I agree with Mike we are supposed to be on the side of the good, I disagree that the Gestapo Nazi’s working for ICE are good.

I think there is Uyghurs would disagree with your point, the evidence of genocide of that group would be a contrary point to their respect of human rights. www.hrw.org/news/2025/01...

Ok that talked to fires and not forestry so I am not drawing the connection here that is perhaps my bad needing it spelled out.

If we just shit on things w/o working or proposing well thought out alternatives we are seagulls. Fly in take a shit and fly away and we don’t need that as a country because it inhibits action.

The movement of oil in pipelines is far safer than by rail when you look at the quantity per incident. That being said a pipeline incident has a much higher flow rate so an incident can be more catastrophic. This is an idea about a balanced solution.

Ok so we have as Canadians deep sea docks at Come By Chance in NF which is the only way for large tankers to get in off the Atlantic. If we can send an eastern pipeline there from AB under strict environmental regulations and requirements we remove the North/South requirement

Detention of immigrants or anyone without due process is bad. Is it possible to believe in fiscally conservative economic policies and liberal social and environmental policies at the same time or I am a dichotomy or worse a hypocrite?

The lack of evidence you referenced is not an indication of US sourcing as much as it is a potential indication. Neither you or I could use this as an effective argument to support our positions.

Your reference though is kind of like searching for NULL value. There has been a strong focus on international supply chains which would be a contrary point to yours. For example if we are wanting to get resources to foreign marks it would be better to engage them where Canadian firms can’t reach.

The BRICS approach is interesting, it doesn’t follow our traditional alliances but is drawing in so much of the world’s population that they are becoming the centre of economic power. They don’t follow the same human rights approach, like the question we are asking here would never be considered

Where does the 30% come from, I don’t but almost worked for a forestry company here in BC and they focused pretty hard on the sustainability of what they called their harvest cycles. That number would contradict what I was told during their executive interview, I am open to be wrong.

Madame Max your point without a path to a solution is a prime example of why the government is taking an aggressive approach to avoid bureaucratic posturing delaying getting anything done. Each party involved will have to make concessions, a Canadian compromise where nobody wins but progress is made

I think your logic here is heavily flawed, a leader that is discerning about their beliefs and open to learning more isn’t being critical of Trans. Your conclusions demonstrate a deep bias towards sensationalism and little effort to effective thought. As an author it’s drivel and poorly written.

In this fight for survival as a Nation of Canada for all individuals how can we rapidly work together? If we fall so will the treaty rights of our indigenous family leaving them without the protection of the crown executed treaties.

A legit question on the issue, with the threat from the south how do we build out infrastructure rapidly to reduce our interdependence on the US economy without an expedited process? We do need to partner with our indigenous but I also see this applies to resistance in Quebec for pipelines.