Jump to content

Justin Trudeau


Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Falken said:

China yesterday announced they intend to burn an additional 300 million more tons of coal this year!   

Likely from the US and BC.  A lot of the coal going to China is from the US ( comes up by train) because of the protests in the US re the burning of Coal.  

Dec 16, 2021  In 2013 the port handled 30.1 million tonnes of coal, of which 9.3 million tonnes was US steam coal. Overall, coking coal accounted for almost .

Why Does US Coal Get a Free Ride through BC?

Americans reject terminals, so Wyoming’s coal heads to Asia through the Lower Mainland.

One day the train crawling past beachgoers and tourists might be from Teck’s Elkview mine in the Kootenays. Its load of metallurgical coal will sail away on a bulk carrier, perhaps to a steel foundry in Seoul.

Under the province’s $30-a-tonne carbon tax, every 100 train cars of B.C. coal represents about $45,000 in revenue for the government. Compensation to the public, in its way, for some of the pollution created by that coal’s extraction, processing and transport.

But the next day a whistle blows and another train rumbles toward the Westshore Terminals dock. This one is carrying thermal coal from Wyoming, bound for the massive Datong power plant in China.

As the train rolls through Delta, black clouds of coal dust billow from the open rail cars, irritating asthmatics and coating farmers’ crops.

Sadly, it’s worse in Shanxi province where the coal is burned. There, men, women and children cover their mouths with cloth masks to fend off the toxic smog.

Although its impacts on climate and health are even worse than metallurgical coal, this American coal train pays no carbon tax, or comparable regulatory fee in B.C., leaving taxpayers like you and me with the tab for its harmful effects.

So, why are U.S. thermal coal trains crossing the border in the first place?

The short answer is that Washington and Oregon don’t want them. Under pressure from their constituents, county and state governments put the brakes on new export terminals and coal trains bringing more dirty coal through their communities. Native American tribes directly affected by these proposals led the charge.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diversity is our strength:


They walked straight up Yonge St. — hundreds of people on a sunny Sunday afternoon carrying Palestinian flags, Black Lives Matter flags, the Every Child Matters banner raised by Indigenous communities, and a massive banner calling for Israel to be boycotted by the world.


The flags and banners are one thing, but the cheering of civilians being fired upon with chants of “Allahu Akbar!” and the calls for Israel to be destroyed are nothing but pure hatred that has no place in our society………..


“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” cried out the woman on the back of a pickup truck helping to lead the march. In response, the crowd repeated her chant along with many others.

Instead of marching along Yonge St. calling for Israel to be destroyed and cheering attacks on civilians, the people taking part in the shameful display on Sunday should be calling out the Palestinian leadership.


If the Palestinian people and their supporters want a brighter future, it starts with saying yes to living in peace with Israel.




  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Canada's supply chains, fragile at the best of times, are now broken 

Canada’s infrastructure and regulatory failings have played their own part in increasing costs for consumers, the Commons transport committee has heard.

Tiff Macklem and his colleagues at the Bank of Canada have been dismissed as “financially illiterate” by no less an authority than Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Poilievre (BA).


Macklem’s appearance at the House of Commons finance committee on Monday will not have endeared him to his critics. Inflation is too high, “higher than we expected,” the Bank of Canada governor admitted. An annual inflation rate of five per cent costs the average Canadian an additional $2,000 a year, he said in his opening statement.


The bank will raise rates to a more “neutral” level of between two and three per cent, where (theoretically) they neither stimulate nor weigh on the economy, he said.


But Macklem conceded that the bank “can’t control or even influence” the price of most internationally traded goods.


At the same time as he was speaking, the House transport committee was hearing from witnesses on the state of Canada’s supply chains — the logistical links that carry goods to and from market. The consensus among experts at the committee is that they are in a terrible state and contribute to rising costs for consumers.

The anecdotal evidence backs up a recent survey by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association that found nine out of 10 companies are grappling with supply chain issues, cutting their production and raising prices. The bank’s recent business-outlook survey found a record high number of companies reporting capacity pressures.


Not even Poilievre could blame Macklem for the acts of God and man that shippers are facing: catastrophic floods, fires, blockades, pandemics, labour disruptions and now a war. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine sent the price of wheat soaring 20 per cent in March and crude oil is up 25 per cent since the start of the year.


But Canada’s infrastructure and regulatory failings have played their own part in increasing costs for consumers.

The most compelling testimony came from the Canadian International Freight Forwarders Association’s Bruce Rodgers and Julia Kuzeljevich, whose members appear to be bearing the brunt of the capacity problems.


Kuzeljevich said that it takes 22 days for a ship to travel the 10,000 kilometres between Hong Kong and Vancouver, only to then have to wait an average of four weeks to find a berth, according to logistics company Maersk’s data. Yard congestion at the port is 120 per cent, compared to an optimal level of 80 per cent. The port’s own data confirm that things are backed up: container import rail footage (a measure of the train backlog) was 407,953 feet on March 22, compared to around 100,000 feet in October last year.

There was a two-day strike by CP employees at the port in the days leading up to March 22, but Rodgers pointed out that Canada’s supply chains are fragile at the best of times “and broken when anything disrupts them. We have had a lot of significant disruptions over the past two years.”

The efficiency of the system is not helped by burdensome regulation. Rodgers said the Canada Border Services Agency made efforts to reduce inspection delays during the pandemic, but freight forwarders still face “nightmarish” challenges. He offered the example of one importer whose container was identified for CBSA inspection on Oct. 23. The one-day inspection took place on Dec. 2 and the container was released by customs on Jan. 4 — a 73-day process that cost the importer US$8,730.

Ottawa has shown it is aware of the problem, earmarking $1.9 billion for a National Trade Corridors Fund to make transportation infrastructure more efficient. A further $450 million was allocated in the recent federal budget.


But the Liberals have found their enthusiasm for trade competing with their fondness for the environment. Rodgers complained about “promises not kept,” specifically around the Roberts Bank Terminal 2 project in Vancouver, initially mooted over a decade ago. “We’ve had no assurances the project will proceed,” he said. In fact, in February, municipal councillors in Delta, B.C., asked the federal government to reject or postpone the terminal over environmental concerns and potential adverse effects on nearby First Nations.


What many of the expert witnesses at the committee agreed upon was the need for the federal government to provide a road map for the future of precarious supply chains. They would like to see a plan that offers contingencies for events Ottawa doesn’t control, like fires and floods, but also one that does a better job of providing capacity within federal jurisdiction — namely, ensuring ships aren’t anchored offshore and containers aren’t held in limbo for weeks on end.



Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Raise taxes $1, it costs $3 in economic growth, says report

Every extra dollar the federal government raises by increasing the personal income taxes of Canadians costs $2.86 in reduced economic activity, according to a new report by the Fraser Institute.


The study by the fiscally conservative think tank also found the decrease in economic activity when corporate income taxes are raised by $1, is $2.02.


“When the federal government raises taxes, the cost to Canadians is not simply higher taxes,” said study co-author Bev Dahlby in the report: What are the Economic Costs of Raising Revenue by the Canadian Federal Government?


“It means less investment, less entrepreneurship, less business activity, and ultimately a smaller tax base, which imposes unseen costs on Canadians.


When governments raise tax rates, they affect the behaviour of workers, businesses, entrepreneurs and investors … higher tax rates distort the decisions related to starting a business, saving and investing, work effort, and expanding an existing business, all of which impose costs on the economy in the form of foregone prosperity. So when a government raises tax rates, the actual cost to the economy is much higher.”

The researchers found that a 1% increase in the corporate income tax rate results in a 3.36% reduction in the corporate tax base, while a 1% increase in the personal income tax rate results in a 1.97% reduction in that tax base.


None of this is to suggest there is no value to paying taxes, given that they pay for vital services such as health care, income support programs, and public infrastructure.


But it does point out there is a societal cost to higher taxes in reduced economic growth that has to be weighed against the ostensible benefits of paying them.


Defenders of higher taxes :Scratch-Head:  (There are actually people like this??) often make the argument that investing every additional tax dollar on a particular government program will ultimately save the public money by reducing the need for even more government support over time.


But that ignores the issue of whether the increased spending will be done efficiently and whether it will actually do what is promised. 


Simply spending more money on government services does not automatically mean those services will improve.


Governments at all levels, for example, often link more spending to better services for the public in health care, but that will not be true if the template for spending the money is broken.


As an example, whether the tens of billions of dollars of new spending on health care over the past two years because of the COVID-19 pandemic will improve the quality of health care over the long term is not a given.


Numerous international studies of Canadian health care, when assessed against comparable countries with universal health-care systems that are members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, have typically found that Canadians pay top dollar for health care through their taxes for what are often mediocre results.


Indeed, one of the reasons that lockdowns in Canada during the pandemic were so long and severe — endangering both the health and economic well-being of the public — was that our hospital system, which operates at over-capacity in normal times, was so easily overwhelmed by the additional strain caused by COVID-19.


Whether that will change post-pandemic is not a given, and it would be foolish to simply assume that higher taxes and more spending will fix the problems, unless the money is spent wisely and efficiently.


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

Another attempt by sockboy to deflect and give the appearance of doing something:


Trudeau said in a statement Rouleau would look into the circumstances that led to the Emergencies Act being invoked "and make recommendations to prevent these events from happening again." 

Critics say inquiry won't scrutinize the government

Those critical of the government's decision to invoke the act described the inquiry as overly focused on the actions of protesters and the role played by fundraising and disinformation in the event.

The Conservatives argue the Liberals are using that approach to deflect attention from the government's own actions and decisions.

"The Liberal government is doing everything in their power to ensure this inquiry is unsubstantial and fails to hold them accountable," said a joint statement from Conservative MPs Raquel Dancho, Dane Lloyd and Gérard Deltell.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association — which is suing the federal government over its decision to invoke the act — said the inquiry does not appear to be focused on government accountability.

"The broader context is important, but the government's attempts to divert attention from their own actions is concerning," said the CCLA on Twitter.

The judge handpicked by Trudeau does have ties to the liberal party …..(he was appointed by Irwin Cotler) and  has in he past let he liberals off the hook for their behaviour……I think is decision has Butts and Telfords fingerprints all over it.


Paul Rouleau, appointed to the bench in 2002 by the Paul Martin Liberal government, isn’t simply someone who made a small donation or two or went to a cocktail fundraiser with a client while working as a lawyer. He actually worked for the Liberal Party in the past.

In 1983, he was part of John Turner’s leadership campaign to take over when Pierre Trudeau announced his retirement. Rouleau then had a hand in helping pick Turner’s cabinet once he won leadership and is described in various media reports as either his executive assistant or appointments secretary in media reports from that era.


In a 2005 Ontario Superior Court decision, illustrative of historical outcomes, Justice Paul Rouleau ruled that holding Premier Dalton McGuinty to his campaign promise not to increase taxes would have “a chilling effect and would interfere with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.” He went on to say that if politicians were held legally responsible for upholding their campaign promises, our system of government would be rendered dysfunctional.

This is one of many cases over the years, involving both provincial and federal governments, where the courts have upheld a politician’s right to lie.


Oddly, the article covering rouleau’s decision to let Mcguinty off the hook is not in the G&M archive. 

Oh  and results must be table by Feb, 2023……like all e other scandals and misdeeds…it will be long forgotten by a ignorant electorate….and displaced by another scandal.

So, nothing to see here folks ….. move along.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Guilty as hell, but will get away with it….When your names Trudeau, rules don’t apply. As PM technically he could write himself his own note and pass #4.


Tories ask RCMP to take a fresh look at Justin Trudeau’s Aga Khan vacation


Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A perfect synopsis of the inquiry into the government calling for the Emergency Measures Act, courtesy of Rex Murphy:


Q: What is the major question that must be posed by the inquiry into the calling of the Emergencies Act?


A: It is this. Was there ever the slightest chance of the government of Canada falling?


Q: What will the inquiry tell us on this key point?



A: That there was a chance of the government of Canada falling.


Q: Do you already have a glimpse of how great that chance was?




Superbly informed as always. Yes.


From some of our best political actuarials it has been estimated that the imminent danger of violent overthrow of the Canadian government by the truckers’ protest was somewhere between a mass outbreak of veganism in Newfoundland (apocalyptically unlikely) and Canada meeting its climate goals in 2030.

Q: Can you put this estimate in more familiar terms? These recondite projections confuse me.






Q: Well?


A: Here are easier yardsticks to appreciate  the likelihoods.



The chance of cheaper gasoline in the next three years. The chance of an East-West pipeline during Justin Trudeau’s tenure. And, the chance of something positive about Canada in any CBC documentary, on radio or television, before the sun ends its glowing.

Do these homely examples help?

Q: Was the army called in during the presumed period of danger to our national government?






Q: This is curious. Please, tell us, why not?


A: I will not.


The government already knows the answer to this question, so I don’t think the inquiry should concern itself with it, and I’m not altogether certain you should even be asking about it. (Are you a truckperson malcontent? I suspect you are.)

Q: During this same period of dark apprehension and anxiety in the government of Ottawa, what were the plans to move the government in case of a coup/insurrection/overthrow, and where did it plan to go?


A: That is a state secret. To reveal the location would give the government nowhere to hide during the next coup/revolution/insurrection — or nasty question period.


(Besides the greedy B and B’s involved would probably hike their rates.)

Q: Did Ottawa, as the crisis approached, alert Washington that Canada could soon be without its legitimate government and all state authority in mad shambles?


A: It did. Mr. Trudeau spoke with Mr. Biden.


It was only afterwards, on reflection by the PMO, that it was concluded they may not have chosen the optimal channel for an “alert.”

Q : Did this help matters?


A: Opinion in the PMO strongly favoured any additional communication on this issue to be conducted with some consideration given to the possibility of consciousness in the receptor/agent. It is not good to be indelicately precise on this matter, but you know what I mean.


Q: Did the Liberal government have any intelligence from outside its own established services, i.e. CSIS, CBC, favoured press gallery reporters, The Narwhal, National Observer, Jagmeet Singh, the Toronto Star, Gerald Butts, Frank Graves?


A: Are you kidding? There are press subsidies for a reason.


Q: With the stability of the entire nation at stake, what were the advisories sent out to provincial capitals?


A: They were told to “hold fast” and on no account surrender their authority. It was stressed in all communication from Ottawa that even if a province had a Conservative government it was constitutionally preferable for it to stay in power, rather than turn over their legislatures to truck drivers with a problem. Tories over tires, was the slogan of choice.


Q: What can we expect from this inquiry?


A: The same ruthless exposé we had from the Aga Khan affair, the WE affair, and the curious incident of Chrystia Freeland staying in an Edinburgh hotel for a Glasgow conference and spending thousands of dollars on limousine travel.


Q: What else can we expect from this inquiry?


A: A merciless sketch of the radicals in blue jeans and baseball caps, a medical assessment of the effects of “honks” on innocent civil servants, and a report that in time will stand with Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness as a document of the collapse of civilization. It will make the Giller Prize nominations.


Q: Should we expect even more?


A: Please you rabble! Do not inflate expectations. Canada is back to Liberal normal. Why should the most extravagant suspension of civil liberties in our time hold the national attention any longer than it took to suspend them?


Q: What is the purpose of this inquiry?


A: The purpose of this inquiry is to numb investigation and to allow time for it to fall forever from the news agenda. Which is as it should be.


It is the modern equivalent of those one-time superb political time-wasters: Royal Commissions. They were the chosen pathway for political amnesia.

Q: Royal Commissions, what were they?


A: Pardon. I forgot. Only us old guys remember them. They were so efficient. A couple of million dollars, endless hearings, fat unreadable reports, and the issue that provoked them, buried.


Q: A final thought: will this inquiry reveal the danger the Canadian state was in?


A: What danger?


  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was any question of the commitment of the Trudeau government toward the environment, other than the superficial efforts of banning straws and drink box thingys, this episode of CBC 5th estate might make you b skeptical. It also shows the true colours of the Environment Minister……not really true to his values, and an embarrassment to the cause. It gets interesting around the 24 minute mark although the whole piece is quite an eye opener. Canadians probably think we are better than this.

With all the BILLIONS being spent could we not invest to discover technology to solve the problem rather than shipping it offshore?
Even more shocking is that the CBC aired the piece, embarrassing the government and illustrating what a weasel and fraud our enviro warrior minister guilbeault is.!

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another sign of erosion of our democracy in Canada….sockboy must be really getting tired of having to think up non answers to those embarrassing questions during question period whenever parliament is sitting:


Striving to achieve the basic dictatorship he so admires……and Canadians will just shrug.


We get the government we deserve.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2022 at 8:13 AM, Jaydee said:


Canadians who buy into all of this (and the attending word salads), should try a simple experiment with urban chickens or a family flock (if you live in the country).

Get roosters, feed them laying mash, and see how many eggs you get. 

I'm not a biologist but I predict none... zero. You can try putting them in a rainbow painted coup with CBC on the radio but I don't think that will help either. 


Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


25 minutes ago, Jaydee said:


Ottawa eh.  Guess this is why they voted for the libs. Seems to be a trend for the Liberal Strongholds.


Ottawa Votes: Liberals win seven seats in Ottawa, Conservatives win one seat

Two new MPs, but no change in parties that hold Capital-area ridings.  CTV's Dave Charbonneau reports.03:01

Ottawa ridings look familiar after election

Provincial Current Averages
Alberta 152.7/L
Nova Scotia 178.0/L
Ontario 182.8/L
Prince Edward Island 183.9/L




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Kargokings said:


Ottawa eh.  Guess this is why they voted for the libs. Seems to be a trend for the Liberal Strongholds.


Ottawa Votes: Liberals win seven seats in Ottawa, Conservatives win one seat

Two new MPs, but no change in parties that hold Capital-area ridings.  CTV's Dave Charbonneau reports.03:01

Ottawa ridings look familiar after election




The ONLY province trying to protect their citizens from Ottawas stupidity is Alberta.




Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks JT. This was top of mind for most Canadians.

Hopefully Bill Blair will have better luck on the moon than he's had here:

Canadian astronauts no longer free to rob and kill with abandon in space or on the moon 

Amendment buried in 2022 federal budget bill extends Canadian criminal jurisdiction to the cosmos 



Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
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.


  • Create New...