Mid-Week Post

The next level in consciousness ... or something ...




Justin accuses six premiers of wanting to destroy national unity:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, bent on re-election, is already playing a divisive, dangerous game with the country he claims to lead.

On Tuesday, six premiers including Jason Kenney sent him a letter warning that Bill C-69 in its original form, as well as Bill C-48, will damage the economy from coast to coast.

On Bill C-48, which bans the shipment of Alberta petroleum products off B.C.’s north shore, the letter said: “We would urge the government to stop pressing for the passage of this bill which will have detrimental effects on national unity and for the Canadian economy as a whole . . .

“Immediate action to refine or eliminate these bills is needed to avoid further alienating provinces and territories and their citizens and focus on uniting the country in support of Canada’s economic prosperity.”

Shockingly, Trudeau took this caution as virtually treasonous. Here’s what the PM said as he entered the Commons Wednesday: “I think it’s absolutely irresponsible for conservative premiers to be threatening our national unity if they don’t get their way.

“The fundamental job of any Canadian prime minister is to hold this country together, to gather us together and move forward in the right way,” he said. “And anybody who wants to be Prime Minister, like (Conservative Leader) Andrew Scheer, needs to condemn those attacks on national unity.”

But, but . . . what attacks?

The premiers did not threaten unity in their letter. They said exactly the opposite — that Liberal legislation, by discriminating against resource industries, is what harms the country.

They urge the Liberals to accept all Senate amendments to Bill C-69, the Impact Assessment Act, and kill C-48, the so-called Tanker Moratorium.

But to Trudeau, it’s apparently a national unity threat even to challenge federal legislation, point out its flaws and warn of negative impacts.

His response bends the truth back on itself. It paints six premiers who represent more than half of Canada’s population as active dangers to Confederation.

Let's break this down.


Here is the letter sent to Justin with portions highlighted for clarity:

Dear Prime Minister,

We are writing on behalf of the Governments of Ontario, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Collectively, our five provinces and territory represent 59 per cent of the Canadian population and 63 per cent of Canada’s GDP. We are central to Canada’s economy and prosperity, and it is of the utmost importance that you consider our concerns with bills C-69 and C-48. 

These bills: 

The federal government is rejecting most of the amendments proposed by Conservative senators to Bill C-69.

A senior government official speaking on the condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said after going through every amendment — there were 187 by one count — the government has concluded most of the proposals by Conservative senators were designed to weaken the bill.

About 90 per cent of the Conservative amendments will not be agreed to, he said, including allowing the new Impact Assessment Agency flexibility to decide whether to take into account a project’s effect on Indigenous rights or climate change.

More on the letter:

Canadians across the country are unified in their concern about the economic impacts of the legislation such as it was proposed by the House of Commons.  In this form, the damage it would do to the economy, jobs and investment will echo from one coast to the other. 

These Canadians:

With a federal cabinet decision looming on the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the pro-energy industry advocacy group Canada Action convened the rally, perhaps 4,000 people strong, to show support for the project and lay into two pieces of legislation that have become the focal points for the anger roiling the West. 

The letter:

Provincial and territorial jurisdiction must be respected. Provinces and territories have clear and sole jurisdiction over the development of their non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and the generation and production of electricity. Bill C-69 upsets the balance struck by the constitutional division of powers by ignoring the exclusive provincial powers over projects relating to these resources. The federal government must recognize the exclusive role provinces and territories have over the management of our non-renewable natural resource development or risk creating a Constitutional crisis. 

Note than none of the six premiers threatened that they would upset or dissolve Confederation but argued that Bill C-69 overrides provincial and territorial rights and the passage of such would cause a crisis that would cause disunity.

More:

Bill C-69, as originally drafted, would make it virtually impossible to develop critical infrastructure, depriving Canada of much needed investment. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, between 2017 and 2018, the planned investment value of major resource sector projects in Canada plunged by $100 billion –an amount equivalent to 4.5 per cent of Canada’s gross domestic product. To protect Canada’s economic future, we, collectively, cannot afford to overlook the uncertainty and risk to future investment created by Bill C-69.

Our five provinces and territory stand united and strongly urge the government to accept Bill C-69 as amended by the Senate, in order to minimize the damage to the Canadian economy. We would encourage the Government of Canada and all members of the House of Commons to accept the full slate of amendments to the bill. The Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment, and Natural Resources heard 38 days of testimony from 277 witnesses including indigenous communities, industry, Premiers, and independent experts. Based on that comprehensive testimony, the committee recommended significant amendments to the bill, which were accepted by the Senate as a whole. We urge you to respect that process, the committee’s expertise, and the Senate’s vote. 

If the Senate’s amendments are not respected, the bill should be rejected, as it will present insurmountable roadblocks for major infrastructure projects across the country and will further jeopardize jobs, growth and investor confidence.

No threats to separate there, only the results of what will happen if C-69 and C-48 become law.

Further: 

Similarly, Bill C-48 threatens investor confidence, and the tanker moratorium discriminates against western Canadian crude products.  We were very disappointed that the Senate did not accept the recommendation to the Senate Committee on Transport and Communications that the bill not be reported. We would urge the government to stop pressing for the passage of this bill which will have detrimental effects on national unity and for the Canadian economy as a whole. 

Our governments are deeply concerned with the federal government’s disregard, so far, of the concerns raised by our provinces and territory related to these bills. As it stands, the federal government appears indifferent to the economic hardships faced by provinces and territories. Immediate action to refine or eliminate these bills is needed to avoid further alienating provinces and territories and their citizens and focus on uniting the country in support of Canada’s economic prosperity.

Who is doing the alienating?:

Heading into the House for Question Period on Tuesday, the prime minister stopped to tell reporters, “I think it’s absolutely irresponsible for conservative premiers to be threatening our national unity if they don’t get their way. The fundamental job of any Canadian prime minister is to hold this country together. … Anyone who wants to be prime minister, like Andrew Scheer, needs to condemn those attacks on national unity.” With that, he nodded, pivoted and was off. Once in the House, he made a similar comment: “We will not … accept the premiers saying ‘there’s a threat to national unity’ if we don’t get our way.”

He said it twice. He’d obviously considered it. It’s not a slip of the tongue or a verbal flub. This is a talking point.

Nowhere in the letter (posted in its entirety) do the premiers threaten to separate. Nowhere. They make it abundantly clear that jobs will be lost but they do no make ultimatums. They don't even hint at it.

Justin, however, was far less subtle:

It started with a French-language interview published on Feb. 13, 2012.

“If at a certain point, I believe that Canada was really the Canada of Stephen Harper — that we were going against abortion, and we were going against gay marriage and we were going backwards in 10,000 different ways — maybe I would think about wanting to make Quebec a country,” Trudeau said.

Who threatened to stamp his feet and walk away if he didn't get his way?

He would destroy Confederation for a province (one that doesn't think too much of him, by the way) because Harper was handling an economy well and Justin didn't get his precious abortions.

And all Ford, Higgs, Kenney, McLeod, Moe and Pallister want are jobs.




Premier Jason Kenney is in talks to have the private sector assume control over the crude-by-rail contracts:

(Sidebar: deemed safer than pipelines according to people who have never heard of Lac Megantic.)

The Alberta government has started talks with the private sector about Canadian oil producers taking over crude-by-rail contracts signed by the previous government, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said on Tuesday.

The talks follow newly elected Kenney's campaign promise to scrap the former New Democratic Party government's C$3.7 billion ($2.78 billion) crude-by-rail deals, which he has slammed as poor value for taxpayers.

"There are confidential conversations going on between our government and private sector actors.

Our strong preference is that the private sector take over those contracts," Kenney told reporters in Calgary.

Although talks are underway, the crude-by-rail programme will not start up in July as originally planned by the NDP, said a government source with knowledge of the situation, who is not authorised to speak about the matter.

Alberta is Canada's main crude-producing province and home to the country's vast oil sands but a lack of pipeline capacity leaves oil bottlenecked in Alberta, adding to the price discount, or differential, on Canadian barrels versus U.S. oil.

That discount hit record levels in late 2018, prompting the NDP government to curtail oil production. Earlier this year the NDP also inked deals to lease 4,400 rail cars that would transport Alberta crude to market, before being ousted in an April election.

The two largest contracts signed were with Canadian National Railway Co and Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd to move the rail cars. The programme was meant to start transporting 20,000 barrels per day next month, ramping up to 120,000 bpd by mid-2020.

"Those contracts were signed in the last days of the NDP government and pay above the market rate," the source said.

"The sticking point is whether the railways are willing to come to the table to offer commercial terms that would be attractive to producers to ship their oil, and whether some or most of the oil producers can agree to conditions under which they can contract directly with the railways," he added.

Alberta is so far encouraged by suggestions that CN and CP would be willing to discuss the contracts, the source said.

Called it!:

A new public opinion poll by Forum Research shows that Canadians are divided in support for the Liberal government’s carbon tax and that two thirds of them say it will affect how they vote this October. These results are hardly surprising given the mixed reactions to the controversial tax but what the numbers also reveal is how one side of the debate is much more passionate than the other.

The telephone poll of 1,633 Canadian voters found that 45% are opposed to the tax, 28% are in favour of it and 27% say they are neither for nor against it. This tells us that public opinion is more on the side of Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, who is against the tax alongside premiers, such as Ontario’s Doug Ford and Alberta’s Jason Kenney.

It’s not just the raw numbers though that work to Scheer’s favour and against Trudeau’s much coveted tax. Forum also looked at how motivated voters are on the issue and found those opposed feel much more strongly than those in favour.

A majority of respondents, 65%, say the carbon tax will in some way influence their vote in October, with 40% saying it is “very likely” to affect their vote and 25% saying it’s “somewhat likely.” Those opposed to the carbon tax, though, are much more likely to vote based on this issue than those in support of it. That’s where things get really difficult for Trudeau and the Liberals.

Among those who say they oppose the carbon tax, 84% told Forum that it’s going to play a role in informing their vote. In contrast, only 53% of those who support the tax feel similarly passionate.

The Liberals also appear to be trailing when it comes to getting out their base on the issue. While 80% of Conservative supporters feel motivated on the issue (presumably in opposition to it), only 48% of Liberal voters are excited to vote based on their support of the tax.

“The carbon tax looks like it’s motivating its opponents in far greater numbers than its proponents,” said Lorne Bozinoff, president of Forum Research. “Additionally, Conservative supporters are far more opposed than Liberals are in favour. If the Conservatives can consolidate the opposition around this issue, and make it the focal point of the campaign, the Liberals’ re-election prospects are severely diminished.”

To wit:

Ahead of a climate policy announcement from Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, the Tories are going all-in on attacking the Liberal government for its projected failure to meet emissions reduction targets, according to an internal memo obtained by the National Post.

Yep, a party will do that.

At least it makes more sense than banning straws for some stupid reason.

Watch Trudeau's stumbling response to reporter who asked him "What do you and your family do to cut back on plastics"

Good hair doesn't buy you smarts!#cdnpoli #plasticpollution #sunnyways pic.twitter.com/GsmQzFQqbp

— Canadabuster (@Canadabuster) June 10, 2019

Handing one's drug plan to a government is as sane as handing one's healthcare plan, kids' education and pension to the government. That is to say it's a bloody stupid thing to do because nothing this government ever works:

The federal government should work with provinces and territories to create a national pharmacare program that works like public health care, in that it is "universal, comprehensive, accessible, portable and public."

Oh, this healthcare plan?:
 

Valuing only hours lost during the average work week, the estimated cost of waiting for care in Canada for patients who were in the queue in 2018 was about $2.1 billion. This works out to an average of about $1,924 for each of the estimated 1,082,541 Canadians waiting for treatment in 2018.

**

Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 19.8 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—shorter than the wait of 21.2 weeks reported in 2017. This year’s wait time is 113% longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks.

**

The data examined in this report suggest that there is an imbalance between the value Canadians receive and the relatively high amount of money they spend on their health-care system. Although Canada ranks among the most expensive universal-access health-care systems in the OECD, its performance for availability and access to resources is generally below that of the average OECD country, while its performance for use of resources and quality and clinical performance is mixed.

Sure. How could any of that go wrong?




There is a pattern here:

The 15-year-old girl was seeking refuge when she came to Janet and Joe Holm’s house in the mid-2000s. The couple lived in a big white farmhouse on a sprawling property just minutes outside Bloomfield, Ont., a village in Prince Edward County dotted with well-manicured homes from the 1800s.

M.K. had been previously sexually abused when she arrived at the Holms’ as a foster child, hoping to find a safe, stable home. Instead, her stay turned into a nightmare. The couple groomed her under the guise of trying to heal her. They dressed her up, made her watch porn, and eventually she was sexually assaulted by Joe. ...

Despite claiming to come from a fairly stable family, she stayed with the Holms for about five years. M.R. said she chose to live with the couple rather than her mother, who fought the whole time to get her back, because the Holms made her believe she was better off with them. M.R. also claims the Children’s Aid Society never made an effort to reconnect her with her family.

According to court documents from their sentencing hearing, between 2001 to 2010, Joe and Janet had 25 teens come through their home. The teens were allowed to drink, talk openly about sex and have sex with each other, but were still encouraged to have strong academics and participate in family activities. 

As M.K. described it, sexuality was deliberately woven into the fabric of the family.

**

The province failed a 12-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by her stepfather, and given an abortion in 2011 without the proper counselling and screening for abuse, says Newfoundland and Labrador child and youth advocate Jacqueline Lake Kavanagh.

**

June 11, 2005. Phoenix dies after a final violent beating on the basement’s concrete floor. McKay and Kematch bury her near the reserve’s landfill. They continue to pretend she is alive and collect welfare benefits with her listed as a dependent.

One might be tempted to think that leaving children in a minefield would be better than leaving them in the care of  the Canadian social services system.




Police use tear gas against protester in Hong Kong: 

Tens of thousands of demonstrators in Hong Kong stormed key city roads in the face of tear gas and rubber bullets Wednesday after days of heightened tensions over the government’s plan to push forward a bill that would allow extraditions to China.

It is the second time in five years that Hong Kong’s main roads have been occupied in defiance of Beijing’s tightening control on the semiautonomous city. Hong Kong’s Harcourt Road, a major thoroughfare tying the city together, was the scene of major street battles between the young protesters and police throughout the afternoon.

The protesters, many of them young people dressed in black, started surrounding the building that houses Hong Kong’s main government offices, the Legislative Council, late Tuesday night. Some pitched tents in a nearby park and on sidewalks, spending the night despite sporadic rain showers.

Throughout the day, the protesters, many wearing goggles and yellow construction helmets, pushed against police lines to force them back until police deployed tear gas in the middle of the afternoon, causing many protesters to retreat.

They soon regrouped however and by late afternoon the whole area had descended into a street battle with protesters throwing bottles and helmets at police, who responded with tear gas and rubber bullets.

 


Donald, are you mad?: 

U.S. President Donald Trump took a public stance against the use of CIA informants to spy on North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Tuesday, saying it would not happen on his watch and possibly taking away a valuable tool of the U.S. intelligence community.

Trump’s remarks to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House represented a fresh attempt by the president to cozy up to the North Korean leader, a policy that has drawn criticism for seeming to overlook Kim’s autocratic rule.

This North Korea:

A South Korean NGO says it has identified 318 sites in North Korea that have been used by the government to carry out public executions.

The Transitional Justice Working Group interviewed 610 North Korean defectors over four years for its report.

It documented decades of killings, for offences ranging from stealing a cow to watching South Korean TV.

Public executions took place near rivers, fields, markets, schools, and sports grounds, the rights group said.

Crowds of 1,000 or more would gather to watch these executions, the NGO said in its report, "Mapping the fate of the dead", released on Tuesday.

**

 The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea estimates that North Korea holds as many as 120,000 people in its system of concentration and detention camps, and that 400,000 people have died in these camps from torture, starvation, disease, and execution. These reports, in the context of estimates that North Korea has allowed between 600,000 and 2,500,000 of its people to starve to death while its government squandered the nation’s resources on weapons and luxuries for its ruling elite, suggest that North Korea’s oppression and politically targeted starvation of its people collectively constitute the world’s greatest ongoing atrocity, and almost certainly the most catastrophic anywhere on earth since the end of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1979.

If Trump thinks he can treat Kim as a legitimate leader, he is not just mistaken. He is bordering on Neville Chamberlain foolishness.





(Merci beaucoup and kamsahamnida)