https://www.canuckscorner.com/forums/
Yes, the number is being reduced, but no where near fast enough. The immigration rate using Carney's numbers is still to fast for us to catch up with. It's like paying a few bucks on your credit card each month, but not even covering the monthly interest. The problem continues to grow .Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 11:57 am
So you concede the number is reduced, you just don't think it's reduced enough? If you slam a valve shut too fast, you get water hammering.
Are you implying that the previous system was not prudent? Because if it wasn't, why are those same 'non-prudent' people still in their jobs?
Yes, I see we have 2 special envoys. Both appear to have been given the roles to allow an extra $100k/year to help keep them quiet. Freeland shit herself last fall over a $40b deficit, but still managed to wipe up in time to vote for an $80b deficit. The extra $100k had no influence, right?
Correct. I am totally inferring corruption based on the continuation of past practices, and the almost total lack of transparency. I am shocked that you seem so nonchalant about the possibility of corruption.
Again. Our government is either too incompetent to get the rest of the projects through approvals, or, they are still deciding who gets to play, and who doesn't for political reasons. Or both. Carney throws crumbs, and some people are happy.This is the line that actually moved me to reply.
In the first place, if you look at the fast-tracked projects, some of them are specifically directed towards developing strategic mineral resources.
Oil is a world-wide commodity. Supplying China (and the rest of south-Asia too) frees up oil from elsewhere for Europe. It also aids in undercutting suppliers like Iran and Russia. It also single-handedly provides enough extra revenue to cover our military budget increases, which is more than the other proposals combined do financially.And in the second place, the pipeline for which that Smith has such a hard-on would be to supply China. If Alberta wants to supply Europe, or even Eastern Canada, the pipeline has to head east, to Churchill or Sault St. Marie. If she'd grow the brains to even raise the possibility, Albertans could note how much lower the political opposition (and construction costs) would be.
Yes, the previous system was imprudent. The same people are on the job because the problem is not that they did a bad job before, it's that the assumptions under which they were operating have been proven to be false. Specifically, the United States is not, in fact, a reliable ally.
1. Yeah, I am pretty nonchalant about theoretical possibilities for which we have no evidence.Tciso wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:00 amCorrect. I am totally inferring corruption based on the continuation of past practices, and the almost total lack of transparency. I am shocked that you seem so nonchalant about the possibility of corruption.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 11:57 am So you're upset about the possibility of corruption for which you have, as yet, no specific evidence?
The "political" reasons are whether or not the projects are actually in the public interest, which profitability alone doesn't guarantee.Tciso wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:00 am BTW, if he was really interested in being a strong NATO ally, he would fast track all pipelines, mining and manufacturing projects to supply Europe.
Again. Our government is either too incompetent to get the rest of the projects through approvals, or, they are still deciding who gets to play, and who doesn't for political reasons. Or both. Carney throws crumbs, and some people are happy.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 11:57 am This is the line that actually moved me to reply.
In the first place, if you look at the fast-tracked projects, some of them are specifically directed towards developing strategic mineral resources.
That affects price, not availability, which is the military strategic consideration.Tciso wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 11:49 amOil is a world-wide commodity. Supplying China (and the rest of south-Asia too) frees up oil from elsewhere for Europe.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 11:57 am And in the second place, the pipeline for which that Smith has such a hard-on would be to supply China. If Alberta wants to supply Europe, or even Eastern Canada, the pipeline has to head east, to Churchill or Sault St. Marie. If she'd grow the brains to even raise the possibility, Albertans could note how much lower the political opposition (and construction costs) would be.
1. Check the commodity prices
I had a friend (now deceased) who was a pipeline engineer. He told me that it was by no means certain that the proposed route was technologically possible. On the other hand, pipelines have been built across swampy terrain before, and it is much easier (and cheaper in both construction and pumping costs) than crossing vast mountain ranges.Tciso wrote: ↑Tue Nov 18, 2025 8:00 am The pipeline route to BC has already been defined. It needs some work, but it is basically ready to go. Churchill? There has been no studies done for such a route, which would likely add an extra decade to such a pipeline, if it is even feasible due to the swampy terrain, and lack of infrastructure.
Infrastructure development is a nation-building project.
There are no "pseudo" environmental concerns associated with putting oil on oil tankers. Those risks have been empirically verified. Insurance companies even believe they have quantified them. You will note, though, that there are no insurance policies carried, because the cost of a clean-up has not been quantified, because it is not technologically certain that it is possible.
Kitimat can support zero tankers. The straits are too narrow, and the waters too rough.
One more thing: even if all of your complaints were fully justified (and I clearly I do not agree that they are), returning to the theme of the topic you created, none of them, not one, is evidence of sliding towards fascism.
My suggestion would be to focus on the Party you support and demand a more competent leader and one who has the moral character and ethics that you say are important to you...I know i have a strong person bias against individuals with weak moral character and poor ethics, but Carney had done nothing to change my perceptions about the Liberals.
I don’t know much about Rustad. Provincial politics have largely lost me as BC has voted in corruption time and again going back to Campbell (I was too young to recall the Vanderzam era).rikster wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 8:12 am Tciso wrote;
My suggestion would be to focus on the Party you support and demand a more competent leader and one who has the moral character and ethics that you say are important to you...I know i have a strong person bias against individuals with weak moral character and poor ethics, but Carney had done nothing to change my perceptions about the Liberals.
I have a hard time grasping that the likes of Poilievre Federally and Rustad Provincially are the best the Conservatives can do...
And not sure anyone would want to try to argue that they have a high moral character and good ethics...
Interestingly the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, the first such facility of potentially a few, is exporting with tankers usually carrying 175,000 cubic meters of capacity. When you convert that to DWT it is 75,000 metric tonnes.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 4:26 pm Kitimat can support zero tankers. The straits are too narrow, and the waters too rough.
LNG spills clean themselves up.Mëds wrote: ↑Thu Nov 20, 2025 11:15 amInterestingly the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat, the first such facility of potentially a few, is exporting with tankers usually carrying 175,000 cubic meters of capacity. When you convert that to DWT it is 75,000 metric tonnes.Ronning's Ghost wrote: ↑Wed Nov 19, 2025 4:26 pm Kitimat can support zero tankers. The straits are too narrow, and the waters too rough.
