The Intolerant Left

How many times have you found yourself in a discussion where someone asks you if you “believe” in climate change? It’s a loaded question isn’t it? And you know exactly where it’s going:  If you don’t answer in the affirmative you will be met with a combination of shock, derision, and scorn.

Personally I usually say something like, “Of course. The climate has been changing since the beginning of time.” If they want to pursue it further, then I have to make a decision whether or not I want to get involved. They usually only want to consider “their” facts and it usually isn’t worth the effort to engage in the debate.

To me this is on the same level as the outrage that I encounter if I dare to suggest that President Trump isn’t a blithering idiot ready to set off WW3!

The left really wants to intimidate you and many people have submitted to the pressure.

What? You’re black or gay or a celebrity and NOT a democrat? That is vile! Or so we are told. Everyone must adhere to stereotypes.

This attempt by the extreme left to control thought, speech and behaviour under penalty of social ostracism is showcased in a brief clip here by Roseanne(!) I wish it wasn’t cut off at the end but you’ll get the idea. She makes a lot of sense.

It’s so much easier to give in. It takes a strong person like Kayne West or Roseanne to swim against the current.

——————————

I found the full interview! Available here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Canadian Politics, Democracy, Free Speech, U.S. Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

155 Responses to The Intolerant Left

  1. Liz J says:

    That’s so funny, I say the same thing, the climate has been changing from day one.I’d like to know how they explain it when the weather “experts” say this storm is the worst in over a hundred years. That says it did happen even before we became more and more industrialized.
    I’d like to ask if they want to go back to stone axes and other tools, shut down all manner of machinery, collapse the economy, Too bad for them Mo Strong didn’t live to see his dream, the collapse of all industrialized nations…..most of the climate change crazies are simply on the band wagon, it’s been instilled deep in their minds from kindergarten to to university for decades now

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Yes indeed. And now the goal is wealth redistribution – aka socialism on a global scale with a few very powerful people in control.

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Unlike most here, I do support a carbon tax, but the right way to do it, is how Gordon Campbell implemented it in 2008, not the way Trudeau is. He didn’t demonize those who opposed it and in fact he sold it in a positive manner that it would be a market solution to solving climate change while the revenue raised from it would be used for lower taxes. As such BC in 2017 (when the BC Liberals were removed from power and the NDP made the carbon tax no longer revenue neutral), BC had the lowest corporate tax rate in the country, lowest income tax rate for middle and lower income earners, while second lowest for high income earners. This made BC an attractive place to do business and is why we have a booming tech sector.

      Actually Michael Chong who was criticized in many ways was simply advocating doing what Gordon Campbell did in BC at the federal level and considering how well BC did under the BC Liberals I think it could work. Otherwise I don’t share Doug Ford’s view a carbon tax is the worst tax ever, but I don’t either share Catherine McKenna’s arrogant view on it either. I believe it can work well if done right like it was under the BC Liberals, but can be a disaster if done wrongly. Otherwise I would trust someone like Michael Chong to implement one that would work, I wouldn’t trust Trudeau or McKenna as Chong like Campbell believes in smaller government so the carbon tax would be used to cut taxes elsewhere and also remove much of the red tape and let the market determine things while putting a price on a negative externality. By contrast Trudeau and McKenna are addicted to more government spending so they just want more revenue to spend more when we have a spending not revenue problem.

      As more of a Red Tory, my real problem is I feel too many in politics today are seeing things in black and white rather than shades of gray and I don’t think governing by ideology whichever side it is, is helpful. Pragmatism is the way to go. Otherwise lets look at what solutions deliver best results and forget about what side of the spectrum it falls on. Mulroney and Chretien certainly did this and even Harper despite frequently being called an ideologue by and large did this too.

      Like

    • Florence Engelbrecht says:

      It is about follow the money and greed. They do not care about destroying our country Canada. Why are MSM supporting this craziness? They do not care about Canada I hope the MSM wake up!

      Like

  2. Greg says:

    Same, but I also add that the solutions they came up with do nothing to solve the imagined problem. Solar and wind add more CO2 to the atmosphere than they save over at least a 20 year time frame. What is their life, is it more than 20 years? If they were really serious, they would have recommended a massive increase in nuclear power with a stop gap of natural gas.

    Liked by 1 person

    • joannebly says:

      Also a very good point Greg regarding the so-called solutions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Greg says:

      Further to this point – US emissions have dropped by nearly 3% since 2016 – all while the US economy has grown compared to the rest of the world. Meanwhile – all those countries keen on windmills and solar and flying around the world to sign accords have continued to increase their emissions, and can’t match economic growth in the US. You would almost think that developing a more efficient economy is the way to go instead of building new energy infrastructure that is less efficient and costs more.

      Like

  3. Liz J says:

    Speaking of Trump, he is the exact person the US needed, lucky there were enough people in the US to realize that. He has the Democrats and the media in a frenzy, completely unstrung. Fake news doesn’t get spread as fact.

    Things may be looking up here in Canada if we can take anything from what’s going down provincially. We have Ford, the Left were trying to compare him to Trump, didn’t work, let’s hope this trend keeps moving into the 2019 federal election.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      I think Trudeau and company should be very worried. Canadians are starting to find their voices. We won’t be ridiculed or shamed into submission.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I think its a mixed bag. Most people want to be accepted so I think a lot on the left (and I also some on the right, I plan to blog on our polarization soon) think by insulting or humiliating someone they will change their views. I think this works well in areas where one’s opinion is a small minority, but blow up in their face if they are going after the majority opinion. As we’ve seen in recent elections, viewpoints vary considerably depending on where you live and the same in other countries too. I think the SJW approach works quite well in my neck of the woods which was downtown Toronto or a 15 minute walk west to be precise and Vancouver proper now which are both very left wing areas. I had some arguments on twitter with some SJWs who on the death penalty were insulting and demeaning someone who supported it. I oppose it, but I understand and respect those who support it and found their dismissive attitude quite annoying and tried to politely explain how it was unhelpful. All from Vancouver proper I might add. I think you see the same in the US too as the strong left wing attitudes are mostly in large cities that vote 80-90% Democrat. Since most want to be accepted, I think it works well if you live in a left wing community to begin with and thus pushes the minority right wing that way, but has the opposite effect in areas that are more mixed or right wing is the majority and the latter two are larger in Canada (mixed being the biggest actually). Sadly I think this just further pulls those areas apart from the larger community as I actually think downtown Toronto, Island of Montreal, and Vancouver proper would benefit from more conservatives, but I also think Rural Alberta would benefit from having more progressives. I think you get a more well rounded perspective when exposed to both sides instead of just one.

        Like

  4. Liz J says:

    We know Prime Ministers have advisors but we expect they have minds of their own with good ideas with the ability to figure out if advice given is good or bad. I had that confidence in PM Harper.
    The Trudeau administration is closer to a puppet show and I think we all know why. It’s never reassuring to even hear or see Butts in the news, he isn’t elected to call the shots. It takes something away from the show to see the puppeteer in action.
    Does anyone recall knowing or hearing from, or much about, the advisors of former PM’s?

    Like

  5. Miles Lunn says:

    There is no doubt the left does this a lot. I think the strategy is to shame people into being progressives and it may work in some cases as most people don’t like to be on the outs, but only in areas which are already overwhelmingly progressive. In fact in parts of the country where progressives aren’t the majority or people are on the face, seems to be pushing people in the opposite direction. I actually think if Liberals want to succeed long term they should look to someone like Chretien. Unlike Trudeau, Chretien seemed to have good instincts and when the right was rising in support he would adopt a lot of their popular ideas (i.e. balanced budgets, tougher on crime etc.,) while avoid their more unpopular whereas Trudeau seems to think everyone can be grouped into one group or another and progressives a majority, when in fact it is swing voters on the fence who decide the election. Trudeau won this group last time around and while polls suggest he is doing okay right now, recent provincial elections should be a warning he doesn’t have a lock on that group and they can switch.

    Like

  6. Miles Lunn says:

    Off topic a bit, what are people’s thoughts on the recent provincial elections. Does this signal a strong shift to the right or is it more of a balancing effort whereby we have a left wing government federally so right wing provincially provides that balance? I think it means Tories have an opportunity in 2019, certainly several left wing provincial ones leading up to 2015 was a warning of what was to come federally. But also as we saw in the 90s could be meaningless as Chretien dealt with mostly right wing governments yet still had no trouble winning and even during Harper’s tenure it was mixed at best. I think the provincial results in many ways show what voters the Tories have the potential to pick up, but that doesn’t mean they necessarily will pick those ones up, those are otherwise your swing voters.

    Like

  7. Liz J says:

    If the Left can’t get enough noise going here to sell their madness, importing it from the US will not help them. We can think for ourselves without outside interference from agenda driven busybodies with money, Hollywood phonies and other sundry entertainers looking for publicity.

    I’m proud of this constitutional monarchy, we just need to pay attention and make better choices at the ballot box. It’s not about putting on a show, it’s taking care of business, insuring we stay strong and free and safe. I don’t feel safe with our present government, we have to do better, we have to choose beyond superficiality.
    Conservative do not need to run scared, be Conservative, call out fake news, correct lies pronto before it spreads. Call the media out when necessary, Trump knows how it’s done, he’s no more outrageous than they are.

    Like

  8. Anne in swON says:

    In 2006 we elected the kind of leadership the rest of the democratic world is now desperately searching for and what did we do? We listened to a snake oil salesman who tried to emulate his idol, Obama, and elected him to lead our country. His words were soothing, his charisma enchanting and we were lulled into falsely believing in his promise that “better is always possible” with him in charge as we lemmings followed him to the edge of the cliff. Well, it’s not 2015 anymore and we’re not the lemmings he thought we were. We have a stark choice to make – do we jump or do we make a stand? We Ontarians made that choice with our provincial government and elected Ford. We need to do the same federally in 2019. I offered this link in the previous thread but I feel it’s more fitting in this one. https://spectator.org/everyone-is-smart-except-trump/

    Like

  9. Anne in swON says:

    This is big. Vice Admiral Mark’s defence attorney: “It will be the defence’s position that Minister Brison was behind the effort to delay and potentially terminate the Davie agreement,” the documents state.” https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/vice-admiral-mark-normans-lawyers-offer-detailed-look-at-defence-strategy-in-new-court-filings and https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vice-admiral-mark-norman-rcmp-investigation-leaks-1.4862697?cmp=rss#pq=JVJKvu

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Yes I saw something about that. Looks like a conflict of interest at the very least. Somehow Liberals always seem to get away with stuff though.

      Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        Except in this incident there’s a connection with the prime minister and with a former member of the press who was conveniently hired as a government staffer as well as with a member of the bureaucracy. The stench is deep with this one. Trudeau couldn’t ask for worse timing as we approach the campaigning for election 2019.

        Like

        • Liz J says:

          Overall, the Trudeau government is not teeming with bright people and some of them think they are smarter than the average Canadian. This is an example of that, the players in this know better but think they can get away with it. We need to call them on it not give up with a whimper.

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            I think that has a lot to do with the party moving from third to first. I find when parties leapfrog from third to first they tend to have this issue as most talented people want to run for a party that has a good chance of winning, not one that is likely to lose. It will be interesting to see how Francois Legault does in Quebec as he also leapfrogged from third to first but I heard unlike the past two elections where the CAQ had a weak team, this time they recruited a much stronger one and a lead in the polls for a year probably helped a lot too. Part of the reason Ford has a very strong team is it was widely believed the Ontario PCs were going to be the next government thus why the PCs attracted types like Mulroney, Philipps, Bethenfalvy, Elliott etc. Notley much like Trudeau had the same problem and even worse. Her only blessing is while I disagree with her policies strongly, she seems far more knowledgeable and capable than Trudeau does so didn’t have to rely on her cabinet nearly as much. Otherwise I hope she loses next year because I disagree with her policies, not because I think she is incompetent.

            Like

  10. Liz J says:

    Does anyone really think the Trudeau gang have any real plan to deal with all the unforeseen repercussions legalizing pot? I don’t believe a word Trudeau says on the subject at this point, he has tossed it to the provinces, lining it up with booze and it’s much different than booze with different effects.
    Another person I do not believe is Blair, don’t think his former cohorts in the police force are impressed either.

    Like

    • Cara says:

      There is no doubt in my mind that Trudeau’s government is making this all up on the fly. It’s uncharted territory.
      He’s also lining it up with cigarettes in terms of regulation. Anywhere you see people lighting up tobacco, they will be free to light up a joint.
      It’s one of those promises Trudeau made to snag the youth vote, nothing more.
      Don’t worry thought Liz, the apologists and media party-types will find only sunshine amidst that haze.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I think considering prohibition hasn’t worked I support legalization. I don’t believe giving a large chunk of the population a criminal record is helpful. Nonetheless when the first major country bound to have issues. I actually was talking to an American from Nevada where it is legal and he stated in Colorado lots of problems, but Nevada learned from them so went smoothly so my guess is will be rough at first, but in a few years will be fine. In terms of harm, actually most studies show marijuana as harmful, but no more so than alcohol or tobacco. If there is any mistake, it is probably setting the age at only 18 or 19 and I think Francois Legault is right to put it at 21 which is what the medical community advocated. One’s brain isn’t fully developed until 25 so if you smoke it while the brain is still developing far more harmful than once it is fully developed. I don’t however support the idea of selling it at corner stores, which no province is thankfully doing. With alcohol at least we have many jurisdictions who do sell at corner stores so we can learn from them whereas there is nowhere on earth that allows corner store sales of marijuana.

        In terms of where it can be smoked, my view is it should be limited to people’s private property and marijuana cafes as it smells awful and others shouldn’t have to inhale it. Also shared apartments and condos should be allowed to ban its use as it effects others, but if your own private detached home then you can smoke it while for the above its up to the apartments and condos to decide this individually IMHO.

        Like

        • Liz J says:

          I think we are pretty clear on what long term use of tobacco can do and alcohol abuse as well. Time will tell on cannabis, it’s the young people I’m concerned about and of course driving, it’s just one more thing to make our roads less safe.

          It stinks, not something you can hide!

          Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            Driving is a concern, but I do believe through education you can change this. DUI rates today are 1/3 what they were in the early 80s. A combination of better enforcement, stricter penalties, and education of the harms is why it is less common. Back when many Baby boomers were younger you went out to the bar and drove home. Today amongst millennials, if there is no public transit or taxi options, having a designated driver has been quite common whereas 40 years ago no one did this. For Cigarettes, smoking rate was 60% in the 60s, today it is around 15% and I think a combination of education, higher cigarette prices, bans on tobacco advertising, and limiting the places you can smoke is why it has fallen. When my parents went to university in the 60s, you could smoke in class during a lecture which most would consider ridiculous. Even I remember the days you could smoke on airlines and it wasn’t that long ago when you could smoke at restaurants and bars. Now when travelling abroad and going to one, it is awful while back then I didn’t mind since used to it, but now cannot stand being near anyone who smokes.

            I think the best solution is allow it to be sold but with strict licencing requirements and anyone caught selling to minors will be shut down permanently, no fines or warnings like with tobacco or alcohol. Also put a limit on number of outlets so they aren’t on any corner. Make it a criminal offence to buy marijuana for a minor not a misdemeanour like with alcohol as most teens get booze by having an older friend buy it for them. Heck even making ID mandatory for all purchases I would support meaning everyone even a 90 year old has to show ID would avoid the excuse of accidentally selling to a minor. For driving, have similar penalties to DUI. As for second hand smoke, I think the rule should be ban it in all public areas. Only one’s home and marijuana cafes (they would be banned from selling booze as the two don’t mix) would be the legal places one can light up. One can though use edibles as long as not driving or operating machinery. For apartments and condos, they would have the right to ban its use, but it would be up to each one to decide individually. Likewise for growing pot plants, I would allow this provided only for personal consumption (It cannot be sold without a licence) and no minor lives in the residence.

            Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            This whole mess just stretches law enforcement capabilities thinner and thinner and thinner. But keep justifying the lunacy. It appeals to all those with addiction tendencies.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            AnneSWON – I would argue making it a criminal offence stretches them as they have to spend time going after marijuana users instead of more serious criminals. Also clogs up our prisons and the biggest reason I favour legalization is if you have a criminal record, very difficult to get a decent job so this shuts out many capable people from a large chunk of the labour market thus hurting our economic growth. Now maybe decriminalization might have been a better solution as although not my personal preference, I would have accepted that as a compromise. I think if you still believe it should be illegal, issuing a ticket similar to speeding makes more sense while off course the dealers will still go to prison and even after legalized any unlicenced seller or smuggler still will go to jail. Actually I think enforcement should be done like alcohol where you have an agency similar to the AGCO or perhaps even expand them to include marijuana enforcement as opposed to police. That seems to work well for alcohol and the cost can covered through taxes on marijuana as well as licence fees so it is zero cost to taxpayers who don’t use it.

            As Lisa Raitt mentioned in the debate back in the 2017 CPC leadership race, this is a lost cause and better to target the Liberals on other areas where vulnerable. I doubt Scheer would recriminalize it if he wins in 2019, otherwise the horse has left the barn here. But he may tighten the rules over it which would be fair.

            Like

          • Anne in swON says:

            So, if at first you don’t succeed, quit? Now that’s really pushing the laissez faire philosophy. What comes next in this anything goes world? We’ve already legalized some pretty dastardly things eg. abortion on demand, medically assisted death, healing lodges and congruent sentencing, early parole, etc., etc., etc. Enough. Thanks for your opinion, Miles, but this is mine.

            Like

          • Miles Lunn says:

            AnneSWON – I guess have to agree to disagree here but I am more a fiscal conservative not a social conservative. I don’t think banning the things mentioned works particularly well and generally believe if one is not harming others, adults should be free to pursue what they wish within limits off course. On some things like gun control I tend to believe more in greater control although not an outright ban, but certainly oppose any loosening of our gun laws. I think Canada has done alright overall even with our liberalization. Sure Trudeau is a lousy PM, but I highly doubt Scheer will reverse any of this just as Harper did not when he was in power. As for criminal sentencing, I used to support longer sentences but after seeing the problems in the US, I am now against. I support them for repeat offenders and those who cannot be rehabilitated, but I don’t believe the idea of having 1% of the population in prison at any given moment (that is what it is in the US or close to) is a good thing. In fact Sesame Street recently had an episode my Dad’s in Jail because children with parents in prison is so common there. I agree some like Teri Stafford’s killer was wrong, but I’ve found the few times criminals get unreasonably light sentences get a lot of media attention so many assume its the norm. Most get fair sentences and the problem is more plugging the holes. Also too lets remember a lot of light sentences are prosecutors plea bargaining or going for a lighter sentence since if they went for a harsher one or didn’t plea bargain the person might get off altogether so some time in jail even if shorter than desired is better than none. Besides most of our liberalized laws usually end up being the norm throughout the Western world within a decade or so, we just are often are a bit ahead and I would rather we be more like the most prosperous countries than the less prosperous which tend to be more socially conservative. But I guess will just have to agree to disagree here. I think on social issues the Conservatives are always going to be somewhat divided that is why past leaders tend to stay away from them and focus more on pocket book issues where Conservatives are united. If we had PR (which I oppose) you would probably have two conservative parties, a right wing one, and a more centrist one, but with FTFP, you need a big tent one to win.

            Like

  11. Miles Lunn says:

    Looking on twitter, I think intolerance is a problem on both sides and I’ve generally found the further one gets from the centre, the more intolerant they tend to be of others. Also I think exposure to those with different viewpoints is key here. Many of the intolerant left I find come from urban cores where the population is overwhelmingly left wing so they probably haven’t met many conservatives thus don’t understand why they hold the views they do and buy a lot of the negative stereotypes (examples those living south of Bloor, east of Dufferin, and west of Don Valley Parkway in Toronto, while in Vancouver west of Boundary, south of Burrard Inlet, and north of King Edward are hot spots for left wing group think). By contrast I’ve found most of the intolerant right coming from the rural Prairies, otherwise the more exposure I find one has to the other side the more tolerant they are to different viewpoints while those who are only surrounded by those who think like them tend to I’ve found be less tolerant. In the US it is really bad due to how segregated the society is. 30 years ago, most Americans lived in counties and precincts where neither the Democrats or GOP got more than 10% above their national support thus exposed to different viewpoints. Today most Americans live in counties that go over 60% for one party or another and majority live in precincts that vote over 2/3 one way or another so I think the fact Democrats and Republicans tend to live in separate spaces is a big reason for the hostility between both sides. Also with social media I find those with most extreme views are the nosiest as many seem to think shouting louder will help them win more support so those on the other side wrongly stereotype everyone on the spectrum as this. Very few right wingers are you gun totting women hating, cross burning Neo-Nazis and very few on the left are your Marxist Che Guevera, Castro, Chavez lovers who want to send all non-communists to the Gulags. Those are the stereotypes of both sides, but in reality they represent a tiny fraction of each.

    Angus-Reid had an interesting poll this week and it asked people how they have voted in the past five elections and for the Tories, only 19% voted for them each time, but 51% voted for them at least once. I knew we had a large swing vote but didn’t realize it was that large so something for parties to consider for 2019. If you look at this http://angusreid.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/2018.10.11-Leaders-Genpop-ReleaseTables.pdf actually surprising how many are on the fence, open to voting Conservative, but not certain. Even more interesting, 41% of Liberal voters and 25% of NDP voters in 2015 voted Conservative at least once between 2004 to 2015 while of Conservative voters in 2015, 25% voted Liberal at least once and 16% NDP at least once and considering this was a bad election for the Conservatives I suspect in most recent provincial elections that would be higher.

    Like

  12. Liz J says:

    This is the day Trudeau has fulfilled his dream, cannabis is now legal in Canada, we won’t worry about the details, they will fix themselves through the haze.
    Motto for the day..’don’t worry, be happy’, just trust no one will go “one tote over the line” as the old song went and get behind the wheel of a car.
    I don’t think people realize what making it legal really means…. the connotation if it’s legal it must be OK and there will be more partaking. The high school kids are where my concern is, they need guidance at home and at school….hope they are getting it.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Yes I’m worried about the kids too. To me it sends the wrong signal.

      On a political level, if this ends up being Trudeau’s biggest achievement then it’s a pretty pathetic record.

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        I hope they have zero tolerance for sales to minors. In Ontario I believe the government has said any outlet that sells to minors will be shut down permanently not like with alcohol or tobacco where you just get a fine and only on third offence do you lose your licence. In addition, I believe federal law makes it a criminal offence not just a misdemeanour to buy for someone under 18, but if a province puts the age higher and the person is over 18 but under the provincial legal age just a misdemeanour. With alcohol when I was a teen, we usually got booze by asking an older friend to buy it so it should be a criminal offence to do that. Also there is the issue of Fake IDs which at least when I was a teen many had to buy booze although I’ve heard with technology today they are harder to use so perhaps mandate all outlets have electronic scanners, not just looking at them as this would prevent fake IDs from being used.

        Like

    • Greg says:

      It’s going to have more of an effect on our daily lives than anyone predicted I think. There will be all kinds of controversy over where and when you can partake. I wonder of Ontario may need to revert back in some of the smoking laws. After all, if you can’t light up a cigar on a bar patio, you can’t light up a joint either. It’s going to be in everyone’s face whether you want it or not. I just saw a report showing that Halifax airport now has weed disposal bins so that you can ditch your pot before getting on an international flight if you were dopey (pun intended) enough to think you could transport it across borders.

      Like

      • joannebly says:

        Haha! Good pun.

        Obviously the Trudeau gov’t pushed this through now so that by the next election the problems would have been worked out – or at least that was their hope. I’m not so sure though. This will likely have ramifications we haven’t even begun to realize yet.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Miles Lunn says:

        They might like New Brunswick just ban it outright outside of one’s personal residence. In New Brunswick and I believe Manitoba too it is illegal to smoke it anywhere except one’s personal residence. Also I believe in Ontario, only if it is a detached home can you smoke it, if a condo or apartment (since the smell can seep through and effect other residents), the landlord if a renter or the board if owner get to decide.

        Like

  13. joannebly says:

    FYI I added a short update to the previous post.

    Like

  14. Liz J says:

    This whole thing is being shoved onto the provinces, businesses, municipalities to deal with, not Trudeau and his band of misfits, they really are flying by the seats of their britches. It’s a wait and see attitude. His first act will be to pardon those who were charged , clear them of criminal offense,
    fair enough, only the government can do that, the hard work will be done by other jurisdictions.

    As for where and when they can partake that remains up in the air, they will try anywhere out of the gate, feign ignorance. I just cannot see how it can be policed as to where it can be consumed, vaped or puffed, whatever..

    Like

    • Cara says:

      You’re right Liz. My municipality is not in the least prepared for this. I predict a huge push-back at the polls in 2019.

      In the meantime. https://torontosun.com/news/national/tory-majority-if-federal-election-held-today-poll-says

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I am fine with pardons if it is simple use, I support that but not for smugglers or dealers. I have never tried marijuana, but many of my family and friends have when they were younger and many are hard working contributing taxpayers and haven’t broken any other rules so just seems silly for similar types who were unfortunate to get caught to have their life wrecked with a criminal record. I believe close to 50% of Canadians have at some point tried marijuana so that suggests criminalization is going overboard. Making it a misdemeanour perhaps, after all most who own a car have probably sped at some point.

      I think the Conservatives are being wise here in not making this a major attacking point as I don’t think its a winning issue although obviously if the roll out goes poorly that will change I suspect but rather Scheer will propose tighter rules I suspect as opposed to recriminalization. I have actually talked to a number of Americans from states where it is legal and all thought it was a good idea even those who were Republican voters. Granted most are in the Western US and the GOP in the West tends to be more libertarian than social conservative (that is more in the south where marijuana isn’t legal and likely won’t be anytime soon).

      Like

  15. Miles Lunn says:

    Here are the marijuana rules by province: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marijuana-faq-legalization-need-to-know-1.4862207 so it looks like Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland & Labrador, PEI, Saskatchewan, and Yukon won’t allow marijuana smoking outside one’s residence. Alberta and Quebec are the only one’s at 18, but Quebec plans to raise to 21 and I wouldn’t be surprised if Kenney wins next year if he raises it to 19 or 21. Interestingly enough in Manitoba even though the drinking age is 18, they choose 19 for marijuana. I am guessing since we know have or will have soon small c conservative governments in most provinces you will probably see fairly restrictive rules (Quebec goes rightward tomorrow when CAQ sworn in, PCs likely to form government later in New Brunswick after Liberals fall on throne speech, and UCP likely next year). Likewise it seems the Liberals in Atlantic Canada are more your traditional ones so much less enthusiastic than Trudeau is. BC will probably be the least restrictive as marijuana is so popular here it would be politically risky to ban it all public places, but in all other provinces you could probably do so without a political backlash.

    Like

  16. gabbyinqc says:

    Trudeau & his gang must be elated that the eyes of the world are fixed on Canada — apparently leading the way on legalization of pot. Great accomplishment, isn’t it?
    – Who cares about the consequences?
    – Who cares if the number of 4 million + current users goes up to 5M or more?
    – Who cares if pot is a factor in more highway carnage?
    – Who cares if our already overburdened health care system will have to deal with pot related accidents?
    – Who cares if former cop Bill Blair, Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, earnestly says the government’s legalization aims to “displace” organized crime? Actually, he should admit the government aims to REPLACE organized crime. Governments, be they the federal, provincial, or municipal, hope to fill their coffers from increasing consumption.

    A stoned population is even more malleable & easily manipulated than it already is.

    Liked by 1 person

    • joannebly says:

      I hear you Gabby! And I wonder what message this sends to children. To me it seems that the government is condoning the use of drugs. I still don’t understand how this is supposed to protect underage pot users from the illegal market.

      Like

    • Cara says:

      “A stoned population is even more malleable & easily manipulated than it already is.”
      And therein lies the rub. Well said Gabby and very concisely as well.

      It’s all about what’s good for this government. Always was, Always will be.

      The usual suspects, media party, liberal apologists are already dusting off a win for Trudeau in next year’s election. They’re glowing in a bastion of the fawning and accolades we have long expected.

      Played smartly and tactfully I believe that the Conservatives should continue to question
      any and all of what’s gone down.

      Like

  17. Miles Lunn says:

    Interesting, the lobby group pushing to offer amnesty for past pot convictions is led by Melissa Lantsman and Omar Khan. For those unaware Lantsman helped lead Ford’s campaign this past June and Khan helped lead Wynne’s. I think the real problem with fighting hard against legalized marijuana is ever since the summer of love in the late 60s its become so common to use it so pretty much anyone under 75 likely either used it or has many friends that did (I fall in the latter not former). Prior to the late 60s, using marijuana was rare, but since then a lot more common. Lets remember many rock stars from the 60s who used it are now in their 70s today and older than the vast majority of the electorate. Where this might hurt Trudeau however is amongst the immigrant communities as a lot come from countries with much more conservative attitudes towards drug use and that might be one the danger if things don’t go to well, although didn’t hurt him last time, but if it goes wrong that could change things.

    Like

    • gabbyinqc says:

      Ah yes, I forgot about that angle — the expunging of criminal records or the pardoning of criminal records for possession of cannabis. Some people demand the government declare the offences never happened (expungement) while others prefer the government grant pardons for breaking existing laws. In either case, I suppose some compensation will once again be extracted from taxpayers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cara says:

        Indeed. As with so many other things under the Trudeau government it’s we the taxpayers who will end up paying in the end.

        But PM Sunshine? Hero status. Wait for it.

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          My understanding is they will just expunge them from criminal records, not give monetary compensation, which I think is reasonable. The same was done back in 1965 when homosexuality was decriminalized, those with records had them expunged. It is generally common practice I believe in many democracies to expunge past criminal records once legalized. While none are alive today, I am pretty sure when prohibition ended (It wasn’t national, but pretty much every province had it at some point), those who violated it had their records expunged.

          Like

  18. Liz J says:

    I’m thinking the legals will be salivating, case loads will increase dramatically.
    If we ever needed any proof we are not in good hands, this is it.
    I don’t feel too confident listening to Blair either. Wonder what he really thinks?

    Like

  19. Liz J says:

    I didn’t catch the question asked of the Shiny One but it must have been about using weed, his reply was he didn’t drink coffee and drank very little alcohol so I guess we can assume his brain is operating at full capacity without the influence of substances known to affect the thought process.

    Should this be a concern?

    Like

  20. Liz J says:

    Wow, that was awkward ….he almost lost his balance…it wasn’t coffee or alcohol….

    Like

  21. Liz J says:

    Among all the cabinet ministers the Environment Minister stands out as a real dud.

    Like

  22. Cara says:

    If Canadians need yet another reason to give Trudeau’s government the heave-ho it’s here. I had to laugh at the CBC reporting on this and trying to soft pedal how really troubling this is.
    It’s interesting in that the same people that brought Ontario the Fun With Numbers of accounting under Kathleen Wynne are trying to pull the same stunt federally.

    https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/ottawas-annual-spending-breaches-300-billion-for-first-time-pushing-up-canadas-debt-ratio?fbclid=IwAR0S-1AIXZn1qSdnNFeDYpftvQDfZk3ajU4bgswCbgunriPZKmZb9HJsajc

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      It’s not just that figure that is concerning but the fact we are running a deficit when the economy is running on all four cylinders and interest rates are record low. Any slowdown in the economy or hike in interest rates will make the deficit much worse.

      Like

  23. Cara says:

    Want to know what else really bugs Canadians? This does. A heads-up that I don’t for one minute expect you all to read through the 200+ emails and messages by these federal bureaucrats. Simply reading through a few gets the message out loud and clear. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/how-many-government-workers-does-it-take-to-buy-a-tv-about-39-public-servants-and-300-emails

    Like

  24. Liz J says:

    Interesting times ahead as we lead into the 2019 election.
    What will our popinjay Prime Minister be fed from behind the curtains on the issue of the money grabbing carbon tax? The provinces are lining up against it which means he rally wouldn’t want to become dictatorial and push it federally. It’s especially critical when the environment minister is already being very arrogant and has no time for those who disagree with her less than expert credentials on the file.

    Like

  25. Liz J says:

    We know budgets are of no concern to the Liberal cabal…..their front man declared they balance themselves. That’s something we never did get an explanation on, I’m sure governments at all levels would like to know.

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Liz J says:

    Trudeau being described as ‘that punk little kid running Canada’ by a White House official isn’t the most flattering for him…or us!

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Haha! And I would say that was flattering. “Ruining” instead of running would have been more apropos.

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        I’m not sure who is running Canada. The “kid” has the job of Prime Minister, he needs to use his own judgement when given advice from his head man behind the curtain, I don’t think he’s capable of discerning what’s good advice and what isn’t, he ultimately has to take responsibility for what he says and does.

        I’d still like to know who thought it was a good idea to take a family vacation to India complete with costumes! have we ever been so embarrassed?
        I can’t even visualize Stephen and Laureen Harper doing such a thing, it’s completely off the wall.

        Like

  27. Cara says:

    So for all of those “experts” and the media-party types who just last week were suggesting that poor Andrew Scheer is just not known among Canadians and he hasn’t got a chance of beating Trudeau in 2019, I call BS.

    It’s another poll mind you. I’m not a huge fan, but when they fly in the face of the left and their predictions, of course I’l take it.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4564813/justin-trudeau-andrew-scheer-close-ipsos-poll/

    Like

  28. Liz J says:

    There’s a reason Andrew Scheer isn’t known among Canadians… the Liberal media, which comprises most of our MSM. If they can find something negative to report on him they will, that must be rare if so many don’t know his name!
    IMO the Liberals and their trumpets are getting a little worried.
    We all should be concerned when we have so many potential voters not knowing who the leader of the official opposition ls and paying attention. Hope that changes as we get closer to the big day.

    We all need to work hard and listen in order to get rid of bad governments…and their leaders. It’s our responsibility.
    We are not in good hands.

    Like

  29. Miles Lunn says:

    I think probably the biggest difficulty in winning in 2019 is it almost seems like people have a certain timeframe for each government. Otherwise usually after one term we generally re-elect unless they do something really stupid while once a government hits the 10 year mark it is tough to win and when the hit the 15 next to impossible. If Trudeau loses and he may very well, consider this: He will be the first one term PM since Joe Clark in 1979, while he will be the first PM to go from a majority in the first term to opposition since RB Bennett in 1935 and since both were Tories, I believe the first Liberal to ever have this happen.

    Anyways BC just had its local elections. While tough to read much into them as they are a whole different animal, it does seem most of the suburbs opted from centre-right mayors and one big upset was long time NDP mayor in Burnaby, Derek Corrigan, went down in defeat after 16 years in office. Vancouver unfortunately elected Kennedy Stewart but it was close. And never mind in the next federal election any gains in the Greater Vancouver area are likely to be in the suburbs not city proper. I’ve found urban cores in general tend to be fairly left leaning, its the suburbs that tend to determine the winner while rural areas generally vote conservative.

    Like

  30. Miles Lunn says:

    Here is an article from Eric Grenier https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-polls-2019-election-1.4870074 . It’s not great news, but its not all bad news either. Lets remember he mentions usually things tend to tighten too so although party in the lead usually wins, the Liberals only have a 4 point lead which is enough to win now, but not much room for error. As per past elections, its true going into 2008 and 2011 Harper had about that lead a year before and he won both pretty handidly and increased seats. On the other hand Paul Martin had about an 8-10 point lead a year before the 2006 election which he lost. In 1997, Liberals were at 50% a year before while got 38% on election day so while they won quite easily they had such a massive lead it was pretty much insurmountable. A shift of that size would put Trudeau into opposition. Certainly history is on the Liberal’s side, there is no way around that. But the Tories are not so far back they don’t have a chance.

    Trudeau’s approval ratings are certainly high enough to be re-elected, but not high enough to guarantee re-election. As a rule of thumb, if one has an approval rating over 50%, they pretty much always get re-elected. If in the 40s they usually do but if people like the opposition better sometimes they don’t. Last example of a leader losing with over 40% approval is Paul Davis in Newfoundland in 2015, although Kathy Dunderdale who he succeeded had an approval rating under 20% so some of that might have rubbed off on him. If in the 30s (which Trudeau is not yet, but that is where Harper was in 2015) they face an uphill battle but if opposition is lousy one can win with an approval rating in the 30s. Stephen McNeil in Nova Scotia in 2017 and Christy Clark in BC in 2017 all had approval ratings at that level and both one the most seats although Clark was removed on a non-confidence vote. When approval ratings fall below 30%, they are usually toast then (Wynne’s was around 20%).

    Like

  31. Liz J says:

    Another good move by Premier Ford! He’s supporting a private member’s bill to take away provincial services from returning ISIS fighters the Liberals are allowing back into the country.
    That would include health cards and driver’s licences.

    How can we survive even another year of this Liberal government and feel safe? What is it they don’t get/understand about terrorists?

    There should be demonstrations in the streets over Goodale’s allowing a child killer out of prison and into a “healing lodge”. He can’t even call her a murderer!
    Conservatives need to talk about this stuff, Goodale needs to get the boot.

    Like

  32. Anne in swON says:

    You don’t suppose the Chrysler loan write-off had anything to do with Justin’s bestie, Jerry Diaz, do you? Kinda makes you wonder.

    Like

  33. Liz J says:

    Mayor Patrick Brown!

    Like

  34. Liz J says:

    We know the media will be ready to pounce on Ford, they already asked how he would handle working with Brown and his reply was perfect, “like any other Mayor”.
    It’s also interesting to note another generation of Fords has entered politics, Ford’s nephew Michael has won a council seat in Etobikoke.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Liz J says:

    Are we seeing a trend in Liberal/Dipper Toronto and environs at all levels?

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Not at all, the downtown is overwhelmingly left wing as always but the suburbs are a mix of Liberals and Conservatives which makes sense as those ridings federally and provincially generally go that way. John Tory is a former PC leader so hardly a left winger. True he is more your traditional Red Tory and would probably not fit too well in today’s Conservatives, but considering how well he did, maybe trying a middle of the road bland who doesn’t excite but neither offend is the way to go. It worked for 42 years provincially in Ontario so I know others might feel differently, but I would be happy if the Tories had a leader like him. Outside the 30% base, I don’t think there is a big appetite for a strong swing to the right in Canada, we’ve never been a right wing country and so long term you may win the odd election here and there on a strongly right wing platform just as some might on a strongly left wing platform, but in the long term being close to the centre is the best bet. Now yes Trudeau has swung the Liberals away from the middle and in many ways I think that is probably what is causing somewhat of a right wing backlash is less about people embracing right wing ideals, but more a rejection of Trudeau pushing too far to the left. I actually think had Trudeau stuck close to the centre like Chretien did there would be less appetite for a rightward shift so I think that is more a backlash to him pushing too far to the left.

      Like

  36. Greg says:

    I did the online thing for municipal voting this year. Certainly convenient and easy to do, although there were some local glitches yesterday which have delayed the final result for Waterloo Regional Chair. I would prefer we don’t expand online voting to Federal or Provincial elections – too many uninformed people who wouldn’t bother going to a poll might go to an organized voting party and vote in lock step with whatever group organized it.

    Like

    • joannebly says:

      Good point Greg. I never thought of that possibility.

      Like

    • Cara says:

      Our municipality experimented with on-line voting too this time. I second Greg’s feeling that expanding it provincially and or federally would be a mistake for the reasons Greg states.
      Also, we found that in our case they used MPAC lists for the voter’s list and it was so full of errors that right out of the gate the results are skewered.
      We also found that for a community like ours with a high number of retired persons and Seniors that they balked at the new technology because they like to make the trip to the polling station and exercise their democratic authority. It was always great to see people dressed in their Sunday best meet up and socialize around polling stations.
      That spirit is killed with online/phone voting.

      Like

  37. Miles Lunn says:

    Trudeau has now come out with how the rebates will be offered for provinces without a carbon tax. It looks like good news for the Tories since had he promised actual rebate cheques that might be a tough one to win. People may not care for the carbon tax, but no one likes having their rebate cheques cancelled. My understanding is you have to apply for a rebate on your tax form and my guess is as with most tax credits many who are eligible won’t use them and I suspect that is party why Trudeau chose this as the government wants more revenue. That being said the Tories still face some challenges here but these can easily be overcome. If they are going to cancel the carbon tax, they need to make sure the loss in rebates is offset by lower taxes. That means making the following changes.

    1. For the lowest bracket of 15%, either reduce it or raise the minimum threshold significantly
    2. For the middle bracket of 20.5% we need to reduce it further. In 2015 I think letting Trudeau drop it from 22% to 20.5% while we promised nothing hurt us so we need to avoid this mistake again.
    3. For the top three brackets, leave them alone and instead promise an overhaul of the tax system with a major review, similar to the Carter Commission. All minor recommendations will be implemented while major ones will be postponed until 2023 so voters can have their say on it. Since most evidence shows our top rates are harming economic growth, but most Canadians feel the rich are not paying their fair share this offers us an out as promising to cut taxes for the rich is good economic policy, but it is a losing one politically as most aren’t rich and most don’t understand economics and thus are generally hostile to the rich and big corporations thus oppose anything to make life easier. At least a review provides the cover and besides the drop in top rates would be probably be revenue neutral as most loopholes used by the rich to reduce their taxes would be cancelled.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      Although Trudeau mentioned actual rebate cheques this from David Akin @davidakin dispels that: “For ON, SK, NB, MB, your carbon tax rebate will be paid out annually as part of your settling up on your income tax. No actual “Carbon rebates” will get mailed out.”

      Like

  38. Liz J says:

    Trudeau and company have done the right thing with this tax, they will lose the election!

    I have no idea what Climate Barbie had to say, it’s a waste of time listening to her, she oozes arrogance and condescension.

    Like

  39. Anne in swON says:

    Former Conservative MPs, Ed Holder and Joe Preston, were successful in their mayoralty bids last night. Holder won in London and Preston in neighbouring St. Thomas. Things are definitely changing in Middlesex.

    Like

    • Greg says:

      Not so much in Waterloo Region. Cambridge elected McGarry – a liberal former mpp who recently lost her seat, is our new mayor. And our new Region Chair is another liberal who didn’t stay defeated long enough – Karen Redman

      Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Surrounding communities outside London went solidly conservative in both the last provincial and federal election so no real surprise in the case of Preston. But Holder, that is big as London itself went strongly NDP last June and strongly Liberal in 2015. Mind you I find with municipal politics, party affiliation tends to matter much less than it does provincially and federally so you get a lot of crossover in all directions. Actually name recognition is probably the biggest factor so being a former MPP or MP no matter what party is probably a leg up. Hamilton which went strongly NDP elected Fred Eisenberger who as a Tory candidate federally in 2004 while in Mississauga Bonnie Crombie got over 70% despite the PCs sweeping that and in Vaughan Maurizio Bevilacqua got over 70% even though Vaughan went for the PCs in a landslide (to be fair he was a very Blue Liberal so I could see him having some crossover appeal to Tories much the way John Tory does to Liberals).

      Like

      • Cara says:

        Speaking as someone that actually lives in the London area I can say that this comment ” Mind you I find with municipal politics, party affiliation tends to matter much less than it does provincially and federally so you get a lot of crossover in all directions.” is simply not accurate. Party affiliation does get candidates access to those things and organizations that candidates without it don’t. What we’re seeing is a counter-whip to the move to the left AND an infusion of more right-of-centre leadership.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          As someone who also lives in the London area, I couldn’t agree more, Cara. Much of our news in my locale has a great deal of London content and politics is always top of mind. I think the morals scandal surrounding the previous mayor and his paramour, both of whom were married to other people, may have played a large part in the shift.

          Like

          • Cara says:

            In my town the candidate who won the mayor’s chair benefited heavily from the local Liberal riding association. Fresh off the recent provincial election he used their volunteers and organization’s manpower. Other candidates didn’t stand a change. But shhhh…..we’re not supposed to put two and two together in municipal politics because partisan politics isn’t done – total poppycock.

            Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          I’ve found its true the labour community tends to have a slate so you more or less know who are NDP, but Liberals and Tories tend to I find be more free agents at municipal elections. In Toronto, you had Nick Kouvalis and Warren Kinsella both working on John Tory’s campaign and I doubt you would ever see the two working on the same campaign federally or provincially asides from perhaps maybe in BC where both support the BC Liberals but certainly not in Ontario. Certainly what party one is from has some impact, but I think that is mostly amongst strong partisans and amongst average voter who is not a member of any party I am skeptical. You would never see the Liberals get over 70% in Ottawa, Vaughan, or Mississauga yet a Liberal mayor won with over 70% and likewise you would never see a PC even Red Tory get 63% in Toronto or a Tory get 56% in Hamilton yet both elected mayors who had in the past ran as conservatives. I’ve actually found in Ontario, it tends to be NDP the follow the party line most, but amongst Liberals and Tories you seem to see a lot of crossover and to be fair municipal issues are somewhat different than federal and provincial. Never mind historically the differences between the two parties was much smaller so perhaps maybe just a representation of how large the swing vote is.

          In terms of London, it did vote massively NDP last provincial election as NDP won there by around 20 points and I doubt a lot has changed since, however once you go beyond the city limits, every surrounding community went heavily PC, almost all over 50% and many even over 60%. Ed Holder was always a very likeable guy so I think had strong cross party appeal so I am not surprised at all he won. Had we used US style systems where you could do a split ticket he might even still be MP federally as I think he lost his seat more due to dislike of Harper in his riding not him personally. In terms of next federal election, I could see us with the right candidate and right splits winning back London West. London North Centre is only possible with really strong splits and I don’t Jagmeet Singh is the leader to provide that from the NDP side (this has the university and I’ve found nowadays very tough to win any riding with a university in it as they tend to be overwhelmingly left wing) and London-Fanshawe has always been a pretty strong NDP riding. The surrounding ridings beyond the city limits have been solidly Conservative since 2006 so we should easily hold those.

          Like

          • Cara says:

            Let’s be clear. Your contention Miles was that party affiliation matters less in municipal elections than it does in federal/provincial contests.

            That has not been my experience. Party affiliation and partisanship if alive and well in Ontario municipalities.

            Like

  40. Liz J says:

    As we go ever closer to the next federal election we need to be suspicious of everything the Liberals put forward. The latest one forcing a carbon tax on provinces who have opted out.
    Is it a scam or a ponzi like scheme ? He’s going to make us pay more for everything then give it back? How will that work? If we are to claim it on taxes how many people will?

    This is an issue we need to take to the streets…but we won’t.

    Like

  41. Liz J says:

    We need to remember Trudeau said we’d be more than compensated for the tax he is forcing on us. How will that work if he needs the money to fight climate change why is he giving us more back? Where is that going to come from?

    Like

  42. Anne in swON says:

    If only four provinces are to get ‘rebates’ (partial) what is happening in the other provinces? Are they paying into this ponzi scheme which seems to benefit the other four? And if those rebates are to come starting in spring 2019, before the impact of this new carbon tax can be truly felt, isn’t that truly a form of bribery? Surely Canadians can’t be that gullible.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Yukon and Nunavut only partially comply so get hit later. Asides from Quebec, all the provinces not affected have Liberal or NDP governments so those ideologically aligned. All of them either have a carbon tax or cap and trade. That could change as Alberta will likely pull out next year provided Jason Kenney wins which is likely. In PEI and Newfoundland, they have elections next year so if the PCs win a majority in either of them, they are pulling out. Nova Scotia doesn’t face an election until 2021 so the earliest they will pull out is then if the PCs win. In BC and Quebec, the issue is more or less settled so none of the parties with seats in the legislature are advocating pulling out of the cap and trade in Quebec or carbon tax in BC. The debate in BC is should it be revenue neutral which BC Liberals support or should it be used to fund more program spending, which is what NDP and Greens support. BC Conservatives oppose the carbon tax but they are pretty weak here as the BC Liberals are fairly centre-right so most conservatives vote BC Liberals. Even those who oppose the carbon tax, its more or less a done deal in BC so no active movement to get rid of it. Likewise of the above four provinces, if any future election results in a left wing party winning, that will likely change as they will adopt it so rebate will discontinue. Off course asides from New Brunswick which who knows what will happen with the unstable minority government, the next election in the other three is fall of 2020 for Saskatchewan and Manitoba while spring of 2022 for Ontario.

      Like

  43. Liz J says:

    One Liberal operative says it’s to change our habits…..well how about at the gas pumps, are any of us joy riding around burning up the already over priced gas?
    We can’t all take public transit but even those who do will be paying more the ride.
    Price on pollution my butt, that’s jargon people with a thought process beyond a turnip will see through and rise up.

    When we get through winter people are going to realize the rotten deal the Trudeau cabal has foisted upon us with this scheme and it will be impossible for them to get elected.
    Bring it on, the Conservatives had better be doing their homework and be ready to pounce, there is lots of ammunition already.

    Like

  44. Anne in swON says:

    Lorrie Goldstein @sunlorrie reminds us of what Trudeau said: “In the 2015 election. Trudeau told us carbon pricing (i.e. tax) would give the federal government the ‘social licence’ to build pipelines to get our oil to global markets. In 2018, we haven’t got the pipelines, but we are getting the carbon price (i.e.) tax.” Not only that but we’re also on the hook for at least 4.5 billion for a pipeline the Liberal government bought in our names. More fools we.

    Like

    • Cara says:

      All this brought to you by the same advisory team for Dalton McGuintythat brought Ontario the Green Energy act with its talk of jobs, jobs, jobs and greener energy with no cost to Ontarians. (thanks Butts and Telford it really brought back some not so fond memories of McGuinty – sounded just like what he said back then) And guess what happened in Ontario? No jobs were created, less than 1% of the energy was produced at a huge cost to families. Yes, emissions went down but that was because big industry left the province. They just moved their emissions (and good jobs) elsewhere. So don’t believe a word of it when they say you will have more money in your pocket out of this. It is all smoke and mirrors . Also it is not a tax on pollution, it is a tax on you breathing out. If they wanted to tax pollution then Montreal would be paying big when they dump their sewage into the St. Lawrence. Just calling it a tax on pollution is a big scam .

      https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/kevin-libin-trudeaus-carbon-plan-is-so-much-worse-than-just-a-tax?fbclid=IwAR2EvmsZ4I3HpEs2ACYxwJregjWJOpb1JuD5opW3cHjZBCluv7UK_Gdy3bY

      Like

      • Miles Lunn says:

        Actually the biggest reason smog days has become a thing of the past is due to the great recession, most heavy polluting factories went out of business as well as with lower labour costs, many have moved overseas where in some countries, notably China and India, where smog is really bad. Much of the smog in Ontario actually came from factories south of the border, particularly in Ohio, but most of those went under during the great recession and never came back. I agreed with the Liberals’ decision to close down all coal plants (one of the few good decisions they made out of the thousands of bad ones in their 15 years in office), but the Green Energy act was an absolute disaster and off course it was none other than Gerald Butts who proposed it.

        I think the best way to get cleaner energy is build more nuclear power plants as those emit 0 GHG’s and unlike wind or solar, is quite reliable. Unfortunately environmentalists hate nuclear even though it is probably one of the best ways to reduce emissions. Other is to buy surplus electricity from Quebec (which is mostly from hydroelectricity) as they sell a lot of theirs to the US Northeast so no reason we couldn’t buy some of their surplus power. In fact I think Tim Hudak back in 2014 more or less proposed something along these lines.

        Like

  45. Liz J says:

    We really can’t let this Liberal scheme/scam/sham go without a fight. What about it makes any sense for anyone or anything beyond the phony high on climate crap. Canada is not a high polluting country in the first place. Commie China, a place Trudeau admires, is where he needs to take his rhetorical sermons.
    It’s hard to believe we are living in the 21st century and this is the level of intelligence we have attained. We elect such fools, we are fools.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      Actually on a per capita basis we are worse than China, but because our population is only 1/38th theirs it is much higher in absolute amount. We are 0.5% of the world population while emit 1.6% of the global GHGs so actually per capita we are one of the highest. But there are reasons for this. We have very cold winters so have to spend more on heating our homes than most. We have one of the lowest population densities on earth so we have to travel longer distances than most countries.

      As for what will happen, in BC and Quebec the issue is settled so I don’t expect changes there, but still an open debate for the remaining 8 provinces. If Trudeau wins a majority and Tories are hurt over opposition to this, I suspect the party will get on board next time and support the idea, it will be sort of like gay marriage which we once opposed, but dropped our opposition when we realized it was political suicide to be opposed. If however Trudeau loses, I suspect the idea will be dead for at least a decade if not more much like Dion’s gambit made the idea toxic. The only thing that kind of saved it is BC successfully implemented one and the fact its economy did well allowed those in favour to point it worked (It worked in BC since it was a fiscal conservative, Gordon Campbell who implemented it and he successfully balanced the budget, cut taxes so that BC had lowest corporate rate, lowest income for middle and lower income earners, and second lowest for high income earners. If BC hadn’t cut taxes elsewhere it may have not worked as well, off course as I’ve stated elsewhere I support a revenue neutral one like BC had under the BC Liberals, although not the current model the NDP uses as they eliminated revenue neutrality). So really next election will probably settle the idea. Trudeau wins and the issue becomes a dead one and eventually all parties come on board. Trudeau loses, no party will propose it for quite some time.

      Like

      • Greg says:

        Even if you buy into the complete CAGW narrative, Canada has more than done its fair share. Simply existing as a nation with few inhabitants means our wide open spaces remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than we emit. This was proven by a Japanese satellite that monitors CO2 concentrations. Ontario’s green energy plan has been a complete failure. It took 10 years to spend billions on the infrastructure to close 7 coal plants, which required new gas plants to back up the wind and solar that supposedly displace coal. China completed 7 new coal plants in less than 2 months after the GEP was announced let alone implemented, and 7 more every month thereafter.

        Implementing a carbon tax will do less than nothing to reduce global emissions, and may in fact make it worse if any manufacturing shifts from our relatively efficient industry to China or India, and as noted above, other than the depths of winter, any CO2 emitted is quickly absorbed by billions of trees

        Like

        • Miles Lunn says:

          Your comment on Canada being a carbon sink is a fair one. As for coal plants closing, that has less to do with climate change or more just to make the air cleaner and thus more breathable. We used to have 50 smog days a year, now smog days are a thing of the past and that is a good thing especially for those with ashma or respiratory problems. That being said I think increased nuclear plant capacity and buying more hydroelectricity surplus from Quebec is the best way to go. Nuclear and hydroelectric are both quite clean and unlike solar and wind, they actually work.

          Like

          • Greg says:

            Absolutely right on nuclear and hydro. It’s absurd that we currently cut off Niagara Falls on low demand days to allow wind and solar to continue being subsidized.

            Like

  46. Liz J says:

    If governments want to get real they need to put an end to dumping raw sewage into our rivers and oceans, that crap contains toxic substances, it’s a gross practice this late into our evolution.
    We have high density populated areas where we have more pollution for obvious reasons but beyond that we are a country teeming with trees and wildlife and they are thriving.
    If the country were serious about pollution why did we tear up so may rail lines throughout the country? It would at least have taken long haul trucks off the roads.

    We need to hope we smarten up and pay attention to those seeking to take care of business, we forked up badly last time around!

    Like

  47. Liz J says:

    Where is their financial expert Morneau? Is he ashamed to be seen or is he told to keep a low profile? I would think he would have some figures on how this scheme will work.
    The more we look at it the more tangled it gets. We need to realize there’s a reason for that, it’s to confuse. I’m sure Trudeau himself has no clue or concern, about the math, and the “budget will balance itself. He’s not doing the “cyphering” to quote Jethro Bodine of the old Beverley Hillbillies.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      There’s not one thing we buy or service we use that won’t be affected by this tax. They’re pulling numbers out of thin air and hoping that we’re all simpletons who’ll be impressed by the idea of getting a tax refund of some kind. That paltry amount can’t begin to cover what it’ll cost each and every one of us. What is truly astounding is the number of supposedly intelligent people who appear to buy into this scam and who continue to proselytize for the government. Shame on them all!

      Like

      • Liz J says:

        The idea of getting money back at tax time is just nuts. How will that help people already struggling day to day? How will that help them pay for gas, food and rent day to day? How many will end up at food banks from Trudeau’s so-called middle class he yaks about?
        He doesn’t have a clue on any of those fronts.
        If ever we needed to boot out a Prime Minister and his bunch of incompetents this is the time.

        Like

        • Anne in swON says:

          A family with only one income to rely on will suffer more than a dual income family and a single pensioner will suffer most. How does the government square that?

          Like

  48. XSADFPARA says:

    has anyone in the media asked Trudeau or McKenna to provide exactly who this mythical $240 family is and where they live? For anyone in a rural area who commutes, the $240 figure is beyond idiotic even for those two. If they really believed the “price on pollution” rhetoric, they would do their tax with no rebate, no exemptions, no subsidies. The fact that they won’t suggests they already know it will have no measurable climatic effect (a fact easily provable with a few simple mathematical calculations), but they must appear that they are “taking action” As with everything in the liberal sunny ways “progressive” world, it’s 24/7 optics & feelings

    Like

  49. Anne in swON says:

    Further to Miles’ comment on October 25, 2018 at 12:12 am: I had forgotten about another former London, ON mayor, Joe Fontana, who was ousted for fraud committed while he was a Liberal MP. After outgoing mayor Matt Brown’s extramarital affair with his deputy mayor., I think Londoners had had had their fill. They knew enough about Ed Holder to give him the nod and were confident that he wouldn’t be likely to make it three scandals in a row.

    Like

    • Miles Lunn says:

      I am glad Ed Holder one, he was a good MP, but I think it would be mistake to assume he won because he was a conservative and rather more because people liked him personally. Lets remember only 5 months ago, London voted solidly NDP provincially (Tories did well in the surrounding rural areas and small towns, but not London itself). My understanding is Ed Holder is quite well liked and even many non-conservatives like him.

      Like

      • Cara says:

        You’re assuming incorrectly IMO. The NDP win is just as much an outlier as was the NDP win in Alberta. The push back has begun and minus a competitive NDP federally, things aren’t looking good for the NDP from here on in London IMO although time will tell.

        Like

      • Anne in swON says:

        From the London Free Press: “… unlike the largely young, politically progressive council elected four years ago, this group is a mixed bag.

        That is, some older conservatives mixed with left-leaning youth.

        “It suggests they may be fairly divided on a left-right basis…” As I said, things are definitely changing. Both Cara and I are regional residents and probably have our fingers a little more on the pulse of current area sentiment.

        Like

  50. Liz J says:

    We know what’s really important to the Liberals and their front man and it’s not pipelines, it’s dope.
    Cannabis smoke is no better than cigarette smoke, they are both harmful to the users and those around them.

    We have to hope people catch onto what’s going on as election day rolls around, exactly the mess they are creating. No one seems to know how it will all be handled because Justin and company had no plan beyond legislating it as legal. The rest is flying by the seat of their pants.
    Ask Trudeau “what’s happenin’ man” and he might reply “everything’s cool, he doesn’t care a foggy damn, it’s not his problem.

    Like

  51. joannebly says:

    Thanks for all the great comments and news items here everyone! I’ve been feeling a bit under the weather but will try to get a new post up sometime over the next week.

    Like

  52. Miles Lunn says:

    I thought the death threats some cabinet ministers got was disgusting. Even if you disagree with the labour law changes, this is totally inappropriate. I generally agree with most of them particularly a pause on the minimum wage increase. 22% in one year is a lot so give businesses especially small ones a breather and then increase starting in 2020 by inflation. Lets remember it is small businesses not large businesses that will have the toughest time with minimum wage increases. Also Ontario still has the 2nd highest minimum wage in the country after Alberta. On other labour laws, I am more on the fence but I think getting the balance right is always a challenge. Being too pro-labour as the Liberals were and you make Ontario an unattractive place for business never mind drive a lot of small businesses out of business. But go too far the other way (which I don’t think the PCs have) and you get employers who will abuse some employees.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      “Lets remember it is small businesses not large businesses that will have the toughest time with minimum wage increases.” There’s a cumulative effect on small businesses. We’ve learned that the government is promising assistance to the tune of $1.5 billion. Sounds good until you read that the help only comes when those small businesses fork out more of their dwindling profits by making their businesses more energy efficient. Tell that to gasoline dependent trucking firms and corner store operators with massive hydro needs for coolers, freezers and lighting. Energy efficiency is easier said than done and sure doesn’t offset costs. Check out this story: https://www.capebretonpost.com/news/regional/feds-earmark-15-billion-to-help-smaller-businesses-adapt-to-carbon-pricing-254039/#.W9RyQJFUj4M

      Like

  53. Anne in swON says:

    This past week we learned of something StatsCan is proposing to do that is quite alarming and highly secretive in that the individuals scrutinized in this endeavour will not be informed. StatsCan wants to cull banking information for a different group of 500,000 individuals each year for the foreseeable future. “The personal banking and financial transactions being requested include bill payments, cash withdrawals from ATMs, credit card payments, electronic money transfers and even account balances of Canadians across the country.” Banks are, however, balking at this request. Thank goodness somebody’s in our corner but the question now is for how long will they be allowed to resist. https://globalnews.ca/news/4599953/exclusive-stats-canada-requesting-banking-information-of-500000-canadians-without-their-knowledge/

    Like

    • Greg says:

      I heard and read about this recently too. It’s quite scary to me and should be a major part of Conservative talk the next few months. They simply cannot have my personal financial information tied to my SI number etc period, end stop, time to get loud and as obnoxious as a liberal.

      Like

  54. Miles Lunn says:

    How many here are following BC’s PR referendum? We are having a mail in ballot referendum. The first question is do you support switching to PR or staying with FTFP. If Yes for PR, then choose between three systems ranked. Two of the systems proposed haven’t been used anywhere on earth while only one MMP has. I will be voting No and leaving the three choices blank as I do not support switching to PR. Francois Legault in Quebec promises to implement PR, but I suspect if BC’s referendum fails, that might pressure him to put it to a referendum. If it passes there will be a second referendum after 2 election cycles asking if people want to keep it or return to FTFP. No electoral system is perfect and all have their advantages and flaws, but I believe it would be a bad idea to switch. As the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke it doesn’t need fixing and I believe FTFP has served Canada well for the last 150 years. Many supporters argue it is wrong that seats don’t match percentage vote received, but I care more about end results not some academic idea.

    Anyways here are some reason why I think it is a bad idea.
    1. Leads to prolonged negotiations that can take months to form a government. Belgium took a record 583 days. Taking over 4 months to form a government is quite common in countries that use PR.
    2. Leads to backroom deals and when things go wrong there is the blame game of both in the coalition. Right now when you elect one party to govern, you can hold them accountable and punish them next election if things go wrong.
    3. Parties receiving less than 10% of the popular vote can wield disproportionate power whereas under FTFP they remain in opposition
    4. Allows single issue or extremist parties to gain seats in legislatures when we should be promoting big tent parties.
    5. Gives party hacks more power as proportional results are achieved through a list system of appointing people to ensure results are proportional not directly elected. This means those who are most loyal to the leader are likely to be at the top of the list thus almost guaranteeing them re-election whereas today they have to win a riding and if lousy, we can vote them out. Some use open lists to prevent this, but this would mean massive ballots and likely those with surnames near the beginning of the alphabet getting elected as its unlikely voters are going to read up on all 20, 50, 70 or however many are on the list.
    6. Further entrenches the power of parties when we should be reducing the power of the party and giving individual MPs more power not less
    7. Makes ridings bigger thus reduced local representation which is especially problematic for rural and northern ridings thus making it harder for an MP to effectively represent their constituency.
    8. Is difficult to understand. When a voter casts their ballot, they should know exactly how their vote will be counted, it shouldn’t require one to be a mathematician to understand this.
    9. We have many tough pressing issues, majority governments can make tough and unpopular decisions that are necessary to fix problems we have. With PR, the threat of one coalition partner leaving or an election any day means parties will avoid tackling the more difficult issues.
    10. Lets parties decide who form the government whereas FTFP lets voters decide this. A coalition of three parties that ran on different platforms and thus combined together got 50% does not equal majority support. If concerned about lack of majority support for some majority governments, ranked ballots not PR is a way to solve it.

    Like many ideas, PR sounds great in theory, but in reality doesn’t work well and I prefer to go with what works, not what sounds the most ideal.

    Like

    • Greg says:

      I agree it’s a bad idea. As you said, it can take a long time to finally form a government, and it often requires giving extreme fringe parties influence, left or right. Kind of like if we had an election where it was close enough to give Elizabeth May a deciding vote in who formed the government.

      Like

  55. Greg says:

    Saw this recently at Brian Lilley’s personal site – http://brianlilley.com/trudeau-plays-games-with-by-elections/
    Anyone see this story in other media? Seems important. If Harper had done something like this I’m sure that would have been words like dictator thrown about at CBC

    Like

  56. Liz J says:

    There’s not a thing we can about it beyond yelling loudly and making sure lots of people hear it.
    Some people get in power who prove to be ultra stupid, some so much so the are a danger to our democracy and all it entails.

    The way the Trudeau/Butts government is operating we may add danger to our security, good governance has long since left the room.
    It’s our duty to pay attention and ensure this regime is soundly defeated.

    Like

  57. Miles Lunn says:

    Apparently Statistics Canada will now have the right to snoop through our bank accounts and use up to 500,000 people to track data on spending habits. This is creepy and Trudeau defending this is quite worrisome. I don’t like the idea of government snooping through my personal stuff, that is what you get in totalitarian societies not liberal democracies. Yes some will say taxes or filling out the long form census form are that, but both serve clear needs and more importantly we know about it and both CRA and Statistics Canada are fully transparent in those cases of what is done. This involves no transparency and thus should not be allowed. If statistics Canada wants this information, they should do a household survey and ask people.

    Like

  58. Liz J says:

    This is an easy one for Scheer, no one can be in favour of this. What have we got left if this is allowed to happen? If people are not livid over this they must be chillin’ out on pot which might be part of their strategy.

    Like

    • Anne in swON says:

      In spite of everything we’re learning about this Liberal government their polling numbers have risen – Liberals 39 Conservatives 28, NDP 19, Green 7, People’s 1 – according to Nanos. It’ll be interesting to see if anything changes in light of this latest info. Maybe we’ve become too reliant on the convenience of debit cards and automatic bill payments. Trudeau claims this info grab is necessary because the previous government put a stop to making the filling out of the long form census mandatory. Didn’t his government reverse that policy in early 2016? So what’s the real excuse, Big Brother? Was George Orwell really prescient? https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-big-brother-feds-want-your-private-banking-info

      Like

  59. Pingback: Big Government Overreach | Blue Like You2

Comments are closed.