Latest news with #MichelleBerg
Toronto Sun
14 hours ago
- Business
- Toronto Sun
GUNTER: Carney Liberals build groundwork to blame pipeline failure on private sector
Prime Minister Mark Carney meets with all of Canada's premiers during the First Ministers' Meeting at TCU Place. Photo taken in Saskatoon, Sask. on Monday, June 2, 2025. Photo by Michelle Berg / Postmedia You don't have to look far for proof that a cross-country pipeline is more of a pipedream. The usual suspects — Quebec, the federal cabinet, the B.C. government, Indigenous activists and environmentalists — are never going to consent to one being built, even if Prime Minister Mark Carney declares one to be in the national interest. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Already, if you look closely enough, the foundations are being laid to reject a new transnational pipeline and pin the blame on investors and the oil industry for lack of interest. Oh, sure. There's some good lip service toward boosting conventional oil and gas production. In late May, new Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson caused sighs of relief when he told the Calgary Chamber of Commerce that the Carney Liberals' energy policy 'begins with a vision: to build Canada into a conventional and clean energy and natural resources superpower.' Early on in his tenure as PM, Carney had given the clear impression he was in favour of expansion of oil and gas, maybe even the oilsands. Then the Liberal platform came out mid-campaign and gone was any reference to oil, gas or pipelines. It was only 'clean energy,' such as wind and solar, bug burps and Tibetans prayer wheels, or whatever other trendy 'green' energy sources have mesmerized 'progressives.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Even when Carney met with the 13 premiers last week, the oil-province premiers Danielle Smith of Alberta and Scott Moe of Saskatchewan left the summit believing there was a real chance a pipeline might make it onto the Liberal government's approved list of national-interest projects. Read More Forgive me for being a cynic or a pessimist but just look at what federal cabinet ministers and other premiers are saying now. Speaking Monday in Korea as part of a 10-day trade swing through Asia, B.C. Premier David Eby said its wasn't his government standing in the way of a pipeline to northwestern B.C. Rather, there's 'no proponent, no money and no project right now.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Like Justin Trudeau on LNG, Eby was saying there's 'no business case' for a new pipeline. The private sector has been scared off energy projects by politicians' and activists' obstructionism in the past decade. That won't change until governments re-establish credibility with pipeline companies that new projects have a decent chance being approved in a timely manner and, after approval, have a decent chance of being built without endless court challenges and protests. Otherwise, who's going to step forward with billions of dollars to risk? Remember that Justice Minister Sean Fraser said national projects could be built without full Indigenous buy-in, only to be forced by the prime minister's office to walk those words back less than 24 hours later, under pressure from the Assembly of First Nations and others. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Former environment minister (now heritage minister) Steven Guilbeault has been the most blunt. He has come right out and said there is no need for more pipelines because oil demand will soon begin declining, even though there is no proof of his claim. And Guilbeault's protege, current Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin, under questioning in the House of Commons on Monday, said while she had no definition of the 'consensus' that would be required to get a pipeline approved, 100 per cent would be a good place to start. Dabrusin would not commit to whether that meant provincial politicians and First Nations had vetoes, but the logic is not hard to follow. This is how the Trudeau government killed the Energy East pipeline — adding enough delays and regulatory changes that eventually TC Energy, the line's owner, withdrew. That allowed the federal Liberals to claim the pipeline's demise was a business decision, not a political one. And that's what I think we are being set up for now on a new East-West pipeline. The Carney government will claim to be in favour, but kowtow to special interests until investors shy away. Celebrity NHL Editorial Cartoons Toronto Maple Leafs Music
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion: People with opposing views need to find a way to talk to each other
Opinion: People with opposing views need to find a way to talk to each other Grade 11 student Connor Thorson argues that there are healthy ways to argue and healthy arguments is what we need. (Credit: Michelle Berg) People argue about things all the time — whether they are minor inconveniences, what we are going to have for dinner or more impactful issues involving politics. Discussions and debates are always key in decision making in our society. Unfortunately, we are very bad at it. Take today's politics. Political decisions are important. They determine the manner in which our communities function. It would be reasonable to assume this means we place a higher priority on keeping political discourse productive. However, this does not seem to be the case. According to the Pew Research Center, the portion of Americans who hold consistently liberal or conservative views has doubled since 1994. But humans are complex. No two people have identical views. Why, then, are we so distinctively split on a topic as nuanced as politics? ADVERTISEMENT Polarization is not only a worry for decisions regarding democratic processes. 'A significant share of politically polarized Republicans and Democrats express a fairly strong aversion to people who disagree with them,' according to the Pew Research Center. This aversion between people of opposing views can damage interpersonal relationships as well. We cannot make important decisions if we are afraid of alienating each other. People hold attachments to things they deem important, such as their identity, values and beliefs. We know our choices matter on impactful topics, which partly accounts for the polarizing nature of politics. Issues arise when this defensiveness of our opinions inhibits our ability to discuss them — especially, a problem for those who view disagreement itself as a challenge to their credibility or reason. We cannot just stop talking about sensitive topics. Even outside the actual decisions discussed, avoiding conflicts might only intensify them. In the words of Michelle Maiese, a professor of philosophy at Emmanuel College: 'Intractable conflicts are ones that remain unresolved for long periods of time and then become stuck at a high level of intensity and destructiveness.' ADVERTISEMENT Sure, avoiding an argument allows initial conflict to simmer down. But leaving matters unresolved builds resentment. Disputes should be managed as soon as those involved are willing to and capable of solving them productively. Conflict is a far too common occurrence to avoid and fight about indefinitely. Our inability to consistently resolve disagreements needs to change. This begins with reconsidering our approach to discourse. In a TED talk, author David Dylan Thomas identifies a few rules to keep in mind when engaging in difficult discussions; we can use these as a basis for understanding what can be done to make our own arguments more productive. First, participants in discourse should possess the mindset that neither side is irrevocably correct. It is easier for one to fall into a defensive stance when they feel that what they are defending must be true. This is why an open mindset is so important. There is no use in discussing something where nobody is willing to shift their position; the most satisfying compromise often lies outside at least one of the parties' initial perspectives. ADVERTISEMENT Second, too many disputants view discussion with the perspective that shifting from their position means losing the argument. Thomas's second rule warns us against this perspective. Competition in arguments not only leads to defensiveness, but, also, it causes people to push their perspective onto others, and escalate conflict further. Compromise should not be viewed as a loss. Finally, those participating in discourse should do so with the goal to create something new. This orientation presumes that each party has something of value to contribute. Therefore, in order for a resolution to be reached that satisfies all, everybody must be heard in the process. Resolving conflict requires respect and communication — regardless of the opinions of opposing parties. Discourse is not about competition. It is about co-operation. Victory in an argument should never come at the cost of the issue being argued, nor at the expense of those with whom it is disputed. Connor Thorson is a Grade 11 student at Regina's Campbell Collegiate. Share your views The Regina Leader-Post and the Saskatoon StarPhoenix welcome opinion articles. Click here to find out what you need to know about how to write one that will increase the odds it will be published. Send submissions to letters@ or ptank@ Related ADVERTISEMENT The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe. With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.
