Ryan McMahon: ‘We weren’t brave enough to hold a climate debate in this country’

Election coverage neglected the North and the serious impacts of the climate crisis

Image result for ricochet: Ryan McMahon: 'We weren’t brave enough to hold a climate debate in this country'Anishnaabe comedian and writer Ryan McMahon was a commentator on CBC’s election night coverage. He offered this closing thought.

Indigenous communities are on the front lines of climate change, and you know, they have been talking about climate change for nearly two decades.

We sat here tonight, hardly talked about the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavik, Nunavut. [Moderator: Almost not at all.] Not at all.

And I mean, we’re not just talking about climate change as an idea there. We’re talking about food sources, food insecurity issues, food security issues.

And we weren’t brave enough to hold a climate debate in this country. And to me, in 2019, climate change deniers are basically flat earthers.

And so if we’re not brave enough to hold a climate change debate in this country and have a conversation, we have to go to bed tonight thinking about that. And I hope all of the parties show more bravery.

I mean, over a million people participated in the climate march and strike. Most of them were young people.

So what does it say to them if we’re not brave enough to have the conversation? SOURCE

 

The election’s over, now let’s get back to work on climate

Image: Peter Blanchard/Flickr

The election may be over, but there’s no time to be complacent. Canadians voters — and many people too young to vote — demanded that politicians take climate disruption seriously. The parties and candidates listened and, for the first time, climate became a top election issue. Now we have to make sure they all come together to keep their promises and step up their ambitions.

We must hold elected representatives from every party to account, to avoid the usual scenario where parties and leaders concentrate on what will benefit them most before the next election rather than making serious attempts to curtail a problem that spells catastrophe over a longer period if we don’t act quickly and decisively. It’s an inherent weakness in our political systems. Many politicians just want to be seen to be doing something, as long as it doesn’t hurt their re-election chances, rather than demonstrating their commitments in ways that might not show immediate returns.

We don’t have time for political posturing or ego-fuelled divisions. Scientists have warned we have little more than a decade, if that, to bring emissions down to a point where they don’t keep the planet heating for years to come.

Although every major party campaigned with a climate plan, none went far enough. Even if the new government were to adopt the best ideas from other parties, the flaws in our economic and political systems could prevent us from bringing about necessary change. One flaw is the aforementioned election-cycle stasis. In part, that’s what keeps politicians and governments holding onto the status quo, fearing the bold, transformative policies the country and world so desperately need in this time of climate crisis.

Although every day we fail to take decisive action makes it that much harder to address global heating, the benefits of doing so still far exceed keeping the planet livable for humans and other species — although that alone should be enough. Some have argued bizarrely that protecting the very things that keep us alive and healthy is not economically viable. They elevate a recent, human-constructed system created under considerably different conditions than today’s above the natural systems that provide all we need to live, from air to water to food.

That in itself shows our economic systems are failing us and should be altered to fit today’s reality. But even under current economics, doing all we can to slow and halt catastrophic heating will pay many dividends. A recent study in Science by an international group of scientists concludes, “Over the next few decades, acting to reduce climate change is expected to cost much less than the damage otherwise inflicted by climate change on people, infrastructure and ecosystems.”

A report released around the same time by the Global Commission on Adaptation, representing leaders in business, science, and politics, echoes that message. It focuses on adaptation to the now-unavoidable consequences of climate disruption but doesn’t dismiss the need to prevent the crisis from worsening.

“Adaptation is not an alternative to a redoubled effort to stop climate change, but an essential complement to it. Failing to lead and act on adaptation will result in a huge economic and human toll, causing widespread increases in poverty and severely undermining long-term global economic prospects,” according to the report.

Researchers conclude that “investing $1.8 trillion globally in five areas from 2020 to 2030 could generate $7.1 trillion in total net benefits.” Those areas are “early warning systems, climate-resilient infrastructure, improved dryland agriculture crop production, global mangrove protection, and investments in making water resources more resilient.”

The Science study notes we have little time to spare. “The investment is even more compelling given the wealth of evidence that the impacts of climate change are happening faster and more extensively than projected, even just a few years ago.”

We need to do everything to slow and eventually halt the climate crisis and to adapt to the consequences our stalling has already set in motion. The voters of today have spoken, and those who will soon be old enough to vote couldn’t be clearer. We need all political representatives to cast aside their differences and work together to solve this challenge. An election is just the start. SOURCE

Election result signals the need for continued grassroots activism

The interim House of Commons on January 16, 2019. Image: Leafsfan67/Wikimedia Commons

What are some of the observations that can be made about the results of this federal election from a grassroots activist perspective?

1. The electoral system is broken.

As we all know, the seat count would have looked very different under proportional representation. For instance, the NDP would have won 54 seats (rather than 24) and the Greens would have won 22 seats (rather than 3).

2. The Conservatives were stopped, but won the vote.

We’ll need to contend with the fact that the Conservatives beat the Liberals in terms of the popular share of the vote as well as winning almost 250,000 more votes than the Liberals.

3. It doesn’t spell the end of the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Could the NDP and the Greens make cancelling the pipeline a condition of their support in the House? It doesn’t appear that way right now, plus as was pointed out by other observers, the Conservatives would likely back the Liberals in any vote that might come up in the House on this. We’ll need to be on the land to win this.

4. The SNC-Lavalin scandal isn’t going away.

Given that Jody Wilson-Raybould won her seat as an Independent and a minority government means the opposition parties control the standing committees (and call witnesses, etc.), this story is likely to continue.

5. Highs and lows.

It was great to see NDP candidate Leah Gazan elected in Manitoba and a new Green MP in New Brunswick. It was disappointing that Svend Robinson didn’t win in Burnaby and that (even had the NDP and Green votes been combined in Ottawa Centre) that Catherine McKenna still won even after she approved a tar sands pipeline.

6. Opportunities for a Green New Deal.

The outcome of the election doesn’t suggest that the stage has been set to win a bold Green New Deal, but hopefully the “balance of power” equation suggests we could maybe carve out a few important gains on this front, ideally pushing harder on the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies.

7. Colonial violence continues.

Just days before the election, Tiny House Warriors Kanahus Manuel and Isha Jules were arrested for defending Secwepemc territory against the Trans Mountain pipeline. Kanahus’ wrist was reportedly broken by the RCMP and she was transported 200 kilometres in the back of a police wagon without medical attention.

8. The average lifespan of a minority government.

The average lifespan of a minority government is generally 18 to 24 months. We’ll see how that pans out, but it is at least conceivable/likely that there will be another election within four years. How do we better prepare for that fight two years down the road as the climate crisis further intensifies?

In the meantime, here’s to continued activism!

As the great progressive Howard Zinn wrote, “Voting is easy and marginally useful, but it is a poor substitute for democracy, which requires direct action by concerned citizens.” SOURCE

Kenney threatens equalization referendum if Trudeau doesn’t adopt Conservative energy platform

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney. Image: David J. Climenhaga

If you concluded as New Brunswick’s conservative premier just did that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s somewhat reduced victory in Monday’s federal election indicates a certain level of support for carbon taxes and like policies in Canada, the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan beg to differ.

Blaine Higgs told reporters in Fredericton yesterday that he’s now going to figure out how to comply with the Trudeau government’s national climate plan, which includes a carbon tax. “I can’t ignore the obvious,” he explained. “The country has spoken.”

“People voted for it, so we have to find a way in New Brunswick to make it work,” Higgs also observed.

Out here on the Great Plains, though, we’re made of sterner stuff. We don’t have any problem ignoring the obvious. And, no, we’re not going to find a way to make federal policies work in Alberta or Saskatchewan if they don’t happen to have been made by conservatives. (Or even, as in the case of the current equalization formula, if they were.)

The Liberals may have a renewed if reduced mandate, but here on the Great Plains, we’re sticking with the same old climate obstructionism.

Accordingly, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney called the pliant local media together in Edmonton yesterday and told them, in effect, that if Trudeau won’t adopt most of Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s energy platform, as well as find a way to gut the Constitution’s equalization provisions, Alberta will hold a provincial referendum on equalization.

Alert readers will quickly point out that such a referendum would be constitutionally meaningless. This is true, as Kenney certainly knows.

However, it’s clearer every day that Kenney views the referendum idea, tied to Alberta’s perpetual complaining about Quebec getting “our” money and then not running its financial affairs the same way we run ours, as a thinly disguised sovereignty-association vote.

Or, at least, he clearly hopes the federal Liberals, in a slightly more vulnerable position than they were before Monday’s vote, will see it that way.

It would be interesting to know if such a deceptive tactic contradicts the federal Clarity Act, which says the wording of any sovereignty referendum must state clearly what it means.

Regardless, perhaps confusing the election results on the Prairies with the national tally, Kenney told the reporters he had set out his demands in a five-page letter — five pages! must be serious! — to Trudeau.

The letter calls on Ottawa to create a national energy corridor, repeal the North Coast tanker ban, delay implementation of more stringent pipeline approval legislation, let Alberta off the hook for the federal carbon tax, and make big changes to federal transfer payments to suit Alberta. MORE

Canada’s climate policies are moving the country closer to its reduction goal. We need to keep them in place to encourage the provinces to do more.

Image result for policy options: Canada’s climate policies are moving the country closer to its reduction goal. We need to keep them in place to encourage the provinces to do more.

(This article has been translated from French.)

Under the Paris Agreement, Canada agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 30 percent compared to 2005 levels. While this goal needs to be revised to align with the science on climate change, the election campaign has brought this commitment to the forefront and raised an important question: Is Canada on track to achieve its GHG emissions target? The answer is complex.

We need to be wary of statements that say that we have already, in 2019, missed our goal of substantially reducing GHG emissions by 2030. Instead, we must focus on evaluating our progress toward our 2030 GHG emission reduction goal and adjust accordingly. These evaluations can be done using the Environmental Sustainability Indicators that the federal government updates each year.

Since 2011, Canada has been publishing its greenhouse gas emissions projections, a reliable reference. These projections have been formulated and revised under both Conservative and Liberal governments, and the team of modelling specialists that develops them has remained largely unchanged over the years. The comparisons are therefore non-partisan.

A note of caution, however. The projections for 2030 contain a degree of uncertainty because they rely on complex data used to model the emissions. On the one hand, they are based on a number of assumptions involving such factors as the growth rate of the population and of the GDP, technological innovation and implementation as well as world price trends for natural gas and oil. On the other hand, the projections must take into account the diversity of federal and provincial policies that affect the carbon pollution produced by heavy industries, all while attempting to anticipate changes in individual behaviours as far out as 2030.

Canada’s GHG emissions are declining

While GHG emissions have fluctuated over the past 10 years, federal government forecasts indicate that they will decline over the next 10 years (see graph below).

Prior to 2016, Canada had a gap of 300 megatonnes (Mt) equivalent of carbon dioxide between its 2030 target and projected emissions, which at the time stood at 815 Mt. Beginning in 2016, the government brought in new climate policies (see below) in response to its obligations under the Paris Agreement, which resulted in lowered projections for our emissions. The most recent report on GHG projections (2018) assumes that all planned policies will be implemented, including those that relate to the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry sector (LULUCF). This sector takes into account what is known as “natural solutions,” that is, land-planning practices that increase the amount of carbon capture. According to this report, the gap between our GHG reduction target — namely 513 Mt by 2030 ― and our projected emissions — namely 592 Mt, has therefore been reduced to 79 Mt, which brings us to a reduction of 19 percent below 2005 levels. It should be noted, however, that some measures, such as investments in mass transit, have not been modelled in the projections and could contribute to a possible partial reduction in this 79 Mt gap. Nonetheless, additional measures will need to be implemented in the future to achieve 30 percent reductions.

Canada’s gap is getting smaller: we’re thus getting closer to our target.

The 2030 target and provincial policies

Contrary to certain ideas being conveyed during this election campaign, Canada’s climate policies will indeed allow us to reduce our GHG emissions over the next 10 years without hampering economic growth. Our goal for 2030 is therefore within reach, provided the policies in question remain in place and additional efforts are made to reduce our emissions by another 79 Mt.

Public policies that make these reductions possible include:

    • the federal Clean Fuel Standard;
    • carbon pricing;
    • the federal regulation to eliminate coal-burning power plants by 2030;
    • additional regulations on energy efficiency.

We must also consider provincial climate policies, as two recently elected provincial governments have cancelled programs and policies intended to reduce GHG emissions. Ontario’s withdrawal from the Quebec-California carbon market, its elimination of renewable energy investment programs and the adoption of a less-ambitious climate action plan will add another 30 Mt to Canada’s carbon emissions between now and 2030. In addition, Alberta, ignoring the climate emergency, has eliminated its price on carbon along with other climate-related measures while continuing to expand oil and gas production. These decisions will have serious consequences on Canada’s GHG emissions profile.

Provincial climate policies thus have a major impact on our GHG emissions. As numerous economists have pointed out, having a uniform carbon price in Canada is a key factor in ensuring that our GHG emissions are reduced. We need to prevent polluting activities from moving to provinces where the cost of carbon pollution is cheaper.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario recently ruled in favour of allowing the federal government to intervene in the setting of standards to regulate GHG emissions throughout the country. In light of the climate emergency, it ruled that while the provinces have the power to establish measures to combat pollution and GHG emissions within their borders, only Parliament can impose minimum standards for the entire country, as it does with carbon pricing. The court also pointed out that the refusal of certain provinces to implement these types of measures causes injury to those provinces that are taking climate change seriously, thereby creating an inequity for the provinces that are being proactive.

So, let’s come back to the original question: Are we on track to achieving our GHG emissions reduction target? According to the data, it seems that we are getting closer to it, but only under certain conditions: the continuation of climate policies currently in place and the full participation of all of Canadian provinces in the fight against the climate emergency.

However, Canada’s current target does not go far enough. Under the Paris Agreement, the signatories agreed to keep planet warming substantially below 2oC and to encourage continuing efforts to limit temperature rise to 1.5oC. Canada’s target for 2030 was adopted by the previous government and has not been modified. To avoid a temperature rise of more than 1.5oC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommended in its 2019 report that, worldwide emissions be reduced by 45 percent by 2030 compared with 2010 levels, and that net emissions be reduced to zero by 2050. And this doesn’t take into account Canada’s historic responsibility as a wealthy country. We need to do more. Much more.

Though we’re headed in the right direction, Canada’s current target puts us only halfway up the mountain. The summit that we need to reach to avoid the most devastating impact of climate change is much higher. A difficult hike awaits us, but they say that the view from the summit is magnificent. SOURCE

Greta Thunberg declines invitation to Victoria due to time, not ferry emissions

Thunberg confirmed that she will be joining a climate strike at the Vancouver Art Gallery on Friday


Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and youth organizers attend a rally at the Alberta Legislature Building in Edmonton, on Friday, Oct. 18, 2019. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Dave Chidley

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg says she is not aware of an invitation to speak in British Columbia’s provincial legislature.

Earlier on Tuesday, the leader of the province’s Green party said he had extended an invitation to the 16-year-old Swede.

Andrew Weaver said he had spoken to Speaker Darryl Plecas and that he had agreed to allow her to address the legislature if Thunberg was willing.

Thunberg wrote on her Twitter page late Tuesday night that she doesn’t know anything about an invitation to Victoria, and had “definitely not declined it because of concerns about emissions from the public transport ferry.”

Greta Thunberg

This Friday October 25th I’ll join the climate strike in Vancouver, BC!
11am at Vancouver Art Gallery.

View image on Twitter

Greta Thunberg

PS. I don’t know anything about an invitation to Victoria, and I have definitely not declined it because of “emissions” from the public transport ferry. Just so you know:)
I try to visit as many places as I can, but there’s unfortunately not enough time to visit everywhere.

However, Thunberg confirmed that she will be joining a climate strike at the Vancouver Art Gallery on Friday. SOURCE

RELATED:

Greta Thunberg to attend post-election climate strike in Vancouver

 

Now Extinction Rebellion plot to paralyse central London in the run-up to Christmas with another two weeks of protests planned for Trafalgar Square and Oxford Circus

  • XR activists are plotting Christmas action over WhatsApp and Telegram apps 
  • Organiser Clare Farrell said they ‘can’t overlook’ festive period as an opportunity 
  • Other protestors say climate situation is ‘too serious’ and ‘too urgent’ not to  

Extinction Rebellion is planning to bring more chaos to London with another two weeks of disruption in the run-up to Christmas.

Climate change protestors claim they will target busy shopping and tourist hubs in the capital, including Oxford Circus and Trafalgar Square, over the festive period.

Organisers are plotting another fortnight of disorder over encrypted messaging apps WhatsApp and Telegram.

It comes after the group’s ‘Autumn Uprising’ brought London to a standstill, with Tube protests at Canning Town, a camp out at Smithfield meat market and blockades at City Airport.

Extinction Rebellion claim they will target busy shopping and tourist hubs in the capital, including Oxford Circus and Trafalgar Square (protestors are pictured there on October 16), over the festive period

XR activists are planning to bring more chaos to London with another two weeks of disruption in the run-up to Christmas

XR organiser Clare Farrell said: ‘We need to prioritise Christmas as a cultural event.

‘It’s something we can’t overlook this time. You would hope that something beautiful will happen.

‘What I do think is that XR, as a movement, we can’t think it will become something that only campaigns twice a year.

‘The situation is far too serious and far too urgent. The clock is really ticking,’ reports the Evening Standard.

Another activist said in a group chat: ‘There will be other actions between now and Christmas focused on our climate message.

‘If the Government does not listen to us then we will have no choice but to take to the streets again, whether it’s Trafalgar Square, Oxford Street or smaller direct actions.’  MORE

White Pines Wind Farm decommissioning to begin Oct. 15

Premier Doug Ford didn’t so much meddle in Toronto’s upcoming election as take an axe to it, Heather Mallick writes.
Premier Doug Ford, the human wrecking ball, the Steve Bannon of Ontario —Heather Mallick

The municipality has announced wpd Canada will begin decommissioning its White Pines Wind industrial turbines project in South Marysburgh on Oct. 15, 2019.

The statement indicates the first phase of the work involves a crane arriving to lower the towers to the ground. That work is to take place between Oct. 15 and Jan. 31, 2020.

The second phase of decommissioning, is anticipated to begin in April 2020, for the removal and remediation of infrastructure installed for the project.

The termination of the nine industrial wind turbine project was moved through the Ontario Legislature in July 2018 and formalized just short of a year later by the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks with a set of regulations that the closure “be carried out in a way that is protective of human health and the environment.”

The road users agreement signed in 2016 between the County and wpd Canada remains in effect. It outlines requirements to protect roads and infrastructure.

wpd Canada had indicated it would seek to recoup $100 million it put into the project, but it is still not clear how much the provincial government agreed to pay. The legislation requires wpd to cover the cost of decomissioning and restoring the land. The law also bars the company from suing the government.

There are four turbines erected of the nine approved for the development before the provincial government terminated the project under The White Pines Wind Project Termination Act.

The Act revoked the Feed-in-Tariff contract awarded by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO); the renewable energy approval issued for the project by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) and the permit issued for the project under the Endangered Species Act, 2007, by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

The German wind company’s initial plan was for 29 turbines but following years of legal battles, led by the Prince Edward County Field Naturalists, over protection of species at risk and heritage preservation, the project was reduced to nine. Only four of the 100-metre tall turbines were erected, but were not put into service before the legislation.

Because the renewable energy approval has been revoked, the ministry made a new regulation under the Environmental Protection Act and an associated technical closure document, to govern the closure of the facility.

The facility consists of the nine turbine areas and one transformer substation, associated ancillary equipment, systems and technologies including on-site access roads, underground cabling, distribution or transmission lines and storage areas.

The documents includes many general themes covering areas such as pre-dismantling activities, equipment dismantling and removal, site restoration, stormwater management, precautions to avoid impacts on the Blanding’s Turtle and restoration of natural and cultural heritage features.

The company is expected to maintain its website and update on or before the 15th of each month, about the facility and include documents for the public. There is no information about the County project on the site as of today. SOURCE

Take Action! Tuesday October 29, the first White Pines turbine component is set to come down

On Tuesday October 29 th, the first turbine component is set to come down. The cranes are being delivered and assembled this week. Workers are arriving from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to do the dirty work.

Not one of them, or WPD or any land owners, or wind supporters feel good about this.  It should not be happening.

In a final last effort to draw attention to the senseless cancellation of our wind farm, we will be gathering at 1279 Royal Road , Milford at 9 a.m for a peaceful demonstration, shaming the Ford government for making such a poor backwards decision.

Media, groups, journalists, supporters of wind, and all concerned citizens are encouraged to come.

Signs, blue wind shirts and matching hats are available, or be creative , and bring your own,

Media and politicians will be invited.

Take Action! Be there to shame this Ford “wrecking ball” government.

 

Trudeau extends olive branch to Western Canada, vows to build Trans Mountain despite opposition


Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes his way to a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa on Wednesday. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

Two days after much of Western Canada rejected the Liberals on election day, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau today vowed to be more sensitive to the needs of Alberta and Saskatchewan and to build the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline in the face of entrenched opposition from environmentalists.

Trudeau told a press conference in Ottawa this afternoon he clearly has to do more to earn the trust of people in the two resource-rich provinces. He said that work will start with ensuring more pipeline capacity is brought online so that oil producers can sell their product abroad at prices closer to the going world rate.

While Trudeau campaigned on a promise of more aggressive action to fight climate change, he said nothing has changed with respect to the government-owned Trans Mountain project and insisted it will be built after years of legal wrangling.

‘In the interest of Canada’

“We made a decision to move forward on the pipeline because it was in the interest of Canada to do so, because the environment and the economy need to go together. We will be continuing with the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion,” he said.

“Albertans and people in Saskatchewan have faced very difficult years over these past few years because of the global commodity prices, because of the challenges they are facing. For a long time they weren’t able to get their resources to markets other than the U.S. We are moving forward to solve those challenges.”


Lengths of pipe for the Trans Mountain expansion project are stacked at Edson, Alta. (Jason Franson/The Canadian Press)

If built, the 1,150-kilometre expansion project would nearly triple the existing pipeline’s capacity to 890,000 barrels a day. It would transport product directly from Alberta’s oilpatch to coastal B.C. for shipping to markets in Asia.

Trudeau has promised any profits from the existing pipeline — pegged at some $500 million a year in corporate tax revenue alone — and the planned expansion will be used to fund green-friendly initiatives to help tackle climate change.

The federal Liberal government has twice approved the $7.4-billion Trans Mountain expansion. Ottawa bought the project from its original U.S. proponent, Kinder Morgan, in 2018 after that company threatened to end all essential spending on the project in response to outspoken opposition from B.C.’s provincial NDP government.

Even after a stunning court decision in August 2018 quashed the Liberal cabinet’s initial approvals, Trudeau promised to build the project “the right way.” After another consultation process with Indigenous peoples and an improved environmental review, cabinet again approved the project in June 2019. The Federal Court of Appeal is currently reviewing an appeal by Indigenous groups of that second approval.

Trans Mountain’s fate not up to MPs

While Trudeau might have to rely in this minority Parliament on vote support from the NDP and Green caucuses — two entities that have expressed strident opposition to Trans Mountain — the project’s future does not depend on any one vote in the House of Commons.

In Canada, major natural resources projects like pipelines go through a regulatory review process led by the Canadian Energy Regulator (or, as it was known until recently, the National Energy Board) . It falls to cabinet, and cabinet alone, to give the project a final “yea” or “nay.” And while those decisions are subject to judicial review, it’s not up to individual parliamentarians to decide whether a particular project is approved.

Power & Politics

Asked why Liberals were wiped out in Alta. and Sask, @JustinTrudeau said: “Why did this happen is not the central issue we have. The central issue for me is how do we move forward in a way that responds to the concerns that Albertans and Saskatchewanians have clearly expressed.”

Embedded video

Trudeau said he has spoken recently with Western leaders like Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi about how the federal government can support a region that has struggled with slumping commodity prices and constrained export capacity.
“I will be reaching out specifically to westerners to hear from them … to talk about how we can make sure that the concerns, the very real concerns of Albertans, are being addressed and reflected by this government,” Trudeau said.
“This is something that I take very seriously, as a responsibility, to ensure that we are moving forward in ways that benefit all Canadians. I will be listening and working with a broad range of people to ensure that happens.” MORE