NDP wants unwarranted Parliamentary status

There was a special chair for Stanley Knowles in the House of Commons. Perhaps the NDP would settle for one of those special chairs, because nobody wants them to have any power. By nobody, I mean nobody who walks into a poll to cast a ballot.

NDP's zealous embrace of Liberal…

— Citizen X (@MackMcColl222) May 10, 2025

Spirit Bears are a N.W. Pacific phenomenon

 

Image by Ben Robinson 

Fernwood 2 Nite

The pain of Liberal progress

 

The Federal Liberals did not make progress on improving any environment because they did the exact opposite. (Not to mention, the environment is none of the Federal Liberals business.) They stopped progress on every path. For example, the Liberals defunded training programs for wildfire volunteer firefighters across the board, and they wiped out the tree-planting industry by making a carbon tax plunder out of greenhouse operators, which put them out of business, so nobody has trees to plant in the burned out areas, nor the harvested areas. That's one tiny look at their forestry practices on the Federal interventionist level. (They never belonged in forests to begin with, but their blanket taxation practices don't recognize the obvious provincial jurisdiction of forests.

How about foreign policy? Carney has been in Washington, D.C., with Trump, all day today, May 6, and people are asking, what is the rancor of Trump versus Canada all about? Is it really $200 billion in donations from the U.S. to Canada, and the defense apparatus of the U.S. carrying Canada? 

Could be.

I reply:  Is the U.S. self-declared Anti-Israel? Because Canada is blatantly Anti-Israel as a government policy introduced under Justin Trudeau and perpetrated for the past decade, including during this period of all out war on three fronts. Liberal anti-Israel policy is carried on in explicit detail by Carney in election speeches, even in face of horrific terrorist atrocities by Hamas, attacks by Hezbollah, attacks by Iran, even as we speak, but especially since Oct 7, 2023 and every day since. Hostages, mass murders, and, IN CANADA, rampant hatred of Jews roiling in the streets unopposed.

So there's that.

Now there's word of an NDP interim leader, supposedly an anti-Semitic one. Sounds right. And this 'leader' will hold the balance of power without anybody acknowledging it, which means nothing is happening according to what you think. Which is more of the same Liberal criminal garbage. But hey, somebody finally stated the obvious, which is, nothing about Canada is for sale. That's simply fucking stupid.

Now when Carney said to Trump about meeting the owners of Canada, it might have been interpreted as a euphemism for chasing an electorate. More likely, it was the owners of Canada and nothing to do with democracy.

Quebecois live on Alberta Petroleum

Notice the flow of oil from Alberta to Quebec. Used to be Quebec obtained a vast amount of its oil by shipments from tankers. They bought Saudi and Nigerian and Venezuelan. Not any more. Quebec now buys exclusively from Alberta shipped to Montreal from Michigan.  This is important to weigh in discussions because it means Quebec is now married to Alberta for energy security but no one acknowledges this.

In a united Canada this would be standard operating procedure for Alberta to conduct commercial enterprise with Quebec. If the nation was governed by national interests instead of regional interests Alberta wouldn't feel separated from the proceedings of running the country and prospering in it.

https://t.co/E492GRRPIK The Oil In Quebec Comes From Alberta.

— Citizen X (@MackMcColl222) May 4, 2025

Economic and Financial Impacts of the Draft Transition Plan for B.C. Salmon Farms

Science cannot convince everyone. Take the Science of agriculture. It's probably the first science. But on Canada's west coast where a tidy salmon farm industry produces beautiful pathogen-free fresh daily, and activists stop the food safe year round scientific product for a gamey, wormy, unpredictable seasonal unsustainable invasion into nature's preserve.

"Going directly to a ban by 2029 will result in significant long-term negative socio-economic impacts in British Columbia and Canada. It will reverse and harm once positive Indigenous economic development and reconciliation efforts and severely impact employment in areas with a history of underemployment. An unjustified ban and push to unproven technology on salmon farming in B.C. will reduce Canadian agri-food production by 400 million healthy meals per year, eliminate B.C.’s top agri-food export, destroy 4,560 jobs, and cost Canadian taxpayers at least $9 billion."

VISIT:

Three or more squirrels is a scurry

 Springtime in Canada

Canadians vote for huge tax increases

This is BIG! 66% of Canadians are home owners. They now have zero invested. They voted to have their home equity removed. They were told for weeks this would happen by voting Liberal and they voted Liberal. Have you ever heard of people voting for higher taxes. Canadians do it routinely. Yah. You are missing the real story. 

Carney is drooling at the prospect of knocking down home equity. He put it out as a floater during the election! People voted for him  If you own a home and thought you were set, and you voted for Carney, you are in for a rude awakening. All I can tell you is, you should have taken the cotton out of your ears.

Wait for it. Liberals are coming for your hundreds of thousands in Home Equity. That's what Canadians voted for. Taxes to strip them of their worth. Believe it of not. In a country with more resources than any place on Earth, our people voted for the one guy who wants to make them poor.

Is U.S. really after the Canadian treasure?

I don't believe the U.S. wants Canada, but in reality the GROK AI informs that since the 1970s, Canada has made a lot of progress in reducing Foreign Direct Investment. The U.S. may feel they have been shoved out of Canadian investment since the 1970s. They may be moving hard to return to Canadian investment. In no way do I believe Liberals are the ones to protect Canadian interests, but you have to give them credit where credit is due. It was the initiatives of Pierre Trudeau to push down U.S. FDI in favor of domestic economic growth that created this different balance. Nevertheless. Mulroney reinforced it, as did Harper. So choosing one party over the other to protect Canadian sovereignty appears to be a push.

"The U.S. owns and controls approximately 15–20% of Canada’s petroleum energy sector in terms of direct ownership and control, primarily through FDI (C$109.8 billion, 20% of sector capital) and subsidiaries like Imperial Oil (ExxonMobil-owned). Including portfolio investments (e.g., U.S. asset managers’ stakes in Suncor, CNRL), the total U.S. financial stake rises to 30–40% of the sector’s revenues or market capitalization (C$50–60 billion in equity). This estimate is based on 2023 FDI data, historical ownership trends, and revenue shares from 2010–2015, with U.S. influence most pronounced in oil sands and refining."

Go Deep https://x.com/i/grok/share/5W5nTEuMOsxIV0D4E2ciPj3Ry

Canadian Leadership Debate English Review (editorialized)

https://gem.cbc.ca/ 

Canadian political leaders Mark Carney, Pierre Poilievre, Yves Blanchet, and Jagmeet Singh debate in English from the Montreal television studios of the CBC.

REVIEW (editorialized)

Yves Blanchet, BLOC Quebecois called petroleum movement in pipelines a monstrosity.

How are pipelines monstrosities?  

How about no energy in a world of 8.1 billion people. More the monstrosity is denying people energy.

There is no Canadian federal election. There is an election in Quebec for the heart and soul of Canadian federal politicians exclusive of any voters in Canada.

No one else matters but these four people debating in Quebec.

Maybe Carney is obsessed with being in the world, which is somehow detached from being in Canada. Before I shut it off, Carney began prattling about Canadian Taxpayers having to pay the burden of a world wide climate crisis.

No, to Carney.   Absolutely NO on these climate change tropes.

At one moment I had to shut off the debate because Jagmeet Singh would not allow Pierre Poilievre to speak.

It seems crazy to have people such as these running a country.

I am going to vote for the most radical amount of change from existing governance in Canada.

If that happens to be Pierre Poilievre, so be it.

It's not because he's great. It's absolutely because the choices are dreadful.

The only province mentioned outside of 'all the provinces,' is Quebec.

This is getting old in Canada.

Singh returns to the Gaza scene being a genocide by Israel, which is an unspeakable turn of lies to support insane antisemitic policies.

When Poilievre discusses the Century Initiative, Singh goes full pitbull again, interrupting, talking over, and preventing his opponent from speaking.

Carney takes Conservative platform to heart, and talks about building the trades. 

Blanchet lies and calls small nuclear plants more dangerous than large nuclear plants.

I would imagine hospitals and universities in Quebec have small nuclear plants like most universities, and hospitals.

But the truth would be terribly inconvenient to people who lead Canadians.

CONCLUSIONS

Singh says NDP in Parliament brought Medicare, and other benefits.

Carney makes his election position anti-Trump

Poilievre wants the old promises of Canada to come back

Blanchet wants Quebec to have sound relations with U.S.A. in trade.

(Afterthoughts:  Blanchet was far more wary of attacking Poilievre.

The only province mentioned was Quebec. A couple times Marble-Mouth Carney attempted to squeak out 'Alberta.' 

He failed. None of them mentioned northern Canada. None of them mentioned our coasts. None of them mentioned Newfoundland, or the Maritimes. 

It was strictly a Quebec debate about Quebec.)

A lot of after-debate observers were struck by the amount of static noise the NDP leader generated through the middle of the debate.

This allowed zero traction to a Poilievre argument and occasionally a Carney argument, and Singh stymied debate between the two central combatants to the finish. I believe part  of the failure to allow debate fell on Paikin. But the moderator did get the worst of it under control by the fourth and fifth round.

 

I wonder if it was the most effective way for Singh to portray his politics. Perhaps it was his best shot because at least he was present, and remembered.

 

Blanchet, once again, proved the most Patrician of the debaters. He delivered level headed responses in a timely manner and never strayed from topics.