Challenging times ahead
by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU E. CHISU, CD, PMSC,
FEC, CET, P. Eng.
Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East
As Canada went through the election and a minority government was sworn in, I foresee an interesting challenge for keeping our nation united and our economy moving forward. 
The economy, after a relatively good run, might slow down in the very near future. That is a natural trend but the question is; is the government prepared for it, and is we, the people prepared for it?
The news is: anyone who thinks life will continue as usual is kidding themselves. There will be winners and losers.
A slowdown is in the offing; with climate change ideology in place now, automation and the new artificial intelligence revolution will require bold management and attention. The government will need to deal with these issues soon and boldly.  It cannot take refuge in endless studies.  It must act now in order to avoid a major crisis.
Wages, inflation, jobs and the business environment all hang in the balance. And the financial system needs to be able to withstand the onslaught of risk.
"These are worrying times."
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says the world economy will only grow 2.9 per cent this year, the poorest performance since the global financial crisis of a decade ago. For Canada, the OECD sees growth stumbling along at about 1.6 per cent.
A reluctance to invest can already be seen, mainly because of uncertainty surrounding the effects of the climate change ideology and protectionism. To avoid the damaging effects of a recession, the government will be forced to resort to economic stimulus which will add dramatically to the national debt.
The interesting thing to see will be how the federal government will use the economic stimulus this time, in view of the fact that our revenues are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, with jobs located predominantly in Alberta and Saskatchewan. 
For the moment we are in the early stages of the minority government, but because the players are more or less the same as in the previous government, they have done little public thinking on how to incorporate fast evolving issues such as automation and climate change ideology into their plans for promoting stronger economic growth.
The economic stimuli based on building bridges and roads are solutions of the past. This time the industries in the need of stimulus will be those based on the exploitation of our fossil fuel resources. The question which will naturally arise: will the stimulus be used for building new pipelines or will the government abide by the ideology of climate change, that will result in no change?
There are major risks for our national unity in alienating most of the western provinces as well as Newfoundland, another province dependent on revenues generated by fossil fuels.  On the other hand, if the minority government does not play its political cards well, it can soon be defeated. It appears for the moment, that the potential allies propping up the minority government, are all against fossil fuels, and are heavily embracing climate change extremism.
In view of these alarming issues facing our nation, why would we not think a little bit ahead and take some bold measures to affect our nation positively, with a major contribution from the Durham Region.
Here is a proposal for the government that would reduce our national carbon footprint and balance the needs of the West and the East of Canada at the same time.
We need an alliance between the fossil fuel producers and the nuclear industry for the benefit of both, and the advancement of the country.
For carbon footprint reduction, the immediate response is clearly nuclear energy with its high automation requirements, and no greenhouse gas emissions. Canada has the expertise, why not use it?
Isn't replacing fossil fuel what the long term goal of fighting global warming is all about? Yes or no? No countermeasure will succeed overnight, as demanded by child climate change ideology activist Greta Thunberg, but science can help.
Nuclear power does slow climate change. Contrary to claims by those who just don't like nuclear, every time nuclear plants close, carbon emissions go up. Using opaque financial jargon, grandiose claims for renewable energy and political spin, doesn't change this.
The build rate for wind and solar is just too slow to replace even nuclear, so it would never even get close to replacing fossil fuels in time to effect positive change.
At the utility scale for solar or wind, you have to find the enormous amount of space, emplace more high-voltage transmission lines and grid connections and figure out how to deal with their intermittency.
Consumers will pay no matter what the cost, so heavy tax increases can be expected. Keep in mind, the dreaded CARBON TAX is on its way!
Operating an existing nuclear plant is much more cost-effective than even existing coal and gas plants.
Scientific literature says that a 1,000 MW nuclear plant produces about 9 billion KWhs of carbon-free electricity each year with a capacity factor over 90%. To replace that with wind would require about 3,000 MW of new wind turbines at can$ 2million/MW, or can$ 6 billion, just in construction costs. Two natural gas plants could do it for a third of that construction price, not including fuel costs or new pipelines.
Climate scientists have warned that the anti-nuclear position of environmental leaders is causing unnecessary and severe harm to the environment and to our planet's future by prolonging carbon emissions.
The other unintended consequences to shutting down perfectly-working nuclear plants are the social costs.
Most nuclear plants are in smaller towns and cities, Pickering for example, so when nuclear plants close, the surrounding towns are devastated; just look south of the border.
Local budgets are drastically reduced. The real estate market is ruined. Taxes are increased and there are always layoffs of staff, police and firefighters.
That's because nuclear jobs are the best in the business. They have the highest salaries, and there are more of them in nuclear per MW than other energy producers. The local tax revenue is better than anything those towns can get from other businesses, even high tech and gambling facilities.
Nothing can justify such social and economic loss!
Pickering and Durham Region are you listening?!