jacee

Right back atcha.

No. Old hippie.

Yes. And it saves a lot of public money. People naturally move in/out of the workforce for a variety of sensible reasons (as outlined above, and I would add education/retraining). The bureaucratic costs are huge for determining eligibility and administering funding for income support in each of those cases. A lot of people fall through the cracks and end up on the streets or seriously ill, again increasing our social costs. It's a cost saving program that results in better employment outcomes, because people are able to maintain themselves through adverse circumstances and thus motivated and strong enough to move forward. EG Someone who is schizophrenic and in crisis and loses their job ... or a husband whose wife has Alzheimer's and needs constant care so he has to leave his job ... such people dealing with crisis often do not have the strength to find their way through the bureaucratic hodge podge of current social support programs. Such crises too often result in people losing everything, including their homes and their strength to get back on their feet. These are not unexpected circumstances: They are predictable and happening to thousands of people at any given time. A guaranteed income saves a lot of public money by preventing crisis situations from becoming catastrophic situations, by enabling recovery and reemployment.

If the shoe fits ... lol

Nonsense. There's that punitive mentality again. You do comprehend that punishment and hardship inflicted on people is not a viable strategy toward improvement of anything? It simply compounds the problem, makes it more costly to our society. First, we have to increase minimum wage so that a person working full time can actually live on it. Then we have to implement a guaranteed living income for all, that does not get clawed back as soon as you get some work: That would allow (eg) schizophrenics to work to the extent that they are capable of, and employers to provide employment on that basis, without the constant pressure of losing benefits and housing if employment ceases. Plus it saves huge bureaucratic costs in government staffing required for 'means testing', a revolving door of constantly pushing paper around in approving/rescinding someone's income support, housing and other social benefits. A guaranteed income program makes it possible for everyone to go through life's setbacks (injury, illness, disability, mental illness or disorders, caring for aging parents/disabled pregnancy, childrearing, economic recessions/layoffs, etc etc) without becoming destitute or homeless, and thus still maintaining the strength to re-enter the workforce when feasible. The cost savings of a guaranteed living income are well documented, and the savings are at least 1.5 times the cost of providing that income.

Dougie can speak freely. I can speak freely. Nobody promised anybody an adoring audience. Why do Conservatives demand free speech, and then try to deny it to others? Lol It's like you are demanding that people agree. Lol That's not the way free speech works. In fact, free speech is specifically the right to openly disagree ... and especially to dissent against government/state authority.

Sometimes you are brilliant, Moonlight.

That's gross overgeneralization with no scientific evidence. Your opinionating does not make it truth. I challenged you to provide evidence that corporal punishment is an effective strategy against juvenile crime. So far, you haven't.

You were proposing corporal punishment of young offenders. You are way off your own topic now. Lol

Lotta opinionated bs. No evidence.

Provide evidence that threat of physical punishment is a deterrent to kids who've been abused all their lives? Hint: You can't. Because it isn't. To abused kids, it's just life as usual, it's what they expect. It's not a deterrent: Their responses are paradoxical to what 'normies' might assume. Basic behavioural intervention principles: Positive reinforcement is much more effective than negative reinforcement. This research is 50 years old. It's mind boggling that there are still people who think violence is a valid strategy to reduce crime. It isn't. It's only a strategy that teaches them to be more deviant, more devious in evading getting caught, and also more violent. Abused kids who become juvenile criminals need re-programming to respond to positive reinforcement, of which they've had very little. They've become hardened to punishment, so it isn't effective. Police will tell you that a lot of 'normal' (not abused) kids might get caught once, and the negative experience will keep them on a positive track forever. But that is not the case with kids who've been abused. It's quite the opposite: It makes them more determined to 'beat the system', become more criminal, and not get caught again.

Please provide evidence of the effectiveness of corporal punishment in deterring criminal activity? In fact, the opposite is true: children subjected to physical abuse are more likely to engage in criminal and violent behaviour as youths and adults: Physical and other abuse is the problem, not the solution.

1) Indigenous Nations would take it to the Supreme Court. If the feds failed to respect the SC rulings, then yes, the route would be to the GG who (as Commander in Chief) has the power to activate the military against a rogue federal government out of control and in violation of the laws. All only in a severe crisis, of course. And ... actually the other way around: Alberta will have to negotiate trade, commerce and land use with Indigenous Nations: Their traditional lands cover all of Alberta (and Canada). 2) Wexit is a small extremist bunch of unemployed?, upset oil workers being jacked up by white supremacists fomenting violence and war. They have no leaders capable of negotiating or implementing any such thing, nor even understanding the complexities. There is no support from any government or business leaders nor mainstream Albertans. If the Wexiteers want to Wexit themselves to a mountain hideout and claim a 'sovereign nation', they can. But Albertans are not interested. Sask. hasn't spoken up, BC & Man. neither. And btw, WHERE IN YOUR POST DID YOU MENTION THAT THE DROP IN THE PRICE OF OIL IS THE MAIN PROBLEM? WHERE DID YOU MENTION THAT INVESTORS ABANDONING FOSSIL FUELS IS A PROBLEM? WHERE DID YOU MENTION THAT FOSSIL FUELS THEMSELVES ARE A PROBLEM? Wexit is an angry response, trying to blame someone, but it would be very costly, would not fix anything but just make Alberta's situation worse, not a reasonable solution to anything at all. 3) The rollout of renewable energy will happen so fast your head will spin.

You should take the hint: Your messages are not welcome.

There is no contradiction. We all have freedom of expression. My "BOOOOOO" is my free speech. Freedom of speech does not mean anybody 'has to' listen to you in public. Freedom of speech does not guarantee anyone an adoring public audience. That's what the dumb-as-bricks alt-right seem incapable of comprehending. And it frustrates them greatly, because they generally have NO audience, just protesters. No one wants to listen to them, and when frustrated by protesters drowning them out, they become violent.

I don't think Scheer has PM quality, very regional, doesn't even seem much interested in national issues, and I couldn't imagine him being effective internationally at all. But I don't care if he's out or not. Conservatives are looking very 1950's these days, with a touch too much alt-right, and pretty much entirely irrelevant.

We all have free speech. If I don't like what you say, I speak up. You may be drowned out ... or fired. Oh well. There is no contradiction in that. Free speech has consequences. I have noticed though that the far right think only they have free speech, and everybody else has to listen to them. Lol That's ridiculous. Nobody promised anybody an adoring audience. People get booed off the stage all the time.

Indigenous Nations (the original Nations, not the First Nations that Canada created by force) have treaties with the Crown, represented in Canada by the Governor General. The treaties are not with Canada, but with the Queen. The "feds" just administer the treaties, often fraudulently. Indigenous Nations do have a say in what happens with their traditional territories and who's administering the related treaties, and so does the Queen. I remember clearly that Indigenous Nations in Quebec did raise the issue of their land rights and treaties amidst the separation crisis. It was a turning point, and things settled down from there: whether a "veto" exists or not, official leadership in Quebec recognized that it was a significant complication. Leaders in both government and business in Alberta are not participating in the #Wexit nonsense, perhaps for that and other reasons. There is no serious threat of separation: Just some angry/sad oil workers venting. Understandable, but not a credible threat. We all know that the demise of the western oil industry means less federal tax revenue, and that Alberta may become a have-not province receiving equalization. That's life.

Yes. I was being just a bit sarcastic, of course. Lol

Not all Albertans are interested in playing 'the blame game': https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/swann-stop-the-blame-game-albertas-plight-is-our-own-doing Ironically, this lack of foresight, integrity and political will have contributed to distrust and loss of confidence from investors. The Kenney war room is another blatant political ploy against both climate science and free speech; ironically, it is partially funded by foreign oil companies. Oil prices and the global move away from fossil fuels are beyond our control. Let’s stop the blame game and acknowledge that we are all responsible for the Alberta we have, and for the Alberta we leave to our children. For all our sakes, let us see some mature, honest negotiating in good faith across this country and do our collective best to live up to our international commitment on the climate crisis. Alberta’s present state is largely our own doing. I wish for the best for Albertans, and there are some hard conversations necessary.

Canada's GHG emissions per capita would drop immensely if Alberta separates, and Alberta would have the highest emissions per capita in the world: https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/11/21/analysis/independent-alberta-would-be-worlds-worst-climate-polluter

Because the US etc are shipping it to them to burn. We're have to make sure Canada isn't piping and shipping.

That's fine. We need to do that anyway. And I agree with cougar: Your idea of how people live on factory wages is not true in the east. Maybe in Alberta ... but the rest of the country doesn't live that way on factory jobs.

It is not about the economy. You can't control the economy anyway: People are free to invest their money where they like, and it is investors abandoning fossil fuels that will bring Alberta to its knees, if Alberta doesn't make a better plan. My point, that you've ignored, is that the economy never stays the same: It evolves with the times. Such short-sighted vision is the problem. Spouting hot air blaming the rest of Canada, threatening to "separate" is ... just wasting time and energy and good will that is better invested in a future for Alberta. Renewable energy is the future, and the changeover is coming faster and faster, technology improving by leaps and bounds. The Alberta oil industry doesn't have decades left as some Albertans still want to believe. Investors are already fleeing fossil fuels, and the industry will crash in the next five years. No investments, no industry. No arguments can change that.

It will be interesting to see if lawsuits against oil companies are launched in Canada. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/exxon-shell-climate-change-court-new-york-attorney-general-litigation-documents-1.5331228 What Big Oil knew and when The essential argument for most of the lawsuits is that the oil industry knew that its products were affecting the climate, but instead of alerting the public and changing their business model, companies deliberately promoted scientific uncertainty about climate change to delay laws that might limit carbon emissions. For evidence, many of the cases rely on a series of internal company documents uncovered by investigative journalists that suggest oil industry scientists and executives were aware, decades ago, that fossil fuel emissions were changing the world's climate. Municipalities seem to be taking the lead on this, perhaps forming a class action suit. Climate change effects of the fossil fuel industries are a reality, and prevention and mitigation of those effects are our reality for the rest of our lives, for sure, and the lives of the next generations. In Canada, it is of great concern that 75% of our GHG emissions are caused by two fossil fuel provinces - Alberta and Saskatchewan. Perhaps municipalities' lawsuits should be directed at those provinces along with oil companies. And I would suggest suing the Federal government's as well, for continuing to prop up the failing and unprofitable oil industry with public subsidies ($60b/year), while municipalities incur the losses and costs of climate change that result from emissions. The success of such lawsuits doesn't matter as much as the pressure it puts on the feds to stop subsidizing those damaging industries with our money: removing just 30% of those subsidies would allow the energy market to operate freely, and renewable energy would immediately be a more profitable investment than fossil fuels. It's a simple change that will accomplish a lot, and very quickly, by allowing the 'free market' to actually operate freely, without propping up a dying and damaging industry. Subsidy money should, instead, be directed at helping Alberta and Saskatchewan develop other industries without dependence on oil, and helping workers transition to new industries: Those dependent provinces can still get the federal money, but only to create a new economy and employ people. Public subsidy money is now being thrown down the drain, will be used to finance company shareholders and executive payouts when companies go bankrupt and abandon their operations and their workers. Oil companies have no loyalty to the people of Alberta or Saskatchewan and will abandon them in a second. It will be Canadians who subsidize the necessary economic changes to keep those provinces afloat and viable. There isn't any point in arguing about it, just demand that our federal public subsidy money be used for new industries, new employment ... not thrown away propping up an industry that is no longer viable.