Opinion

The 3Rs are very important, when it’s convenient, when it’s trendy…….

Published

7 years ago

4 minute read

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, the 3Rs is popular among people and is tossed out there, often, in the news. When it comes to plastic bottles, bags and straws but not when it comes to cars and neighbourhoods, for example.
There are a lot of small cars out there and most often it is an economic decision, but not always. You go to any parking lot, even those in front of discount stores and you will see many new, very large vehicles. The 3Rs do not seem to apply to our vehicles, apparently.
Our neighbourhoods offer another example. We all seem to be clamouring for newer, bigger homes in new neighbourhoods. When I was growing up it was normal to see a family of six living in houses of a 1,000 square feet. Now a family of six is rare but houses of 1000 square feet is rarer, and even rarer still is a family of six living in a 1000 square foot house.
The 3Rs comes into play when you hit retirement and it is usually a health or an economic decision.
Why do we march on Parliament Hill to stop using plastic straws and piping oil if we insist on bigger houses and bigger cars?
History says that we are building on the best agricultural land as we expand our cities with new neighbourhoods. I do not think reducing our arable land or reusing or recycling our farmland into residential neighbourhoods and industrial parks is in the goal of the 3Rs philosophy.
It seems to me that we pave over 1000s of acres of farmland to build newer homes every year, but we are worked up over how many plastic straws hit our waste management sites.
Every city has older run down neighbourhoods, ignored or avoided by homebuyers and politicians. Often times they become rentals or the first step on the property ladder, seldom thought about in the 3Rs scheme of things. Focusing on appearances and not on the potential it often easier to build or buy new houses in new neighbourhoods.
I live in an older neighbourhood, a mid century home, with deer visiting my yard. I have a view of trees and a short walk to the creek. I also have decade old cracks in my sidewalk, a shrub growing in my street. The neighbour’s house sold recently but it was a hard sell and it went for less than it was bought for almost 10 years ago. A realtor mentioned that people want new, modern homes inside mid-century houses. They see antiques and character as simply old.
So the politicians are only following the wishes of the populace when they abandon the 3Rs, pave over farmland to make room for new homes, new roads and new conveniences.
Are we only environmentalists when it is convenient and only in trends?
I do not wish to live in a cave, but I think that there is a sense of disproportionate importance in our lives that needs addressing.
Maybe the answer is paving new roads out of used plastic bags and straws, and building new houses out of bricks made of compacted trash. Maybe, and this may be unrealistic, we could just reduce the number of neighbourhoods, recycle our old houses and reuse abandoned schools.
Just a thought.

Follow Author

Premier Danielle Smith hints Alberta may begin ‘path’ toward greater autonomy after Mark Carney’s win

COVID-19 / 3 hours ago

Canada’s health department warns COVID vaccine injury payouts to exceed $75 million budget

Alberta / 11 hours ago

Hours after Liberal election win, Alberta Prosperity Project drumming up interest in referendum

2025 Federal Election

Post election…the chips fell where they fell

Published on April 29, 2025

Todayville

From William’s Substack

William Lacey

I put a lot of personal energy into this election, trying to understand why it was that Canadians so wholeheartedly endorsed Mark Carney as their new leader, despite the fact that it was the same party who caused irreparable economic harm to the economy, and he has a similar philosophical outlook to the core outlook of the party. I truly believe that we have moved to a phase in our electoral process where, until something breaks, left leaning ideology will trump the day (pun intended).

Coming out of this election I have three questions.

1. What of Pierre Poilievre? The question for Conservatives is whether the wolves feed on the carcass of Poilievre (in my opinion the worst enemy of a Conservative is a Conservative) and initiate the hunt for a new leader (if they do, I believe the future should be led by a woman – Melissa Lantsman or possibly Caroline Mulroney), or does Poilievre move to Alberta and run for a “safe” seat to get back into the House of Commons, change his tone, and show people he too can be Prime Ministerial? His concession speech gives clues to this.

2. What of Mark Carney? Maybe (hopefully) Carney will see the light and try to bring the nation together, as there is an obvious east-west split in the country in terms of politics. Time will tell, and minority governments need to be cautious. Will we have a Supply and Confidence 2.0 or will we see olive branches extended?

3. What of the House of Commons? As I have mentioned previously, there has been discussion that the House of Commons may not sit until after the summer break, meaning that the House of Commons really will not have conducted any business in almost a year by the time it reconveens. If indeed “we are in the worst crisis of our lives” as Prime Minister Carney campaigned on, then should we not have the House of Commons sit through the summer? After all, the summer break usually is for politicians to go back to their ridings and connect with their constituents, but if an election campaign doesn’t constitute connecting, what does?

Regardless, as the election is behind us, we now need to see what comes. I will try to be hopeful, but remain cautious. May Canada have better days ahead.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge your support

Banks

TD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat

Published on April 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

Scott McGregor warns that Chinese hybrid warfare is no longer hypothetical—it’s unfolding in Canada now. TD Bank’s closure of CCP-linked accounts highlights the rising infiltration of financial interests. From cyberattacks to guanxi-driven influence, Canada’s institutions face a systemic threat. As banks sound the alarm, Ottawa dithers. McGregor calls for urgent, whole-of-society action before foreign interference further erodes our sovereignty.

Chinese hybrid warfare isn’t coming. It’s here. And Canada’s response has been dangerously complacent

The recent revelation by The Globe and Mail that TD Bank has closed accounts linked to pro-China groups—including those associated with former Liberal MP Han Dong—should not be dismissed as routine risk management. Rather, it is a visible sign of a much deeper and more insidious campaign: a hybrid war being waged by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across Canada’s political, economic and digital spheres.

TD Bank’s move—reportedly driven by “reputational risk” and concerns over foreign interference—marks a rare, public signal from the private sector. Politically exposed persons (PEPs), a term used in banking and intelligence circles to denote individuals vulnerable to corruption or manipulation, were reportedly among those flagged. When a leading Canadian bank takes action while the government remains hesitant, it suggests the threat is no longer theoretical. It is here.

Hybrid warfare refers to the use of non-military tools—such as cyberattacks, financial manipulation, political influence and disinformation—to erode a nation’s sovereignty and resilience from within. In The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, co-authored with Ina Mitchell, we detailed how the CCP has developed a complex and opaque architecture of influence within Canadian institutions. What we’re seeing now is the slow unravelling of that system, one bank record at a time.

Financial manipulation is a key component of this strategy. CCP-linked actors often use opaque payment systems—such as WeChat Pay, UnionPay or cryptocurrency—to move money outside traditional compliance structures. These platforms facilitate the unchecked flow of funds into Canadian sectors like real estate, academia and infrastructure, many of which are tied to national security and economic competitiveness.

Layered into this is China’s corporate-social credit system. While framed as a financial scoring tool, it also functions as a mechanism of political control, compelling Chinese firms and individuals—even abroad—to align with party objectives. In this context, there is no such thing as a genuinely independent Chinese company.

Complementing these structural tools is guanxi—a Chinese system of interpersonal networks and mutual obligations. Though rooted in trust, guanxi can be repurposed to quietly influence decision-makers, bypass oversight and secure insider deals. In the wrong hands, it becomes an informal channel of foreign control.

Meanwhile, Canada continues to face escalating cyberattacks linked to the Chinese state. These operations have targeted government agencies and private firms, stealing sensitive data, compromising infrastructure and undermining public confidence. These are not isolated intrusions—they are part of a broader effort to weaken Canada’s digital, economic and democratic institutions.

The TD Bank decision should be seen as a bellwether. Financial institutions are increasingly on the front lines of this undeclared conflict. Their actions raise an urgent question: if private-sector actors recognize the risk, why hasn’t the federal government acted more decisively?

The issue of Chinese interference has made headlines in recent years, from allegations of election meddling to intimidation of diaspora communities. TD’s decision adds a new financial layer to this growing concern.

Canada cannot afford to respond with fragmented, reactive policies. What’s needed is a whole-of-society response: new legislation to address foreign interference, strengthened compliance frameworks in finance and technology, and a clear-eyed recognition that hybrid warfare is already being waged on Canadian soil.

The CCP’s strategy is long-term, multidimensional and calculated. It blends political leverage, economic subversion, transnational organized crime and cyber operations. Canada must respond with equal sophistication, coordination and resolve.

The mosaic of influence isn’t forming. It’s already here. Recognizing the full picture is no longer optional. Canadians must demand transparency, accountability and action before more of our institutions fall under foreign control.

Scott McGregor is a defence and intelligence veteran, co-author of The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, and the managing partner of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He is a senior security adviser to the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and a former intelligence adviser to the RCMP and the B.C. Attorney General. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.