I find this disturbing as well. It amazes me how JT can refer to this as genocide but will not call out China.

Also disgusted how long residential schools lasted. If were going to tear down statues or remove names any Prime Minister that allowed this to go on should have his statue removed or his name removed from anything that bears it.
Also lets also acknowledge one of the biggest culprits the Catholic Church

the 'idea' has merit but this execution, as is typical with gov't, was horrendous.

A simply negative 'covid test' on arrival should be enough to allow someone to then go to any place to quarantine for 3 days and then on day 3 they take one more covid test that would pick up if they got anything on their travels.

At that point that person (group of people) are far less risky to the society they are entering then that society is to them.

The goal should not be to eliminate risk (as that can't be done) but to minimize it beyond the norm. And 15 days in high priced hotels made no sense.

Maybe it is just me, but upon revelation of this historical tragedy is it really best to immediately pivot to taking the cheap and easy partisan potshots?

How would this benefit Canada in any way?

I notice this is a real bug for you and i am curious if this is a moral based position for you or one were you enjoy JT being challenged with the Moral V pragmatic implications of 'calling out China'?

I certainly get the moral view that if you think China is doing moral wrongs, we (our gov't) should call them out regardless of any potential financial consequences it may cost Canada.


However there is what I would call the pragmatic view of trying to avoid the hotbed topics we 'could' and maybe 'should' call them out for (sometimes called 'turning a blind eye') while trying to navigate a safer path to maintain beneficial relationships.


Some rationalize the latter saying 'engagement' allows them to apply soft pressure where as 'calling them out' and destroying the relationship does not.

Also to the latter I would say Canada takes the latter pragmatic path often with the US as well. I think all countries do it to some degree.

(edit did not see dino's post when i wrote mine)

I guess I would throw back the question at you how did calling out Canada for genocide benefit Canada?


It bugs as he will portray himself as the Ultimate Woke leader . You should not pick and choose being outraged on the expectations of financial payback. China in itself is a huge problem that many countries need to face. Do they want to endure long standing abuse were China just becomes stronger or some short term loss and stand up to them.

From the same report:

---
...between Feb. 22 and March 6, air travellers submitted 31,616 arrival samples for testing, but only 21,100 samples for day-10 quarantine had been received by March 20.
---

So we aren't even getting something as basic as required at-home testing done properly. With no means of enforcement, and no political will at either level of government to take the lead on making sure the procedures in place are being followed, governments have abdicated any true leadership and placed all our eggs in the vaccination basket.

It looks like it's working so far, but in the end we'll end up with years of committees, report after report of easily ignored best practices and still be unprepared for the next pandemic.

hold on, can we BOTH partner up with China to take over the arctic and keep it from the russians AND condemn them for genocide? You guys figure this out amongst yourself and get back to me.

I have never suggested partnering with China on anything.

Lol disingenuous much?

Ok, more the 'hypocrisy' thing then. I am good with that.

And yes China will be the biggest challenge for the entire West soon enough. I would bet all my money on that.

As much as the US as sole super power was abusive and often bullying I don't think the world has seen anything yet if China obtains that status, and i think they will.

Tolerance for dissent, or compromise in International disputes I think goes to near zero if China has the strongest military, parked around the world and ready to act against any dissent.

uke is resulting in trying to drag his trolling into other threads in the attempt to create the flame wars he desires. And as always 'I'm your Huckleberry' if that is one's goal.

What he is referring to is his silly naive stance I avoided replying to much earlier in this thread (or was it another?) where I pointed out that if and only if the US was going to take an adverbial position to destabilize Canada's artic claims such that we would lose them, then Canada should consider other types of sharing options with the other parties with Claims even if that meant China or Russia.

Canada cannot justify a claim on their own (as a key component is ones ability to defend it) and they should not simply wash their hands saying they have no other options if the US continues to try and ruin our claim.


China, Russia, The US (due to Alaska) and Canada have the bulk of meaningful claims in the region and its doubtful any party will be shut out if they can establish the bare minimum of requirements. Some lines will be drawn. Some compromises will be necessary. And some claims will either be litigated or decided by force (as the Falklands was by the UK in their dispute with Argentina).


A simple navigation rights agreement with CHina or Russia where we simply agree to say we will not contest and will support their claims on Regions ABC and in return they will not contest and will support our claims to Regions XYZ, is certainly within the type of diplomacy Canada can and should engage with China and Russia on.

Heck there is going to be a ton of overlapping claims that Canada, Russia and China will have where the US has no claim or stake in the regions. Sure the US can say 'we support Canada's claim' but the FACT is we will be forced to negotiate with China or Russia in any of those too and its a child like comprehension of the region that uke is bringing to the discussion here.

It's still pretty crazy to me since the poll of 1000 people said Alberta is full anti-vaxxers

I love how every time shifty tries to dump on the fact a poll exists (that he clearly misunderstood) he just ends up showing his ignorance about basic statistics instead

This. He's oddly obsessed by this poll, and terrible at "refuting" it. Or whatever he's trying to do.

I am not sure that his intent. Uke has strong positions on many things and I do see that sometimes he comes across with "I am smarter than you and my position is correct" Though Ill be the first to admit he is book smarter than me

Actually I am surprised he does not vote NDP federally. Climate Change I would say is his number #1 concern and sadly he just doesn't see that JT's climate strategy at best isnt much better than O'tooles


Anyone that believes a poll today is as smart as the person buying $5.00 smart water.

Who answers the phone anymore for polls? Bored folks

It really isn't. Sure I'll throw in the odd obviously tounge-in-cheek comment or give up on meaningful replies when a conversation obviously isn't going somewhere, but I'm not at all interested in a "flame war".

Indeed, that is probably my number 1 concern, or maybe LGBT rights. However, I disagree with your comparisons. Between the NDP and the Liberals one supports cap and trade, the other a carbon tax. I like either. I actually was a supporter of a carbon tax before the liberals were, but I don't mind. However, the liberals were the ones that actually got elected and bravely implemented, then iterated and improved their plan and have actually managed a significant accomplishment. If that had all been the NDP with their cap and trade program I'd support them too. But in this universe, the NDP has largely been chipping away at Liberal energy plans, with the worst case example of this in Ontario, but also federally and in BC. The NDP has been too concerned with wealth inequality and prices on the lower class to fully embrace that prices need to rise for everyone, and steeply.

Comparing the Liberals and the Conservatives, however, is a joke. O'toole's plan - which he rolled out in spite of his caucus not because of it - is far, far less ambitious than the Liberals. This is true just at a price per tonne of carbon, but perhaps more crucially the actual mechanism is flawed because everyone gets the money they spent back in their green savings accounts so for most people there isn't actually any financial incentive to change behaviours even if you built out this gigantic administrative mess of a system. And that is sort of the point. The plan makes no sense. But it is meant to look superfically like a plan that is sorta kinda like the liberals so basically a wash amirite? No, it is significantly worse.

Ya but my point is that it is almost an impossibility that every one fighting for their stake in the opening up artic will not get into disputes, be forced to negotiate and seek some compromises with parties with overlapping claims and many will end up in the UN World Court.

However not every single route or claim that could be contested will need to go the distance. Canada might value one stretch of a route or region as key and Russia or China or any of the other claimants might see another as key and they can negotiate and comprise. "Sure Canada we will not challenge your claim to X if you do not challenge our claim on Y and we can both agree, since the US has no overlap there that any thing they say to destabilize our claims will be denied by both of us'.

It is a huge region that is opening up (~7 claimants) and any country with even a loose claim (which China's broad approach is considered to be) all willing to Bloodsport for their rights.

The idea that Canada would roll over or surrender, as the US tries to undermine their claims and not seek to substantiate the claims by talking to any of the other parties with overlapping claims simply because some of those parties are ideologically in opposition to us is just child like naivety. We deal with those countries on other matters re prior Arctic claims and in other areas.

If Canada and Russia have the only over lapping claims in certain areas and they can simply agree 'you get X and we get Y' and that puts to bed any US attempt to undue the claims as the two primary claimants support each other, then why not consider that deal?

What I think happens is you get some people who take a more cartoonish view of the reality of negotiations and think we should never seek any compromises with certain countries. But that simply is not the reality in world politics and disputes and claims.

Sadly I will disagree with you on JT's climate change plan and here is why I just call it a Conservative tax and Liberal voting reward program. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong on something

We will leave corporations out of it and just focus on the individuals

Currently the carbon tax is charged on fossil fuels which we have agreed cause climate change. Coal being the worst and Natural gas I would say the least. Everyone pays a carbon tax on consumption. So those that live in the cities and have shorter commutes or options like LRT or Buses pay less which tend to be liberal voters. Those that consume more pay higher carbon taxes which tends to be rural folks who have very few options other than to drive

Rebates are based on income not consumption. Again that favors liberal voters over conservatives

So if JT really wanted a strong climate change program he would

• Eliminate all rebates solely based on income
• Only rebate those below a certain income and based on consumption
• Use all those taxes collected to subsidize anything green
• Ban all carbon based resources not produced in Canada from being refined or shipped through Canadian Ports
• Ban all imports of foreign energy in the next 5 years. Rely solely on CDN produced energy
• Ban all municipal raw sewage dumping by 2026
• minimum standards on all pipelines built ie Trans Mountain

Oh and I forget actually plant some of those 2 billion trees he promised or maybe just some of them

Ok, but just to be clear, the regime taxes corporations heavily as well, and in many ways this is more important than individuals.


It is actually agnostic to this. Everything is charged the same amount per tonne. This allows for things like carbon capture technologies and cleaner coal options to be incentivized.

Isn't the first two points in conflict? The vast majority of the carbon tax goes right back into the pockets of Canadians. That's a good thing! It keeps the economic costs way, way down. I'd actually be supportive of giving LESS back to Canadians and spending MORE of it on green initiatives (a small percentage already is) but let's be clear that would legitimately be a huge expense. As a conservative supporter, are you REALLY advocating the tax not be rebated at all? If you think there should be rebates, certainly income tested is far far far far superior to consumption tested. If your rebate is based on consumption, as the conservative "plan" does, there is no real incentive to reduce because you get all the money back. it turns it into just a point card where you get back in points the extra cost. So the other options are a flat distribution (everyone gets the same back) or a progressive one (poorer people get more back). I'm a progressive, I think income inequality is too high, and so I support progressive rebate systems. But this is sort of a detail on the side, it doesn't really affect the quality of the carbon tax program.

The ideas about banning imports or middle man shipping are fine, I might support them, but are simply not realistic in a five year time frame. We are part of a highly globalized and integrated supply chain with the US, and I don't know that particularly unwinding that and having, say, the feds pay for a tonne of canadian refineries is realistic or even desirable. It could be a massive expense and then barely help. The other two details don't relate to a green energy carbon tax plan at all.

Collectively, it sounds like your main criticism is really that the plan should go much further. I agree in spirit, even if not in the details. However, it is such a massive improvement over what we had before, or what the conservatives propose, that anyone who cares about this should support it.

This is going full steam ahead. After the initial launch in feb, the deadline for requests for information from stakeholders literally just passed three days ago: https://www.canada.ca/en/natural-res...ion-trees.html

Is Justin paying damages? You gotta be kidding me. This cant be real. Massgraves? Like the cartels? And I thought canadians were the nice guys!

"The Kamloops school operated between 1890 and 1969, when the federal government took over operations from the Catholic Church and operated it as a day school until it closed in 1978."

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/w...da/5262768001/

Why can't it be real? Obviously this is terrible, but it's not especially surprising news. From the article you linked:

Residential schools, and the way indigenous people were (and still are to some extent) treated in Canada in general, is a terrible legacy of colonialism. This will become yet another part of our Truth and Reconciliation journey, a process that has a long ways to go still.

http://www.trc.ca/

Why should someone earning $40,000 get a carbon tax rebate if they live at their parents and say bike to work or use the bus. I support the person making $40,000 that pays a utility bill with carbon tax and drives a car. Though it should be supported with receipts..

We could ban every ton of US coal going to China through BC ports immediately. Heck the west coast of the US does

Sad part of our history and I am not sure whom is more responsible the Catholic Church or the government. I am sure both take equal blame. Like I said before any prime minister that was in power during residential schools should have their name stripped from any public building

This is actually a really good example, because it is the absolute core of the issue and the distinction between the Liberals and Conservatives.

The goal here is to actually affect consumer behaviors to be lower carbon intensive. That is, the goal is to get people to drive less and instead bike more, take transit more, or live closer to work. We want to encourage more energy efficient housing, and more multigenerational housing that uses all the bedrooms in the house would be one way that could occur. So if the carbon tax incentivizes someone to ditch the long commute to live with their parent sand bike to work, that is a reduction in green house gases. Now the policy doesn't prescribe any specific way to accomplish reduction - that is up to the market - but by creating a disincentive structure to using carbon it starts to shift consumer behaviours away from carbon intensive ones.

This is why the conservative's "plan" just doesn't work. If you only give a rebate to the people who use a lot of gas, for instance, then you haven't created a disincentive to using a lot of gas! It has to be egalitarian to work, so there are net winners (people who switch to lower carbon lifestyles) and net losers (stay at higher carbon lifestyles). The liberal plan is 90% revenue neutral for the government with most money returned to the people, and it is returned equally to all people of the same income.

To be clear, the conservative plan is much worse for other reasons too (for instances, its ceiling on price per tonne is way to low), and it is wildly impractical (how do you track all the receipts on every possible purchase canada wide? It is a big government bureaucratic nightmare that makes the long gun registry look smart by comparison), etc. But even if everything else worked, the fundamental mechanism is just flawed.