'It's happening. It's real': Northlander passenger train on track to return next year
"Literally we are on track as we speak," said Al Spacek, chair of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission said.
"The equipment is being manufactured and we've seen some exciting developments. Our staff have been down to the manufacturing facility. So it's happening. It's real."
Spacek said the passenger service will be fully accessible, complete with Wi-Fi for guests. He also added that improvements are being made to the rail track.
"This government has already invested over $70 million on upgrading the track between North Bay and Timmins," he said.
"It will be a nice, smooth ride and this only represents 42 per cent of the work that's being planned on the track."
Spacek said it's not yet known exactly how much it will cost to bring the Northlander back, but said the provincial government has spent "hundreds of millions of dollars" so far.
"We've come a long way since the previous government said they're going to shut down this service," he said.
"I'm not sure there was a lack of demand or ridership... certainly that was a decision by the previous government to shut it down for whatever reasons."
Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne did indeed cite low ridership and high costs in 2012, when her government decided to scrap the Northlander passenger train and redirect that funding into Ontario Northland's passenger bus service.
In 2011, the Northlander had 39,000 riders, with an annual subsidy of $100 million keeping the train running.
By comparison, the 2022 business case for bringing back the train estimated annual operating costs at around $283 million, with as much as $93 million in revenues, if they hit a target of 58,000 riders by 2041.
"Ticket prices haven't been determined yet, but this is a public transportation service so the cost will be subsidized. Affordability is a priority," said Spacek.
"It's a right that people have access to public transportation. Passenger service doesn't make money. That's the fact of life."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
10 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Alberta's United Conservatives call in lawyers in Progressive Conservative name fight
EDMONTON – Alberta's governing United Conservative Party has brought in its lawyers to challenge a rogue splinter group in a fight over resurrecting the province's legacy Progressive Conservative party brand. The UCP has sent a cease and desist letter to two former United Conservative caucus members who are now seeking to challenge Premier Danielle Smith's government by forming a new party using the old Progressive Conservative name. UCP executive director Dustin van Vugt, in a statement Wednesday, said the cease and desist letter was sent to protect the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta copyright and trademarks that belong to the UCP. 'The PC Alberta name, logo and goodwill were being used by people with no right to it,' he wrote. Van Vugt said neither of the ex-UCP caucus members were part of PC Alberta. 'Their attempt to usurp the goodwill associated with our legacy party in order to confuse voters and avoid the hard work of building a political movement is particularly insulting to the thousands of former PC Party members and supporters who are now contributing members of the UCP,' he wrote. The Progressive Conservatives ran Alberta's government for four decades before collapsing and merging with the Wildrose Party into the new United Conservatives in 2017. The UCP has been Alberta's governing party since 2019. Peter Guthrie, a former cabinet minister in Smith's government, along with former UCP backbencher Scott Sinclair, made headlines earlier this month announcing their plans to resurrect the PC name for a party that would challenge the UCP. Guthrie said Wednesday the letter shows the UCP is worried, and trying to intimidate those who want to move the province's political sphere back to 'normality.' 'They're fearful of us getting off the ground here and offering options to Albertans,' he said in an interview. Guthrie said they're still gathering signatures to register, but now they're also working to join and rebrand the centrist Alberta Party. 'We can get to that official party status now without having to get caught up in all the legal games that the UCP is trying to play here,' he said. Guthrie and Sinclair, both voted out of caucus earlier this year for challenging UCP policies, have said that Smith's government has lost its way, is catering to a narrow band of extremists and separatists, and that centrist conservatives need a place to park their vote. The would-be PCs have told supporters the Alberta Party will take on new board members and begin taking steps to change the name to reflect a progressive conservative alternative in the province. 'It may be that we have to tweak it a bit, but you can't own 'progressive' and you can't own 'conservative,'' said Guthrie. He added the Alberta Party is looking for a new direction, and the partnership makes sense. 'The Alberta Party has that infrastructure in place, and we've come out of the gates — we've had this incredible amount of interest. We started with a very small team, and we've had thousands of people trying to contact us,' he said. The collaboration means it's likely they'll need to hold a leadership contest, Guthrie said, since the Alberta Party already has a leader. Lindsay Amantea took on the role on an interim basis last year. The Alberta Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 23, 2025.
National Post
10 minutes ago
- National Post
Pembina Pipeline Corporation Announces Successful Completion of Consent and Proxy Solicitation for 4.80% Fixed-to-Fixed Rate Subordinated Notes, Series 1
Article content CALGARY, Alberta — Pembina Pipeline Corporation ('Pembina' or the 'Company') (TSX: PPL; NYSE: PBA) is pleased to announce the completion of its previously announced solicitation of written consents and proxies (the 'Solicitation') from holders (the 'Series 1 Noteholders') of Pembina's 4.80% Fixed-to-Fixed Rate Subordinated Notes, Series 1 due January 25, 2081 (the 'Series 1 Notes'). The Solicitation received strong support and the Extraordinary Resolution (as defined below) was approved by Series 1 Noteholders. Article content As previously announced, pursuant to the Solicitation, the Series 1 Noteholders were asked to consider and, if deemed advisable, pass an extraordinary resolution (the 'Extraordinary Resolution') to approve certain proposed amendments (the 'Proposed Amendments') to the indenture dated January 25, 2021 (the 'Series 1 Note Indenture') between Pembina, as issuer, and Computershare Trust Company of Canada, as trustee (the 'Trustee'), and to authorize Pembina, at its option, and the Trustee to enter into a supplemental indenture (the 'Supplemental Indenture'), pursuant to which the Proposed Amendments will be implemented. The Proposed Amendments provide for, among other things, the exchange of all of the outstanding Series 1 Notes for an equal principal amount of 4.80% Fixed-to-Fixed Rate Subordinated Notes, Series 3 of the Company due January 25, 2081 (the 'Series 3 Notes'). Article content Article content The deadline for the submission of written consents by Series 1 Noteholders expired at 5:00 p.m. (Calgary time) on July 22, 2025 (the 'Written Consent Deadline'). In order to pass, the Extraordinary Resolution required the written consent of the registered holders of not less than 66 2/3% of the aggregate principal amount of the outstanding Series 1 Notes. As at the Written Consent Deadline, Series 1 Noteholders representing in excess of 66 2/3% of the aggregate principal amount of outstanding Series 1 Notes consented to the Extraordinary Resolution. As a result, Pembina and the Trustee will promptly execute the Supplemental Indenture pursuant to which the Proposed Amendments will become effective and all of the outstanding Series 1 Notes will be exchanged for an equal principal amount of Series 3 Notes. Article content As a result of the Extraordinary Resolution being passed by written consent of the Series 1 Noteholders prior to the Written Consent Deadline, the meeting of the Series 1 Noteholders that was previously scheduled for 12:15 p.m. (Calgary time) on July 28, 2025 is cancelled. Article content The full text of the Extraordinary Resolution and additional details in respect of the Solicitation, the Proposed Amendments and the Series 3 Notes are more fully described in the consent and proxy solicitation statement of Pembina dated June 30, 2025 (the 'Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement'). A copy of the Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement is available under the Company's SEDAR+ profile at Article content About Pembina Article content Pembina Pipeline Corporation is a leading energy transportation and midstream service provider that has served North America's energy industry for more than 70 years. Pembina owns an extensive network of strategically-located assets, including hydrocarbon liquids and natural gas pipelines, gas gathering and processing facilities, oil and natural gas liquids infrastructure and logistics services, and an export terminals business. Through our integrated value chain, we seek to provide safe and reliable energy solutions that connect producers and consumers across the world, support a more sustainable future and benefit our customers, investors, employees and communities. For more information, please visit Article content Purpose of Pembina: We deliver extraordinary energy solutions so the world can thrive. Article content Pembina is structured into three Divisions: Pipelines Division, Facilities Division and Marketing & New Ventures Division. Article content Pembina's common shares trade on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges under PPL and PBA, respectively. For more information, visit Article content Disclaimer Article content This news release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the Series 1 Notes or any other securities in any jurisdiction. The Consent and Proxy Solicitation Statement does not constitute a solicitation of consents or proxies in any jurisdiction in which, or to or from any person to or from whom, it is unlawful to make such solicitation under applicable securities laws. The Series 3 Notes have not been approved or disapproved by any regulatory authority. The Series 3 Notes have not been and will not be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities law, and may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, United States persons except in transactions exempt from the registration requirements of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and applicable state securities laws. Article content Forward-Looking Information and Statements Article content This news release contains certain forward-looking statements and forward-looking information (collectively, 'forward-looking statements'), including forward-looking statements within the meaning of the 'safe harbor' provisions of applicable securities legislation that are based on Pembina's current expectations, estimates, projections and assumptions in light of its experience and its perception of historical trends. In some cases, forward-looking statements can be identified by terminology such as 'expect', 'intend', 'will', 'shall', and similar expressions suggesting future events or future performance. Article content In particular, this news release contains forward-looking statements relating to the expected timing and effect of the execution of the Supplemental Indenture and the implementation of the Proposed Amendments; the exchange of Series 1 Notes for Series 3 Notes; and the creation and issuance of the Series 3 Notes and the terms thereof. Article content These forward-looking statements are based on certain assumptions that Pembina has made in respect thereof as at the date of this news release, including: the expected impact of the Proposed Amendment and the exchange of Series 1 Notes for Series 3 Notes on the credit ratings in respect of Pembina and its securities; and certain other assumptions in respect of Pembina's forward-looking statements detailed in Pembina's Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2024 (the 'AIF') and Management's Discussion and Analysis for the year ended December 31, 2024 (the 'Annual MD&A'), which were each filed on SEDAR+ on February 27, 2025, in Pembina's Management's Discussion and Analysis for the three months ended March 31, 2025 (the 'Interim MD&A'), which was filed on SEDAR+ on May 8, 2025, and from time to time in Pembina's public disclosure documents available at Article content Article content , Article content Article content and through Pembina's website at Article content Article content . Article content These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to a number of known and unknown risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to: the impacts of a changing risk profile and possible subjection to, or continuation of, a credit rating review, which may result in a downgrade or negative outlook being assigned to Pembina or its securities, including the Series 1 Notes and the Series 3 Notes; and certain other risks and uncertainties detailed in the AIF, Annual MD&A, Interim MD&A and from time to time in Pembina's public disclosure documents available at Article content Article content , Article content Article content and through Pembina's website at Article content . Article content Article content Article content Article content Article content Contacts
CTV News
10 minutes ago
- CTV News
B.C. company ordered to pay $10K to employee it fired because of his criminal history
B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a Kelowna-based software company to pay a former employee who was fired after one week on the job $10,000, as it found the employers discriminated against him based on his criminal record. The employee – anonymized throughout the decision as Mr. T – was convicted of robbery and obstruction of justice a number of years before he was hired by MotiveWave Software, according to the decision issued on June 13 and posted online Thursday. Co-founders Tony Lindsay and Leigh Carter, a married couple who run the business out of their home, found out about the convictions when they Googled Mr. T after deciding to fire him, the ruling says. Mr. T admitted he lied about not having a criminal record during his job interview, and the employers did not conduct a criminal record check. Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau ruled the employee would have been fired regardless of his previous convictions, so denied his claims for lost wages, but still found his criminal past was a factor in his termination and approved compensation for 'injury to his dignity, feelings and self-respect.' The B.C. Human Rights Code prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of conviction for an offence, if the offence is unrelated to the job. To explain why, the BCHRT cited a 2003 Supreme Court of Canada decision that stated: 'The saying 'once a criminal, always a criminal' has no place in our society. Individuals who have paid their debt to society are entitled to resume their place in society and to live in it without running the risk of being devalued and unfairly stigmatized.' In this case, there was no dispute that MotiveWave fired Mr. T or that he had prior convictions. Cousineau was tasked with answering two questions: whether Mr. T's crimes were a factor in the termination and whether they were related to his employment – ultimately ruling both were true. The crimes According to the tribunal, Mr. T robbed a bank in December 2014, when he was in his early 20s. He told the HRT he was suffering from undiagnosed mental illnesses at the time and 'became fixated on money as the barrier to his wellness and success.' 'During an episode that his psychiatrist later described as 'full-blown psychosis,' he developed a plan to rob a bank to prove that money is a myth,' the decision reads. 'He planned the robbery, in his mind, to ensure no one would be hurt. While no one was physically hurt, he now acknowledges that the event was traumatic for people present and working in the bank that day.' During the robbery, Mr. T closed the bank's doors with zip ties, approached a teller and shook his bag to 'imply he had a weapon,' and forced the employee to hand over 'increasing sums of money,' according to the tribunal. He was arrested and charged shortly after. While awaiting trial, Mr. T was charged with obstruction of justice, for a matter he claimed was based on a 'misunderstanding of how he was allowed to communicate with witnesses.' He was convicted of that offence in December 2016 and sentenced to nine months in jail. After being released, his mental health deteriorated and he breached probation, and was sent back to prison around July 2017. Mr. T then pleaded guilty to the bank robbery charge in December 2017 and was sentenced to time served plus 18 months probation. 'Mr. T says that he now understands how immature and unwell he was at the time. He accepts that he caused harm and acknowledges his responsibility to earn back the trust of his community. He wants to reintegrate and move forward with his life,' the decision reads. Since 2017, the HRT sys, Mr. T has not been charged or convicted of any crime, and that he started taking medication, returned to school and work, and started a small business. At the time of the crimes, Mr. T's last name started with 'U,' the tribunal noted. He legally changed his last name because he said people were treating him differently after Googling him and finding 'sensationalized' news articles about his convictions. The job Mr. T applied for a job as a product support specialist at MotiveWave in early 2020, a position that involves helping customers via email and phone. On the application, he used his new last name, though the legal change wouldn't become official until October of that year. At the second of three job interviews, Carter asked Mr. T if he had any criminal convictions, explaining the position was based in her home and her children would be present. Mr. T said he did not. She later Googled him and the news articles did not come up, because he did not use his legal name. 'Mr. T gave several explanations for his decision to lie about his criminal convictions, which I accept. First, he says that he did not consider his criminal convictions to relate to the job or the safety of Ms. Carter's children. From his perspective, his convictions had nothing to do with violence or children or any other aspect of the job, as he understood it,' Cousineau wrote. 'Second, he says that he considered it significant that MotiveWave did not require him to complete a criminal record check. He figured that they had done their due diligence and, if it were truly necessary, would have required a criminal record check.' Carter and Lindsay, the co-founders, testified they had reservations about Mr. T as he overstated some of his skills, but liked his 'energy and enthusiasm' and were struggling to find any other qualified applicants, so decided to give him a shot. 'Lindsay testified that they thought that the worst-case scenario was that, if it didn't work out, they would terminate Mr. T's employment and move on,' the decision reads. Mr. T started the job on Aug. 24, 2020 – an employment that lasted seven days. The HRT noted Lindsay and Carter learned of his legal last name when he submitted his banking details and 'found it strange' but didn't follow up. Lindsay and Carter gave the HRT several reasons they decided to terminate Mr. T after one week. Some pertained to his performance, such as not progressing in training and spending too much time trying to change the company's website, which was not part of the job. Carter was particularly concerned about Mr. T's demeanor, the tribunal writing the pair 'were not, in these early days, a good working fit.' She testified Mr. T repeatedly asked for access to the backend of MotiveWave's website to make changes, which made her uncomfortable, and in one instance described him as 'aggressive' and intimidating. Mr. T, for his part, said he thought things were going well and denied having an argument with Carter. 'Ms. Carter told Mr. Lindsay they needed to let Mr. T go. She told him she felt he had been aggressive, and she felt upset and scared,' Cousineau wrote. 'I accept that, at this point, Mr. Lindsay and Ms. Carter had decided to terminate Mr. T's employment the next day. This decision was not based on his criminal convictions, because they did not know about them yet. This is when Ms. Carter remembered that Mr. T's legal name was 'Mr. U' and decided to Google him.' The couple found several news articles about the bank robbery and Mr. T's conviction for obstruction of justice, which they were shocked by. The tribunal accepted Lindsay and Carter 'were scared by what they read and perceived that Mr. T posed a safety threat to them and the kids.' Lindsay called Mr. T and asked if the articles were about him, and he said yes and admitted he lied about not having a criminal record. Lindsay told Mr. T he could not have him working in his house anymore. 'The meaning was clear: because of Mr. T's criminal convictions, he was fired effective immediately,' the decision reads. 'Mr. T started pleading with Mr. Lindsay to find a solution. He tried to explain that the information in the articles was incorrect, that the issue was his mental health, that he had gotten help, and had taken responsibility. He told Mr. Lindsay he could talk to his mother, friends, probationary officer – anyone would confirm that he was a good person. He suggested he could work remotely. However, Mr. Lindsay was resolute. The relationship had been tarnished, and the employment could not continue.' Mr. T filed the human rights complaint the following day, Sept. 2, 2020. The decision MotiveWave's operators argued Mr. T's prior convictions were not a factor in his firing, as they had already decided to dismiss him. However, the tribunal ruled the crimes were part of the decision, as they fired him immediately after finding out, rather than the next day as previously planned. The HRT also noted that if MotiveWave fired Mr. T for lying about the convictions, rather than the crimes themselves, it might have been off the hook. Lindsay and Carter also argued the convictions were related to Mr. T's job because he worked out of their home where their three young children were present, and that the product support specialist role involves accessing baking information from customers. 'I agree, without reservation, that an employer has no obligation to employ someone who poses a threat to their children. But the law is clear that the threat must be assessed contextually, and not solely by focusing on a past crime,' Cousineau wrote. The tribunal deemed Mr. T's risk of engaging in further violent or threatening behaviour 'very low, if not negligible' because when he robbed the bank he was dealing with an untreated mental illness and has since received treatment, is taking medication and understands his triggers. 'He is resolute in a determination to rehabilitate himself and move forward after his convictions. However, one of the biggest obstacles to his rehabilitation is how people respond to him when they learn about the convictions,' the decision reads. 'He described his job with MotiveWave as a 'dream job' that allowed him to work in the field he was passionate about, with people he admired. He foresaw opportunities to grow and progress. Mr. T's commitment to rehabilitation and success cement my conclusion, considering all the circumstances, that his previous convictions were unrelated to his employment with MotiveWave.' Cousineau thus declared MotiveWave terminating Mr. T was discriminatory. The compensation The tribunal denied Mr. T's claim for 18 months worth of wages, as it found he would have been fired for 'non-discriminatory' reasons the next morning regardless. However, the tribunal awarded half of the $20,000 he claimed for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. In his testimony, Mr. T said it would have been much easier to move on if Lindsay and Carter gave any other reason for firing him. 'The indication to me that the only reason they fired me was because of my criminal history and it had nothing to do with who I was as a person, or the work I did as a worker; it basically indicated to me that I could be the best worker and the most courageous and happy person and people will still fire me for a criminal event that happened many, many, many years ago,' he said. 'That process made me think that my life isn't worth anything. And I had some really deep thoughts about what purpose I have in society or in a community in which no one wants me or no one would give me the time of day to give them my knowledge or to help them.' Cousineau accepted the incident seriously impacted Mr. T's mental health, and, while reiterating he would have lost the job anyway, ordered MotiveWave to pay him $10,000.
