Not that I’m a fan of Justin Trudeau’s politics but he certainly outperformed the journalists posing questions today. I give Trudeau credit for his thoughtfulness, tact and consistency in articulating positions. He is certainly well spoken. Naturally, the security concerns of Canadians travelling abroad are important, but half the question period was unfortunately taken up by short sighted reporters fixated on the news of the day. Certainly, these reporters should have known they wouldn’t have received any more than what Trudeau was able to give on the topic of the Chinese detention of Canadians. Instead issues of provincial jurisdiction, taxation, military deployments, veteran’s affairs, government debt, social program spending, and the justice system were not covered.
However; the matter of national unity was actually raised because it’s the knee jerk way of responding to real behaviour of politicians more focused on regional interests than the national interest. The prospect of transporting oil from Alberta to the west coast through pipelines is simple businessand simple economics. Certainly, as a first world country with professionals qualified to construct and maintain a pipeline safely inside an industrial regulatory framework established through decades of first world development experience, this should get done now in the spirit of Canada’s national interest with the enthusiastic cooperation of indigenous people. Just as a reminder…the hard working high tax-paying citizens of Canada grant indigenous people with special exemptions through land and tax not available to non-indigenous Canadians. Your country also has the right to expropriate your land, garnish your wage, and freeze your bank account. Yet, today your federal government is frozen in time with respect to deploying an asset that you now own, namely the Trans Canada Pipeline.
Apparently, there are some sea mammals that must be accommodated out there on the prospective port. I’m thinking that these sea mammal’s interests could be represented while the pipe is being laid. Lawyers…. well they apparently require a lot more hand holding to save them from their naval gazing and obfuscation through technical legal bafflegab. There comes a timewhen common sense, progress, and economic expansion must supersede bureaucratic bungling.
It’s been a contentious issue over fifteen years in the
investment community. Are precious metals markets rigged? If you’ve never heard
of GATA (Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee) I suppose it’s about time they get
some credit for quiet behind the scenes research into irregular trading
patterns of precious metals on the COMEX and LME. GATA has in fact appeared
before U.S. law makers on the topic of market rigging during the period in
which this alleged illicit trading was conducted. Did the U.S. government significantly
digest claims made by GATA through GATA’s research? How could the U.S. Senate
draft a 396 page report entitled “Wall Street Bank Involvement with Physical
Commodities” having not discovered any of these trades though which allegedly
number in the “thousands”.
The news….JP Morgan appears (a plea at minimum so far) to
be guilty of conducting illicit futures trades in precious metals as reported
by CNBC on December 13, 2018 and in fact there is a reference in the article to
the trades by an employee of the firm as being conducted with the consent and
direct knowledge of his immediate supervisors. A class action law suit is
underway representing those who traded the futures precious metals markets
between 2009 and 2015.
Chris Powell of GATA speculates in his December 18, 2018
article whether gold mining companies who have reason to trade futures in order
to hedge production will participate. Mr. Powell goes on to elaborate why the
gold mining industry has been reluctant to postulate about market rigging.
Austrian economists could expound greatly on motives for the suppression of the
Not surprisingly, we’ve seen the gold price rise to a six
month high today. The big question will become…how far up the chain of
command will we discover complicity in the conduct of this bank employee?
I woke up this morning to a USA Today headline “The man is
pathetic”: Giuliani attacks Cohen. My gut tells me that those spewing such
vitriolic comments likely have ethical dilemmas themselves which brew
underneath a bravado like facade. This
seems to be the new normal in politics. In an era past when differences of opinion
could be debated with intelligence and unwritten rules of conduct, it’s now all
out unfiltered attack based on emotionally planted self centred ego driven applause
It’s quite obvious to the bystander that Trump’s ex lawyer
Cohen succumbed to heat applied by Trump during tenuous transactions arising
from Trump’s business and personal conduct. In the remote chance you haven’t
been witnessing Trump’s bully like conduct and visceral need to react intensely
to any slight against him through his twitter account, never mind his
propensity to litigate contractors in business, you can easily formulate
through a “paint by numbers” like puzzle that this seems to be a man who takes
every occasion to wield financial power regardless of ethical implications.
Now, he is facing the music as he deserves. I had actually seen enough simply
through his conduct in the election campaign that this was a man unfit for
office. In spite of nepotism rules, Trump somehow determined that his daughter
and son in law despite their youth and inexperience in governmental affairs
would be apt “Advisers to the President”. I actually believe the man has some
merit and humanity behind his veil which has unfortunately been voided by aberration.
I suggest that Mr. Giuliani’s propensity to defend thePresident has more to do with his own need to have his ego stroked than anymisplaced loyalty. There are men who reach their twilight years and still donot discover the means to bypass this ego laden short circuitingmechanism.
Upon posting, I thought this might go in my blog categorization of “personal development”. Wink.
Upon reading the Calgary Herald’s online comments to Rachel Notley’s letter to the editor today, I can’t help but feel dismayed by people’s vitriol. To preface this piece, I’m fiscally conservative and did not vote for Rachel Notley in our last provincial election and nor would I vote for her today. She has failed to act prudently with the public purse and public sector unions just as I had suspected. However; I do give her credit for adjusting somewhat when she took office to the market reality facing the oil and gas industry.
British Columbia has failed to honour its role in support of Canada’s industrial development. This mere fact underlies the basis which prevents the construction of increased pipeline capacity to the west coast. Ms. Notley has been an advocate of new pipeline construction. In fact, the taxpayer has now been exposed to the capital costs associated with preliminary pipeline construction because of British Columbia’s obfuscation and environmental idealism.
Unfortunately, when the electorate is exposed to politicians who have abused the public purse for their own benefit or witness politicians grand stand for social causes beyond the scope of their mandate, cynicism infiltrates objective debate thereby interfering with good decision making. People become so dug into their positions based on emotion as opposed to logic that coherent public policy is jeopardized. The elicitation of a civil society is predicated by sound minds exchanging ideas, sourcing problems, contending with various interests, and ultimately planning and executing solutions. Canada in its size, its regional disparities, and its desire for satisfying everyone may in the end lose in global competitiveness. As a nation, we “stand on guard for thee” on Remembrance Day and on Canada Day, but do we do the same when critical industrial projects are on the precipice of deployment? Will we continue to operate from the premise that natural resources form the lifeblood of Canadian economic development or will we be naive enough to believe that service industries, computer gadgets, and the public sector will carry us all forward?
Could it be that your national government is simply reticent to thrust itself into a potential constitutional crisis over the jurisdictional rights of petroleum transport? Now that Canada’s federal government has taken an ownership stake in the Trans Mountain Pipeline, I ponder how it plans to illicit the benefits of such in the face of a provincial government which has been uncooperative. Wasn’t it Mr. Trudeau’s father who was last seen addressing elements particular to our constitution? May he have missed something?