OUR POLITICAL POSITION
ON DIFFERENT ISSUES
We invite you to go through this list of issues to find out our political stance, on the different issues we face as a nation. We went through this list of issue found on (isidewith.com) and answered each question to the best of our knowledge based on Kingdom Principles, our website page named: 3 Kingdoms, will shed the light on what we mean by that) . We have mentors, advisiors, personal, candidates... from different religious background, from different walks of life; but we as a party are not affiliated to any denomination. The members and associates are and might be, and will be influenced by their personal affiliation; but our party as an entity is not religious party. We are a party who will operate with Kingdom Principles.We at the Kingdom Party will stipulate clearly below our stance for each one of the issue. Our approach is to be transparent and to let everyone know where we stand. We refuse to play the avoidance and silence game when it comes to controversial subject. This below is a first draft, done by your servant MC. As the mentors and advisors sharpens our thoughts and guide us in the most effective way to go; as the team is being built and those with the gift of words and different skills join us; as we meet and listen to those affected by those issues; as we concert together and agreed in the direction to take; our responses to these issues will evolve and be more elaborated.
Our position on abortion? Pro-life, and we also oppose abortion for victims of rape and incest. As the website of -isidewith.com- says: "Abortion is a medical procedure resulting in the termination of a human pregnancy and death of a fetus. Abortion in Canada is legal at any point in a woman's pregnancy for any reason, and is governed by the Canada Health Act. Canada is one of only a few nations in the world with no legal restrictions on abortion".
It is sad and unfortunate for us, as a nation, to come to that point; but as a wave of change and transformation break out, throughout our nation through revival; this will change.
Legalization of same sex marriage? God created marriage to be between a man and a woman. Any other combinaison is against His sovereign design and is consider by Him as a sin. Sin means missing the mark. Same sex marriage is missing the mark that God established for reproduction and preservation of the human race. For this reason, God condemn it and sees it as a sin. God loves sinners; but He hates sins; He hates anything that causes us to fail, anything that causes us to miss the marks, to fall short of His perfect plan for us.
The problem about the legalization of same sex marriage is that: Personal sins is one thing, but when a sin becomes a national one; now the nation is defying and arising against God. A sin that becomes nationally accepted, eulogized and legalized, brings a curse over the nation. Unless national repentance or a judicial volte-face occured, during the window of grace God grant to all, the hand of God becomes then, heavy over that nation. And this, until repentance. And if no repentance or judicial volte-face; decadence and moral decay and other self destructive pattern takes place.
We thank God for His window of grace over Canada; we decree and declare that our nation will arise from the path of degenerescence and become great again; as we all embrace righteousness, due to salvation and redemption in Christ Jesus, following a mighty move of God, in the revival and glory season that is about to take Canada break out all over our Nation.
Should gay couples have the same adoption rights as straight couples? No; we believe their lifestyle is a deviance and we are to protect the mind of our children. They made the choice of their deviance. We cannot legally allow innocent blank page mind to be introduced to those lifestyles. If God in his Sovereignty allow a child to be born to a couple who are making choices that are damageable for their children; we believe the same Sovereign God will turn every evil to the good of the child. But, as a Christian nation, and we are a Nation unto God, we cannot legitimate those deviance that are contrary of God’s plan for humankind; then, legally hand over our children to witness and be immersed in an atmosphere of deviance and rebellion to God on a daily basis. As a nation we have the responsibility to protect our children and this is what we will do.
Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide? Absolutely not, but they should be allowed to refuse artificial life support.
Should businesses be required to have women on their board of director? No. Womanhood is a grace, a privilege, a calling, a responsibility, a duty. True leaders rises, are recognized and invited; not imposed.
Should the military allow women to serve in combat roles? No.
Do we support the death penalty? No; because of the power of redemption in Christ Jesus.
Should women be allowed to wear a Niqāb, or face veil, to civic ceremonies? Our answer is based on the answer of two questions.
When they’ve been accepted in Canada, were the immigration paper or official document required by Canada to grant them entry had a veiled picture or no? If the answer is yes, we as a country opened the door for them to know that it is OK. If we opened our doors and received them as they are; we should respect who they are and allow them to be veiled.
But if Canada required uncovered hair and unveiled faces as photo ID’s at the point of entry; and they had to unveil at the frontier for identification purpose; Canada had, then, clearly established his policy, therefore they should respect our ways and be unveiled during civic ceremonies.
Should transgender athletes be allowed to compete in athletic events?
First: No. Allowing them to compete will be totally unfair. It will spoil the beauty and excitement that the crowd feels during the sports events, when fairness is present. Male-trans competing in female sports event, will be like allowing athletes using drugs to boost their natural capacity, to compete against those who didn't. And it is totally unfair.
Secondly: No. Because they will render totally obsolete the tests process to detect the athletes who used hormones or drugs; since their system is full of hormones and chemicals used to provoke and maintain their physical transformation. If they are exempted from those tests, because they will be tested positive; soon a cry will arise among other athletes and they will have to exempt everyone. Which will contribute to kill the spirit of sports. Crowd applaud when fairness is part of the equation; otherwise they feel betrayed and lose interest.
Should teachers be allowed to carry guns at school? No. Because, the solution is a mind transformation through a deep reformation of the school system and a heart transformation through Revival; which will eliminate threats and the fear of threat.
Should the government be able to monitor phone calls and emails? Yes, but only by court order.
Should there be more restrictions on the current process of purchasing a gun? No.
Should Canadian aboriginals receive more government funds? No. Instead of monetary funds, we should sit with them; revisit, revise, re-think and re-form our approach, our system of intervention and the way we help them. Because, we had too many years to help them improve their living conditions; but instead, even today, gloom, despair and dependence is still their portion. Living in a prosperous nation and n the midst of a prosperous nation. This is an inacceptable nonsense that must change.
In favor of decriminalizing drug use? No.
Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)? No. this would allow them to remove competition and increase prices. All traffic should be treated equally, and the openness of the internet should continue.
Should the government regulate social media sites, as a means to prevent fake news and misinformation? No. The residence and place where fake news is generated is the mainstream media. We believe that if the government feels concern about social media its because they don’t have the control of what is being said. The behind the scenes troop is nervous, since their dictates is not anymore, the only voice; people cannot be controlled anymore because they have alternative source that is awakening them to their mind game. They are nervous because they can’t silence those expressing their opinions or reporting the real facts on social media. Since they can’t control the information on social media with their millions; the only way is to mute it, or forcefully control it, by regulating it. And this also is an unacceptable nonsense; that we will not allow.
Should Quebec be granted sovereignty from the rest of Canada? No, sovereignty cannot solve Quebec's problems. Quebec’s problem is his slogan: “Je me souviens” – I remember. Their real freedom is to forget. Forgetting was is behind, forgetting what the English people did to them, what the leader of a certain denomination did to them… Forget, forget, forgive and move on, , embrace the new, move to new heights and work in unity to become great and make Canada Great Again.
Should nonviolent drug offenders be given mandatory jail sentences? No. This is an hypocrisy that must come to an end. The heads provides access to the drugs, then the last in the chain get arrested (by the same or other heads that are also involve in the provision) and goes to jail. These non sense must stop. And it will stop it.
Should the federal government invest in urban, commuter rail infrastructure? Yes
In order to reduce energy costs, should the government nationalize or privatize the energy sector? Because of a the generally poor performance of state-owned enterprises, privatization would increase efficiency, shoot innovation, create greater transparency, and improve the environment. Privatization would allow entrepreneurs can better perform and take on challenges at which federal bureaucracies are failing.
Should it be illegal to burn our national flag? Absolutely Yes.
Should government workers be allowed to strike? Yes, Non-Essential sectors only. Also establish a labour court to anticipate and mediate strikes.
Should the government pass laws which protect whistle-blowers? Yes.
Do you support a national daycare policy? No.
Should the federal government elect or abolish the Senate? Elect. Any un-elected body of Government is detrimental towards democracy. They should be elected and require members to be non-partisan.
Should the government increase funding to the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? No. They should stop all funds to them and other all the other ones; because they are propaganda tools for the Government they favored and who favor them; they are tools to push every way and anyway their agenda while striking down the others.
Should the government reinstate the long form mandatory census? No. Because privacy is a right and this long form invades it.
Should the government allow digital publishers to place locks on their content (MP3s, etc)? Yes.
Should the government increase funding to the CSA (Canadian Standards Association)? No.
Should the government increase funding for mental health research and treatment? Yes. But more funding and research being together a solution; they are not the proven solution. The proven solution is supernatural healing; and if it is a hormonal issue, drugs/pills will be needed; and the most sure and permanent way to healing is a spiritual deliverance..
Should prescription drugs be covered under Canada’s universal healthcare plan? Yes, but only when a high cost threshold is exceeded.
Should preventative dental care be covered under Canada’s universal healthcare plan? Yes, emergency care is already included, preventative care should be an individual's responsibility.
Should the federal government increase spending on healthcare? No. Instead, it should increase fund in prevention, active education about health; focus their intervention in investing and implementing a national program to create a culture of proper micro and macro nutrition; among every group age of our society.
Support for the legalization of Marijuana: No.
Should there be more or less privatization of hospital and healthcare services? Less, and there should be no privatization of the healthcare industry. It is even sad to call it ‘industry’.
Do you support a single-payer healthcare system? Yes.
Should cities open drug “safe havens” where people who are addicted to illegal drugs can use them under the supervision of medical professionals? No. How can a nation come to a place where the best solution they can offer is to legally provide and fund a place for their own citizens to go and be assisted in destroying their lives one puck at a time? This is a national failure in the effort to better the life of our citizens. A nonsense that must stop by providing effective solutions at the beginning of the continuum of self-destruction; instead of partnering with hell, by offering sanctuaries to push its agenda to “steal, destroy and kill” a portion of Canada’s sons and daughters.
Should healthcare be a provincial or federal responsibility? Federal, but if we opt for it to be Provincial, it should receive federal funding, and standards most be elaborated to regulate it.
FOREIGN POLICIES ISSUES
Should every 18-year-old citizen be required to provide at least one year of military service? Yes. It will forge discipline, character and focus in our youth.
Should the U.S. accept refugees from Syria? No.
Should the U.S. remain in the United Nations? No. It is an organism whose hidden agenda succeeded in creating an international collective conscience, among the leaders leading to create a New World order. The 666th chair is and has always been empty. They are waiting for the Worldwide leader to occupy it.
Should the government attempt to influence foreign elections? No. Against political ingerence in any way. Each Nation are Sovereign and should govern themselves. Most of the time ingerence is not to benefit the other nation, it is to push our subversive agendas.
Should the government conduct military strikes against North Korea in order to destroy their long-range missile and nuclear weapons capabilities? No. We should leave it to China to deal with it. Diplomatie and good relationship have better result then strikes.
Should the government provide military aid to Saudi Arabia during its conflict with Yemen? No. Apart for humanitarian, we believe no aid should be given to any Government. Each nation should govern their country to better the life of their citizens. And if they permitted or created conflicts, they should take their own resources to create the system to handle it. Their resources shouldn’t be to better the life of those in authorities, their allies, friends and families; then expect other nations who planned for sudden disaster and who have it together to come and spend their precious resources to help them perpetuate the nonsense they allowed and keep allowing.
Do we support Bill C-51, which expands local police and intelligence agencies’ authority to prevent terrorism? No, the bill is too vague. Needs more specificity and describe strict parameters of operations. And certainly restrain and refrain any debordement and come to the point where Governmental or political paranoia extend the scope of their mandate to include everyone and anyone in that category.
Should the government increase or decrease military spending?
-Decrease, if we decide to redirect our money and concentrate on better Canada from the inside to the outside; which is most likely the approach the Kingdom party will adopt. Canadians and Canada First!
-But it should increase if we decide that it is more beneficial to keep focussing on the outside to protect the inside. Our military men and women should receive cutting edge materials to accomplish what is required of them and be take care of in a dignified way before, during and after their service.
Should Canadian soldiers be more involved in Iraq? Absolutely not, the nonsenses that required our intervention, going on there has last for far too long. Unless hidden agendas; we have no business their. Nor in any place of conflicts.
Should the government increase or decrease foreign aid spending? Absolutely decrease it; because the underlying agenda of those constant and increasing situations that require financial help are all orchestrated by behind the scene agents to undermine the economy and weakens the leading nations; which is us and others. So one day they can establish their hidden agenda of one world order.
Should it be illegal to join a boycott of Israel? A resounding Yes. We stand and we will keep standing with Israel; and this, through thick and thin. We will, as a party and as a nation continue to bless Israel and do everything in our power to help them in areas of need. Whoever blesses Israel, will be blessed by God. It is a sure promise.
Do you support the military offensive against ISIS in the Iraqi city of Mosul. No. This can create needless casualties of war for our troop. As I said those manufactured conflict doesn't deserve our strength (our military men and women to die for).
Should the U.S. overthrow President Assad of Syria? Don’t understand how a nation can be allowed to overthrow the leader of another nation. Don’t understand this type of interference and ingerence in the affairs of another nation. Only when a nation has hidden interest and agendas they do so. Therefore, agreeing to that, will be to support agendas of hidden manipulators - the behind the scenes real leaders - the ‘deep state’ agenda; and the KPPOC doesn’t support them.
Should immigrants be deported if they commit a serious crime? No.
Should Muslim immigrants be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists? No. This is a false question or issue. The problem is not the inability to screen out potential terrorists; because we do have the ability; thinking otherwise is to discredit the world’s and our country’s secret services. The problem resides in whose voice is weightier; to whom the social chaos and unrest eventual terrorist actions admitted in foreign lands will profit.
This is the type of topic that parties can eventually use to provoke, to deviate the population’s attention from hard to win issues or provoke an outcry in favor of their political view and hidden agendas. Therefore, presenting this and many others as an issue; is time wasted.
This comment needs an elaboration: Most formulated issue falls along perceived ideological lines, so voters can easily identify which party stands where on an issue. Because it is perceived ideology; backed up by the mainstream media that they sponsor, parties can amplify an issue and use it as a wedge to deviate the electorate mind from hard to win issues. They use the wedge to trigger the population’s emotions and trap them in an emotional debate or they can use them as a calculated squeeze of lighter fluid to inflame a certain situation in their advantage.
Helped by the mainstream media, these shifts being classic tactic during campaign are distraction to purposefully drag people’s attention away from a complicated issue, like the state of our economy, to one that entrenches them in a debate perceived by the voters as an issue attached to their core values, like wearing of the Niqab during the Canadian citizenship ceremony, making it an emotional one; deviating them from their main concern.
The idea behind such a tactic is to force voters into one camp or another; forgetting everything else. Unfortunately, time after time; people fall into the trap of discussions that lead them away from the real issues, away from the unspoken debates. Many of the issues listed here, like abortion, can easily fall in those categories; and used as a proxy debate for the much deeper and larger untold issue of a religious state versus a secular one.
In their political chess game Government or political parties, are constantly treating most voters as dumb and braindead pawns. With the manipulative game, they reduce them to think a certain way, their way; just to put a check in the ‘right’ square, during election day; then, they remove them from the chessboard, until next election time/game.
We, the Kingdom Political Party of Canada resent and will not use tactics to pit Canadians against each other on the emotional level. We refuse to be engaged in cheap political ploys used to engage people in needless arguments and vote based on issues purposefully used to trigger their emotions.
Come what may, we will have a clear stand on the issues. Even if our position is controversial; we will not play mind games, word game or avoidance games to confound or distract the voters. We will bring in the forefront the untold, the hidden, and expose the hidden things. We will bring them to the table, so people can cast their votes based on the right information and truth. The time of manipulation and mind game is over. Transparency is not an option; it is a must; it is respect towards each citizen. If politic is a game, as it seemed to be, come what may, we will play the transparency game.
Should there be a temporary ban on all immigration into the country? No. The keyword here is all.
Should immigrants be required to pass a citizenship test to demonstrate a basic understanding of our country’s language, history, and government? Yes.
Should the government enact a stricter immigration policy? Yes. The present laxisme where everything goes for political gain is intolerable.
Should immigrants be required to learn English? Yes, and French. We are a bilingual country.
Should sanctuary cities receive federal funding? Since our system has failed to prevent the entry of those in need of the service of a sanctuary city, unfortunately, it becomes our responsibility to help them. Therefore, our response is yes. Those cities should receive funds from the government, only if the city is situated in a remote area.
Our position is to declare a remote city sanctuary, to remove a burden on over-populated cities. If upon arrival or shortly after, the undocumented residents are directed and located in those remote areas; as the Government gives those cities funds to establish a type of Integration boot camp to help them quickly become assets for the City and Canada. As everything in that ‘boot camp’ is designed they will become a big workforce to expand the development of that city. Those people who made it and entered the country, without paper is an innovative, creative, determined, a moving forward, a thinker type of person; who saw the opportunity by reaching our country and, bring fresh and new idea, determination, that can solve the problem of lack of workers in certain remote areas.
So far, the sanctuary cities, like Toronto, and those who are considering becoming one, like Ottawa are big cities who have the financial capacity to take care of those we have allowed crossing our borders, without documentation; so no funding should be allowed.
Should immigrants be allowed to hold dual citizenship status? No.
Should the government increase or decrease the number of temporary work visas given to high-skilled immigrant workers? The view that the Canadian economy relies on businesses hiring the highest skilled workers at the lowest cost is good for our economy, but it is not in favor of Canadians. We say Canadians First; instead of increasing we should inject money, time and effort to develop Canadians to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to occupy these positions. If we had done this a decade ago; this wouldn’t be an issue today. We will do it; so, it won’t be an issue a decade later.
Should the government increase or decrease the amount of temporary foreign workers allowed into Canada? Decrease.
Should the government increase environmental regulations on businesses to reduce carbon emissions? No, businesses are already over-regulated. It should, instead, enforce existing regulations; while providing more incentives to research and/or convert to alternative energy production.
Should the federal government subsidize the production and consumption of renewable energy sources? Yes.
Should disposable products (such as plastic cups, plates, and cutlery) that contain less than 50% of biodegradable material be banned? Yes. And ban all disposable products that are not made of 75% of biodegradable material and legislate the reduction in packaging of items consumers buys.
Should researchers be allowed to use animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics? No.
Should the government allow TransCanada to expropriate private property for the construction of the Keystone pipeline? The formulation of this actual issue makes it fall in the category of emotions-trigger. It is dishonest to formulate it this way, using the angle of expropriation to manipulate voters by engaging on an emotional level so they can vote against the party that approves the project.
To better explain why this formulation is far from the real issue; I refer all to read the article in italic below written by Brian Zinchuk, titled: Build the pipeline.
In order to stop justify the stop of the project this present government, is entirely working is presenting it as an issue of private property being expropriated; when, in reality, the real issue is that some high instances and behind the scenes players have been working at bankrupting Canada, for their own gain, and are opposing the emergence of America, as a continent, to be energy independent; doing everything in their power to keep the monopole overseas and make us an eternal import continent.
The truth of the matter is, no matter what, the wells of the OPEC nations will go dry and their finances too. That’s why they must spend all that money while they have it. They are going to have to literally go to Israel and America continent to get their energy; which will be a slap in their face. America as a continent and Israel are going to be the number one energy producers in the world. It will explode. It will be dynamic. Canada will be energy independent. We will not be an import nation but an export one. It will affect our debt; it will go away. The new energy thing is going to be huge. As far as our economy goes; it’s going to soar through the roof. It’s going to be a Sevenfold return back to us. Just the energy alone will create a big huge energy boom.
The government tree sucking the life out of our beloved nation will be uprooted. It cannot keep doing this to our country; bankrupting it, destroying it. No more! We overturn it. We are releasing the power of the Holy Ghost and you are getting out! As this government is out: Harvest blessing, turn around, transformation will take place. Iron steel will flow, the mineral in the ground will begin to surface, prosperity will occur. Our country will arise, from the deficit and debt and become great again.
All that said, our response is: Yes. The private land should be expropriated, as soon as the owners receive high price and above for their portion of land.
THIS FOLLOWING ARTICLE EXPLAINS BETTER OUR POSITION
Build the pipeline – but which one?
A primer on which pipelines are in play, or should be, and why each is important
Brian Zinchuk / Pipeline News
MARCH 26, 2019 04:21 PM
By now, nearly all of Enbridge's Line 3 Replacement is in the ground, as seen here near Vibank last fall. But the Minnesota portion has now been delayed by almost a year.
Photo By BRIAN ZINCHUK
In recent months, I’ve seen a heartwarming display of support for the oil-patch boil over and start to make some noise. One of the common phrases is “build the pipeline!” Another is “We support the pipeline!”
But which pipeline? Most people really don’t know. So, here’s a primer for you.
First of all, it’s not one pipeline. There are actually five export oil pipelines at issue. One’s mostly built, one is in purgatory, two have been cancelled (but should be reborn and built) and the last, we own, but haven’t yet built.
Enbridge Line 3 Replacement
The first is the Enbridge Line 3 Replacement. This project is pretty much all done in Canada, with some of the last work in Saskatchewan happening south of Moosomin this past winter. You would think it’s ready to put into service, but that’s not the case. Opposition in Minnesota has meant that permits to build that portion won’t be issued until this November, pushing back the project a full year. It was supposed to be in service in later 2019, and now that’s going to be later 2020, at best.
Line 3 Replacement replaces the one problematic pipeline in the Enbridge mainline system that has required the most maintenance.
The next one is the Keystone XL pipeline. It was kyboshed by President Barrack Obama but revived by President Donald Trump the same week he took office. It looked like it was finally going to start construction last year when a Montana court ordered it be reviewed, again, on an environmental basis. As of mid-March, TransCanada was expecting construction to be delayed yet another year, as it would likely lose this year’s construction season.
Some people have said no Saskatchewan oil would flow on Keystone XL. I strongly disagree. Most of the production from northwest Saskatchewan that is not refined in Lloydminster ends up being pipelined by the Husky mainline to Hardisty, Alta., Canada’s oil hub. That’s where the Enbridge mainline, and Keystone pipeline originate. There is no reason that I know of that oil from a thermal plant at Edam, piped to Lloydminster, then Hardisty, could not find its way into Keystone XL.
Both of these pipelines would allow Canada to ship more oil to the U.S. That’s good, but it does not allow us to ship to new markets. Anything going in those new lines would still be at the mercy of American, and only American, oil markets.
The next two, the dead ones, are dead precisely because of the policies of the Justin Trudeau-led federal Liberal government.
The next pipeline is Energy East. For Saskatchewan, this pipeline is/was the most important. Right now, every drop of oil produced in Southeast Saskatchewan that does not go by rail is shipped by TEML to the Enbridge Mainline terminal at Cromer, Man. via the 16-inch Westspur line. Very little, if any, goes by rail these days.
Energy East included a planned 71 kilometre, 16-inch pipeline called the Cromer Lateral that would have allowed as much as 100 per cent of southeast Saskatchewan’s oil to be shipped on Energy East instead of the Enbridge Mainline. That meant, instead of being locked into shipping that oil into the American Midwest or southern Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba producers could have used the Cromer Lateral and Energy East to sell their oil to refineries in Montreal, Quebec City or Saint John, New Brunswick.
The Irving Refinery at Saint John is the largest refinery in Canada, and it currently accepts its oil principally by tanker, but can also receive it by rail. Those tankers come from places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Azerbaijan, and the United States.
Energy East would have started at Hardisty. Its capacity would have been 1.1 million barrels per day. Thus, most of its oil would have come from Alberta. But some of it could have come from northwest Saskatchewan, for the same reasons I explained for Keystone XL.
In addition to supplying Montreal, Quebec and Saint John refineries, displacing foreign oil, Energy East would have allowed us to export oil, on our own tankers, to foreign markets like Europe. Energy East was supposed to have been in service by 2018. It’s 2019. All the arguments about Northern Gateway being in service by now, and the impact on differentials, also apply to Energy East. If Energy East had been working by now, Western Canada would not have lost billions of dollars this last winter. Those are billions we will never get back.
One more thing on Energy East – it would have made Canada energy independent. If the rest of the world decided to not sell us oil, we would be just fine. That is not the case now. Without foreign oil, Eastern Canada would be walking.
Energy East was killed when the Trudeau government “moved the goalposts” on the environmental assessment for the project – adding greenhouse gas emissions for the oil it would have carried into consideration. At that point, TransCanada threw its hands up and gave up, after spending a billion dollars to get to this point. Bill C-68 will change the way pipelines have been assessed for generations, a system that, up until the last decade, worked just fine, thank you.
Northern Gateway was approved, with conditions (as they all have). A B.C. court quashed that approval, calling for additional consultation with First Nations, the same process that is currently happening with the Trans Mountain Expansion.
Northern Gateway was supposed to be built by 2018. That’s important, because as it was an outlet to Asian markets, it would have allowed Canada to take advantage of typically higher oil prices compared to WTI. Our bitumen and heavy oil typically trade at a differential (i.e. lower) price to WTI. This past winter, those differentials became extreme, to the point where it was a discount of over $45 a barrel. We were essentially giving our oil away because we had nowhere else, we could sell it. If Northern Gateway had been in service, as it was supposed to have been, Alberta would not have lost billions of dollars, and Saskatchewan, hundreds of millions, in the last year, as a result.
Northern Gateway was killed when Trudeau declared that the Kitimat region of British Columbia, which only in recent years has been dubbed the “Great Bear Rainforest,” was no place for a pipeline. One of his first acts as prime minister was to order his transport minister to ban tankers off the northern B.C. coast. Bill C-48 is the implementation of that ban. This bill bans oil exports off northern B.C. but does nothing about oil imports on the east coast. More on that later.
Trans Mountain Expansion
The last pipeline in play is the Trans Mountain Expansion. This would twin an existing 65-year-old pipeline and add 590,000 bpd in capacity, principally for export. While some of that oil might end up going to California, the real prize is overseas exports for all the above reasons – we are no longer captive to the American market, and can sell our oil based on the usually higher Brent price, instead of a discounted differential to the lower WTI price.
Why they matter
Now, why is it so important to be able to sell our oil overseas, when we currently sell almost every drop of oil we don’t use ourselves to the Americans?
It’s because the Americans may not need us much longer.
When I started writing for Pipeline News nearly 11 years ago, North Dakota was producing 150,000 bpd, and Saskatchewan was producing 425,000 bpd. Now Saskatchewan produces 485,000 bpd, and North Dakota produces 1.4 million bpd, on their way to 2 million bpd in a few short years.
Since January 2010, Texas has added over 3.8 million barrels per day, going from 1.1 million bpd to 4.9 million bpd. Let me put that into perspective for you. Canada, as a whole – oilsands, Hibernia, Bakken, Weyburn – everything, produces about 4.2 million bpd, and we’re one of the largest oil producers in the world, accounting for 4 per cent of global production. Texas added the equivalent of nearly all of Canada in less than a decade, and they’re not stopping, either.
American production is currently 11.9 million bpd. It is expected to average 13 million bpd in 2020, adding the equivalent of two Saskatchewan’s worth of production in that time.
Current projections are seeing the United States reaching energy independence status by 2020. The U.S. Energy Information Administration just forecast America will become a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products on a monthly basis later in 2019 and on an annual basis in 2020.
That means that, theoretically, they won’t need our oil. But they are buying it. Why? Because they buy our oil at a discount, and now export their own oil and refined products at world price.
One thing Canada has discovered is that, with the exception of approving Keystone XL, President Donald Trump has proven to not be Canada’s friend on trade. Look at the tariffs he imposed on Canadian steel and aluminum. And he claimed it was on a national security basis!
So what happens when the U.S. is producing so much oil, it decides it really doesn’t need our oil anymore? What if Trump decides getting our oil on the cheap isn’t enough, but he wants to impose a tariff on it, too, just because he feels like it? What do we do then?
We have no options. Zero. Today, because of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s policies, we cannot export our oil overseas except for a very small volume via the existing Trans Mountain pipeline. We’re stuck, completely and utterly. If Northern Gateway and Energy East had been built and in service by now, we would have enough capacity to theoretically export up to 1.6 million bpd (assuming all of Energy East’s capacity was used for export instead of supplying Canadian refineries). With Trans Mountain, that number would be 2.3 million bpd. But right now, we have next to nothing for export capacity.
Oil is the lifeblood of Canada’s economy. Oil is what makes the federal equalization program possible. And that pays for things like hospitals and schools. If we can’t sell our oil, what will happen to us?
That, my friends, is why building export pipelines – plural – is so important. We need Trans Mountain Expansion, Northern Gateway and Energy East, and we need them yesterday, which happens to be when they were supposed to be in service in the first place.
Brian Zinchuk is editor of Pipeline News. He can be reached at email@example.com.
Should Canada allow the logging of old growth forests? Yes.
Do we support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources? In addition to air and water pollution, fracking also increases the potential for oil spills, which can harm the soil and surrounding vegetation. Fracking may cause earthquakes due to the high pressure used to extract oil and gas from rock and the storage of excess wastewater on site. Therefore, our answer is: No.
Do you support the use of genetically engineered crops and foods? No. God created everything perfect. Over the centuries, our practices have created unbalances at every level; throughout the alimentation chain. We believe that the disadvantages of the GMO use to regulate the lacks created by those unbalanced, can create interactions at the cellular level that could create unforeseen complications to future crop growth; where even the benefits of genetically modified foods may not outweigh the problems that they cause.
Do you support the Northern Gateway pipeline project? Yes, Enbridge has a poor history of pipeline installations? We the Kingdom party are in favor of the Northern Gateway pipeline project. Some reports about it are so diametrically opposed, that we will make it a priority to research those concerns, (those above and those of the aboriginal nations, as well as the public in general). We will find a common ground and propose the best solutions; that will make it successful project, a model to emulate. A project that will bring utmost satisfaction to all.
Should cities be allowed to offer private companies economic incentives to relocate? No.
When businesses can boost the local economy, they use that as leverage. They even play cities off one another like an individual planning to buy a car will play two dealerships off one another. As soon as one city offers five years of tax abatement, a business will go to other cities seeking ten years.
When added up over time, providing tax incentives is bad for taxpayers, but in individual situations, cities will compete with each other. When the cities are located in different province, officials may lend a hand in attracting a business. As long as cities are willing to play the game, businesses will keep seeking tax incentives for activities they would likely do without any assistance from local government.
Should the government break up Amazon, Facebook and Google? Yes. Monopolies are not good for anyone except the monopolists. Some propose to regulate them, but this would put government in the impossible position of policing content and overseeing products and services. The better alternative is to break them up; that way, more start-ups can flourish.
Should the government raise taxes on the rich? Yes. But we consider an abject practice, when the government in power, pressured by behind the scenes players, paralyze certain sector of the economy, like the energy sector, who could create an economic boom; then when the party in power needs money the plan is to put its hand in the pocket of the rich or to raise the taxes, to impose a new one or to do cuts in everything they can think of; except their salaries and their lavish expenses, obviously.
Should the government raise the federal minimum wage? For the reasons stipulate below, our response is No. At the same time, we cannot say indefinitely no, when people are struggling to meet end needs, as the cost of living is increasing. Our position is no; until after concertation, we find the best solutions to increase the minimum wage as high as we can; without jeopardizing the access to employment, the cost of the products, and other issue that the hike can create.
According to economists, the higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment. The survey below even though it was conducted in the USA, it is a good barometer to show the concern of the economists, if the minimum wage is boosted to 15$ per hour.
Nearly three-quarters of the US-based economists oppose a federal minimum wage of $15.00 per hour.
The majority of surveyed economists believe a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have negative effects on youth employment levels (83%), adult employment levels (52%), and the number of jobs available (76%).
When economists were asked what effect a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on the skill level of entry-level positions, 8 out of 10 economists (80%) believe employers will hire entry-level positions with greater skills.
When economists were asked what effect a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on small businesses with fewer than 50 employees, nearly 7 out of 10 economists (67%) believe it would make it harder for them to stay in business.
A majority of surveyed economists (71%) believe that the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a very efficient way to address the income needs of poor families; only five percent believe a $15.00 per hour minimum wage would be very efficient.
The economists surveyed are divided on the impact a $15.00 per hour minimum wage will have on poverty rates, as well as the impact it would have on the spending level for public programs such as the EITC, TANF, or others.
At lower levels (under $11.00 per hour) of proposed federal minimum wages, economists are divided largely by self-identified party identification as to an acceptable rate with a majority of Republicans and Independents who responded favoring lower minimum wages ($7.50 per hour or less) and a plurality of Democrats who responded preferring a minimum wage between $10.00 and $10.50 per hour.
Should welfare recipients be tested for drugs? Yes. And test anyone receiving money from the government including employees and politicians.
Do you support a universal basic income program? No. In Ontario's Basic Income Pilot Project started in 2017, 4,000 people received about $150,000,000 per year, in monthly installments. According to the CBC, "Single participants received up to $16,989 a year while couples received up to $24,027, less 50 percent of any earned income." But last summer, Ontario also announced it would end the program that gave money to people in low-paying jobs—instead of welfare benefits—after the government found it was “not sustainable” and “expensive.” In other part of the world, other countries like Finland tested the program in 2017, giving 560 Euros ($584) to 2,000 unemployed Finnish citizens per month, with no requirement to find a paying job. By 2019, Finland scrapped the program entirely. We should focus more on basis rights, such as housing, food, and a livable wage than universal basic income.
Should the government raise or lower the tax rate for corporations? Lower; but eliminate deductions and loopholes.
Should Canada pursue free trade deals with other countries? No, past free trade deals have been unfair to our citizens.
Should the federal government subsidize universal child care? No.
Should the U.S. continue to participate in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? No, but we should adopt a unilateral free trade policy.
Should the government make cuts to public spending in order to reduce the national debt? Yes.
Do you believe labor unions help or hurt the economy? Help. But ban their ability to make political donation.
Should there be fewer or more restrictions on current welfare benefits. More.
Should the pensions of retired workers be taxed? No.
Should the government provide tax incentives to private companies to keep jobs within the country? No.
Should the government use economic stimulus to aid the country during times of recession? Yes. In the form of assisting sectors most heavily hit by the recession.
Should old age pensions be increased? Yes, but only for low income pensioners.
Should bankers’ bonuses be capped at 100% of their pay? Yes.
Do you support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)? No. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), also called the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (CPTPP), could not enter into force after the United States withdrew its signature. The remaining nations negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership which incorporates most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018. Therefore, we cannot still talk about the TPP, but about the CPTPP. There are to many hidden provisions in it.
Should citizens be allowed to save or invest their money in offshore bank accounts? Yes. As long as they report their offshore income.
Do you support income splitting for families? Yes. Income splitting can be formally transfer from a family member to a lower-taxed family member to reduce the overall tax burden of the family; but, we should cap the maximum benefit at $2k.
Should employment insurance be given to those who work seasonal jobs including tourism, fishery and farming? No. Instead provide training and job placement assistance into non-seasonal jobs.
Should the government add or increase tariffs on products imported into the country? Yes. Should pension payments be increased for retired government workers. Yes. For government workers, not politicians.
Should the employee contribution rate for the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) be raised above its current 4.49% rate? Yes. Allow employees the option to contribute an additional 5%-10%. Higher premiums could be used to reinvest in the economy and reduce the government’s liability to fund payments to seniors.
Should the government classify Bitcoin as a legal currency? No. it should be classified as a commodity.
Canada switch to a proportional representation voting system. Yes.
Should foreigners, currently residing in the United States, have the right to vote? No. This is absolute nonsense. You leave us, for better somewhere else and you want to have a say in what is going on back home. No way?
Should a politician, who has been formerly convicted of a crime, be allowed to run for office? No.
Should the minimum voting age be lowered? No.
Should corporations, unions, and non-profit organizations be allowed to donate to political parties? No, campaigns should be funded by the public.
Should political parties receive money from the government. No.
Should term limits be set for the role of Prime Minister? Yes; maximum three terms.
Should there be a limit to the amount of money a candidate can receive from a donor? Yes, to prevent them to be bought by wealthy donors.
Should political candidates be required to release their recent tax returns to the public? No. If not for voyeurism and busy body themselves in people's affair; in what it is the public concern?
Should the federal government put a cap on university tuition rates? No, tuition costs should be tied to inflation.
Should postsecondary education be a provincial or federal responsibility? Provincially managed, but with federal standards to ensure consistency.
Do you support charter schools? Yes. It is putting and end to the conformity of the public school system.
Charter Schools in Canada
Alberta is the only province with charter schools, having adopted charter legislation in 1994 in order to provide greater innovation, increased educational opportunities, and permit more parental choice. These schools cannot deny access to students as long as space is available, they cannot have a religious affiliation, they must require students to write provincial examinations, they may exist in present school buildings, they must employ certified teachers, and they are subject to annual audits. They operate under multi-year agreements between the Minister of Education and non-profit societies that specify the schools' focus and expected outcomes. Enrolment totals about 7500 in 13 charter schools. Eighty-three percent of the students are in Calgary (6 schools), 11 % in Edmonton (3 schools), and the balance in smaller communities. The number of charter schools is capped at 15. Of these, two schools are for gifted youth, two offer traditional models of direct instruction, two are arts schools (including one devoted to the Suzuki method of musical instruction), one offers a progressive model of integrated, project-based learning, and the remainder focus on special populations: at risk-youth, Aboriginal youth, girls, rural students, and English language learners. Current schools are successful and have waiting lists, and they have exhibited the level of innovative leadership that had been expected. Some school districts, in response to real or anticipated competition from charter schools, have created theme-focused schools offering more choice than was common in the past. Edmonton is a leader in this portfolio approach to operating a large district with site-based management of diverse types of schools.
Alberta Charters vs. US Charters
Alberta's model is quite restrictive in the numbers and operation of charter schools compared to what is allowed in the 40 US states with charter laws. It is similar to the state of New Jersey in that charters are limited in number and closely regulated. Such schools tend to demonstrate superior performance. Other states, such as Michigan and Arizona, have no limits on charters, loosely regulate them, and allow them to be operated by for-profit companies called educational management organizations. Their outcomes are sometimes excellent, but usually no better than or even worse than district schools. The Obama administration made lifting caps on the number of charter schools and converting poor performing district schools into charter schools the centrepiece of its "Race to the Top" educational policy in 2009. Yet, international comparisons demonstrate Canadian students, and Alberta students in particular, are among the highest performing in the world, whereas US students are typically in the lower half of the distribution. US online charter schools have been targeted for criticism in that some, though nominally non-profit, contract for virtually all services with for-profit companies that pay top management salaries exceeding $1 million. Careful analysis of the US literature supports the Alberta model in terms of academic outcomes and fiscal propriety.
Do you support the use of nuclear energy? No.
Here an article about the Pros and Cons:
Should prisoners serving life sentences for first degree murder be eligible for a parole hearing after 15 years? Yes. They should be eligible for a parole hearing after 7 years (an extrapolation of the seven-year biblical rule) after they go through a strict psychological evaluation, to make sure they are no longer a threat to society. If they fail it, they will have the right to repeat it every 7 years after that.
A seven-year window to change brings hope. When you know you have seven years to change, to prove and demonstrate it; you will work hard at it. Longer years to be eligible for parole bring despair and discouragement.
For this 7 years window to be a success, we will develop and implement in the prison system programs we will call. ‘Transforming Life @ Pen-Bootcamp’ with revival nights, coupled with mandatory workshops about spirituality, personal development, business, job creation, finance, budget, real estate, courtship, parenthood… During those 7 years It will be mandatory for them to receive an academic formation, up to a degree. Those who have a degree will work towards a second one or a Master or a Doctorate.
We will be committed to this, because we believe in salvation, in turn around, in redemption and transformation.
Should the government hire private companies to run prisons? No.
Should drug traffickers receive the death penalty? Kidding me? Meaning those selling guns, those poisoning our food with chemicals etc. should also receive death penalty. Our answer is for sure, No! Why should we? Kill the bottom line, by pure hypocrisy and leaving alive the top behind the traffics. Those type of issues and debate an issue that will be used as edge; to cover the real hidden issues.
Should convicted criminals have the right to vote? If after a crime they seize to have the right to be a Canadian, the answer is: No; but if they are still Canadian Citizen after a crime, they answer is: Yes.
Should non-violent prisoners be released from jail in order to reduce overcrowding. No. Before they are totally released, they should be transitioned from our TLife @ Pen-Bootcamp’; which will be mandatory for all inmate (no matter the nature of crime and the length of their sentence) to an off-prison-site program called ‘Transforming Life @ Secured-Residential-Bootcamp’ to complete the program of the Pen-Bootcamp; then transition to a ‘Transforming Life @ House-Bootcamp’ where, through a 7 steps program, they will be raised to live a successful life-after-prison and become skillful employers, entrepreneurs and great leaders in their household and in society.
Should the government increase spending on public transportation? Yes.
Should the government permit the use of drones for commercial purposes? Yes.
Should laptops be banned on all direct flights departing from the Middle East? No.