'Julie Ann Wrigley's fight for her husband's wealth began a year ago, when the 51-year-old Stanford-educated lawyer filed for divorce. The two had separated nearly three years earlier'.
Below we see an article pertaining to one of two major players in US CANADA BORDER policies------global WATER CORPORATIONS and global MINING/ENERGY corporations. As usual the people listed are being sold as SOCIAL BENEFIT----POPULIST GREEN people when they work for global 1% extreme wealth and power--------wanting to sustain their own wealth.
WRIGLEY is that woman-----a 5% freemason/Greek player -----gaining wealth in marriage to WRIGLEY'S GUM corporation. She uses that money to create a FOUNDATION/GLOBAL INSTITUTE on sustainability.
ARIZONA STATE is a GLOBAL CORPORATE WEALTH AND POWER university-----far-right wing not working for 99% SUSTAINABILITY.
'Julie Ann Wrigley - Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of ...sustainability.asu.edu/people/julie-ann-wrigley In 2004, businesswoman Julie Ann Wrigley made a gift to establish the Global Institute of Sustainability at Arizona State University. Today, the university is a world leader in teaching, discovery and solutions in sustainability, a field that was virtually unknown before Wrigley’s gift'.
Rhett Larson as well is tied to hyper-super-duper UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO neo-liberalism-----you know, AYN RAND LIBERTARIANISM -----extreme wealth.
This academic having degrees in WATER MANAGEMENT et al----has no connection to sustaining water resources---his goals are to work for any global corporation looking for access and profit.
SUSTAINABILITY SCIENTIST IS WHAT WE CALL------FAKE GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION SCIENCE AND DATA.
TRANSBOUNDARY water policy is called OPEN BORDERS when only global corporations are considered as is MOVING FORWARD on US/CANADA border today.
So, the interests of 99% WE THE US AND CANADIAN citizens are nowhere to be found in these GLOBAL CORPORATE SUSTAINABILITY policies.
Richard Morrison Professor of Water Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Arizona State University
PO Box 877906
Tempe, AZ 85287-7906
- Senior Sustainability Scientist, Julie Ann Wrigley Global Institute of Sustainability
- Richard Morrison Professor of Water Law, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law
Rhett Larson is the Richard Morrison Professor of Water Law at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law. He is also a faculty fellow in the Center for Law and Global Affairs, and the Center for Law, Science, and Innovation. He is also a senior research fellow with the Kyl Center for Water Policy at ASU's Morrison Institute for Public Policy. Professor Larson’s research and teaching interests are in property law, administrative law, and environmental and natural resource law, in particular, domestic and international water law and policy.
Professor Larson’s research focuses on the impact of technological innovation on water rights regimes, in particularly transboundary waters, and on the sustainability implications of a human right to water. He works on dispute resolution and improved processes in water rights adjudications in Arizona and the Colorado River Basin with the Kyl Center for Water Policy. He is the Principal Investigator on a USAID-funded applied research project improving water supplies for refugee host communities in Lebanon and Jordan. Professor Larson was a visiting professor and Fulbright Scholar at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, a visiting fellow with the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, a Lady Davis Fellow and visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He is the author of the forthcoming book from Oxford University Press, entitled Just Add Water: Solving the World’s Problems Using its Most Precious Resource.
Professor Larson also practiced environmental and natural resource law with law firms in Arizona, focusing on water rights, water quality, and real estate transactions.
- JD, Law, The University of Chicago Law School, 2005
- MSc, Water Science, Policy, and Management, The University of Oxford, 2011
- BA, History, Brigham Young University, 2002
Here is a great article detailing these goals from 1950-60s water policies having the US as the GOGGLER OF FRESH WATER-----today, after these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA absolutely killing all our sovereign US fresh water and aquifers----the race is on to get to that CANADIAN fresh water. This brings in GREAT LAKES -----the US controls the southern lake borders and CANADA controls northern lake borders ----meeting somewhere in middle.
Today, almost every fresh water aquifer in US has been depleted or made toxic-----now global banking % want to do the same in CANADA.
What is different today from 1950-60s---or even 1990s? Global banking 1% taking Canadian politics as US politics to NEO-LIBERALISM------not REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM which maintained CANADA as a pristine environmental nation.
TREEHUGGER is a FAKE GREEN media outlet----it does a good job identifying the issues but LLOYD ALTER writing for CORPORATE KNIGHTS------
“it’s not a question of IF the Americans will come for Canada’s water, but WHEN”
is not telling the truth-----those global corporations after CANADA'S WATER are the same ones taking all of our US WATER.
We discuss GLOBAL VEOLA AND SUEZ ENVIRONMENTAL -----GLOBAL NESTLE'S BOTTLED WATER-----hitting both sides of the GREAT LAKE border. Who controls the central border through GREAT LAKES? That would be those above corporations fighting for profit share of FRESH WATER.
Canada has water, the U.S wants it.
By Marc Montgomery |
Posted: Thursday, October 1, 2015 14:14
Last Updated: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:02
Once again this year, severe drought hit west coast North America and the south-western US. This put enormous pressure on existing water supplies for agriculture and cities across a large section of the continent. Also again this year, the situation reached crisis levels for south-western U.S. and California, the biggest suppliers of fruit , nuts and vegetables to all of North America.
Many Americans once again looked to Canada and said there is plenty of fresh water being “wasted” by allowing it to flow freely into James Bay, the Arctic and Pacific Oceans. They say that the water could be sent to them,… some insisting not could, but should.
Although water is a critical resource and becoming ever more so because of climate change, it has not been discussed in Canada’s current election campaign.
Lloyd Alter has written several times on this subject. He is an adjunct professor teaching sustainable design at Ryerson University in Toronto, Ontario. He is also the design editor at Treehugger and a regular contributor of environment related articles to Treehugger, the Guardian newspaper, Corporate Knights magazine and others.
“it’s not a question of IF the Americans will come for Canada’s water, but WHEN” © inhabitat.com
Professor Alter points out that there have been a number of schemes in the past to take fresh water from Canada and send it south to alleviate shortages in agriculture and in American cities.
In the 1950’s there were plans to use nuclear explosions to blast canals from Canada’s north, down to the US border. The plan was called the North American Power and Water Alliance, or NAWAPA. An incredibly ambitious concept, it would change the ecology of North America. Most Canadians would be absolutely horrified at the thought, but most have also never heard of it. Yet the idea has never gone away, and still lurks in the minds of many American politicians, and industrialists.
The idea was to redirect flows of major Canadian rivers southward through the Rocky Mountain trench, to the US west. and also dam James Bay, blast a huge canal south through Ontario and send water into the Great Lakes, and then southward to the central US.
The North American Water and Power Alliance, proposed (NAWAPA) in the 1950’s and 60’s was proposed to divert massive amounts of water from Canadian rivers- Yukon, Liard, Peace, flowing to the Arctic and Alaska, and send the ma south.
It is still very much alive with detaled proposals/analysis made in 2010 and 2012
Some Canadian politicians past and present have thought this incredible plan was not such a bad idea.
But even if not this particular plan, the idea of somehow allowing bulk water sales, while abhorrent to most Canadians, is not necessarily so to recent politicians, such as former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (1984-1993) who introduced a Bill (C-156) that would have allowed exports by tanker and small-scale land diversion
NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN CANADA IS FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALISM IN US.
The most recent is the leader of the New Democratic Party, Thomas Mulcair. He thought the idea of bulk exports of water was worth exploring while he was the environment minister in the Quebec provincial government. He is currently the leader of the federal New Democratic Party seeking to be Prime Minister of Canada in the present general election campaign, but now insists he has changed his mind.
While some Americans have said their next war will be with Canada to be fought over water, Alter says that’s hardly likely. Why fight after all when you can just buy it. He says they will just keep raising their purchase offer until it’s too good for Canada to refuse.
“We want the money”
He points to the oil sands in Alberta saying that the oil sands cause great disruption of the land, enormous pollution, and so on, but Canada has decided the damage is worth it.
“It’s one of the biggest environmental problems we have in the country yet It was a conscious decision, we want the money”, he says.
He also notes that the international giant Nestle is already sucking up vast amounts of ground water for bottled water sales, and that Nestle and many other industries are allowed to extract water in bulk at little to no cost, and without serious conservation measures, at the same time as Canada is barring bulk exports.
The “Grand Canal” scheme to dam the top of James Bay and blast a massive canal down through northern Ontario to bring fresh water into the Great lakes from where the Americans could siphon off vast amounts and send it further south to meet the huge agricultural demand and its increasingly desperate need due to changing climate.
The Americans might argue that this makes water a commodity and under international trade deals they should be allowed access as well. They could also possibly argue that the little or no cost to Canadian industry while barring Americans similar access, is an unfair advantage or a trade barrier again under terms of various international trade deals.
A paper published recently by the University of Calgary School of Public Policy and produced by an American professor recently suggested Canada consider sale of water to the US.
The author Rhett Larson, an associate law professor and environmental law expert at Arizona State University wrote, “Canada should arguably treat water the same way it treats oil or gold – a valuable commodity on the international market with benefits from exportation outweighing the costs of depletion”.
The Enterpirse Bridge across Lake Oroville in California shown in 2011 and then in 2014. Indeed he noted that both Canadian and US industry already uses water from the Great Lakes which are shared with Canada of which over 2 billion gallons per day are never returned. The largest diversion of water is pumped from Lake Michigan, at up to 3,200 cubic feet/second and sent south through the Chicago River and into the Mississippi.
“What is the difference between the water embedded in Canada’s industrial and agricultural exports and raw water exported in bulk tankers or pipelines? Either way, enormous quantities of water are being exported from Canada.” Writes the American professor.
In any case, Lloyd Alter says with climate change causing increased hardship and increasing the need it is not a question of “if” Americans will come demanding Canadian water, but “when”.
Who is behind TAR SAND OIL EXTRACTION at US CANADA border? Those global energy corporations working both sides of the border for these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA. Nothing new has happened it is simply at the stage of doing extreme damage to health and welfare of people and land conservation. This is why today national FAKE NEWS media are reporting these kinds of problems.
'Open Borders or Open Society? | CNSNewswww.cnsnews.com/.../open-borders-or-open-society Jul 22, 2014 ·
Yes, however the Open Society Foundation promotes the opposite of an open society by advocating open borders. When a massive influx of peoples who do not know America's founding and are not made to assimilate to the American way of life, the opposite of an open society takes shape'.
In Manitoba the LAKE WINNIPEG water system supplying all of southern territories with fresh water and being a major source of river drainage into HUDSON BAY-----is collapsing from those few decades of FRACKING AND TAR SAND OIL DRILLING.
NATIVE TRIBES and reservations are always placed in media as losing FRESH WATER ACCESS but these policies are effecting all 99% of WE THE CANADIAN citizens and their futures.
FRACKING USES TONS OF SAND---ERGO, WE WILL MAKE SURE LAKE WINNIPEG IS PERMANENTLY DAMAGED AND LOST AS A FRESH WATER RESOURCE.
So, the ARIZONA STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW SCHOOL article above writes laws promoting the rights of these fracking and oil corporations to MAKE THESE FRESH WATER RESOURCES corporate profit.
These are the OPEN BORDER LAWS written to sound like IMMIGRATION POLICY FREEDOMS when they all are tied to rights of global corporations to operate ACROSS BORDERS----OPEN BORDERS.
'Professor Larson was a visiting professor and Fulbright Scholar at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, a visiting fellow with the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, a Lady Davis Fellow and visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem'.
Unearthed worries: Frack sand mine in Manitoba draws ire from neighbours
Exposure to tiny sand particles a cancer risk, says Don Sullivan, worried by adverse health concerns
Ian Froese · CBC News · Posted: Nov 26, 2018 8:20 PM CT | Last Updated: November 26, 2018
The sand deposits would be taken by rail to destinations across North America where it is used in the fracking process for oil and gas. (Matthew Brown/Associated Press)
A massive frack sand mine proposed along the east shore of Lake Winnipeg is digging up environmental concerns from neighbours.
Don Sullivan said adverse health and water quality issues must be evaluated before as much as 26 million tons of sand is unearthed from what may become one of the largest frack sand mines in North America.
"The health risks that come with these fine, particulate silica sand -- they're dangerous and they're deadly, and that's both for the workers and the communities who live around it," said Sullivan, who lives near the proposed development around 200 kilometres northeast of Winnipeg, close to Seymourville.
Sullivan, founder of the newly launched What the Frack Manitoba group, is concerned that exposure to dust from sand processing may lead to silicosis, a lung disease.
Sullivan said officials must consider where the vast sums of water needed to wash the sand will come from and how it'll be treated.
Plus, he's worried about clearing some 200 acres of terrain for the open pit and the wear and tear on the province's roads from heavy trucks hauling the sand.
Costs must be considered: Sullivan "There's going to be benefits, there's no doubt, there's going to be jobs," Sullivan said of the project. "But there's also going to be substantial costs and those costs have to be weighed against the benefits."
He's calling on the province to institute a public panel review of the development, relying upon public input and independent expertise for insight.
"Anything less is insufficient," said Sullivan, who helped the province garner UNESCO World Heritage Site designation for the boreal forest straddling the Manitoba-Ontario border.
A 2014 technical review for the project states the company, now named Canadian Premium Sand, can dig for nearly 26 million tons of silica sand deposits.
The aggregate would be shipped by truck to Winnipeg and transported by rail throughout the continent. The resource is necessary for drillers fracking for oil and gas.
An October news release from the company archived on the Alberta Securities Commission's website states that a sample drilling is expected to be completed by the end of November, which will be followed by a report detailing "this sand resource play" before year-end.
"Claim Post is pleased to report that the Company is on track both operationally and corporately with its plan to develop this significant surface tier 1 sand deposit," executive chairman Lowell Jackson said in the Oct. 3 statement.
Claim Post started trading under its new name, Canadian Premium Sand, earlier this month according to an archived news release.
The company did not immediately respond Monday for a request for comment.
NDP environment critic Rob Altemeyer is calling on the government to seek public input immediately.
As members of Hollow Water First Nation, which is adjacent to the development, looked on from the gallery, Altemeyer pressed the government during question period Monday to launch a consultation process that he argues should have been underway months ago.
Environment minister Rochelle Squires said the province is waiting on the company to submit its environmental application before the province's review takes place.
Duty to consult Altemeyer said the provincial government had a duty to consult much earlier, as does the Crown, which is obligated to speak with Hollow Water First Nation.
"It's a huge proposal. It could have major detrimental impacts on the environment, on the local First Nation and nearby residents and this government has dropped the ball on doing the proper consultations," he said outside of question period.
The province said in a statement the project must undergo a complete environmental assessment and licensing process, where any and all concerns will be evaluated.
"The province is working to ensure the licensing requirements and approvals process consider the impacts to local communities and respect the Crown's duty to consult," it said.
On Monday, Sullivan wrote to the federal environment minister demanding a panel review for the development. His online petition has been signed more than 1,000 times.
Where GREAT LAKES fights along border are tied for now to FRESH WATER rights giving global water corporations the policy control for both US and CANADA----the tar sand oil and fracking corporations control the border in west and central US CANADA.
This issue for WESTERN CANADA are both loss of fresh water AND PIPELINE AND PORT SHIPPING TERMINALS.
Below, these laws pushing for the rights of GLOBAL ENERGY CORPORATIONS to do so to maximize profits-----and to assure cross border corporate infrastructure control were written by these ARIZONA STATE LAW SCHOOLS for one.
'Professor Larson was a visiting professor and Fulbright Scholar at the Pontifical Catholic University of Ecuador, a visiting fellow with the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, a Lady Davis Fellow and visiting professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem'.
This article let's us know the 99% of WE THE CANADIANS and NATIVE AMERICANS protesting as hard as they can. But, 2018 is not 1990s when all these global 1% NEO-LIBERAL economic policies on OPEN BORDERS were written.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS WERE FIGHTING IN 1980---90S AGAINST THESE GOALS WITH EVIDENCE-BASED SCIENCE TELLING US ALL WHICH HAPPENING TODAY WOULD INDEED HAPPEN.
OPEN BORDERS policies written in 1990s are behind our loss of sovereignty at US CANADA border----ergo, all 99% of citizens have no rights---only these global energy/water corporations.
THAT is global corporate MARXISM-------where extreme wealth and power control all public policy.
Canada’s Struggling to Build Oil Pipelines, and That’s Starting to Hurt the Industry
Protests by Canada’s First Nations and opposition from British Columbia have put another planned tar sands pipeline, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain, in jeopardy. Nicholas Kusnetz
By Nicholas Kusnetz
Apr 13, 2018
Thousands of protesters marched in Burnaby, British Columbia, where Kinder Morgan plans to build a pipeline terminal, on March 10, 2018. The province opposes the pipeline. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vows it will be built. Credit: Jason Redmond/AFP/Getty Images
When the pipeline company Kinder Morgan announced it was suspending work on a major Canadian project that has been delayed by protests and court challenges, it sparked talk of a crisis north of the border and fears that investors may flee the nation's tar sands industry.
It was the clearest sign yet of how difficult it's become for energy companies to find new routes to export the country's landlocked oil, among the most expensive and damaging to the climate to produce. Over the past several years, climate activists and indigenous groups—in particular many of Canada's First Nations governments—have built a sustained campaign that has succeeded in delaying, and in some cases canceling, almost every attempt to send more Canadian oil to foreign markets.
Canada's tar sands hold one of the world's largest deposits of oil, but as the industry has expanded production over the past decade, it's been unable to complete new pipelines fast enough to ship it out.
The past few years saw the failure of two major pipeline projects that would have carried tar sands oil to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, as well as the delay, demise and then revival of Keystone XL. This week's news on Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain expansion, which is supposed to triple the capacity of an existing pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia's Pacific Coast, was the latest setback.
"With infrastructure projects like this, they don't need to be turned down or stopped by people, they just need to be delayed to the degree that it makes sense to place capital elsewhere," said Kevin Birn, an energy analyst with IHS Markit, a research firm.
RBN Energy issued a report saying producers in the tar sands—also called oil sands—are being forced to export more of their oil by rail, driving up costs. It warned that no new pipeline capacity is slated to come online for at least a couple of years, and that each of the three projects that have been approved—including Trans Mountain—face substantial opposition and hurdles.
Canada's First Nations Push Back
The Trans Mountain expansion was first proposed six years ago to add 590,000 barrels per day in capacity to the existing Trans Mountain line, which can already carry up to 300,000 barrels. Opposition began soon after, and in 2015, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation sued the National Energy Board, which oversees pipeline construction, arguing that the review underway was flawed.
A series of court cases over the past two decades have given British Columbia's First Nations significant control over what happens within their borders, meaning the federal government must consult with them before approving major infrastructure projects though their land.
While the 2015 lawsuit was rejected by a court, the opposition grew, and several other First Nations along the route eventually filed a new lawsuit, arguing that the government hadn't adequately consulted with them before approving the line in 2016. The cities of Vancouver and Burnaby, where the pipeline ends, also filed suit, as have some environmental groups.
Similar opposition sank another proposed pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific in 2016, Enbridge's Northern Gateway. That year, a Canadian court revoked permits the federal government had granted for the project, ruling that the government had failed to adequately consult with First Nations groups who would be affected.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the rejection of the pipeline on the same day he approved the Trans Mountain expansion.
The two projects became part of a grand deal between the federal government and Alberta over the nation's climate policies. Trudeau was trying to assemble a national framework to meet the Canada's goals for the Paris climate agreement—the country has pledged to cut emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030—and he needed support from Alberta to enact a carbon tax and a cap on oil sands emissions.
"In that kind of deal with the devil, there was Alberta saying, 'we'll do all this, and you have to get us a pipeline'," said Karen Mahon, Canadian director of Stand.earth, an advocacy group. "The missing calculus in all of that was really the indigenous opposition."
Trudeau, Alberta Vow Pipeline Will Get Built
Last weekend, Kinder Morgan said it had had enough and would abandon the Trans Mountain expansion unless the Canadian government could assure it of "clarity on the path forward" by the end of May.
The move prompted a frenzied response from leaders in Alberta and the federal government, who see the project as critical to the nation's economic growth because it provides the only route directly to customers beyond the United States.
The head of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association said the nation was facing "a crisis." Trudeau reiterated the government's support, telling reporters that "this is a pipeline in the national interest, and it will get built." Alberta Premier Rachel Notley said her government is considering buying the multi-billion dollar project outright to ensure its completion, and officials in Ottawa have floated the possibility of federal investment as well.
It's unclear, however, how they could overcome the significant opposition from First Nations, activists and the government of British Columbia, which has joined the First Nations' lawsuit and proposed a rule to limit the flow of tar sands oil through the province. Even some members of Parliament have been arrested protesting the pipeline.
On a conference call Monday, Kinder Morgan's chief executive, Steven J. Kean, said that if the pending court challenge forces the company to revisit elements of the permitting process, "I think that's just too much to bear."
What Does the Future Spell for Tar Sands?
If the Canadian government and Kinder Morgan can't reach a deal, it would strike yet another blow to the tar sands.
In 2014, when oil prices peaked above $100 per barrel, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said output would more than double to 4.8 million barrels per day by 2030. Last year, after prices had fallen below $50 per barrel, the industry group had shaved that projection down to 3.7 million barrels per day. Nearly all of the major multinational oil giants—save ExxonMobil--have sold much or all of their oil sands holdings.
At the same time, the global climate movement has put increasing pressure on national governments and corporations to begin cutting their emissions and moving away from fossil fuels. Canada's goals are likely unattainable if tar sands growth continues as projected.
Jennifer Winter, an economist at the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, said that while the activism and protests against pipelines may have heightened uncertainty for investors, market forces have had a bigger impact.
But as the report by RBN Energy and another by Deloitte show, the two factors are becoming intertwined. Canadian oil trades at a lower price than most American crude, adding to costs for oil sands producers, and that discount has surged in recent months, driven in part by tight pipeline capacity.
The cancellation of Trans Mountain would likely continue that trend. And while the project isn't dead yet, Winter said there aren't many options to revive it.
"The longer there is delay, the more momentum is built against the pipeline," she said. "A summer construction season is pretty crucial, and if it looks like construction this summer isn't feasible, that could be the signal for Kinder Morgan to say 'no thanks, Canada isn't a good place to invest any more.'"
We discuss often the goals of privatizing all our US PUBLIC RAIL/PASSENGER RAIL replacing most with GLOBAL CARGO RAIL as more and more and more global factories are built in US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
The same is happening in CANADA with this TRANCONTINENTAL PASSENGER TRAIN slowly being PRIVATIZED as these global corporations expand into each Canadian province.
Following this CANRAIL along the CANADIAN BORDER shows exactly where those WATER/OIL/GAS WARS are and how both US AND CANADA has lost its sovereignty along that border.
THE CANADIAN RAIL is already losing its passenger time on rails to cargo----as MOVING FORWARD creates soaring fracking/oil/mining/timber -----this railway will be CARGO ONLY.
Canada, North America, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, Trains
10 Things VIA Rail Doesn’t Tell You About “The Canadian”
by Shaun Robertson
Last summer I took a train trip so incredibly Canadian they named the journey after it. VIA Rail’s The Canadian train is the train passenger service between Toronto and Vancouver. Not only is it the only way to see the country by rail, but in doing so you are covering the very tracks that united the country over 150 years ago. From a sea of endless green fields to the Canadian Rockies, the trip is as diverse as the country it crosses and it’s something I have wanted to do for a very long time.
Although the trip itself did not disappoint, VIA Rail’s description and specifics about The Canadian train did. Prior to leaving, I found it difficult to find practical or clear information about The Canadian which was surprising given the cost of the trip and its popularity. Fast-forward to being on the train and I picked up a few things that would’ve been good to know ahead of time.
With that in mind here is my list of 10 things VIA Rail doesn’t tell you about The Canadian train but should.
1) VIA Rail Doesn’t Own the Tracks
First up on this list of 10 things VIA Rail doesn’t tell you about The Canadian train is a big one – VIA Rail does not on the tracks it rides on. This may not sound like a big deal however because CN Rail, Canada’s freight line, owns the tracks it means VIA has to give way and stop for freight trains…a lot.
This means frequent stops and delays giving no consistency to the schedule. On my departure, for example, we were delayed over three hours. This is not uncommon.
2) Don’t Expect to Stretch Your Legs
Again, due to the inconsistency in the schedule, stops are not reliable. On top of that, The Canadian train is very much about getting from A to B. The only stops of any significant duration are in Winnipeg where the crew changes, Edmonton where the dome car is added, and Jasper. Even these stops vary in duration depending on how late the train is running.
Stretching my legs with a stroll on the Provencher Bridge in Winnipeg
3) If You’re in a Sleeper Cabin you may be Sleeping on a Toilet
If you are travelling in a private cabin for one, you might want to know ahead of time that your bed folds down on top of your private toilet. Gross right?
During the day your bed converts to a bench seat…next to your toilet. If I booked this cabin I would be disappointed, especially considering how much more they are then the upper and lower berths.
4) Berths are in the Hallway
That said, you may want to pump the brakes on the upper/lower berth options as well. It’s not super clear on the VIA Rail website but the berths are in the hallways meaning anyone can pass by day or night. I did not realize this until flipping through a pamphlet on my train ride from Kingston to Toronto where I was catching The Canadian train.
On the positive, I am happy to report that with the curtains drawn the berths are actually very private and very cosy. I would not hesitate to book this class again if travelling alone. It’s better than sleeping on top of a toilet!
6) There is a Reason Upper Berths are Cheaper…
Before you decide on the cheaper upper berth versus the lower be warned, there is a sneaky reason why they cost less. The upper berths do not have a window. I’ve heard this can make for a claustrophobic and disorienting journey.
There is, again, no mention of this on VIA Rail’s webpage. The best you get is this vague picture where the guest on top is blocking the window, making it super unclear and somewhat misleading.
via VIA Rail websiteI travelled in the lower berth and thoroughly enjoyed (as does the lady in the picture above!) pulling back the blinds each morning to see where in Canada I was. I would not hesitate to pay more for this feature.
6) Berths Don’t Have Outlets
This is an odd one. Economy seats have power outlets. Cabins have power outlets. Hallways have power outlets. Sleeper Plus berths do not.
Although annoying, this was not that big of a deal and I managed to find power when needed. This is how I came to know about the “toilet single sleepers.” I spent a few hours with my feet up on the can while charging my devices and batteries in an empty cabin. The bar cars also have outlets.
7) Shower When Stopped
This next one is more a tip and less something be VIA Rail doesn’t tell you about The Canadian – shower when the train is stopped. If this wasn’t self-explanatory, this is strictly for comfort and for a less comedic showering experience. Since the train stops frequently (see point number one) this is not a problem.
8) The Panorama Car gets Added/Removed in Edmonton
Again, something that is not evidently clear is the well-advertised Panorama Car is only available for the journey through the Rockies. It is for unobstructed views of the mountains and removed, I assume, to save on weight which I get. It just isn’t clear ahead of time so don’t expect to travel like this the whole way.
On the positive, I found the Skyline and Prestige Park Car (which are attached the whole way) offer a better viewing experience because they are higher up…and serve booze.
9) Sleeper Plus Class can Access the Prestige Park Car
This one is listed on the VIA Rail‘s website but again, not super clear. If you purchase a Sleeper Plus berth, which is essentially budget class plus a bed, you not only get meal service and access to the dome cars but you can enjoy the swanky Prestige Park Car. This bar car is far superior in service than the Skyline Cars and also has an upper-level dome car with comfortable seating.
I seem to recall that Sleeper Plus passengers can only access this car after 2:00 pm. I tried to verify this through the VIA Rail website on The Canadian but came up empty. Kinda hits home why I am writing this post!
10) The Canadian is the Only Way to See Canada by Rail
Last up on this list of things VIA Rail doesn’t tell you about The Canadian train is, simply, that it’s the only company to offer cross-Canada passenger service by rail. Why am I adding this to the list? Knowing this ahead of time may sway you on the high price. I know it did for me.
Bonus Tip – Be Flexible and Save!
Most of these points may come across as negative but I have to stress that although The Canadian train is not a perfect service, I had an incredible journey and will definitely be doing it again. I will be following up with a post on my unbiased review of The Canadian so be sure to check that out if you are on the fence about taking this uniquely Canadian trip!
Till then, if you are looking to book a trip on The Canadian train try and be flexible. VIA Rail comes out with new discounts every Tuesday and you can find Sleeper Class Plus fares deeply discounted on specific routes and, if lucky, between Toronto and Vancouver.