Recommended Posts

"if the government's weakened fiscal health becomes "significantly more severe and prolonged than we anticipate"."

Having said that, when you look at the reports that credit card balances are down:

And the fact that people are sitting on record amounts of cash:

And the fact that all countries are spending to make it through the pandemic and Canada is nowhere near the top of the list:

You can be pessimistic, yet all the indications are that there is going to be a HUGE snapback when things open back up.

If you choose to listen to the conservative fearmongering, that is your choice.

The way I see it, we are all in a bad spot right now, and it will get better.

Glass half empty, glass half full.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 549
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

To listen to sockboy and his idea of government .... we have your backs, from day one, clear and transparent, budgets will balance themselves, respect for parliament, blah blah blah ...... the Canadia

I wish.... If you go to any post and highlight a section of text, it will offer a "quote section" text box. Click on that and it will enter the quote for you and attribute it to the poster in who

Posted Images

I am not doubting that there will be a huge SnapBack in the economy, I am just skeptical on how the government (present and future) will pay for the huge debts covered in the BNN out for tax increases. Ask Chrétien and Martin about debt and fearmongering. And the feds can’t download costs to the provinces anymore...they’re broke too!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick, Tick, Tick.......

Time is running out for Justin et al to avoid a shutdown of a major part of the Ontario economy.......maybe oil will matter to the liberals after all.


Last November, Michigan ordered Line 5 to shut by May 13, citing the environmental risk ........

Wilkinson, after meeting with Kerry, told reporters that "the issue in Michigan is the governor."

Canada's Ambassador Kirsten Hillman and Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna have both met separately with Whitmer, but she has not changed her stance.

A spokeswoman for Whitmer told Reuters that the governor stands behind her decision to close the pipeline.

Enbridge said shutting Line 5 would cause fuel shortages and gas price spikes, and require 15,000 trucks and 800 rail cars a day to replace deliveries to Ontario. Michigan would also need truck transport to account for lost propane delivery, while refineries in Ohio and Michigan would need to secure supply from other suppliers.

Scott Archer, business agent with Local 663 Pipefitters Union in Sarnia, home to three of Ontario's refineries, described Line 5 as the "spinal cord of Ontario's infrastructure" in testimony to Canadian lawmakers.

"Shutting down Line 5 will in effect kill my hometown... and many more places like it in Canada and the U.S.," he said.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Desperate Liberals hire judge to shield Trudeau from Vance sexual misconduct allegations 

The Trudeau government, self-styled feminists all, were given a credible allegation about sexual misconduct at the very top of Canada's military and ignored it

Weeks into a sexual misconduct scandal that has come as far as the innermost circle of the prime minister’s office, National Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan came out on Thursday, apologized to the women of the Canadian Armed Forces — or, well, any that were upset, at any rate, as Sajjan limited his apology to women “who feel we were not there for them” — and announced that the government would launch an investigation into … something else entirely. It was a remarkable performance, mostly for how utterly shameless it was.

The Liberals have spent weeks trying to distance themselves from the allegations that they were told in 2018 that now-retired general Jonathan Vance, then the commanding officer of the entire military, had been accused of sexual misconduct by a subordinate female officer. None of their excuses and explanations have long withstood even the flimsiest scrutiny. A senior member of Trudeau’s staff, helplessly skewered by opposition questions last week, offered up Katie Telford, the PM’s chief of staff, for sacrificing, saying that he had told her about the allegations. The PM himself claimed that nothing was known about the specific nature of the allegations — heavens no, he didn’t know it was a MeToo! — but even that talking point blew up at liftoff, because documents already reported on by Global News show that government officials were openly discussing the “sexual harassment” allegations against Vance during the period in question.


More >>>.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)


With more seats than it deserves Atlantic Canada is awash in federal handouts 

Liberals have leveraged their illegitimate position by sending money from wealthiest provinces, through grants and equalization payments, to their Liberal strongholds

In the last election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals got 6,018,728 votes, or a puny 33.12 per cent of the total, and the Tories got 6,239,227. Even so, Trudeau ended up with 157 seats and the Tories only 121. I analyzed the numbers in a piece I wrote last year in The Post which revealed the need for electoral reform.

This electoral injustice was due to gerrymandering which has given the poorest part of the country — everything east of the Quebec-Ontario border — 14 more seats than it deserves, based on representation by population. So, it shouldn’t surprise that the Liberals have leveraged their illegitimate position by continuing the practice of sending money from the wealthiest provinces, through grants and equalization payments, to their Liberal strongholds.

But the extent of this giveaway to Quebec and notably Atlantic Canada is greater than most people realize, according to a recent article in Halifax’s Chronicle Herald by David Mackinnon, a former civil servant in Nova Scotia and Ontario. He was born in P.E.I. and has been a senior fellow at the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies in Halifax.


He warns Atlantic Canadians that their “bubble” is about to burst because it is unsustainable. This warning is timely considering Alberta is about to hold a referendum demanding changes in equalization transfers this fall. Confederation’s other “sugar daddy” Ontario should do the same.

Mackinnon, however, points out that equalization transfers are only a quarter of the money that the federal government has shovelled into Canada’s poorest provinces. “Regional subsidies to Atlantic Canada are much larger than is commonly assumed,” he writes.

“The scale of the problem is no longer in doubt thanks to the work of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies and the Fraser Institute. Most Atlantic Canadians would be surprised to find that in recent years, the net annual transfer to each Atlantic Canadian from the pockets of other Canadians has been $6,400, or approximately $25,000 for a family of four, each and every year.”

This has resulted in over-building of infrastructure, bloated provincial bureaucracies, and excessive benefits to locals and their businesses. This giveaway has ruined Canada’s fiscal situation — the Atlantic Canada subsidy regime and subsidies to Quebec from 2007 to 2019 are major contributors to Canada’s debt problems.

“A recent Fraser Institute study notes that the federal spending deficit in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces over this period was almost three times the size of the overall federal deficit over those years. The spending deficit in Atlantic Canada alone substantially exceeds the overall federal deficit over those years,” Mackinnon wrote. “In other words, if federal revenues and expenditures in Atlantic Canada were balanced, the country would have had surpluses for many years and would have entered the present financial crisis in a much stronger position.”

Atlantic Canada underperforms developed nations but its living standards are propped up by Ottawa. “A recent premier of Newfoundland described his job as being to get into the pockets of other Canadians, via the federal government, as much as possible,” wrote Mackinnon.


This rotten system also explains why — despite the Liberals’ catastrophic tenure — they ride high in the polls at 38 per cent nationally. They have merely extended handouts to everyone by cranking up the printing presses to keep the economy going after their vaccine rollout failure has prevented it from being fully opened up, for months longer than necessary and for months to come.

So it shouldn’t surprise that recent polls in Atlantic Canada — with its Cadillac handouts — show the Liberals with a whopping 61 per cent polling support.

Obviously, Canada, as currently constituted, doesn’t work. The country’s illegitimate electoral system is the root cause behind electing inept politicians. And vote-buying by Ottawa and a looming fiscal crisis are the outcomes.

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

“ History will brutally judge Trudeau’s border inaction “

At the beginning of the month, Canada earned the odious distinction of being one of the only countries in the world dealing with three variants of concern spreading unchecked at the same time, all because our Liberal government failed to learn one of the key lessons of the past year: border closures work.

At the time, we were becoming aware of the new “double mutant” variant found in India, which appeared to be fuelling the start of that country’s record-setting second wave. And yet, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government failed to halt flights from India and Pakistan until the strain was already spreading within our borders.

At the start of the pandemic, there was intense debate around the world about the efficacy of border closures. Australia banned travellers from China on Feb. 1, 2020, and quickly extended it to other countries that were being pummelled by the virus. The United States followed suit a few days later.


“ At the time, our government was still implying that banning travellers from China would be racist. Health Minister Patty Hajdu accused the opposition of spreading “misinformation and fear” and sensationalizing “the risk to Canadians” for even inquiring about our border policy. “

As late as March 13, she was still insisting that travel bans were “highly ineffective and, in some cases, can create harm.” It wasn’t until March 20 that Canada actually closed its border to non-essential travel, but by then it was too late.

There is no longer any debate about the efficacy of such policies. Countries that implemented early travel bans — such as Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand — have fared much better. A study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health in July, for example, found that the travel bans implemented Down Under reduced the importation of COVID-19 cases by 79 per cent and delayed the outbreak in that country by a month.

Of course, at the beginning of 2020, we knew very little about the virus and the World Health Organization was advising against restrictions on international travel. The Canadian government could therefore be forgiven for making some mistakes. But over a year later, there are no longer any excuses.

There is a large body of evidence compiled throughout last year suggesting that early travel bans were effective, though their efficacy is reduced once the virus takes hold in a country. But the calculus changed once again when we started seeing more virulent variants spreading overseas.

At the end of December, we were, in effect, right back where we started: with the potential to stop, or at least delay, a new, more infectious variant from reaching our shores. Only this time we were armed with the knowledge that border controls could be used effectively in the fight against COVID-19 and that framing public health measures as racist was a stupid thing to do.

The Trudeau government did announce in January that it would start requiring incoming airline passengers to produce a negative COVID test before boarding flights — a fairly simple solution that shouldn’t have taken over 10 months to think up. It then announced that travellers would be required to take another test upon their arrival and isolate in an approved quarantine hotel until the results were available — a system that has worked well elsewhere.

The only problem was that by the time these policies were announced, the U.K. and South African variants were already circulating in Canada. Before the measures were implemented, Canada’s first case of the Brazil variant was identified.

At the start of this month, it was clear that much of the country was in the midst of a third wave, fuelled by variants of concern, which accounted for around two-thirds of all new infections. As of April 4, British Columbia had already detected 39 cases of the Indian variant, but it wasn’t until April 22 that the government announced a 30-day ban on flights from India and Pakistan.

In that time, well over 30 flights from India touched down on Canadian soil with infected passengers on board. And more people were testing positive after arriving from India than from anywhere else in the world.

Part of the problem has been that the Liberals have consistently taken half measures. For over a year, the government has maintained that the border is closed to “non-essential travel.” But in that time, 12 million people have entered the country. The truth is that anyone with a half-decent lawyer can get permission to bring in a foreign loved one, and Canadians face little resistance when vacationing abroad.

Australia and New Zealand have been using military and the police to enforce a mandatory 14-day stay in isolation hotels for people entering those countries. Canada’s three-day quarantine hotel stays can be bypassed by paying a fine that’s only slightly more than the cost of the room, or simply driving or taking a cab across the U.S. border.

Throughout this pandemic, Canada has been hobbled to some extent by its system of federalism, and it is certainly true that many provinces have done a poor job of controlling the spread of COVID-19. But border policy is firmly within the control of the federal government. It could have been used to prevent infected individuals from entering the country, thus reducing the strain on provincial testing, tracing and health systems.

“But in this, the government has failed us, and Canadians are dying as a result.”

Edited by Jaydee
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Liberals blame Harper and Mulroney for the state of Vaccine Production in Canada but at the same time turn their backs on what appears to be a viable new company, but perhaps it is because it is  not in their voting hinterland.

Calgary company says feds shut them out, now taking mRNA vaccine development elsewhere


Posted May 1, 2021 10:01 am MDT

Dr. Joss Reimer, medical lead, Manitoba Vaccine Implementation Task Force draws a dose of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine at a clinic in Winnipeg, Friday, March 19, 2021. THE CANADIAN PRESS/John Woods

Calgary-based Providence Therapeutics, which develops mRNA vaccines, says it's taking its business elsewhere


CALGARY (660 NEWS) — A Calgary-based pharmaceutical company developing one of the world’s only mRNA vaccines says it’s taking its business elsewhere because the federal and provincial governments have shut them out.

Providence Therapeutics CEO Brad Sorenson says he can do more good outside of Canada at this stage than he can within it.

Sorenson says when Providence Therapeutics made a proposal to the federal government last March, their product was one month behind Moderna’s. He believes the company could have produced up to 50 million doses in Canada by July 2021.

“Canada is more than content to strain worldwide supply, rather than adding to worldwide production,” Sorenson said.

“You will see that it is superior to both Pfizer and Moderna.”

Manitoba struck an independent deal earlier this year for two million doses once it’s approved. Results from Phase 1 trials are expected in early May, but Sorenson said that doesn’t change much in their plan to go elsewhere.

“We’ve got other folks that are interested in it and we’re moving on.”

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau sees no evil

Little more than a blind eye on military sexual misconduct

  • Calgary Sun
  • 2 May 2021
  • BRIAN LILLEY @brianlilley
img?regionKey=dB2%2f%2bTw%2fzA97krJtqfWZAA%3d%3dCANADIAN PRESS FILES Questions have been raised about what Justin Trudeau, right, knew about sexual misconduct allegations levelled against Jonathan Vance.

There can be no doubt that Justin Trudeau's office knew someone was making sexual harassment allegations against former chief of defence staff Jonathan Vance in 2018.

The question that remains is whether if Trudeau didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.

“My office knew there was a complaint against (now retired) general Vance. Nobody knew that it was a Metoo complaint,” the prime minister said during a news conference Tuesday.

That's simply not true, given what we've seen and heard at defence committee.

Emails exchanged between top political staffers on this matter in 2018 used the language of sexual harassment.

At committee, Michael Wernick, former clerk of the Privy Council — the top civil servant in Canada — said he was aware of the discussions via email, though he thought the language was “potential sexual harassment.”

“I certainly would say that it was in the realm of sexual misconduct or sexual harassment, but I couldn't speak to the exact language,” Wernick said.

The PM'S former top political adviser told the committee that he knew what this was about as soon as

Trudeau's chief of staff, Katie Telford, asked him to look into it in early March 2018.

“The important, sensitive and unusual nature of this matter was immediately obvious to me, even in the absence of any details regarding the allegation,” Elder Marques said on

April 23. “I think my presumption was certainly that it could be of a sexual nature.”

Yet Trudeau says he didn't know and that all appropriate steps were taken before the government extended Vance's contract and gave him a significant pay raise.

“Is the prime minister going to stand in the House and tell the women of this country that he does not think sexual harassment is a Metoo complaint?” Conservative Leader Erin O'toole asked Wednesday.

Trudeau isn't interested in speaking to this or other questions. He's hoping that he can dance around the issue and the majority of the media will give him a pass on it. Thankfully, that hasn't

happened. There have been many pointed questions from several media outlets, but Trudeau obviously doesn't feel the pressure.

He speaks of his government's feminist agenda and boasts of how much the recent budget prioritized women. The PM even speaks of his own personal work and dedication on issues related to helping fight back against the sexual harassment of women.

Yet Trudeau doesn't like it when his own actual record is discussed. Conservative MP Candice Bergen raised the issue of Trudeau groping a young reporter in 2000.

Bergen asked if Trudeau was looking the other way on Vance because he knew that news would break about the Kokanee Grope.

“Is it not true that the real reason the prime minister covered up for general Vance is because he knew he had skeletons he was going to have to deal with?” Bergen asked.

Trudeau's response was to accuse the Conservatives of engaging in a personal smear of him.

No personal smear

There is no personal smear at all.

While Vance's matter was dealt with in March 2018, Trudeau's grope was made public in a tweet from Sun columnist Warren Kinsella on June 6, 2018.

Trudeau's response to being asked about a 20-yearold allegation of inappropriately handling a woman while she was reporting on

an event he was at was to say that she “experienced it differently.”

Bergen says Trudeau is

“at the top of the Old Boys club, just a wink and a nudge, do not worry, boys, their secret is safe with him.”

Given his track record, it's hard to say she's wrong.

Based on both his personal track record and his record as PM, Trudeau's claim of being a feminist can't be believed. The women of Canada, specifically those working in the military or other orders of government, deserve better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another top armed forces member is accused and bites the dust but Teflon Justin skates on despite proof that he also acted with impropriety while his minister of defense will not say yes or no when asked if he was aware of the nature of the complaints against  Jonathan Vance.  Justice for some but not all???  


The Canadian Armed Forces' acting chief of the defence staff says he has directed the commander of the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command to leave his post "immediately." The statement comes following reports that the commander wrote a character reference for another service member who had been convicted of six criminal counts, including sexual assault.

Commander of Special Forces to be replaced ‘immediately,’ CAF chief of defence staff says (


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kargokings said:

The question that remains is whether if Trudeau didn't know, it's because he didn't want to know.

I don't know all the details here and lack the inclination to separate the facts from the media spin.... too much work to bother. 

But, as I understand it, we are talking about a multi-decade affair that included two children. It turned into a harassment case as the relationship drew to a close. If we were to apply those givens in an airline setting, assume the players to be a senior Capt and mid-level ICFA and ask the question "who knew?" The answer would be everyone..... right?

So, is a multi-decade affair that produces two children how we are to collectively define harassment? That wouldn't be my definition of it, but if it stands as the definition, and it stands as  grounds for termination, and if we apply that standard across the board, I'm betting we got lots of work to do and lots of termination notices to issue.

Without defending it, I would also observe that the fixation on this type of long term relationship likely detracts from the prosecution of (what I would define as) true cases of harassment, were I asked to define it. 

I would like to know how many people would define a 20+ year relationship (and two children) as the definition of work place harassment? It wouldn't have occurred to me.... 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tick Tick Tick .....

As Ontario inches toward an economic catastrophe with the Line 5 shutdown, in addition to the Covid lockdown, I feel that we are in good hands....the pm “has our backs, since day one, every step of the way” and now our resources minister and tv personality has the issue seized! I would flipping hope so!!!


one he is “watching like a hawk.”

From the indications so far,  Michigan will shut down the pipeline.....Canada’s concerns and its actions just don’t matter to Biden and his environmental supporters.


Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said the dispute is fuelling “a lot of anxiety” in the border city, where he said thousands of jobs are at risk.

“I’ve written more letters to the governor than Saint Paul wrote to the Corinthians,” he told Canadian lawmakers in March, “and I’ve gotten no responses back.”


Bradley told The Washington Post that Whitmer’s behaviour is doing “immense” damage to cross-border ties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

As we speak, the Liberals are trying to filibuster (aka shut down) debate on this bill.  CALL YOUR MP AND GIVE THEM AN EARFULL.

Liberals' dangerous arrogance didn't begin and won't end with internet-regulation bill 

Only a PM and a bunch that carry the delusion they are all-wise and ever-right could have conceived Bill C-10

The all-knowing Liberals put up a tactical white flag when the national storm of who-the-hell-do-you-think-you-are swept over them concerning their attempt to regulate the internet.

Debate on a Conservative motion related to Bill C-10 was shut down, but whether that means an end to this ludicrous travesty is open to question. What is more galling and more threatening than the bill itself, is the set of mind behind it.

The bill may die. The thinking that spawned it will remain.

The thinking that spawned it will remain


C-10, an attempt to put a pillow over the free expression of all Canadians, didn’t pop up gopher-like out of the policy burrow of a second-tier Cabinet minister. Quite the contrary. This nefarious nugget was obviously the product of the top-rank philosophes of the Prime Minister’s Office, that sensorium of the whole Liberal party, from which emerges guidance and wisdom to elevate the lives and labours of ordinary Canadians, all set out with the confidence of a closed-minded pope.

And who are the great thinkers who birth such a creature? Why they are a band of intellects unmatched since the days of ancient Greece when Plato founded his academy, and young Socrates and his buddy Aristotle were offering home tutorials at the bargain rate of a drachma a syllogism. Their business card was terse: You learn; we earn. The wokemeisters in the PMO and the Wokemeister-in-Chief, Justin Trudeau, haven’t reached the business card stage, but post-power, you may be sure they will. There are Oprah shows to come, and star invitations to Davos and the IPCC yet to be forwarded in gilded envelopes with computer-generated handwriting.

Attend to this. This retrograde and democracy-denying bill emerged from the heights, out of the thin altitude where the prime minister dwells, and wherein the various wizards and shamans, the praetorian guard of top advisers, hatch their schemes, knit their plots, and advance the Leader’s dearest notions.

Only a PM and a bunch that carry the delusion they are all-wise and ever-right, that they alone and only they, should have rule and command over the thoughts and opinions of a whole nation, could have conceived Bill C-10. Could have put their lawyers to work composing it, then waltzed into Parliament to put it on the Order paper in the first place.

What 21st-century government, aware of speech and thought control in the great and cruel totalitarian governments of the past century, and their cruel brethren of the 21st — Communist China, sinister North Korea, Iran — every tyranny or dictatorship on the globe — would wish to ape and mirror the central characteristic of all such regimes?

All of them ruled and rule today by censorship, monitoring citizens’ thoughts and writing, even private conversation. Speech controls breed a nation of spies.

Bill C-10 may be a kitten-mischief compared with the hideous savageries of full-blown tyrannies. But great oaks out of little acorns grow. Beware the seedlings of thought and speech control. Which is another way of saying do not let governments even toy with the fundamentals of democratic understanding and the absolutes of democratic practice.

Beware the seedlings of thought and speech control


Here’s another observation: a government that yearns to censor, to pry and oversee the speech and thought of its citizens, doesn’t trust its citizens. And believes therefore it has a right to herd them into holding opinions that their wiser, smarter and obviously more progressive government tells them they must have. It’s a marvellous instance of political conceit.

Their “reasoning” preceding the drawing up Bill C-10, may easily be imagined. It would go something like this:

“Well, they (meaning the citizenry) elected us (meaning the Liberal party). And we, therefore being superior beings, now have the right to bring them up to our standards of respectable thought and acceptable opinion. We will wipe clean the moral blackboard. And lay out for the voters what the voters are allowed to say, and what they must say. Call it Cuba in a cold climate.

“We will also then apologize for their forebears, for those morally-numb pioneers who built the house of iniquity we know as Canada. We will deplore every past prime minister who was sadly neither as tolerant nor as knowing as we, Deo gratias, are. Going ahead as progressives, let us insist on the right to declare the ideas Canadians should have, and put a block on those they cannot be allowed to have. And let us be grateful that this is the one administration, the first since 1867, with the wit and moral savvy to recognize what was deficient in all who went before us. All of course save one.”

The mindset is more dangerous than the bill


There, in speculative and imagined dialogue, is the voice of the mindset behind C-10. And the mindset is more dangerous than the bill: an assertion that this government knows what’s best and has the right to impose its ideas of what is right on everyone else. This is the new religion of woke.

They may have suspended the charge up the hill to put C-10 into law. But they have not unroped themselves from the attitudes and intentions behind it. The mindset behind C-10 is more consequential than the bill which issued from it. That this band of woke virtuecrats understand themselves as better, more clever and ever how entitled to impose all the imperatives of their virtue commandments on you.

I’ll end with the words of one who was previously chairman of the CRTC, Peter Menzies. C-10 “doesn’t just infringe on free expression, it constitutes a full-blown assault upon it and, through it, the foundations of democracy.” Well said, Mr. Menzies


Edited by Jaydee
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, st27 said:

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley said the dispute is fuelling “a lot of anxiety” in the border city, where he said thousands of jobs are at risk.

Good, most excellent.... long past time that Ontario started feeling "a lot of anxiety."

Everybody else just calls it experience.


Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the issue and the shortage of petroleum products will focus peoples minds and pocket books on what the economy runs on in real time..not the economic effects of carbon taxes/Paris accord policies that kick in 2-3 years from now.

Another reason why I don't think the government will be able to talk their way out of an easy solution:


Canada’s efforts to halt Michigan from shutting down a vital energy pipeline faces an inconvenient issue. The problem is that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has repeatedly made clear he supports arguments like those taken by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

Throughout his political life, Trudeau has worked to identify himself with the same green issues Whitmer is using to explain her demand to shut Line 5, an Enbridge pipeline that carries up to 540,000 barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids a day through Michigan to Canada. Whitmer issued an order in November — scheduled to take effect this month — that would cancel an easement that runs under the Great Lakes.

Her directive reflects an environmentalist position Trudeau has proudly championed at every opportunity. Whitmer claims the danger of a spill threatens “the state’s solemn duty to protect the Great Lakes under the public trust doctrine.”

Thanks to his past pronouncements, Trudeau finds himself in a weakened position on Line 5. His government quashed the Northern Gateway pipeline project across Alberta and British Columbia following opposition from activists and Indigenous groups, and was forced to buy another — Trans Mountain — after anti-oil campaigning prompted its builders to walk away. Trans Mountain was hit with yet another delay last week when construction was ordered halted for four months to protect local hummingbird nests.

Whitmer is a supporter and ally of President Joe Biden, who is just as eager to demonstrate his environmentalist credentials as Trudeau has been. One of his earliest actions as president was to return the U.S. to the Paris climate accord, which enjoyed ardent approval from Ottawa. In their first face-to-face meeting after Biden’s election, the president and prime minister announced their joint determination to step up action on climate change, pledging to “work in lockstep to display the seriousness of our commitment at both home and abroad.”

Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan has bravely declared that Ottawa’s position is “non-negotiable.” A House of Commons committee on U.S.-Canada relations warned that Ottawa “may take legal action” to ensure the line stays open. No doubt they will do their best, but Canada would have a stronger hand if it wasn’t fighting the words and deeds of its own prime minister.

 Excerpts from an opinion piece:


As somebody once said....."Hold on to your wallets!!!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, st27 said:

"Hold on to your wallets!!!!"

They could think of it as minor test of resolve, a drop of water in the ocean of reductions they've been demanding. Much more to come, we have to shutdown entire sectors of the economy within 8 and a half years and to date, no one is ready to suggest what those should be..... I have asked. 

Anyone excited about this isn't up to the task.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.