Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal (supported by 81 other mayors of surrounding region), has started a battle royal with his opposition the Energy East pipeline, on the grounds that the economic gain would be minimal and the environmental risk unacceptable. This pipeline would bring oil sands crude from northern Alberta ( at a cost to Trans Canada $ 15.7 billion), to Quebec and on to New Brunswick for refining and then exported abroad(1.1 million barrels a day).
     Alberta and Saskatchewan are reeling from the estimated 100,000 lost jobs and the billions in earning, since the precipitous drop in the oil markets. The response was quick and bitter, evoking similar responses to the National Energy Policy of Pierre Trudeau in the 1980s ( which would set oil prices in Canada lower than world market prices, and which came at a time of depressed prices in the world markets).
     The West have always felt that central Canada were benefitting from their resources; that manufacturing especially in Ontario was given preferential treatment by succeeding governments for political reasons ( which was reinforced when Brian Mulroney gave the CF- 18 contract to Quebec and not Winnipeg, even though experts, including the government's, said that Winnipeg was better equipped); that the West was central "milking cow".
     The west felt left out ( there were 183 MPs from Ontario and Quebec and only 79 from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and the West felt, largely justifiably, that their interests were secondary) and the shout went out that the "West want in".
     The alienation of the West led to the formation of the  Reform Party, under Preston Manning, and they would go on to win most of the seats to parliament from Alberta and many more from Manitoba, Sask. and BC, punishing the Liberal Party, which is still to recover from those losses. This would also herald the end on the Progressive Conservative Party when, after 9 years of Mulroney ( and the perception that he, even though they voted for him twice, 1984, 1988, he continued to favor central Canada, especially Quebec), the Party was reduced to 3 seats in the 1993 election ( that saw the return of the "despised" Liberals, to power), and the absorption of the PCs into the Reform/Canadian Alliance Party, under Stephen Harper ( one of their own, from Calgary, who had made a deal with the leader of the weakened PC, Peter McKay). The next 9 years saw the West flourish with a friendly government in Ottawa and rising oil prices. But then a huge slump in the price of oil and the ensuing economic malaise.
     Oil has to transported to markets. It can be done by rail, by sea and/or by pipeline. The proposed extension ( the pipeline is already bringing gas to Quebec, so only the extension to New Brunswick has to be built), is what is causing the uproar, and which Alberta and Saskatchewan feel would be a needed boost for their economy and employment. Many agree and so do I, that the pipeline is far safer than rail and sea. Any further concerns about its efficacy can be addressed and TransCanada has shown a willingness to make changes to deal with those concerns.
    Coderre's opposition has created a firestorm with the premier of Alberta and Sask. and the leader of the Wild Rose party and the mayor of Calgary all condemning him, calling his position "short sighted", " fear mongering and shaking your fists" , "threat to national unity" " return back their share of the $10 billion equalisation payment", getting downright personal and emotional.
     PM Justin Trudeau, has a serious problem to deal with. How will he deal with it? Can he put out this potential threat to national unity ( and it is a real threat, given past history and real and imagined wrongs and neglects, felt out West)? The National Energy Board will meet and advise the government, but the final decision is with Trudeau. The first and very trying problem for this untested government.   
           

     There was hope in the air and joy in the streets, 5 years ago, as the Arab Spring started. Alas, with the exception of Tunisia, where it all started, everywhere else is gloom, despair, destruction, death and suffering.
     In Tunisia, the political rivals worked out a compromise, that is still holding. It won them the Nobel Peace Prize. In Egypt, after weeks of street marches, demonstrations and resistance from the government, Mubarak was driven out of office, Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood was elected, but was ousted in a military coup. General el-Sisi came to power and immediately cracked down on the media and political opposition. Thousands were jailed and over 1,000 have been killed. Instability is the order of the day and there have been outbreaks of terrorism.
     In Yemen, chaos and misery, as surrogates of Iran and Saudi Arabia are slugging it out in a deadly battle for power. Libya is ungovernable, with rival parliaments and various militias fighting it out. Syria has the government of Assad, fighting off various rebel groups (supported by outside powers, like the Saudis, while Assad is supported by Russia), as well as ISIL, with a coalition led by the USA and including Canada, Britain, France etc. bombing ISIL on a daily basis. This has created a humanitarian crisis with millions uprooted and many killed and others leaving in droves for Turkey, Jordan and Europe. Then there is Iraq with its continuing war and here the Kurds are battling ISIL, and so too are the Iraqi military. Mayhem.
     The dreams of Dec.17, 2011, have become nightmares and these nightmares keep repeating themselves, over and over again, with no end in sight.  

     The execution of the Shia cleric, Nimr al Nimr( and 46 others), by Saudi Arabia has sparked widespread protest and condemnation, none more so than from Iran. Nimr who came to prominence in the pro-democracy protests in 2011, has been a thorn to the Saudis, as he gained influence in eastern Saudi Arabia ( where many Shiites live) and among the youths as he called for the end of the monarchy. He was charged for instigating unrest and of seeking "foreign meddling" ( meaning from Iran).
     In Iran the government was quick to condemn the execution and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah, Ali Khamenei, railed that the Saudis will pay a "High Price". This was followed by the burning of the Saudi embassy in Teheran and the expulsion of Iranian diplomats from Saudi Arabia. The war of words ( at this point) has picked up with the  Saudis accusing the Iranians of supporting  "terrorism" and the Supreme Leader warning of "divine revenge".
     The Saudis are the leader of the Sunnis, which make up 85% of Muslims spread across the globe from Arabia to Indonesia to Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and elsewhere, while Iran is the center of the Shiites, with 60% of Iraq and a minority in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen and Bahrain. The Saudis see the Iranians as a threat to their power and influence in the region, what with the Iranians supporting the Shia government in Iraq, propping the Assad government in Syria, assisting the Houthis in Yemen and working closely with Hizbollah in Lebanon.
     The Iranians are the leader of the Shiites and they feel encircled by the Saudi-led Sunnis. They have become more emboldened after the signing of the nuclear agreement with the USA. This will mean that in return for restricting their nuclear programme, the  economic embargo that was imposed on them will be lifted and so they can sell their oil and gas, have the banking assets unfrozen and open themselves up to the world for trade, investment and tourism. Billions will pour into their coffers and with their economy booming and their young and educated population ( in tune with the outside world), prosperity, power and influence are at hand.
     The Saudis with their oil wealth dwindling ( with the rapid fall of price), fear that their power and influence are waning ( their closed society and repressed population are ripe for explosion and that's why Nimr al Nimr and his "kind" are harshly dealt with), as paranoia haunts the Kingdom. It is a fight for survival for their way of life so greatly influenced by their Wahabbist brand of Islam and they see Iran as the external threat and that the signing of the nuclear agreement and America's efforts to work out a peace agreement to end the conflict in the region and defeating ISIL and its "terrorist" ideology, as an advantage to Iran.
     Where will this end? With hardliners in both countries; with historic divisions in religion ( Sunni vs. Shia ); with regional ambitions clashing in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, and with the USA'S influence especially with Saudi Arabia lessening due to Saudis anger over the nuclear deal and suspicion about the "interests" of the Obama administration, it is tinderbox ready to explode. 
     A little miscalculation; a tiny spark is all it takes.