Lufa Farms Internet page.

"Growing vegetables hydroponically on rooftops is an efficient way to feed cities sustainably. Learn about the ins and outs of urban agriculture."

"The Marché Central, Montreal, greenhouse shown in the post was completed in 2024. Using advanced design elements, including high-intensity LED lights, insulated double-paned perimeter glass, a diffused glass roof, and double curtains, this greenhouse is our most technologically advanced site yet and is anticipated to generate up to 20% more produce than conventional greenhouses of similar size."

What has Trudeau done to make you hate him

One of my nieces sent me an email linking to a You Tube video by Kevin O'Leary. She and her older sister have a hate on for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. I am not sure why. I know Trudeau made some big mistakes, immigration and the quickly growing national debt, immediately come to mind. 

He was in power for nine years. Surely, he did something right.What really bothers me about the criticism is the nasty tone of much of it. The title of the You Tube post is:

Kevin O’Leary: Trudeau, the ‘Idiot King,’ is Gone—But ‘Dante’s Hell’ Awaits Next Leader

Before I post my reply to my nieces email, I will admit that I am disappointed in Justin Trudeau. With no newspapers, perhaps it is harder today to get the word out but clearly he failed to deliver his message to the Canadian electorate. No one seems to recall all that he accomplished. Now, to Kevin.

The following is from my email to my niece: 

 

Some of the statements made by O'Leary are correct but I doubt a lot of folk would pick-up on the complexities colouring these statements. But when O'Leary claims foreign investment per capita in Canada has collapsed under Trudeau he is wrong. During Trudeau's time in office the foreign investment per capita grew almost 7% more than it did under the previous PM, Stephen Harper. This may reflect a more favourable environment for foreign investors under Trudeau.

When O'Leary attacks Trudeau on his energy policies, he repeats attacks told by Pierre Poilievre and repeated by others. For instance, O'Leary claims that interest in pipelines collapsed under Trudeau. Any  investor knows this is not true.

 Quoting the National Observer, a left of centre news source, "While Canada was (said to be) “closed” for oil and gas business, the industry increased its oil production by more than a million barrels per day. Its biggest companies posted record profits in 2022, and then almost did it again in 2023. Meanwhile, in 2024 the federal government completed the construction of the first pipeline to Pacific tidewater in decades, one that immediately (and significantly) increased oil prices received by the same companies complaining so bitterly about Trudeau’s reign. LNG Canada, meanwhile, is set to begin operations in 2025, and will have a similarly beneficial impact on the price of natural gas in Canada and the companies that sell it.

As a Canadian investor, I follow pipeline companies like Enbridge. I have appreciated the solid, unwavering support the federal government gave when it came to the Enbridge Line Three problems. Another quote: " Justin Trudeau has been the best prime minister their industry has seen in decades. He has done more to advance their interests, often at the cost of his own political capital, than any of his living predecessors. In addition to TMX and LNG Canada it also fought successfully for Line 3, a major expansion project that faced significant political resistance from the Democratic governor and other politicians in Michigan. Oh, and it also threw more than a billion dollars at the oil and gas industry to help it clean up its old oil and gas wells."

Has Trudeau any black marks against him when it comes to pipelines. Depends on whether you are into saving the planet or not. Trudeau's administration cancelled the Northern Gateway project shortly after taking office, fulfilling a campaign promise to ban oil tanker traffic on British Columbia's northern coast. This decision was seen as a clear signal of shifting priorities towards environmental concern.

O'Leary attacks Trudeau for the change in how energy and mining permits are granted. With energy permits, Trudeau advanced a process containing a lot of environmental scrutiny. With mining permits Trudeau slowed approvals by moving emphasis to sustainability. Those who like Trudeau like to say he has focused on balancing environmental concerns with industry needs. This has not made industry happy and clearly has not pleased either O'Leary or Poilievre. Me? I'm pleased.

O'Leary states what most of us already know: Canada's wealth is heavily tied up in its natural resources. But which party is better at guiding Canada into the future? Personally, I am not a big fan of Trudeau and have taken a strong dislike to Pierre Poilivre.The Canadian economy needs diversification and better resource management to ensure long-term prosperity and resilience against market fluctuations.For this I pick Mark Carney. Carney has quite the resume. He cares about the environment and he has business smarts that no one can doubt.

I'd go on but the truth is just as I said at the beginning. Trudeau has failed to beat his own drum and he has made mistakes that have often been blown out of proportion by the opposition but they are still mistakes. It is time for a change. I'd vote for Carney and Freeland in a flash. I am very suspicious of anyone who refuses to get security clearance while making insulting, childish, personal attacks on the other party, as Pierre Poilievre likes to do. O'Leary takes the same rude approach, an approach that is being emulated by more and more people, when he refers to the prime minister as an "Idiot King".

Canada's debt is far too big and growing far too fast. The Liberals have not run a workable budget. When Freeland resigned she made it clear she could no longer go along with a "costly political gimmick". For that reason and others, I like Mark Carney and Freeland. They are bright, Carney has an especially strong background in government finance, and they might find ways of making the difficult decisions palatable.

P.S. One last thing, I am very proud of the way Justin Trudeau treated Canada's indigenous people. As of January 2025, 132 long-term boil water advisories have been lifted in Canada, while 33 advisories remain active across 28 indigenous communities. Compare the Trudeau response to the problem to that of Stephen Harper. Harper's government did not implement binding regulations for water quality on First Nations reserves, which contributed to ongoing water crises. The absence of such regulations meant that First Nations lacked the same protections that non-Indigenous communities enjoyed.

Why so many folk are listening to people like Kevin O'Leary and Pierre Poilevre is mind boggling to me. The world is a complex place and requires adult discussion between the opposing sides. Repeating "axe the tax" is simplistic. Get rid of the carbon tax. Fine. But what are you, Pierre, and your party going to do about the carbon problem?

I could write a lot more but enough, Betty. I think you can see I am not swayed by the linked video.

Cheers,

Ken

p.s.I look forward to a short comment.