jacee

You talk to immigrants? At your anti-immigrant rallies?

There is no reason for pouring our public money into the dying fossil fuel industry.

This thread is all immature warmongering nonsense. It's a good thing women are taking control.

That's ridiculous.

They lack confidence in the viability of fossil fuel investments. It's inevitable.

Everyone flying in has to self-isolate for 2 weeks, I believe. They go home and self-isolate for 2 weeks. No need to panic.

Well, I didn't plan on panic buying, just regular shopping, but when I checked, I was low on soaps, TP, disinfectants, etc ... so here I am with bags full of them! Lol Hint: Small stores aren't selling out like big ones. Got everything I need!

I wasn't referring to the virus' effect on fossil fuels. (That's a different thread ) Just investor lack of confidence in fossil fuels, already in progress for some time. However, re your virus comment above, The whole point is to slow down the transmission so health services can keep up.

Many businesses are shutting down, people are laid off, EI will be overburdened and slow in replacing people's income. I understand the 'panic' from that perspective, low wage/precarious workers are stocking up until EI comes through. They have no savings, no personal safety net, and will be entirely dependent on government for rent and necessities.

Public money for fossil fuel corps is welfare. It distorts the free market. Fossil fuels can't survive in a free market, and we need governments to stop propping up fossil fuel profits with our money, and just let them die a natural death.

It's happening anyway. Investors lack confidence.

It's happening anyway.

All we need is a free market - no corporate welfare for fossil fuels In this uncertain environment, investors are already shutting down fossil fuels faster than government 'plans' anyway. The ball is rolling ...

Ya. Shut down fossil fuels asap would "mitigate".

Says the great defender of immigrants. /facepalm

The "economy and society we have" will be "much worse" if we continue on our path of depleting the earth's ability to sustain itself ... and us. We are taking too much, and giving back too little of any value, and a whole lot of trash and contamination. Some industry elements of the 'economy' will be disrupted, the ones we need to get rid of: fossil fuel burning and single use plastics, 'fast fashion' synthetics, unrepairable appliances, unrepairable and unrecyclable electronics disposed along with their 'rare earth' minerals ... among many examples. Oh well. At the same time, alternative industries will arise, some already here, to take their place. I have great faith in the entrepreneurial and inventive spirits that constantly provide new products and services (thus new industries) to meet society's needs and wants. Now we need to direct and regulate them to profuce only sustainable products, services, industries and business. The economy will continue being the economy, but sustainable, and as eyeball said, not dependent on growth, live within its means, distribute wealth more usefully so money circulates within our economy rather than being hoarded by corporations and super wealthy people offshore, hidden from taxes. And of course, we have to end corporate welfare: Support workers through education and training for necessary transitions, with common health/sickness benefits, living wages, etc. ... but NEVER AGAIN put public money in the hands of greedy and predatory corporations. In other words, we have to regulate and shame predatory capitalism out of existence, in favour of regulated and sustainable economy and industries. Catastrophizing that "The economy and society we have could be lost, and what we get instead could be much worse." is retrogressive and without reason, not useful ... unless your purpose is terrorizing gullible people ... and that isn't useful to the economy or society.

Name one such "instance". Keep in mind that a low court ruling can be appealed to a higher court - a Court of Appeal and possibly the Supreme Court of Canada.

There are assumptions and biases implicit in your post that must first be debunked before a response is even possible: 2 Again you try to raise the "race" flag of white supremacism. That may fly among the minuscule mob of white supremacists, but it's quite distasteful to decent people just trying to live in peace. Such obsessive racial extremism reveals an agenda that derails and defeats any arguments you make. Race is an irrelevant distraction in these issues: Different peoples with different cultures, laws, customs and origins can make agreements to share land as equals, respecting each others ways, regardless of same or different skin colour. In fact, Canada has three founding peoples - Indigenous, French and English - and three corresponding legal systems - Indigenous Law, French Civil Code, and English Common Law. 1,3,4 Yes you are taking issue with Canadian Court decisions, erroneously attempting to disparage and dismiss Canadian law as "the will of Indigenous". But Canadian court decisions only reflect the original laws of Canada/BNA - treaties, Royal Proclamations - that were made by European leaders at and following 'Contact', through negotiation with the original Indigenous inhabitants, to allow the starving and disenfranchised hordes of European refugees (purged from their common lands by predatory aristocrats) to settle in some areas in Canada/BNA, to live in peace. The earliest and overarching law in Canada/BNA is the Two Row Wampum treaty, agreement that the two parties will share the land in Peace, Friendship and Respect, will not interfere with each other's lives, lands, laws and customs. The peace treaties and Royal laws were not broken by Indigenous peoples, but by colonial governments (the second sons of English aristocrats) and their predatory business/industry interests, who behaved as if the treaties and Proclamations didn't mean anything. Some Canadians (including you and, strangely, 'Lord' Conrad Black) still talk and act as if Aboriginal rights recognized by Crown treaties and Proclamations can be ignored or extinguished unilaterally by Canadian governments. But when petitioned by Indigenous leaders in Canada, the Crown in Britain, via British Parliament, upheld the 'honour of the Crown' and thus the Crown's treaties and Proclamations, resulting in the necessary inclusion of Section 35 & 25 in the Constitution Act of Canada, before it could be 'repatriated' in 1982. The Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly affirmed that the honour of the Crown must be upheld, notably in R v Sparrow (1990): ... the second part of the justification issue: the honour of the Crown in dealings with aboriginal peoples. The special trust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginal people must be the first consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified. So ... you "go along [with the law] to get along", all the while evading, disparaging and dismissing the law every time it is relevant. Lol

Governments can't legislate away the rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada on Aboriginal rights.

It's also the law in Canada. Love it or leave it!

Since you seem to be second guessing Court judgements, perhaps reading some of the relevant Supreme Court rulings, or associated lawyerly summaries, would help your understanding of those matters.

Ya, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Canadians understand it. Most respect it, and would like governments to be more proactive in resolving issues BEFORE conflicts arise. But you seem uninterested in the legalities of Canada. Only white supremacists use that "race-based" ranting, a very small minority though big on trolling discussion boards with such nonsense. Lol

And yet the government maintains detailed maps of Indigenous territories. Lol There was another issue regarding detailed description, but it was resolved by the Tsilhqot'in ruling (2014). It's now up to the government to declare title, now beginning with the current agreement on process, now under discussion in Wet'suet'en territory. Review the relevant Supreme Court cases. Educate yourself to find your own answers. Or alternatively ... accept that the law is the law. Off "their" land? All of Canada is someone's traditional Indigenous territory. Lol

What is it you are unsure about? This is pretty common knowledge among Canadians. If you wish to dispute anything, go ahead.