Conservatives vote to officially deny reality

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,070
1,147
113
Olympus Mons
First it was 'you don't understand what constitutional means' and now it's 'the system is rigged against me'. Poor thing.

I just get to enjoy watching the fireworks lol
No, we get to enjoy your total lack of comprehension. How is the system "rigged against me" dumb ass? I'm supposedly in the "get more back than I paid" category. You see you selfish self-serving asshole, some of us have an interest in the country as whole, not just ourselves.

So, what was your carbon tax refund Flossy? Or are you embarrassed about how cheaply you sold your soul for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich and petros

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
96,840
2,776
113
Moccasin Flats

A Biased SCoC Judge? Nahhhhh.​

Conflict of Interest? Supreme Court Judge who ruled on carbon tax constitutionality spoke at event partnered with United Nations groups​

Greg Staley
Greg Staley
3 days ago

Author: Gregory Staley

Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Richard Wagner was the opening speaker at the Centre For International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) for their 2020 Hon Justice CD Gonthier Memorial Lecture titled Human Rights, the Sustainable Development Goals & the Law”. Justice Wagner was appointed to the Supreme Court by Prime Minister Stephen Harper but elevated to the position of “chief” justice by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

We will get into some of the details of what he said at the event – but merely being at the event as a speaker already appears to be a potential conflict of interest.

Here’s why I say that. On the CISDL website, on the about page under a subsection titled “Integrating environment, human rights and economy through legal scholarship and empowerment” the website says that “CISDL leads global initiatives and projects in collaboration with a range of international partner organizations including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Ramsar Convention, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), among others, and is an accredited observer organization to the United Nations General Assembly’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Merely speaking at the memorial lecture calls into question the judges impartiality in making a constitutional decision related to the carbon tax. One of the collaborative partners of this organization included the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which states on their website that developed countries should lead the way in cutting emissions.

The UNFCCC also ignores any debate around climate change – stating it more as an irrefutable fact and not a debate topic although scientific consensus on the topic doesn’t exist. There are also many other biased sponsors of the event that fully and openly endorse the catastrophic climate change idea. The basic question is if Justice Wagner spoke at this event – does he believe the same ideas espoused at the event?

 
Last edited:

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,070
1,147
113
Olympus Mons
$226 measly dollars. That's how cheap Flosshole's soul is.

Well you know how desperately he must need that $18.80 per month. What's even more hysterical is California is selling carbon credits to Quebec companies for less than market value. Which kind'a undermines the whole purpose of "crap and trade".
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,216
150
63
Penticton, BC
I wonder if the Conservatives who voted against Mr. O'Toole's motion appreciate the strength of the political ammunition they just handed to the Liberals ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mowich

Buffy

Nominee Member
Jan 3, 2017
70
10
8
U.S.A.
Dear Mentalone, You will recall that many months ago in response to another of your insipid blatherings I suggested that you provide answers to three questions so simple that even you with an IQ approximating your belt size should be able to answer. As you have assiduously avoided a response I'll restate my query.
  • What is the Earth's ideal temperature and why?
  • What is the ideal atmospheric concentration of CO2 and why?
  • Will you please provide a link to the study/paper that proves increased CO2 causes warming.
For help with similar unfamiliar concepts please visit www.climatediscussionnexus.com a true Canadian treasure.
 

Buffy

Nominee Member
Jan 3, 2017
70
10
8
U.S.A.
While I'm at it. A wonderful commentary on the proposed carbon tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
38,330
115
63
What, like you leftards did with Kavanaugh? Hypotwit!

You think that's an argument? LMAO


It will be okay guys.

Everything will be okay.

Just take a deep breath, watch Peter O'Toole agree to the carbon tax after promising you that he wouldn't, and exhale.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
38,330
115
63
When they say 'reality' are they referring to conservatives? 🤔

The reality of carbon prices sinks in​

“I certainly did not want to waste a bunch of Manitoba taxpayers’ hard-earned money going to Supreme Court and losing,” Pallister said, before he later abandoned that line of thought and linked arms (and court interventions) with Kenney and others in The Resistance™.

 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
15,261
234
63
Regina, Saskatchewan
The Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal carbon tax doesn’t rewrite the Constitution, as dissenting judges argued, so much as it reaffirms how Canada has always worked: Ottawa will interfere with natural resources as it pleases, even if it is damaging to the West. That Ontario was one of the losing plaintiffs matters little. Institutions that make up this country are faulty to their core, biased in their makeup towards the Central provinces. It’s a wonder that Canada works at all.

When Alberta Premier Jason Kenney raises grievances against Ottawa, his critics dismiss him as trying to gin up his base, or to deflect from his own failings. Its only because of Kenney’s dipping poll numbers, the argument goes, that he complained that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau allowed the United States to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline without much fuss, but is pushing back against threats to Line 5, which is critical to Ontario and Quebec. Others argue that if only Albertans didn’t vote for Conservatives all the time, the province would get treated more fairly. If only that were true.

From the time of the National Policy — which protected Ontario industry with tariffs, to the detriment of export-oriented Western farmers who paid inflated prices for equipment — it has been painfully apparent that some regions are mere afterthoughts. When Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces, they were initially denied control over their resources. Then there was the National Energy Program that aimed to keep oil prices artificially low and remains the best example of Ottawa favouring Central Canada at the expense of other regions.

It isn’t that politicians in Ottawa are necessarily out to get the West, but that Canada’s constitutional structure over incentivizes policies geared towards the Central provinces. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/car...-and-any-province-that-isnt-ontario-or-quebec

As the political scientist Donald Savoie argues in his book, “Democracy in Canada,” this country’s “national political institutions were designed for another country.” The United Kingdom has its own regional divisions but it is a fraction of the size of Canada, and in 1867, the UK remained the perfect example of a “unitary state,” meaning there was no competing level of government with powers comparable to the national government, the way there is in a federation.

Political power in Canada can't be gained without winning a single seat outside Ontario and Quebec. Together, the two provinces account for 57 per cent of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. Ontario alone accounts for 36 per cent, while Alberta counts for just 10 per cent. Albertans suddenly voting Liberal won’t change this equation or how its interests are viewed by Ottawa.

Intensifying the House of Commons’ focus on “national” issues, to the detriment of regional matters, is its level of partisanship, which is almost unique to Canada. When members of Parliament are expected to always vote along party lines or face the prospect of being demoted or even expelled from caucus, there is little room for regional deviation.

The House’s distribution of seats by population is not problematic on its own, but there are no institutions that can effectively balance provincial interests against national ones. That was theoretically the role of the Senate, but it lacks democratic legitimacy and the seat distribution is still weighted heavily towards Ontario and Quebec, with 24 seats each. No other province has more than 10 seats.

In the U.S. Senate, each state is represented equally with two seats, and the Electoral College gives states influence in choosing the president. On this side of the border, there is no national institution that can give a voice to regional concerns, “unless they are anchored in vote-rich Ontario and Quebec,” Savoie argues. “Canada does not have the same kind of safeguard for smaller regions as other federations.”

Despite 150-plus years of history, Canada’s core institutions remain extremely stable — “immunized against structural change,” as Savoie puts it. The “deux nation treaty struck in 1867 has not allowed it.”

These tensions are not limited to disputes over the regulation and taxation of resources. Quebec companies win contracts for building ships or maintaining fighter jets despite more competitive options in New Brunswick, British Columbia or Manitoba, provinces that just do not have the electoral clout to assert themselves. Problems facing Ontario’s auto industry and Quebec-based Bombardier are always treated as a grave national concern, despite the fact that for all other provinces, they might be considered regional issues.

Nor are tensions limited to one political party. Former Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley was highly critical of the Liberals’ Bill C-69, which created a host of new regulations that makes the building of new pipelines near-impossible. “This is not how you build a country,” she said two years ago.

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of the Liberal carbon tax are beside the point. Climate change policy developed in Ottawa by those indifferent to the needs of the West would not create such cleavages in the country, or indeed be so squarely targeted on a single region, if Canada itself was built for more than two provinces.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
8,070
1,147
113
Olympus Mons
Savoie nailed it but missed the mark too. The biggest issue is Official Bilingualism. That is what has set Quebec up to be the de facto province of power in Canada. Since OB 7 out of 9 of the duly elected, sitting PMs we've had have come from Quebec. Prior to OB only 3 PM's came from Quebec including Pierre himself. A country's interests cannot be properly met when its "leaders" tend to come from only 1 region.
Do you know Quebec gets the lion's share of the federal transfer payments? No, it's not because they're a "have not" province. Transfers are based on provincial revenues and Quebec keeps theirs artificially low knowing full well the ROC will subsidize them because we don't have a choice in the matter.

Even the carbon tax shows preferential treatment of Quebec-based industry over industry in the ROC.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
32,959
1,277
113
Vancouver Island
The Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the federal carbon tax doesn’t rewrite the Constitution, as dissenting judges argued, so much as it reaffirms how Canada has always worked: Ottawa will interfere with natural resources as it pleases, even if it is damaging to the West. That Ontario was one of the losing plaintiffs matters little. Institutions that make up this country are faulty to their core, biased in their makeup towards the Central provinces. It’s a wonder that Canada works at all.

When Alberta Premier Jason Kenney raises grievances against Ottawa, his critics dismiss him as trying to gin up his base, or to deflect from his own failings. Its only because of Kenney’s dipping poll numbers, the argument goes, that he complained that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau allowed the United States to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline without much fuss, but is pushing back against threats to Line 5, which is critical to Ontario and Quebec. Others argue that if only Albertans didn’t vote for Conservatives all the time, the province would get treated more fairly. If only that were true.

From the time of the National Policy — which protected Ontario industry with tariffs, to the detriment of export-oriented Western farmers who paid inflated prices for equipment — it has been painfully apparent that some regions are mere afterthoughts. When Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces, they were initially denied control over their resources. Then there was the National Energy Program that aimed to keep oil prices artificially low and remains the best example of Ottawa favouring Central Canada at the expense of other regions.

It isn’t that politicians in Ottawa are necessarily out to get the West, but that Canada’s constitutional structure over incentivizes policies geared towards the Central provinces. http://nationalpost.com/opinion/car...-and-any-province-that-isnt-ontario-or-quebec

As the political scientist Donald Savoie argues in his book, “Democracy in Canada,” this country’s “national political institutions were designed for another country.” The United Kingdom has its own regional divisions but it is a fraction of the size of Canada, and in 1867, the UK remained the perfect example of a “unitary state,” meaning there was no competing level of government with powers comparable to the national government, the way there is in a federation.

Political power in Canada can't be gained without winning a single seat outside Ontario and Quebec. Together, the two provinces account for 57 per cent of the 338 seats in the House of Commons. Ontario alone accounts for 36 per cent, while Alberta counts for just 10 per cent. Albertans suddenly voting Liberal won’t change this equation or how its interests are viewed by Ottawa.

Intensifying the House of Commons’ focus on “national” issues, to the detriment of regional matters, is its level of partisanship, which is almost unique to Canada. When members of Parliament are expected to always vote along party lines or face the prospect of being demoted or even expelled from caucus, there is little room for regional deviation.

The House’s distribution of seats by population is not problematic on its own, but there are no institutions that can effectively balance provincial interests against national ones. That was theoretically the role of the Senate, but it lacks democratic legitimacy and the seat distribution is still weighted heavily towards Ontario and Quebec, with 24 seats each. No other province has more than 10 seats.

In the U.S. Senate, each state is represented equally with two seats, and the Electoral College gives states influence in choosing the president. On this side of the border, there is no national institution that can give a voice to regional concerns, “unless they are anchored in vote-rich Ontario and Quebec,” Savoie argues. “Canada does not have the same kind of safeguard for smaller regions as other federations.”

Despite 150-plus years of history, Canada’s core institutions remain extremely stable — “immunized against structural change,” as Savoie puts it. The “deux nation treaty struck in 1867 has not allowed it.”

These tensions are not limited to disputes over the regulation and taxation of resources. Quebec companies win contracts for building ships or maintaining fighter jets despite more competitive options in New Brunswick, British Columbia or Manitoba, provinces that just do not have the electoral clout to assert themselves. Problems facing Ontario’s auto industry and Quebec-based Bombardier are always treated as a grave national concern, despite the fact that for all other provinces, they might be considered regional issues.

Nor are tensions limited to one political party. Former Alberta NDP premier Rachel Notley was highly critical of the Liberals’ Bill C-69, which created a host of new regulations that makes the building of new pipelines near-impossible. “This is not how you build a country,” she said two years ago.

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of the Liberal carbon tax are beside the point. Climate change policy developed in Ottawa by those indifferent to the needs of the West would not create such cleavages in the country, or indeed be so squarely targeted on a single region, if Canada itself was built for more than two provinces.
This just reinforces the need for a weighted voting system where large rural ridings get extra votes based on either SQ.KM. or number of communities represented.