andromeda

i understand all this. but if you're fully going to take advantage of solar power when building new housing projects attention has to be made towards roof angles and structure not to mention walls bearing solar panels will have to be built facing south. housing projects will have to be designed to optimize the path of the sun. solar energy makes a lot more sense than wind turbines. it's certainly doable but has to be planned from the start.

I like the idea of building new homes designed for the purpose of cutting GHG emissions. I also like the idea of going to electric or hybrid automobiles. but changing from gas to electricity to heat our homes and using electricity to charge our cars is going to demand a lot more base load power generation. wind and solar isn't going to do it. if we really want to cut the burning of fossil fuels and not turn to gas fired power generation then we're going to have to build more nuclear plants. either that or prepare for severe power rationing or black outs. after screwing up so badly with the green energy act does anyone really trust the liberals with a way more ambitious undertaking? just remember... 2006 -2014 consumers paid $37 billion more than they should have on their hydro bills because of sweetheart deals the liberals gave to their friends. add to that an additional $133 billion over the next 17 years. the idea is good except for the liberals having a legacy of corruption and incompetence.

we will get what the liberals want us to get for a little while.... at least until the next election and their actions come under review. then the voters will decide whether this is a government that can be trusted with another 4 years. this is hardly 'absolute power' or anything close to it.

at least there's no cbc'ers. of course they were bought off for a few hundred million at election time.

if trudeau really wanted to pick an advisory board representative of all Canadians he might have started with an unemployed oil worker. where are the businessmen, the armed forces, healthcare, and police representatives? trudeau is an elitist. he believes that only Quebecers are capable of governing Canada. many of the picks are elitist or those with agendas. there are no real surprises.

it's like painting lipstick on a pig. with trudeau it's all optics. it's giving the impression that the selection of senators has now become more 'open' or democratic (which it's not). it's no better or worse except that if a senator screws up the appointment committee takes the fall and not the government.

how is this bribing a senator? the bribe is already in when the appointment is made. does an mp walking across the floor to join another party and then getting elevated to some ministerial position constitute a bribe?

for anyone interested.... here is a link for one of the best free of charge market commentaries out there. new newsletters are posted every Monday. hussman is calling for an approximate 50% retreat in the S&P once current market cycle ends. be warned though... hussman is a bit of a bear. i'm mostly in cash doing some very selective investing buying good companies on dips and selling when they come back up again. volatility becomes your friend. no buy and hold for me. all I can say is good luck and don't get too greedy. website (look for weekly market commentary)..... http://www.hussmanfunds.com/

the way I understand it is that the SCC (the highest court in the land) was established by the 'supreme court act' and not any constitutional act. meaning.... it's existence (or jurisdiction) is contingent upon any sitting majority government not abolishing it. then we have the infamous notwithstanding clause whereby any legislature can tell the supreme court to go to hell. the whole thing sounds pretty wonky to me. *** actually it would take the combined action of commons and senate to abolish it.

why should anyone born in this country today have more rights than others or be treated differently in a court of law simply on account of who their ancestors were? why should there be an obligation on the rest of the country to preserve a way of life that existed hundreds of years ago that really doesn't exist anymore? I've never done anything to any indigenous person (or anyone else for that matter) so why should I feel guilt?

there's another saying.... and it's 'look before you leap'. what the draftees of this manifesto have done is gather up a few feasibility studies which are sketchy at best and decided to try and turn it into party economic and social policy at the national level. no more free trade. community ownership. social justice. if not communism it's pretty far left wing to me. whether it's feasible or not .... who knows? maybe it's only feasible if we ration power to a fraction of what we're consuming today. I would say this.... before plunging the nation into some left wing economic experiment... how about we try it out at the micro level first? let's pick a community of about 100,000 people and try it there. then we'll understand a lot better of what we're up against and how realistic the goal of a country being powered by 100% renewable energy really is.

is it derogatory to call those behind the leap manifesto crazy? for one thing it's not economically viable and would completely destroy the Canadian economy. mulcair would be more at home in today's liberal party. what is he sticking around for?

the convention was a real eye opener. the leap manifesto shows how crazy the extremists in the NDP actually are. i'm surprised that mulcair is even hanging around.

I don't care what the ethics commissioner has to say. i'm asking you.

Rupert s says he wants to nationalize infrastructure but not the companies themselves. how would nationalizing infrastructure which may soon be outdated be beneficial to anyone? future technological advances may well lead to increased competition. what we need is more competition and not government run monopolies.

we should allow technology and the innovation of private enterprise to take its course. in the not too distant future cell towers may be a thing of the past.

Section 16 of the conflict of interest act...... Fundraising 'No public office holder shall personally solicit funds from any person or organization if it would place the public office holder in a conflict of interest.' Wilson-raybould claims she attended the 'private' fundraiser as an MP and not as Canada's attorney general or justice minister. but invitations were specifically sent out to members of the legal community. emails made it clear that issues Wilson-raybould was involved with would be discussed. how is this not a conflict of interest?

fundraisers are fine. just not between cabinet ministers and those seeking 'favours'.

con-sen-sus 1 general agreement 2 generally shared decision making: to govern by consensus majority governments don't turn to consensus for the simple reason they don't have to. however.... giving the impression they actually care about what the public thinks doesn't hurt them either. why spend money on a military when it could be better spent buying off voters for the next election? yes..... why not make the public even more dependent on the goodies liberals love dishing out on a regular basis? of course true and honest consensus could be used in such events that are non interfering in liberal's re-election plans. anyone who thinks true and honest consensus will be used when butts/trudeau attempt to change Canada's electoral system is living in la la land.

Having Elizabeth may at any debate is a joke.

money sitting in a high interest savings account earns you on average about 1% which you're fully taxed on. why is it that whenever we get something nice and good like the TFSA...... liberals want to take it away from us?

If the ndp's going to have a big move, i'd rather them do it now then a week before election time.

Freedom of speech has become enough of a murky issue in this country as is. The government has now muddied it even more. Supporters of BDS should have the same rights as ann coulter giving a lecture at the university of Ottawa. Free speech has given way to political correctness. Political correctness has given way to self censorship. Most conservatives believe in free speech. It's hard to go along with the government on this one.