Yes but some religions do not require you to wear silly outfits and get a pass

Than under your logic no one that has a religious belief should serve in those offices. Now that I could see as being fair

How can you distinguish between a catholic judge and a Indian judge or Muslim judge? Your saying the catholic judge will not be influenced by his beliefs but the others will

You realize that if we set the same per capita cap for every province, that this would completely completely **** Alberta, right? Or not even per capita, it is far more emissions than Ontario without even scaling it! It is hard to take seriously that you genuinely want the sometimes dramatic climate change policies you claim to want. And you said Trudeau should do this immediately?

Uh, we've talked extensively before about how the party you voted for approved a port to transfer american primarily metalurgical coal to China passing through the same waterway as all of that transmountain oil you support. I'm against it. I support that the Liberals, unlike the conservatives you voted for, have pledged to end the export of thermal coal. And I even want everything to happen faster. That you endlessly use the same point over and over again as a WHATABOUTISM on every single climate related issue is frankly just getting pathetic.

This is just sad. I'm never quite sure why everything turns into this provincial zero sum battle for you. I want Canada to make significant strides to combat climate change, something you yourself support. Confusing that with hating not just Alberta but Albertans is just sad.

Good point.

Instead trying to find an absolute truth why not try to take one that seem to be the most probable ?

Yeah maybe some bias of personal beliefs can play a judgement wether someone wearing or not religious symbols.
But 1 thing is for sure , someone not being able to remove his religious symbols because of faith , definitely will have more bias that someone who can !

And government neutral perception , abiding to its own law is incredibly important.

Last thing , it’s pretty ironic to condemn a law as discriminatory when that law purpose is exactly to remove discriminatory beliefs/rules of religion out of government policies , judgement, law application , etc.

Regardless , the discrimination isn’t coming for the law itself , it’s coming from religion imposing discriminatory beliefs on it’s adepts .
This law just bring a coherence and uniformity between everyone wishing to be an agent of government that is suppose to promote neutrality …. Not religion with massive discriminatory ideology !
It make no sense .

Would you want a policeman or judge to render justice while having a huge criminal record ?
It wouldn’t make any sense .

Anyway , secularism isn’t racism !

It’s religion that want a free pass to be as discriminatory as they want , wherever they want and whenever they want !
And again , we are talking a very small number of people being potentially affected , unlike Europe where it’s in every sector of the economy ….

Fwiw, I would never accept and trust someone , who would pass its own personal beliefs over government juridiction , to render an unbiased judgement from religion .
You can’t have both and that is exactly why religion being ejected from government.

Yes, his "initiatives" from the climate conference wont have an affect on the current energy crises. I know supply and demand can be a confusing concept but try googling it.

BC hit the geography lotto and can produce a bunch of Hydro and Biomass that other provinces can't. Just out of curiosity what do you consider green energy and what do you consider renewable? Majority of the environmental groups I am sure you are In line with do not consider hydro power to be green. Alberta actually produces more solar and wind electricity than BC if that's what you consider green.

Sure. Each province has resource advantages and disadvantages. Alberta has great opportunities with solar and wind as opposed to ever-overcast Vancouver say and should be doing that far more than burning gas. And you are right, hydro can have a lot of environmental challenges with it (I broadly opposed the Site C project for instance). It is a good tool, but needs to be carefully regulated and carefully applied. I'm also not in line with a majority of environmental groups on a number of issues; I think we should do a lot more nuclear power for instance.

Uke keeps telling me i have the one issue

Seems others agree with me

https://globalnews.ca/video/8348452/...xports-by-2023


HMMM Coal is the dirtiest Fossil fuel killing a million a year from Climate Barbie




CLIMATE PHONY

that above, is EXACTLY why i say it is ONLY about money and the monied interests use the well meaning activists as useful idiots.

If AB only agreed to give QB and BC a Churchill Falls type deal where they received the bulk of money from AB oil going to international markets their opposition would disappear over night.

Here we have the US saying 'that coal is too dirty, too harmful, we will not allow you to ship it' and BC puts up their hand and says 'we'll gladly do it' based solely on economics.

Surely no one, no matter how much you believe in this as a cause cannot see this, right? uke you can see this right?

Lozen, can you maybe rise above the "climate barbie" sexist nonsense? I get it that your right wing sources loved that, but you can be better.

I'm fully on board with banning thermal coal exports by 2023 as opposed to 2030. I opposed the conservatives you voted for who approved the coal port from the US and support the liberal plan to ban thermal coal exports by 2030, the timetable they use for most of their agenda. And I'd be happy to do it even earlier. This is why it is so utterly bizarre that any time I say anything about the environment you inevitably will do WHATABOUTCOAL within an average of 1.5 posts.

Question, would you support that provincial cap you advocate for on carbon emissions in by 2023 and would you support the projected 2030 levels of the carbon tax in place by 2023?

You use the same excuse Biden does Well its Trumps fault but you insert Harper.

It is clear that if you are making a climate change and are serious about it you tackle the biggest polluters first. That being coal. When you pledge to end Thermo Electric Coal by a certain date but keep shipping it till 2030 your not serious about climate change your serious about votes.

NO and No when you still allow US coal to be shipped from your ports, no plan to stop dumping raw sewage into the ocean and continue to buy foreign oil

Well looks like Maine dealt Quebec a blow

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/maine-...ebec-1.6233569

Coal is FAR from the biggest polluter in Canada. #1 is oil and gas. #2 is transport. Coal is an asterisk in the smallest "other" category. And most of that coal is metallurgical, not thermal. None of this is to argue that we shouldn't end coal - we should - or that we shouldn't do it faster than current timeframe - we should - but your obsession with interjecting your parties coal approval into every conversation about climate change at every opportunity is just silly.

Um, the liberal plan is consistent with 2030 as the timeline for all its major initiatives. The end of domestic coal use, the end of thermal coal exports, the ramp up of the carbon tax values, etc. The date is the same.

Ok, so coal should be stopped in 2023, according to you. Let's assume that is done. What year should we stop exports of Oil and Gas, then? 2024? 2025?

What are you talking about here?

Another case of average people being drawn in to battles between competing Big Energy interests as Big Oil tries to shut this down to protect their own interests and as such funds their own disinformation campaign.

So many in Canada do not know that it is US big Oil who fights the most against Canadian Pipelines as they reap far more profit the more inefficient and polluting we are.

Thus their goal is to maximize our inefficiency and pollution and sadly they have a bunch of Canadians who side with them having no clue and thinking they are on the virtuous side.

You give some , you get some ....

If contract been well made, some compensation should be in effect for it.

But yeah they are ******ed over there if they think electricity is more damaging then oil and coal industries...
Im surprised defenders of the environment were on the side of oil companies...
some got probably bought by them.

btw lozen , as a side note just to prove im not talking BS on a lot of "issues" the west seem to believe about Quebec society....

post4199 by me :


and the proof :

https://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...sh-only-speech

" Air Canada boss stumbles into language debate with English-only speech

“I’ve been able to live in Montreal without speaking French, and I think that’s a testament to the city of Montreal,” Michael Rousseau said after making a major speech to the city's business community. "


Just saying, concept of racism in Quebec due to bill 21 or french law at work is massively overblown in some parts of Canada for cheap political games...
trust me....minority here are very happy and well treated...

The federal government allows Victoria and Montreal to dump raw sewage into the Ocean . Though I do believe Victoria now has a full treatment venter. Tofino still dumps raw sewage into the Ocean

Uke can correct me if I am wrong

Let me clear Uke I am fore phasing out Coal power plants by the date. My biggest objection is to the US coal going through our ports.

I am for developing our resources alone. Energy Independence

Also I believe Climate Change will ultimately doom the planet but I think the biggest factor is we got to many people. And like the movie Independence day unless as a planet we tackle the problem were screwed.

The best scenario for climate change was a few billion folks dying of Covid not that I was hoping for that

Ah great! You remembered when I told you the largest jurisdiction stopped being Victoria and is now Tofino, a town with less than 2000 permanent residents. The Montreal story that probably got you all spamming this is a one week period in which highway construction work meant the sewage isn't diverted. And a few places (in Alberta too!) that occasionally have issues with big storms overflowing the storm drains and raw sewage getting out that way.

It's a rounding error in Canada's contribution to climate change.

Don't get me wrong, I was supportive of the extremely expensive Victoria plant, despite many arguments that given the swift offshore currents it had almost no major effect on the wildlife population and with such extreme costs that money would have been better spent on other mitigation efforts. It's fine to be supportive of the enormous capital expenditures to make small differences in sewage outflows. I support that. But saying WHATBOUTSEWAGE every ****ing time anyone ever says anything about doing something about climate change is just stupid.

I asked you when you wanted to phase out oil and gas exports? Should it be the same timeline as phasing out coal exports? If you want coal to stop by 2023, should oil and gas exports stop in 2024?

Please try to be as specific as possible about what exactly you are suggesting. Because it sounds to me like you just want to WHATBOUATCOAL!@! every time anyone says anything about oil and gas but really you don't want to lift a ****ing finger on oil and gas.

I do not want to phase out and Oil & gas Exports of resources developed in Canada .

I also do not want to build a pipeline from Alberta to BC to ship oil that is extracted from North Dakota

My point is develop our resources only and shut down tomorrow all coal from the USA being shipped through our ports

Do you not think the fact that Justin Trudeau has mandated to end all electric coal production by 2023 in Canada but will allow us to ship US coal through our ports for Thermal power is hypocritical on his part?


On a separate note the transfer tax on properties in BC was a shock. Damn that must generate a lot of revenue

Ok. How exactly do you differentiate between advocating for a 2023 export ban on Canadian developed thermal coal and not a ban seemingly ever on exporting Oil & Gas? You also advocated for a provincial cap on emissions to be implemented immediately. How exactly do you stand by those calls without any attempts to phase out oil and gas exports?

You're obsessing over this largely irrelevant pass-through port of American coal to China that I agree the conservatives should never have approved but even if they blocked it tomorrow (as opposed to 2030 when it is pledged to be blocked) almost certainly the result would be the american coal would ship to china in any other route. I'm against it, but to obsess over it seems pointlessly particularly when you offer nothing to stop the biggest Canadian source of emissions by far: our oil and gas section.

No he hasn't. As I told you earlier, the deadline for both domestic thermal coal usage and thermal coal exports is 2030. I think what you confused is that there are a handful of provinces left that still burn coal. Alberta is one of them and one of the worst provinces for proportion of electricity coming from fossil fuels. However, they are moving quickly to phase out coal, largely replaced with natural gas, but also some wind and solar. That alberta projection is 2023, but this has little to do with the federal government. After Alberta, the main question will be just a couple remaining power plants in the maritimes. I think they should both close by 2030 despite the cost of replacing them early, but let's be clear that this is a rounding error in comparison to the oil and gas emissions out of Alberta.

its not that hard actually.

You go after activists saying how the hydro corridor will impact wetlands, old growth trees, etc which may all be true but which is far less damage than the the Oil and gas interests are doing.

You enflame their real passions and then use them as useful idiots. I know the term is not bice but that is how the Oil interests see them. They know they will be the best pawns in their game to retain Oil interest power.

It is the same game for the activists against AB pipelines. Most do not realize that Big US oil interests are paying for the disinformation to purposely keep AB oil as polluting as possible and as costly as possible so the US interests can make more profit.

Well meaning activists then achieve what the US big oil could not and provide the legs to keep Canadian oil as polluting as possible and expensive as possible. They then celebrate it as a win.

By 'they' I mean both the activists and the big US oil interests. It would be interesting to get them in the same room for that party and let the activists see how much they were manipulated and see how they react.

Montreal, no big issue not knowing French and doing business. Quebec city, or anywhere else in the Province, not so easy.

A couple decades back Montreal was not so easy either.

Well let me correct that. If they knew you were Canadian and you just spoke English to them like you expected them to speak back you may have been met with some fake "I don't speak English". Many Quebecers got insulted by the assumption, and I don't blame them. However as a Canadian if you tried and butchered the French they appreciated the effort but would quickly switch to English so they would not have to hear you keep trying.

If however you let them think you were American or other the same people would have no issue speaking English to you. They obviously did not expect Americans to make the effort to learn french.