Be on lookout out for bubble opportunists

The federal government is investing in major infrastructure, promising to expedite “projects of national interest” and pitching them to private investors at a summit in September.

The Manitoba government has its sights set on a pipeline and LNG export terminal at Churchill. Instead, Manitoba should be putting forward feasible, future-facing infrastructure proposals that would leave a positive lasting legacy of energy affordability, independence and security for Manitobans.

A pipeline and LNG terminal at Churchill are not viable for several reasons — the technical challenges of building a pipeline over thawing permafrost; the prohibitive cost of ice-breaking tankers to move LNG through the Arctic; and a forecasted global oversupply of LNG and uncertain long-term export markets.

Given these challenges, a private company coming out of the woodwork to invest seems exceptionally unlikely. Private proponents are also not interested in building oil pipelines to the west, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has now made clear his priority to work with Premier Danielle Smith on a West Coast pipeline, which would cost upwards of $35 billion (on top of the over $34 billion in public funds already spent on the Trans Mountain pipeline). It would seem this pours more cold water on the idea of a third publicly funded pipeline to Hudson Bay.

DEAR MISS LONELYHEARTS: We love our grandchildren, but now we’re sick of them. The two sets of parents — our adult children — have been parking their kids out here on the farm with us while they take back-to-back road trips to see their friends. We’ve had enough.

Grandma and I want them to come back and get the “brats” (just joking, they’re nice kids) so we can relax.

You have to be so careful with city kids around the farm who don’t know when they’re going to make a mistake and get hoofed by an animal or run over by a farm implement.

How do we tell our kids the party is over early, and they really need to come back before grandma and I give out?

Be statesmanlike, Pierre

Re: Canadians have moved on, Poilievre hasn’t (Aug. 7); Poilievre’s trade bluster a desperate bid for attention (Aug. 12)

If I were Pierre Poilievre, I wouldn’t be just thinking about becoming the next prime minister. I’d be thinking about legacy in larger terms — meaning how would I ultimately want to be remembered.

And I would want to be remembered as the politician who, even if not having achieved the ultimate goal of becoming prime minister, left the political world as a respected statesman. As such, with respect to trade and the relationship with the United States, I would be guided by the following maxim found in Tom Brodbeck’s Aug. 12 column: The goal should be to maximize Canada’s leverage while reducing its vulnerability.

Every so often, an ordinary moment turns out to be about something else entirely.

I watched two women meet outside a grocery store recently. Neither seemed to know the other. One had dropped a bag, oranges rolling across the wet pavement, and the other bent down without a word to help gather them. It took maybe 40 seconds. They exchanged a few sentences I couldn’t hear, laughed once, and went their separate ways. I don’t think either of them thought about it again.

I did, though. I kept thinking about how neither woman had planned to meet the other that morning. Their separate mornings happened to touch for less than a minute, and then continued on, changed by some small amount neither could probably name.

For a long time, when I thought about what brings people together, bridges were the image that came to mind. Bridges connect two known sides. They’re built on purpose, toward a destination already identified. I still believe in that kind of work. Deliberate bridges, built with intention toward a place meant to be reached, matter enormously.