oh the ways that tumble

I have been paying closer attention to politics lately, including watching House of Commons on TV. I have learned that on some days they start at 10am with just a handful of MPs in the House, where they take turns making 10min speeches followed by questions and feedback for perhaps another 10 minutes. Other MPs trickle in over the next few hours until at around 2pm the House is full, and now it is shorter debate between mainly the prime minister and the opposition leader, though different government cabinet ministers can respond too. This portion of debate is sometimes childish, and it disapppoints me this way that these elected officials behave this way.

As an example, Pierre Poilievre as opposition leader insists over and over that the indistrial carbon tax is causing food price inflation. For the longest time, PM Mark Carney wouldn't address this directly, he would tout a different benefit that his government has provided to address affordability. I think over and over Carney needs to point to specific studies that show that the industrial carbon tax has extremely small impact on food costs, that climate change has the biggest impact.

This week they are debating the Budget 2025 that the government published last week. When a Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), the governing body, has an MP who stands to do a speech for 10 minutes, they use concrete examples of how the budget improves the lives of the people in their riding. When a Conservative Party of Canada (CPC), the opposition, has an MP who stands to do a speech for 10 minutes, they talk about the rise in people going to food banks, the affordability problem of housing, food price inflation, too many regulations and the $78B deficit for this budget.

I agree that the budget doesn't do enough around income inequality that could benefit people in the lowest income bracket to remove their need for accessing a food bank. However, I disagree with the CPC that the deficit is problematic. Much of the spending of this deficit is going towards projects that will create jobs, grow the economy and as a result, gather more income tax that can help pay down the deficit and eventually the debt. A lot of the projects have a 3-5 year timeline, or longer, and so unfortunately not a lot of what is in the budget addresses directly the issues that the CPC are raising, but there are no easy and quick solutions to address the concerns the CPC raises.

Tomorrow the Federal government and the Alberta government are having an announcement event in Calgary about an MOU that aligns the two governments about a bitumen pipeline from Alberta to the Prince Rupert area of British Columbia. CBC has reported that some regulations will ease to allow for the pipeline, but that there are some environmental conditions attached. The government of BC and First Nations on that part of the coast are vehemently against a bitumen pipeline, and as I understand it, the MOU releases the federal government from trying to get them onside for this pipeline, that the responsibility has been given to Alberta. As I see it, this improves the relationship between Albertans and the federal government, as it is in indication that the federal government has gotten out of the way. It is a win for Alberta Premier Smith as she can go to her party's convention this coming weekend to say she got a qualitative win from the federal government.

Given the conditions and the resistance, I think the probability of this bitumen pipeline getting built is actually very low, and so Premier Eby in British Columbia won't have to deal with this issue apart from opposing it; and all of the environmental people across Canada will be pleased that this pipeline doesn't get built.

I am against this pipeline being built. There is already a methane pipeline project on the Major Projects Office (MPO) that will go to the northwest coast of BC with a floating LNG terminal there. Additionally, there is a TMX pipeline to Vancouver that can be optimized to allow for a greater flow from Alberta; let's do that rather than build a new pipeline.

There are some economists who say the need for fossil fuels will continue for decades, while there are others who say that the peak of demand for fossil fuels will happen within the next five years and will make a new bitumen pipeline from Alberta to Prince Rupert a white elephant. Both power generating wind mills and solar panels have dropped in price below the price of fossil fuel electricity generation and their uptake has been exponential in the last two or three years. At that rate they will greatly reduce the need for fossil fuels.

Anyhow, I am interested to see how the MOU works out tomorrow; and if there is eventually a private proponent for a pipeline project that most of Canada doesn't want.