u/DryAlternative1132

Recently while watching the Toronto Raptors implode in the 3rd quarter of Game 7, I came upon Doug Ford's ad campaign to "Protect Ontario".

According to publicly available information, Ontario is losing 319 acres of farmland a day, which is 116,000 acres a year, or 1.16 million acres in 10 years.

Previously, I showed math which indicates that Ontario is already in a state of caloric deficit by 12 trillion calories a year after biofuel ethanol requirements which divert corn from the food supply are accounted for.

----------------

The math is as follows:

Of 12 Trillion calories consumed 3 trillion are meat and 9 trillion are vegetables. The 3 trillion meat calories require 10x the grain inputs. Therefore food calories are 9 trillion primary + 3 x 10 trillion secondary = 39 trillion.

Furthermore, biofuel requirements are 34 trillion calories. This adds to 74 trillion, whereas 65 trillion calories is Ontario's food production based on estimates of planted area and average crop yield of soya bean and corn.

This points to a 9 trillion caloric deficit, however, publicly available information, my estimates based on farm production alone are conservative. That a total of 12 trillion calories of biofuels are being structurally imported by Ontario as follows:

The "12 Trillion Calorie" Calculation

The 12 trillion calorie figure is derived from the volume of ethanol Ontario must import to meet its provincial mandates. As of 2025, Ontario's renewable content mandate for gasoline is increasing toward 15%. Import Volume: Canada's ethanol imports reached a record 3 billion litres (approx. 792 million gallons) in 2025. Ontario typically accounts for roughly 40-45% of Canada's total gasoline pool and associated imports. This places Ontario's "structural" import at roughly 1.2 to 1.35 billion litres annually.Caloric Conversion:Caloric value of ethanol: Approximately 5,900 calories per litre (based on a value of roughly 5.9 kcal/ml or 7,000 cal/g) yields 7.96 trillion calories (of deficit).

Total Structural Dependency: When factoring in biodiesel and renewable diesel imports (which have higher caloric densities than ethanol), the total caloric value of imported biofuels easily reaches the 12 trillion threshold. For example, Canada consumed 1.2 billion litres of renewable diesel and 530 million litres of biodiesel in 2023, a significant portion of which is imported to meet Ontario’s 4-5% diesel blending requirements.

Taking 1.2 billion + 530 million = 1.73 billion liters of biodiesel. 40% of this being used by Ontario yields 692 million liters. This has an approximate caloric value of: 5.6 trillion calories.

7.96 trillion of ethanol + 5.6 trillion of biodiesel = 13.56 trillion, however, for a conservative estimate the figures were rounded down: 7 + 5 = 12 trillion calories.

----------------

This structural dependency that Ontario faces shows up in the imports of biofuels.

If we extrapolate the policies of Doug Ford, we will find that the sprawl model they are seeking to institutionalize will lead to the permanent destruction of Ontario's food security. That's not protecting Ontario, which is why I'm suggesting this advertising is misleading.

Recall the lessons of the pandemic. When PPE was in short supply the P95 masks were put on export control lists. When vaccines were in short supply a similar situation unfolded.

All of Canada's food surplus is now permanently dependent upon the prairie provinces - and there is a problem with that. Namely examination of history shows that weather events, drought, or even forest fires like those that impacted Ford McMurray as recently as 2015 can create regional disruption. Still further back, the 1930s Dust Bowl significantly impacted Western food production from drought.

Canada's national security depends on maintaining systemic capacity in each Province and therefore a cascade of resilience against various types of challenges, not a single point of failure as the current model being recklessly prosecuted.

The current problems in the world show that food supply disruption need not be complete. Even 10-20% reduction in food production due to a confluence of events like weather, war, or even a pandemic impacting crops could sufficiently degrade global output as to create significant price increases and also cause countries to potentially introduce export controls or restrictions.

Even without such an adverse event, recently going to the grocery store, I noted that the locally produced food was half the price of the food transported from long distances. As gas prices have climbed, the costs of shipping and fulfillment are similarly increased.

Canadians are already contending with price inflation and the policies of Doug Ford are making it worse. The fall update by the Government of Canada showed elevated rates of food inflation at 4% - well above a healthy threshold.

Another point to note is that there appears to be a systematic neglect of rooftop solar based policy options for power generation across Canada. I have math that shows were the tariffs dropped on solar panels, along with HST, home owners could install roof top solar for the lowest price of any other electricity source. Were 75% of houses in Canada converted, it would generate around 10 Gigawatts of power, equal to 6 nuclear reactors of 1.5 Gigawatt scale, for a much lower price, and without any nuclear waste to store or manage in the long term.

For whatever reason, the politicians don't want consumers generating their own solar and being grid independent. Is it the WEF's edict: you will own nothing and be happy.

Some of you may be quick to dismiss this as a conspiracy theory, but we must consider the corporate agenda, which is seeking serfs not citizens.

The more dependent we are on centralized services, then these utilities can be monetized. If we become independent then in giving the power back to the people, that entire model of creating a structurally dependent society and electorate is undermined.

The people of Ontario must consider to what extent they want to continue to believe this misleading marketing of Doug Ford, where our food, power, education, health care, and infrastructure is creaking at the seams, the author of the calamity is reinventing themselves as our "saviour".

Recently we have heard a lot of commentary about BC property rights and Prime Minister Mark Carney was the latest to "fundamentally disagree" with the Court of BC during Question Period in Parliament.

Now it is true that there is such a thing as Parliamentary privilege meaning an MP has "absolute immunity" from anything said in Parliament in terms of civil liability or prosecution.

However, that doesn't mean it's appropriate to say.

As the matter is headed to the Supreme Court with a different decision at the Court in New Brunswick, it's highly dubious for the Prime Minister to make such a statement, as it raises questions about judicial independence.

Even if Mr. Poilievre is using this as a political football, this only proves his own challenges on this front. Namely he has already said he will "steamroll" the indigenous peoples of British Columbia to get his way if ever elected Prime Minister in the context of getting a pipeline to tidewater.

Unfortunately, the Courts stand in the way, and once the lawsuits start, Mr. Poilievre will be neck deep in the quagmire from which he cannot escape under Section 35.

No proponent will come forward. Every investor will run for the hills.

That is to say, were I running for Prime Minister, I would say unequivocally that in this day and age we will find a solution with the consent of our indigenous partners and it may not be 100% consent but not only substantial consent but also much accommodation of any that might disagree, with consent being of equal importance as the technical parameters and the economics.

And by such accommodation we don't only imply a superficial trail of paperwork, but equity and dividends thereof, ongoing participation in regulation by appointing some qualified experts with a transparent mandate concerning indigenous interests in any SEZ regulatory body so established that needs indigenous participation for the right of way.

Of course, if we don't have a business case and the matter is not technically feasible the negotiation is moot. But inside of feasibility, consent is a real and genuine requirement, and the need to bargain in good faith to establish trust - a matter of paramount importance.

The questions of law are very complex. And a survey of the National Post's comments section appeared to show 99% of the comments had no complete understanding of the evolution of Section 35 law. In fact, I didn't find a single accurate comment at a glance.

I don't claim to have such a complete understanding but deep research into the matter of case law precedents in Section 35 and not just the commonly known ones, qualifies me to have perhaps a little more than average knowledge.

Our opinions may be expressed from the perspective of what is convenient or expedient, but the law is based on the chain of provenance and the fair and just resolution inside of a chain of logic which according to English common law system can develop; and through such development interprets the law in a modern context.

The Prime Minister's opinions are particularly problematic as it appears to put pressure on judicial independence for a prejudged outcome. The judiciary is an important check on official power. Furthermore, it should be recognized that judges can't defend themselves publicly.

Therefore, they are a soft target who can only answer with silence and their verdict speaks for itself - which most have not read.

It's not fair for the Prime Minister to fail to recognize that a matter likely headed to the Supreme Court could be perceived to have a prejudicial impact by such opinions, particularly as the federal government is a defendant in the Cowichan Tribes decision.

That means he is not an unbiased third party but rather the federal Crown is defendant in the matter.

I must emphasize that the Crown as a defendant does not render the verdict. The Court renders the verdict on the weight and balance of the evidence, the chain of provenance in the rule of law, the attendant logic, and the pertinent facts of the case, whereas plaintiffs and defendants - the Crown included - plead their case.

Therefore, I must stand with the judges that the Courts have independence and while we can all plead our case, the Courts and the forum of adjudication should be fair and free of bias or political pressure to rule on the merits of the law.

Section 35 law is created exactly so, that whatever rights and obligations were conferred through title and treaty, would be the purview of the Courts to determine. That is to say, these legal contracts and their modern interpretation between the Crown and the aboriginal peoples of Canada, are the purview of the Courts to adjudicate.

Whether we agree or disagree, fundamentally or otherwise, that is the law and it must be given its space to operate. I have not seen anything in cases I've read that the law was unfair. It seemed to be finding a balance between interests and recognizing the rights that were there.

For example, there might be a small community and their economic might is limited but the impact to them significant. The Court sees not just economics but also the rights of people and responsibilities that attach from the exercise of power.

We may want to think if we are ever in that position of being the one who is weak or powerless, whether we want to disenfranchise the Court that gives us a fair and equitable chance to plead our case.

To be a great country, it's not just economics, it's also about our rights, that an ordinary citizen has a fair chance to defend themselves or to have their say in Court on the merits, if they can understand the language and logic of the law and use it to empower themselves.

The notion that the same goods in a store can be priced differently for two different people smacks of discrimination, especially if that information is consumer data that is in itself should be highly privileged personal information.

Unless it is a lender, mortgage broker, or employer with a legitimate reason for checking credit and consumer information, other companies should be prohibited from collecting, collating, and sharing such personal information about consumers.

For example, a grocery store has no right to use or access your personal credit or consumer information especially from third party sources, but may rely on information like its own loyalty programs that the store has allowed consumers to opt-in for or are part of its standard policies.

Otheriwse, you are an anonymous consumer who has paid legitimately for this purchase and that purchase price should be clearly known, standardized, and non-discriminatory.

Especially after the Canada Bread price fixing scandal, big business in Canada cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own. It is clear there is need for high regulatory scrutiny to get all businesses back on the straight and narrow path from whence they appear to be increasingly diverging.

Putting a stop to this evolving notion of entrenched price discrimination should be viewed in light of the high consolidation that has taken place in several sectors that breaches anti-trust oversight prerogatives.

Conglomerates and large businesses that are collating such data across brands also adds concerns and should lead to increased scrutiny of corporate practices.

That is to say many of these sectors may need to see regulators forcing divestitures as subsequent governments have been asleep at the switch on consumer rights.

As a consumer concerned about the imbalanced operation of market forces in an ostensibly democratic society, it is necessary that transparency and competition be brought to bear to liberate consumers from unfair pricing and price gouging.

18% VAT. For Canadians struggling with an unaffordability crisis the massive costs of the EU's bureaucracy should be a pause for reflection.

The other challenge is the massive regulatory nightmare that would likely be incompatible with CUSMA putting Canada in a compliance straightjacket.

Not only would our sovereignty disappear but we would be funding Eurocentric statist ideas which run counter to the grain of our natural libertarian values as a pioneer society.

From prehistory with our Indigenous peoples, to the old stock pioneers, who braved the uncharted wilderness, to our modern new stock demographic braving the urban jungle, we Canadians are a society built of self sufficiency, personal liberty, individual autonomy, that is founded in the Constitutional rule of law with His Majesty the King as the Head of State through the Governor General.

Our Constitution and framework of law confers the power to both act as an inclusive consultative democracy, while also creating efficiency, should but our elected officials seize the opportunity to demonstrate the pragmatism necessary to capitalize on the tremendous opportunities our nation offers.

There is little benefit in being tethered to the EU, which with all due respect has tremendous benefits to the people of Europe, but not necessarily the same compatibility for the Canadian system of law.

As a major oil and gas exporter, the EU's unnecessary carbon activism acts as an impediment to our ends. Furthermore, having still more elected politicians to fund in now joining the EU parliament, and the EU Court of justice would confer additional costs on the beleaguered Canadian taxpayer.

With our global access, Arctic, Pacific, and Atlantic geostrategic competencies, Canada has all the key precursors to be a strong economy. Further incompatible regulatory frameworks will detract from our independence and not materially confer any advantage in either market access or efficiency.

While there is much to admire in the EU, we must remember that Canada is fully and completely situated in North America. Although the current relationship with our American brethren to the South is facing some headwinds, there is reason to believe it will be resuscitated in good time.

As I have often said, politics may change but geography does not. Canadians will continue to live a stone's throw from our American neighbours.

We are even capable of learning 'Mericun and communication is not expected to present any adverse challenges.

All jest aside, we will be able to bridge the current divide and rejuvenate our trade relationship. Maintaining our independence to serve as many markets as possible with our considerable geographic reach will best serve our long term interests as Canadians.

Frances Widdowson is a controversial and bombastic figure who was cancelled for questioning the presence of unmarked graves at a currently unexhumed site at Kamloops Indian Residential School.

The site was scanned by ground penetrating radar and has found anomalies and disturbances similar to grave sites but has no confirmation of human remains. To determine if human remains might exist, there are complex cultural questions that the Indigenous community is considering.

In other examples such as Pine Creek, Manitoba only rocks were found upon escavation. Meanwhile at Battleford, human remains belonging to residential school students were confirmed.

The point is not whether Widdowson is right or wrong about graves but the completely tactless and thoughtless way in which she has chosen to promote her views.

If there are dead kids buried, it's not just data. These are people and one should have due deference for the dead. There are more than 4,000 confirmed dead and the number could be as high as 6,000.

It's not particularly relevant if this site does have or doesn't have human remains. There is documented evidence of child mortality 5 times higher than the general population at the time, from amongst other things overcrowding, severe malnutrition, and infectious diseases.

The issue with Widdowson is not whether her facts are right but the way she has chosen to prosecute her tactless rhetorical pugilism. There is I'm sure a respectful way to say something to the extent that: It is possible there are remains but we cannot corroborate such a hypothesis on the GPR alone.

She used words like "is it a hoax". This is not science, this is hiding behind science to advance a pseudo-scientific political narrative.

A real scientist will get technical talk about the doppler wave patterns and setup an experiment and act in an arm's length dispassionate manner.

When one says the word hoax, she is similarly implying that there - aren't - bodies without proof. If you can't know without escavation then stop there - the data cannot confirm or refute the hypothesis at present.

On paper, Mr. Poilievre just emerged in January from a rock solid leadership review with 87% support of the party faithful. One of the most compelling reasons at the time for not going to a leadership contest was that the Liberals could call a snap election at any time creating a disadvantage for the Conservatives.

Now that fear is no more.

70% of Canadians believe that a floor crossing should be accompanied by a byelection. 41% want an immediate byelection, while the remainder want the MP to sit as an independent.

51% of Canadians believe that an "engineered majority" is unethical. However, the split breaks along partisan lines with 26% of Liberal voters believing it is unethical to 46% of Liberal voters believing it is ethical. Significant super majorities of voters from all the other parties are opposed to the practice.

The fact that 3 seats were won including the Terrebonne riding appears to show the Mr. Carney's position has improved at the expense of Mr. Poilievre. Granted these were safe seats in Toronto, and the Terrebonne riding was a two way race between the Bloc and Liberals, and remained essentially tied.

For the Conservatives, the vote numbers should signal deep concern and reflection on Mr. Poilievre's future as leader.

Public opinion polling consistently shows his lagging the party in approval ratings. His net approval is negative with 47% disapproval to 37% approval. Amongst the base he remains a favourite but amongst the general election audience that decides elections there appears to be a substantial disaffection with the style and substance of his approach.

After a long tenure in politics, Poilievre also has an extensive voting record, not one which is always favourable. Voting against requiring byelections for floor crossing MPs is frequently cited by Liberal voters as justification for why Poilievre isn't on the moral high ground.

However, the greatest issue appears to be that while Mr. Poilievre is a great retail salesman, he might lack fundamental analytical, strategic, and backroom skills. There are several areas in how his party campaign machine has executed which point to a potential personal lack of experience, instinct, or depth.

There is a difference between a good debater who talks well in Question Period, which Mr. Poilievre does, and a great strategist who can execute the maneuvers required to get elected. During his time as Opposition Leader in the Justin Trudeau days, for a time he enjoyed a significant polling lead. Rather than seeking to advance policies, he appeared to have focused more on the thrush and pull of parliamentary rhetoric.

Actually sitting down to go through tax reforms and put together a bill, or any such consequential initiative never arose.

The Conservative caucus should make a thorough assessment of whether they want to heed the signals the general election audience is sending them.

Let me suggest that this time, the Conservatives don't make the leadership race about money. Maybe lower the threshold significantly to increase the participation, and let merit determine who should win.

As a riding, when one votes for a candidate, I for one strongly believe that any floor crosser should immediately face byelection and never vote on a single bill in parliament without going back to voters to reaffirm their mandate.

I understand that MPs can cross the floor and have done so. This particular case with the current federal Liberals appears to be the first systematic program to engineer a majority when democracy denied them that status at the ballot. Other floor crossings like the Chretien Liberals were after they already held a majority.

The difference here is that floor crossings don't traditionally change the balance of power, but in this case they have, and that's what is troublesome. 5 MPs poached from the opposition are being used to tip the balance of power.

Now it is up to Canadian voters. In my opinion, Canadians need to send this Prime Minister a message that they are not amused. The byelections are underway now, and I wonder what the outcome will be.

In a fair and just world, all the seats will redistribute back to the NDP and the Conservatives causing a stunning embarrassment.

Of all the defections, the prolife, social conservative Sgro was perhaps the paragon of how strange the bedfellows are in this political boudoir. What was Sgro's reasoning, what enticements were on offer, continues to be a question.

As for Mr. Poilievre, there is no greater asset to the Liberal Party. After winning the thumping affirmation of the party faithful at the January leadership review, Poilievre appears to have everyone's confidence except the MPs that know him best.

It is clear these MPs feel he has no hope of being Prime Minister or why would anyone defect when they could be in government at any moment. Is it the leadership style, what is going on behind the scenes, I can't comment. But the outward symptoms of that inner discord are undeniable.

What is Mr. Carney's desperation to engineer this majority when it is clear this government is no danger of falling given both the NDP and the Bloc are willing to keep them afloat. Along with Liz May, there appear to be no shortage of allies, and little appetite for a new election for the moment.

This makes these machinations dubious. Is it to escape parliamentary scrutiny over ordinary bills ? And if so, why is this in the voter's interests. It is clear the Prime Minister is doing whatever he wants anyways in terms of exercising executive authority.

Questions will continue to swirl over what is going on behind the curtain.