Home | About | Donate

Harper 2.0? Trudeau Says Canada Needs More Tar Sands Pipelines


#1


#2

Time to get out in the streets. Harper could have cared less, but Trudeau will be more likely influenced.mass action, in my humble opinion.


#3

Truly a disappointment, much like DiBlasio in NYC. Although those on the far left in Canada warned that, like Hillary, he is no progressive.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#5

Makes you wonder why Trudeau even brought this up when you consider that he is all in with CETA, TPP, TTIP and TISA that will enable endless tar sands pipelines, irrespective of what Trudeau says about them now ?


#7

This why I voted green.


#8

Anyone who is surprised by this has paid no attention either to what the Liberal party stands for or Trudeau's on words on the subject going back since well before the election.


#9

What is wrong with him? Either he is a total moron or a real crook.


#14

What a lying Quisling!

"We want the low-carbon economy ... To get there, we need to make smart strategic investments in clean growth and new infrastructure, but we must also continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund this transition to a low-carbon economy." (emphasis added)

That would make sense only if that wealth were given exclusively to:

a. those whose lands were desecrated, and;

b. those who are actually developing "clean growth and new infrastructure."

Uh-huh...

And even then, it still wouldn't make sense, because:

a. the lands would still be desecrated, and;

b. atmospheric carbon would be "through the roof."

Sucks to be you, next generations...


#15

I hate being right about the libs. Unfortunately, Canada was so freaked out after the Harperian manifesto, that it felt the libs were the best bet. But our failed imaginations continue to implode in this relentless polarity in federal politics, as if there is no other option. So it is no surprise we are where we are. To be clear, building the Energy East pipeline is a choice to EXPAND tar sands development, and everyone knows how criminal and irresponsible that is. May First Nations block this development if they feel it violates treaty rights. Corporations do not rule!


#16

Power tends to corrupt, and big-money corrupts absolutely.

HEY, Justin, WTF dude? This sell-out rubbish isn't what either your mother or father taught you, is it?

"We wish nothing more, but we will accept nothing less. Masters in our own house we must be, but our house is the whole of Canada." - Pierre Elliot Trudeau - and that quote means not becoming slave to the oil conglomerate or complicit to its pollution of Canada!

Addendum: another betrayal by Trudeay, IMO, this one repressing the BDS movement, is outlined in this analysis - the same slavish servitude to Zionist subversion and racism is displayed by the UK's David Cameron!


#17

In other words, the path to a less toxic environment is to produce more toxins. The path to fewer cars on the road is to produce more cars. The path to less population is to have more babies. Sounds like Kissinger.


#18

Canada was warned. the Liberals are fully neoliberal in Canada. Trudeau was no savior--just a more cultured version of corporatism.
If their Left could just get it together and ally for one year, they could end this nonsense. Unlike the US, they have sufficient votes to do it if they unify.


#19

Those were my thoughts too! Is there anywhere to go?


#20

Actually there is reason to come to Canada.

During the 60s and 70s all of those Americans that migrated here from the USA to escape the draft helped shape the future of Canada wherein it become much less Militaristic. Only recently have they begun to move once more towards Militarism,

I would welcome 5 million environmentalists moving here. Maybe then I will not be one of the only 6 percent that votes green.


#21

He's saying that the environment must be made worst before it can be cleaned up?


#22

If Trump or Clinton become president, British Columbia is going to start looking pretty good to me.


#23

This is a very difficult situation for any politician. Naturally the oil should stay in the soil, the gas under the grass and the coal in the hole, but realistically that will not happen anytime soon. Because oil extraction will continue uninterrupted in the near future, it will be much more environmentally sound to ship it by pipeline than by truck or rail. However if the Canadian Prime Minister coincided his promise to build pipelines with a plan to replace fossil fuels simultaneously such as replacing airlines with electrically powered evacuated tube transport (et3.com), increasing subsidies for electric vehicles, building alternative energy independent communities and abandoning fossil fuel subsidies, Trudeau could easily get the Greens on board. His next move should be to appoint David Suzuki as his Minister of the Environment to show the electorate that he is not another corporate lackey.


#25

Here in British Columbia is where out First Nations people wield the most political power. Oddly they the group that did not sign a lot of those treaties.


#26

So where's the PM's hard evidence to support his categorical assertion that we need more pipelines to fund our transition to a green future?
Does he think responsibly informed Canadians are going to believe him just because he says it's so?