CentristPartyofCanada
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CentristPartyofCanada
-
-
-
1 hour ago, cougar said:
They can just continue to follow the law and comply. The government tells them now to hand over their guns; they should do that.
No, I do not care about the $2 billion after spending $4.5 billion on the Kinder Morgan pipeline. You bet I don't.
I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's law pretty soon.
You haven't addressed any of my arguments but you've proven my point: you're just looking for something to hate. You're not a logic or fact oriented person, that much is clear
Firearms have nothing to do with the Kinder Morgan pipeline so I don't see the relation. We need a way to fill those government coffers you know.
Also: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2574
-
4 hours ago, cougar said:
What can I say, I too lost money on my RRSPs. Bad investment. Whoever has $15K to put in a gun, he has money to burn.
This is a pretty terrible argument. Things like RRSPs are investment vehicles. Firearms are a hobby in Canada. Unless it's a collector's item no one uses firearm as investment vehicles.
Someone spending $15k on a firearm that brings them joy doesn't mean they have money to burn, it just means they choose to spend their money a certain way. Just how some people spend upwards of 30k on nice motorcycles or vehicles doesn't necessarily mean they have money to burn - all it means is that it is how they choose to spend their money.
I find it disturbing that you're okay with people losing large sums of money at the stroke of the government's pen just because you don't share their passion for a certain hobby. It sounds like you have a lot of anger.
I imagine that individual, and many like him, did everything right in terms of following the law. The government gave him regulations and rules to follow, whether it's storage, taking courses, background checks, etc - and he complied. The deal is you follow the government's laws and you can acquire, possess, transport, and use firearms.
There are over 2 million firearm licensed individuals in Canada.
A few million Canadians own 7 million firearms between them, and the death toll from fire arm related homicides on a yearly basis is less than 200, of which a large part are gang related. 2017 had the most firearm homicides since the 1990s, making it an outlier.
-
In 2017, police reported 660 homicide victims in Canada;
-
The [...] increase [...] was driven by an increase in firearm-related and gang-related homicides;
-
The number of gang-related homicides rose to 163 in 2017 (25% of all homicides);
-
Almost 9 out of every 10 (87%) gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun;
-
Overall, there were 266 victims killed by a firearm in 2017; and
-
The firearm-related homicide rate increased for the fourth consecutive year, rising 18% in 2017. At 0.72 per 100,000 population, this marked the highest rate of firearm-related homicides seen in Canada since 1992.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54980-eng.htm
-
Research continues to rely on surveys to estimate the number of firearm-owning households, firearm owners and firearms in circulation. Survey findings are fairly consistent but may underestimate the prevalence of firearms in Canada;
-
Recent estimates indicate that 26 percent of Canadian households own at least one firearm;
-
Approximately 7 million firearms are estimated to be owned by private individuals, this number includes as many as 1.2 million restricted firearms; and
-
The overall rate of firearm ownership is at least 241 per 1,000 population and is comparable to ownership rates in other countries where hunting is a significant activity.
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html
Due to the proximity to the United States, and the extent to which the Canadian media focuses on American news, Canadians falsely believe that Canada has a gun (violence) problem.
A number of studies have concluded that the most effective policies regarding reducing firearm crimes include in-depth background checks, registration, mandatory education of firearm safety and laws, and not allowing a person to carry a firearm on their person in public (concealed/open carry). These requirements have been part of Canadian firearm regulation for decades. Interestingly enough, the Czech Republic allows concealed carry and has less firearm related crime than Canada.
In addition, enforcement is a significant factor in the effectiveness of firearm regulation. Canada consistently and strictly enforces firearm regulations. The majority of firearm related crimes are gang related and do not involve the average person. The majority of the firearms used in crimes in Canada are from the US.
In addition, paintball and airsoft guns, among others, fall under the category of “firearm” – which can be misleading when interpreting statistics. Currently, there is no logic behind banning or restricting various firearms other than for aesthetic reasons.
The AR15, one of the firearms being banned, has only killed ONE person within Canada, since its introduction in the mid 1970s. So why is it being banned?
The Ruger Mini 14, a vermin firearm, is being banned because of its usage in the 1989 Polytechnique shooting. Since then (over 30 years!), it has not be attributed to any crime.
We're going to spend billions of dollars for what? To try and reduce the ~100 deaths a year related to firearms to 0? Even though a significant number, if not all, of experts and law enforcement personnel agree that it will actually do nothing? All the while the world economy is reeling from the Coronavirus.
In the end, you don't care that this new ban will see the loss of over 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year, in perpetuity. You don't care that the crime rate will not actually go down. All you care about is punishing a group you don't like.
-
-
3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:
WTF do you need? If you can’t defend yourself with a hunting rifle that can take down a bear you don’t deserve a gun license because you’re too incompetent to use a firearm responsibly.
Allowing handguns and multiple-round weapons puts them in circulation. Cut the demand and you cut the production, which means there are fewer guns available to fall into the wrong hands. Sure, you can take the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” position, but it’s a lot easier to kill people with guns. As Malcom Gladwell demonstrated by showing how suicide rates were much higher when gas ovens made suicide quick and easy, we shouldn’t make it easier for people to kill people by making killing machines accessible. Opportunity is a huge factor in murder rates.
A rifle round may over penetrate and end up in your neighbour's kid - where a pistol round may not. A hunting rifle is also difficult to maneuver in close quarters. In small, confined spaces, where there may be multiple assailants who are armed with CQC weapons (handguns, knives, etc)- not being able to properly utilize your self-defense-weapon(TM) of choice can prove deadly.
Cut the demand? There isn't really a demand for many types of firearms because of the uncertainty of Canadian firearm legislation. South of the border is a different story but you'll never see that demand cut.
That's semantics anyway.
Handguns and multiple-round firearms have been around for a century. These things have been "in circulation" for that long.
In addition, if a criminal organization requires something - they will not let commercial production stop them. They can make it themselves. It's very old and simple technology. If they can't make it, well - criminal organizations tend to have very strong logistics and supply chains. Your proposed changes are very questionable in regards to what they accomplish.
There are over 2 million licensed firearm owners in Canada. Every year, year after year, the (non-suicide) death rate due to firearms has been around 600 - the majority of which are gang related. 37 mil Canadians. Several mil firearms. +2 mil licensed firearm owners = 600 deaths. They are tragic but we're talking about an almost statistical rounding error. Canada does not have a firearm problem.
As for easier to kill people with guns, let me remind you of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, taxme said:
The party that I want to belong to is a party that believes in more freedom, less government/red tape, and less taxes. That is what people really want to hear from a political party. The only real crisis and the damage that I see happening to the environment and causing this so called global warming and pollution is what I have seen in countries like China, India, Africa and the middle East. I once took a bus tour thru Cairo, Egypt, and I saw an Arab woman washing what looked like a carpet in some small little dirty looking water in a canal that had mostly garbage in it and a dead cow. I actually felt sorry for that woman. What kind of life is that?
It's not the west that is the problem with global warming and pollution, it is the third world countries of the world who are creating all the problems. I don't need to hear from some Canadian politician talk about global warming or pollution because in the West there hardly is any of that happening all that much anymore as to what I mentioned above. I want a politician who is willing to talk about big government, taxes, freedom, foreign aid, and massive immigration. All those mentioned are costing the Canadian taxpayer's hundreds of billions of their tax dollars every year. From what I have seen and read from what you have posted here so far, does not meet my expectations of what a political party should be really concerned and all about. Create all the charts and graphs that you want too. I already have picked my party. A party that may be the last hope to try and fix and make Canada great again.
The unfortunate thing for you and me is that my party and your party will probably never gain all that much ground and will probably go anywhere in Canada. Why you ask? It's plain and simple. The majority of Canadians do not really give all that much of a shit about anything but themselves and what goes on in Canada. They show that they do not even care as to what their politicians are doing to them every day of every year with their taxes. Royally screwing them all and they keep asking for more royal screwing. We live in an it's all about me-me-me country now. When you see buffoons like this PM of Canada, that has now been given more opportunities to destroy this country get back in power, with a bunch of socialist and Marxists party's backing him up, should tell you that we are all f'n screwed.? It tells me that the majority of Canadians love their big lying government, more taxes, and less freedom.
The next election will be the big one. It will be either for freedom and liberty or for less freedom just for the sake of more safety. Just my opinion of course. Works for me!!
That's what the Centrist party is. We're about more freedom. All those things you mentioned, especially massive immigration, are things on our platform.
The fact that those "chart and graphs" is something that you dismiss, shows how the PPC is the same as the liberals or conservatives. Even when presented with actual legitimate science and proof, the PPC's horde of koolaid drinkers refuse to acknowledge it. The PPC said they were common sense and fact based - but they aren't. Just like the other parties, they manipulate the data or throw rhetoric to justify their beliefs. That isn't any different than how some Liberals see firearms.
We're different. We look at the data first, and from there we establish our position. You're right that Canadians don't care. We will all get our just deserts soon enough.
5 hours ago, taxme said:Well, if you believe so much that humans have had a very big impact on the environment, well maybe it is time for the third world to stop making so many babies. There are families in most of these 3rd world countries that have more children then they can ever handle or take care of. Even one child is probably too many for some married 3rd world couples. But it seems to people like you and so many others here that it is always the West that is the main problem, and never the 3rd world. Pardon my french but bull chit to that.
So, do you own a car or travel on buses or airplanes to get around or do you do all your business on a bicycle? Because if you do own a car and use it every day than you are one of the guilty ones that is contributing to the warming of the climate. I enjoy watching all those environmentalists out there who whine and cry about how we are all going to die if we keep driving our cars, but yet they are probably the same people who use fossil fuels to get around in every day. Those hero's of the leftist environmentalist movements like Suzuki, Gore and Decrapio all tell us how bad we all are for using fossil fuels to get around but yet those three alone will always take a trip on their private planes or drive big gas guzzling cars to go anywhere, and own several homes between them who are great contributors to this so called global warming. Believe me when I say that those three will never get on an airplane and sit in row 16 with the rest of the common folk, and I doubt that they take taxis or buses to wherever they are going.
It's sad when you get some buffoons like those mentioned above who tell us that we the ordinary people are the problem and who are being told that we should help fight global warming but yet those three are not in that battle to help fight global warming. They will never practice what they preach. So just what is your party and it's supporters doing to help fight climate change? How many have cars and use them every day? Just curious.
You can blame capitalism for that one. The reason these 3rd world countries are polluting so much IS because of us. Corporations are always looking to reduce their costs and maximize profits. To achieve that goal they've outsourced their manufacturing to countries with less regulation, less taxes, less red tape, and cheaper labor. If it wasn't for them doing that, we would have all that manufacturing and other industries at home and we could be more environmentally friendly. How much of your stuff is "made in china"? Pretty much all of it.
The pollution in the ocean is 3rd world countries dumping our garbage.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis
We agree with you on what you're saying regarding people like Suzuki.
https://www.centrist.ca/environment
If you read the platform you'll see that you agree with us, we just aren't denying climate change is man made like the PPC is.
Our plan is to bring back that manufacturing and garbage to Canada, so we can get those jobs back and deal with them in an environmentally responsible way, it's to build nuclear power where they still use fossil fuels for power generation, it's to have our cities build with better public transportation and improve the electric vehicle infrastructure, and it's to stop mass immigration and instead allow Canadians to have enough children to sustain the government's tax collection - among other things.
-
41 minutes ago, Argus said:
Even the scientists aren't sure how much impact humanity has on climate change. They're sure it has some, though. I don't disagree with that. The problem comes in deciding what, if anything we can do about it. The Paris agreement calls for the west to make drastic cutbacks in CO2 emissions while paying $100 billion a year to the rest of the world, who are not required to make any cutbacks. I find this problematic on several levels. But just to start, it's unworkable as a solution. As I said before, I'm willing to accept carbon taxes as soon as the US, China, Russia, India and the rest do. Not before. I see no point in incentivizing our industry to leave for other countries where there are no such taxes.
I have no issue with your belief we need more nuclear energy, and would support that. It is the only renewable energy source which is reliable and affordable.
They are sure it has a very strong negative impact - how large of a negative impact is the question - but it is absolute certainty that humanity has a huge impact on climate change.
As mentioned above, the energy in the atmosphere dictates the temperature. Our GHG are the main cause of the retention of this energy.
For everything else you wrote, that's exactly what is said on our website.
https://www.centrist.ca/environment
-
9 hours ago, Argus said:
The election campaign was called only months after the PPC started to organize. What sort of offline presence did you expect them to have?
AFAIK they don't deny climate change. They merely say the present recommended solution will damage our economy and not do anything substantive to combat it.
They deny that climate change is man made. Of course the climate is always changing but humans have a huge impact on that. They've also provided 0 information on their "plan" or the direction they intend to take.
5 hours ago, taxme said:We all know that the climate changes all the time. But it is something that we should not get all upset over. The earths weather and it's geography has been changing for millions of years. The earth has suffered from tornadoes, hurricanes, volcano eruptions, earthquakes, floods and so much more. Humans have had some impact on the earth but life still carried on. We humans can adapt to any changes being done by humans or nature. The PPC does care about the environment but not in the way that you do. The PPC supporters don't go all crazy in the head like so many people like you do.
Maybe that member of yours had some conflict with Maxine Bernier and quit because of it. This happens in all political party's. It will happen in your party also. The PPC has a chance if people would listen to their platform where if the PPC takes power we the people will finally get less government/red tape, less taxes, and more freedom. That is what the PPC offers. How can anyone not want to vote for the PPC in the next election? You are pretty much stupid if you do not. But then again, there are plenty of stupid people in Canada who would vote for their own slavery if there were a buck in it for them. Most are clueless when it comes to politics. Look who those fools put back into power again. A bunch of suckers for more punishment.Just my own personal opinion.
Most of them have a very poor understanding of what climate change is.
I'll break it down:
- The earth receives energy from the sun through the form of electromagnetic radiation
- Some of the radiation from the sun is blocked by the earth's magnetic field and composition of the atmosphere (ozone for UV rays, etc)
- A large portion of the energy that makes it through is visible light and infrared.
- Certain chemicals in the earth's atmosphere, like oxygen and nitrogen, known as linear molecules, are very stable and do not react with the incoming radiation (unless for high energy such as UV)
- Non-linear chemicals, which have many vibrational modes, such as carbon dioxide, water (vapour), and other organic molecules, absorb the infrared radiation and keep it within the earth's atmosphere. These chemicals are known as "green house gases"
- The temperature within a system is dependent on the amount of energy in it. More energy, the higher the temperature
- The energy in earth's atmosphere is an equation which amounts to => temperature = energy received by sun + energy already in atmosphere - energy leaving the atmosphere
- The amount of energy retained within the atmosphere is dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and other organic chemicals, since they retain infrared energy instead of allowing it to leave in to space.
- Thus, the more carbon dioxide, water vapour, and other organic chemicals, the higher the absorption and retention rate of solar energy
- The increased energy retention within the atmosphere causes an increase in temperature
- Humans began using coal for power around 1700. The human population then was 710 million. Only a select few were using coal back then. It's 2020. Europe alone has a population approaching 800 million. How much coal, other forms of fossil fuels, and natural gas is used to provide those 800 million europeans electricity, vehicles, consumer goods, and a trove of other modern comforts and necessities? The current human population is 7.7 billion people. So over the past 320 years, we've not only grown the human population from 710 million to 7.7 billion but we've also heavily industrialized our societies. Countries like China are rapidly industrializing. The amount of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and other green house gases being emitted on a daily basis have reached astronomical numbers. Think of the compounding effects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum
-
1
-
On 4/16/2020 at 7:58 AM, Michael Hardner said:
1. Ok, it's good to get specifics. What classes of jobs other than TFW would be abolished? Doesn't the agriculture industry need TFWs to survive?
2. You didn't address the fact that costs will be higher for Canadian consumers. What is the analysis of cost increases for the average household?
3. Voters rejected the CPC, partly because Climate Change concerns weren't met. How is it Centrist to push a Climate Change plan that is even more vague, that tries to address climate change by reducing the number of refugees?
1. Yes it does.
2. This is impossible to answer.
3. I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse. All you keep mentioning is refugees, despite the fact that you've been corrected multiple times about that.
Here are two entire pages that exactly outline the plan:
https://www.centrist.ca/environment
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-climate-change
The top of every policy page has bullet points that breakdown the information in to a tl;dr format.
20 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:Canadians, especially young Canadians, don't want to do backbreaking farm labour for little pay. They'd rather work at Timmies. If we get rid of TFW program farms have to substantially raise pay to farm workers in order to get people to work for them, and then the price of much of our food will increase. Pick your poison.
Agriculture would be one of the exceptions. When we mention TFW we're referring to things like this:
19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:1. Sorry, yes, I flipped that. "We only pollute 1.5 % of the total, China produces FOURTEEN TIMES as much" is a statement designed to appeal to people who don't think to ask the question I am asking.
2. How am I to react when a 'Centrist' party calls Canada green, when they contribute three times their population per capita - based on the above ?
Canadians will always have a higher per capita output because of the nature of our country - long distances and very cold for a long period of time.
The atmosphere does not care about per capita. The atmosphere is a physical entity that follows the laws of physics. In the end it boils down to the total output. The larger the total output, the more dramatic the effect. Per capita is just a metric people have created but it's meaningless on a global scale. Also the per capita takes in to account the oil sands.
19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:1. And the same approach that calls on us to do our part also will reward us for achieving improvements, and there definitely are improvements to be made.
2. Please take emotion out of this - we have a responsibility to act. Stop feeling guilty.
3. Cities aren't going to be torn up if that's what counters us being "so spread out" as you say.
4. No - you are strawmanning me. I didn't set goalposts, I said that we can't say we are green when we pollute so much relatively. The goalpost is improvement as far as I am concerned.
5. I agree with you more than I disagree with you.
My main problem and the reason I am on this thread is that somebody called themselves a 'Centrist', came up with some half-thought-out policies and started stating that Canada is green. The #1 thing that doesn't make me stand down is bad discussion, and especially bad faith politics. I am very eager for an actual Centrist party to come up with some well-thought-out ideas. Maybe you are being generous to this poster, which is fine, but I think if you were being honest you would find this package to be lacking, as I do.
We would be very interested to hear concrete examples on what you perceive as Centrist. We're not doing this in bad faith - we firmly believe what is on the website.
17 hours ago, taxme said:I am going to stick with the People's Party of Canada who have a lot of very good ideas as to how to go about changing all of the liberal and socialist programs and agendas that have pretty much ruined this country from being able to see it's full potential. The PPC also have many good ideas like your party is offering. The PPC was able to gather up enough members to be able to have run in most constituency's in Canada in the last election, and are ready for the next election to do the same thing again. Sorry, fella or gal, but you will not be getting my vote. But good luck anyway.
One of our members ran for the PPC. This person was not impressed - they ended up quitting. The PPC has a very strong online presence but offline their presence is very poor. As long as the PPC continues to deny climate change, among other things, they will never stand a chance.
-
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. How is it different from today's approach? Don't the Conservatives and Liberals do that?
2. Why do you say Canada is relatively Green? This sounds like a carbon tax on imports, which will also harm the economy.
3. Are you ok with other countries failing to fulfill their treaties also?
1. There is a currently point system in places regarding immigration. No need to go in to the intricate details since you can easily find that information online. The bar for immigration in Canada is fairly low. While we generally accept higher quality immigrants than the US, a fair number of our immigrants end up in positions that is "beneath" their level of education or training. Some of these positions don't pay well and/or are unskilled. There is also the temporary foreign worker program.
What we would do is increase the requirements for immigration and certain classes of jobs would be abolished. We would also abolish or heavily modify the TFW program.
2. We say that because we are. The majority of the electricity generated from Canada is from very green sources - Nuclear (the greenest) and Hydro (fairly green). The most populated provinces, which are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, have a significant amount of their energy generated from green sources. Canada has very stringent environmental requirements. Our emissions account for 1.5% of global emissions (source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html) , and a portion of that is allocated to the oil sands (and its effect abroad). It would be a carbon tax on imports from countries that heavily pollute such as China. The idea behind it is either countries like China reduce their emissions, and increase their environmental stewardship, or we put a tariff on their products. This will have a few effects:
-China will improve its environmental stewardship;
-Canadians will purchase less "cheap" products, reducing emissions;
-Canadians will purchase overseas products less overall, also reducing emissions; and
-It will become more profitable for industries here to take on making these products - creating jobs and reducing emissions.
The last one is important because shipping across the oceans carries a very heavy environmental cost. We can reduce that effect on the environment if we keep things local.
3. The world's countries are already starting to become more protectionists in their policies. If a treaty is unrealistic, then what is the point?
-
14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. Control how? Specifically what will you do?
2. 'Harm' ? Do you plan to meet climate treaty targets? Does a revenue neutral tax, in theory, harm the economy?
The response is in the very same pages those quotes are from.
1. "The immigration quota needs to be assessed on a yearly basis with an emphasis on economic migrants filling specific positions based on demand."
https://www.centrist.ca/immigration
2. "Assess placing tariffs on external products from countries that pollute heavily."
"While initiatives like the carbon tax may have merit, Canada is already a relatively green country. The carbon tax doesn't make sense if Canadians are going to keep buying products that originate in countries who seem to not be concerned with environmental stewardship."
https://www.centrist.ca/environment
"The Centrist Party of Canda believes that we must take a proactive approach to climate change. However, the Canadian economy is important for the prosperity of Canada and the transition to a fully renewable energy reliant system should be a progressive process. While aggressively pursuing alternate energy sources and policies is the right path, this must be done without harming the Canadian economy. The revenue gained from our strong resource export economy should be used to pay down debt and invest in new technology."
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-economy
The climate treaty targets are unrealistic. No one will meet them.
-
49 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:
1. Conservatives would say the UN is a corrupt waste of money with power in the General Assembly dominated by 3rd world dictatorships with little respect for human rights. Progressives would say the UN fosters peaceful resolution of conflicts & international cooperation. There is truth in both claims. The centrist position would be to reform or replace the UN with something similar but better. The right would say leave/defund the UN, the left would say keep status quo or make closer ties to UN.
2. Conservatives would say many refugees bring poverty and thus crime into 1st-world nations and sap our welfare systems. Progressives would say they are fleeing for their lives and need our help. There is truth in both claims. A centrist position would be to bring in refugees that are capable of a decent income, while helping to relocate unskilled/uneducated refugees to a safe country with incomes that match their socioeconomic potential. The right would say reduce or block refugees, the left would say maintain or increase #'s and help them more inside our countries.
3. Conservatives would say the economy is more important than the environment. Progressives would say the environment is more important than the economy. Both are important, so centrists would try to balance the two.
Centrist positions are usually (but not always) better than solidly rightwing or leftwing positions. The further you go toward the ideological poles the more unbalanced and incomplete (and thus wrong) positions become, because the more they fail to capture the necessary truths of the opposing side. That's why i'm usually moderate on positions, and why people on the far left and far right are so often wrong. So wrong in fact that the only way they can keep people supporting their policies is through dictatorship.
1.https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-self-reliance
"Opt out of non-binding United Nations resolutions that do not benefit Canadians".
2. https://www.centrist.ca/immigration
"Improve the immigration process and integration so that immigrants are set up for success"
"By controlling the type of immigrant that enters Canada, we can ensure that the maximum value is provided to the tax payer and the Canadian economy, while still allowing people to have a better quality of life."
3. https://www.centrist.ca/environment
"The Centrist Party of Canada believes that climate change is a priority and it must be addressed in a practical manner which does not harm the Canadian economy. "
-
3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Bearing in mind that, as Lord North pointed out, an MP's constituants are the whole of the nation. You confuse responsible government with the American style representative government.
As for oil, a lot of CPC politicians claim to be pro-oil but they are forgetting that almost all of that oil belongs to future generations. Oil must not be considered a fossil "fuel." It is too vital to burn. I agree with Centrist that we must transition to both uranium and thorium based energy production.
Our technological civilization is supported by three pillars, coal, iron ore and oil. You need coal and iron ore to make steel. You need oil for lubrication, among it's 10,000 plus other uses. You cannot generate electricity without steel and oil. Without electricity, billions of people starve.
Coal, iron and oil are finite resourses and we have an obligation to future Canadians to ensure we have them for as long as possible. If we reduce our population we extend the time line before we run out, provided we stop giving the stuff away.
Wilderness is disappearing all over southern Canada. Saskatchewan no longer has natural grasslands. Look at BC from the air and see all the logging. We encourage logging and mining to provide jobs to our surplus labour.
Taxes: We have been running deficits since the CPC took over because we have been cutting taxes. Look at Norway. They pay real taxes, and they would not have it any other way. They have a very high quality of life. They have a stable population so they don't have to waste tax money to prop up a surplus labour force. Wages are high, taxes are high and the quality of life is one of the best in the world.
All good points. Many of which we've already included in our platform.
"To help transition the oil industry to being more-green, companies could begin to use electrical equipment and machinery. It seems wasteful to use fossil fuel powered machinery to extract fossil fuels. There is no logic in using 3 barrels of oil to extract 5. Of course, transitioning would take time and the right kind of technology needs to emerge. In addition, we still need coal to make products like steel and oil based lubricants are a necessary component for any machinery".
Source: https://www.centrist.ca/environment
5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:The NDP are basically far left morons who want to fundamentally overhaul our government, they’re not in your lane at all.
The Libs are anti-western Canada, and pro virtue signalling. That’s it. If someone cries, they just scream along with them without thinking. Despite 5 years of glowing media coverage the fact that they’re wallowing in ineptitude is blatantly obvious. Canadians are ready to move on.
The Tories are the bad guys that the media loves to attack. Scheer won the popular vote and yet the CBC immediately came out with a story suggesting that he had to go. “It was a slam dunk victory for Scheer because Trudeau had so many scandals, etc! The fish had already jumped in the boat at all Scheer needed to do was whack it with an oar!” Funny that, because the media had never characterized Trudeau as Mr Scandal before the election was over. He has always been Mr Virtue in their stories and articles. Bottom line is, you can say any childish insult about the Tories you want, the media will run with it. They’ll lionize you. Lisa LaFlamme will roll her eyes when anyone says anything bad about you.
Just remember that for every glowing, vague promise that you make you give a bunch of people a warm feeling inside without alienating anyone. For every declarative statement that you make, you definitely alienate a small voting block, you risk alienating a large voting block. By the time you’re up to five declarative statements you’ve given the opposition 5 chances to make straw-man arguments against you and you’ve alienated a lot of people.
Eg, as soon as you say anything decidedly pro-oil you have instantly lost the Greta Thunberg toadies, and they’re a vocal, hateful bunch who will dog you forever. If you go against it, you’ve lost a whole province. So you promise to take a common sense approach to putting Canada’s interests first without being isolationist. “We get that Trump puts America first. Xi puts China first. That’s to be expected. But we all have a strong desire to do a lot of business. We’ll make it work.” Blah, blah, blah.
You need to be extremely adept and nimble to tackle topics with declarative statements without alienating people, PLUS you need to have the media characterize your debate points and opposition debate points accurately. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. If you think that you can go head to head with Trudeau, speaking concisely, without getting shredded by his sycophantic media horde, I think you’re wasting your time bud.
Virtue signal from the center lane. Brag about Canadians and our vast achievements and sacrifices. Brag about how successful immigrants of all stripes have been here and how inclusive our society is. Your call to action is unity and fairness. Attack incumbents for the way our country is currently divided. Attack the general hyper-partisan culture of politicians AND media. Offer strong vocal support of something the Tories say. Ditto for the Libs. All of a sudden you’re the lone adult in the room who is putting the interests of Canadians first. Promise people that their elected MP will vote with the conscience of their own constituents, the way they are supposed to, and not as puppets to the party leader.
You can say a lot without making declarative statements. You need to make a career of it or you’re stuck in your day job.
Very good points - we'll work on this. Thank you.
6 hours ago, OftenWrong said:Well the world doesn't have much anymore. What we have in Canada is substantial, but it must be carefully guarded for that very reason. Moving forward in an an ever-greedier world, it would completely consume our resources. I want a government that commits to being a vanguard of Canada's Boreal forests, and fresh water.
https://www.centrist.ca/environment
"Over fishing, destruction of natural habitats, extinction of pollinators, pollution in our waters, untreated sewage being dumped directly in to our waters, recycling practices that are for show - there is more to environmental concerns than just “climate change”. Canada should start by not shipping its garbage to other countries which just end up dumping it in oceans and rivers. There is a lot that can be done and The Centrist Party of Canada intends to take a very strong, but practical, stance on climate change and the environment. "
-
1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:
But why do you want an increased birth rate? If we reduce our population, the cost of land will go down and people will be able to own their own home in places like Vancouver and Toronto. You could buy an cabin on a lake that isn't over run with people. Wages would go up because labour would be in demand. Canada could thrive with a population of ten million. We would have a chance to get our natural wilderness back.
We don't need a large military, just a decent arsenal of nuclear weapons.
The purpose of taxes is for the government to collect enough money so that it may function, and provide a number of goods and services to the general public. These goods and services take various forms such as maintenance, upgrades, social services (healthcare) and so forth. A high quality of life demands taxes. Simply stated, these goods and services are dependent on how much money the government can collect.
Tax collection, in relation to the country’s population, is based on:
1) Number of working adults;
2) Earnings of these working adults; and
3) Tax rate.If the government can’t collect sufficient tax money, then the quality and/or availability of these goods and services will decline.
For this reason, a growing population is not only beneficial but necessary, since the taxes of each new generation of working adults must support the entire population. This means that as a generation enters the working adult part of its life cycle, it must generate enough tax dollars so that the non-working generations are supported while the government maintains or improves a number of infrastructures and services. The nature of this system is that for everyone to be supported, each new generation must be larger than the last.
from: https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-low-fertility
The government has figured out that instead of the difficult task of waiting at least 18 years for a baby to become a tax paying adult, they can just import immigrants that can already start paying taxes. Almost a third of our population are seniors, which strains our healthcare and is very costly. The only way to pay for our "free" healthcare is with taxes.
Wages only go up when there is a demand for a specific skillset. A janitor will always make around minimum wage because that skillset isn't very in demand and requires very little training. There's a reason doctors are paid more than janitors.
90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of our southern border with the US. Our population is concentrated within 3 major metropolitan areas which are the GTA (toronto), GVA(Vancouver), and Montreal. You don't need to worry about our wilderness - we have plenty of it.
An arsenal of nuclear weapons does nothing. We need a well funded military.
-
3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:
If I had a positive critique, I’d say that you’re not being political enough with your answers.
Canadians don’t get actual answers from their current government, they get virtue signalling, pie-in-the-sky and bafflegab, and it’s really tough for people to object to those things. Our MSM fawns on him because of it. Part of your goal is to break the spell. Maybe promise them $2B lol.
You, on the other hand, make declarative statements and give direct answers. You’ll forever be bogged down, quibbling with people over semantics, if you do that.
Also, it’s extremely easy for virtue signallers, like the village idiot, to make straw-man arguments out of direct, declarative statements.
Take Bernier’s quote about how idiotic Trudeau’s statement “Diversity is our greatest strength” was. Bernier was accurate, on point, correct, and he will always be branded a racist for it even though it wasn’t racist at all.
You want to speak in glowing generalizations about improving the care of seniors, because the baby boomers are coming to their last couple turns at voting. That’s a huge voting block of people who are definitely all going to the polls, and they’re all alienated.
You want to speak glowingly about how diverse and yet similar all the different regions of Canada are, and how important it is that we change direction, and come together on important challenges.
Those kinds of topics give you a chance to throw love around, virtue-signal about Canadians, and they’re harsh attacks on the Libs without going to the sandbox.
BS generalizations are the way to go imo. BS answers will work better on a guy like Hardner than actual answers. He’s in love with the guy who’s throwing down BS and division 24/7.
If we gave those sort of answers:
1) Then we would basically be promising the same things as the NDP, Libs, or Tories - why vote for us when those parties already exist?
2) That's exactly what we're trying to change.
2 hours ago, Army Guy said:Look I agree there are many Canadians out there that believe our education system has been Hijacked by the left for some time now, and I agree with 100 % of you suggestions to improve upon it. Most educators are going to be frank with you, 1 st they don't like federal input, next like anyone they don't like to hear there short comings for a non educator....what you need is a coop piece by an educator, one that is recognized nationally....
Ya it does have everything to do with being loyal, as they are the only people that give a rats ass about the military...or atleast to the point they want it properly funded, equipped, and trained....Canadians don't see it as necessary for prosperity, they see it as a drag on our nation, a black hole where funding goes to die... Trust me I served for 30 plus years in the Infantry, I've shouted from the roof tops only to be told some very realistic facts...Canadians don't see the military as a priority, they see it as a waste of their tax dollars, they see it as direct support for the US foreign policy and it's efforts around the globe...And Canadians are "very" anti US, it is our next best sport...besides hockey and lacrosse..
Our military operations has lost so many capabilities over the last 20 years it would cost 100's of billions just to get them back, and years of experience before we became adequate performing them again. It's been circling the drain for some years now... Lots of Canadians out there can't see the problem due to all the brain washing our government and CDS has put out there. they are to proud to see it... they don't want to see it...then there is the majority who just don't care. You want to change that you'll have to change the minds of the majority, or once you grab power just do it...Canadians have the military they want, or they would have changed it, shit it was not even a concern last election....
The point was we recognize the necessity of a well funded military - we are not including *just* because we're "loyal".
We think now is the right time to start talking about this. Canadians are getting a rude wake up call with China's encroaching dominion over Canada, the US (Trump at least) showing its true colors regarding our "friendship", and what's going on in the Arctic circle.
Our question to you is: are your +30 years of service and loyalty enough to join as a member so we can start bringing these issues to light?
-
8 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:
The Centrist Party Platform is contradictory when it comes to the environment vs birthrate. At a time when we need to be reducing population, you want to increase it. Nuclear power is vital, but while climate change is the most serious problem we have faced, there are a lot of other forms of pollution. Look at the clear cutting of BC forests. The role of Government has gone from Peace Order and Good Government to job creation. The economy has been warped to try and create jobs for our excess population.
It isn't. You can have an increased birth rate and also tackle climate change and the environment. Canada has some of the cleanest energy and most environmentally friendly regulations - in the world.
Regardless, Canada's population doesn't hold a candle to countries like China and India, which, combined, have billions of inhabitants. Those are the countries that need to reduce their population.
In 2019, over 80% of our population growth was from immigration. This is significant. The reason we *need* such high immigration numbers is because of our low birth rate.
7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:If the population declines, so will prices on many things such as housing. Over-supply = lower prices. A shrinking labour supply means higher wages, less demand on unemployment benifits, and a higher capacity for tax revenue per capita. It also means less demand on pensions because people will not be forced to retire. Many jobs can be automated. Many of the countries in the industrialized world have declining populations due to a high standard of living. Japan, Ireland, and Norway for example. Norway is a great example for us to follow. (Centrist Party take note.) They take most of the revenue from resourse extraction and put it in the bank, much like Premier Lougheed did in Alberta. The Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund is currently holding US$1 trillion with a population of less than five and a half million people. Rather than oil revenue, we can use revenues from uranium and the export of Candu and LIFTR reactors.
This could be a mistake in choice of title but it isn't so much about population decline as it is about declining birth rates. Title has been changed accordingly.
Japan has issues with birth rate due to the culture there which is very career centric (60 hour work weeks, etc).
Regardless, your last point - we've already included it in our platform:
"By demonstrating the feasibility, affordability, and revenue that can be generated by new green technology, other countries, as well as private industry, will follow suit. Canada will be able to patent, sell, and implement this technology – boosting its economy.
[...]
Due to the abundance of uranium in and around Canada, nuclear power is an extremely viable renewable source of energy that could be scaled to meet all of Canada’s needs. Especially for provinces such as Alberta where the potential for hydro is very limited.
[...]
Over fishing, destruction of natural habitats, extinction of pollinators, pollution in our waters, untreated sewage being dumped directly in to our waters, recycling practices that are for show - there is more to environmental concerns than just “climate change”. Canada should start by not shipping its garbage to other countries which just end up dumping it in oceans and rivers. There is a lot that can be done and The Centrist Party of Canada intends to take a very strong, but practical, stance on climate change and the environment. "
-
3 hours ago, Army Guy said:
It looks like you put some time in to creating it. but before we get into commenting , do you even qualify to enter the election, how many people are in the party currently, have they all been vetted , I mean vetted for wingnuts something the PPC did not do very well. Are you funded.
You have made a lot of promises to Canadians , but have not described how your going to keep them, every party does the same thing, hands out a long list of promises, but fails in coming up with realistic solutions, that bear any fruit when based in the reality of running the country.
Military, I get it you've done some time in the reserves and have a sense of loyalty to the military, But lets face it it's not going to draw that many votes, if it did the military would not be in the state it is today, with Vets still in the courts, fighting over dozens of issues you failed to cover, It is that way because Canadians want it that way, and nothing is going to change that, unless you educate them on the befits … DND has more problems than just procurement, there is moral, OP Honor issues, members having no honor, integrity, or NOT looking after the institution before themselves, lack of training opportunities, and training equipment, and ammo the list goes right into the next forum it is that long, ...
The Military and everything that goes with it, does not even come up on the top 20 priority's of every Canadian. You should just drop it from your platform altogether, want to do DND a solid get elected and then start making changes. DND has been promised the moon every election, and delivered a bag of SH*t every time...
Education, your telling educators what they are doing and not doing wrong , Doug Ford try that, how did he make out, it's a provincial item for the most part, unless your going to make it federal funded and free, does it need to be in the platform at all ?
Canada's security apparatus, you briefly talk about the military, but left out some of the other important depts., immigration, coast guard, Customs, CSIS, RCMP all suffering from the same thing DND is plagued with...lack of funding , training, equipment, infra structure, man power....talking about these depts. are going to get you more votes than the military...
Coming out of this virus shit show we are going to need a massive plan to get our economy started once again, whats your plan to do that ? and what about the whole China with so much Chinese investment into our industries and resources...on top of our sole source manufacturing capability, how are you going to bring those companies back ? what is the plan for that?
The party is not officially registered. Part of the process is getting 250 Canadian citizens to sign on as members. This is currently what we are looking for hence the online outreach. We would be doing door to door but given the current situation that isn't a good idea. We're looking for members, no payment or commitment required. Once we have them we can officially register with elections Canada.
We would qualify, once we're registered. Half a dozen people are in the party. They have been vetted. We are not funded - no. This is coming out of our own pocket. No one will fund us until we become registered as a Federal party with Elections Canada. It's sort of a chicken and egg situation. People won't join unless you are registered, you can't register without members.
In our platform we recognize that it is provincial. One of our goals is to put ideas out there, such as the fact that most Canadians lack financial knowledge. It doesn't need to be included, but we thought it was worth consideration by the general public.
Military wise it has nothing to do with loyalty. We just recognize that a properly function military is a necessity for the prosperity of a country. There are other issues but given the small size of our group, it is difficult to elaborate on every single thing. We do our best to give details and provide our references. We are continuously working on updating and improving out website. This is a work in progress and we have 3-4 years to get ourselves in a place where we can be a serious consideration for voters.
What we would do is the following:
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-self-reliance
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-economy
https://www.centrist.ca/wage-stagnation
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-housing
I'll give you another reply with a more detailed write up of what we would do. I just wanted to provide a response in the meanwhile.
29 minutes ago, Rue said:Start with Army Guy. For me I need specific programs to deal with damage to the economy, preventing future pandemics, requiring specific products be made and stored in Canada for pandemic planning and review of free trade agreements that make us too dependent on foreign supplies. I need specific policies on pipelines, energy, health control at borders and banning of certain meat products and countries if they do not change wet market conditions. I also want relations with China reviewed and a demand the UN sanction China for illegally arresting Canadians and stop paying the UN dues until it does. I want immigrants coming to Canada to have better working and language skills and be required to intern as prospective immigrants in smaller cities that need them and I want the refugee system scrapped and replaced by foreign aid to refugee camps. I want a review to end to all redundant government services that could be done provincially. I want Griphen fighter jets, a new navy and coast guard, an end to the Senate and decriminalization of euthanasia. I also want Michael Harder arrested for being obscene. Also I want Lavalin held accountable . Thank you.
Most of what you asked for is already on the platform:
https://www.centrist.ca/environment
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-self-reliance
https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-housing
We agree with alot of what you're looking for (even if some of it may be in jest), but we need to be in a position where we can be taken seriously first - and that requires members.
3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:Syncretic party wasn't bad. Symbionese party would be pretty cool also. I wanted to start the Progressive Luddite Party of Canada (PLPC), but getting funding from industry and corporate sponsors was a real bitch. So I share your pain.
Really what is your plan? This is go federal, right? Federalis. I mean how do you just break through. You need people on board right? People to join the party in every province.
If we can talk about a possible name change I might consider throwing my hat in. Centrist is kinds wishy-washy.
Unfortunately, there will be no name changes. Hopefully the name isn't what stops you from throwing your hat in. Picking a name is difficult but names that are too "high brow' or not immediately apparent to the general public are usually dismissed or ignored. We received a lot of negative feedback on the name "Syncretic". "Centrist" is easily recognizable, represents well what we are, and is political in name - we received the most positive feedback with "Centrist".
If you're serious about helping us, send us a message:
https://www.centrist.ca/contactus
2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:This country needs a centrist party. Don't screw this up.\
Help would be appreciated.
https://www.centrist.ca/contactus
-
10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
1. The birth rate dove as soon as the pill was released.
2. The policy singles out refugees, I believe, which are a tiny part of immigration.
3. Less reliant on sounds like pulling back. We could increase our expenditures to meet our obligations without being less reliant on the US.
1. It coincides with when the birth rate began to decline yes, but that had to do with women becoming more career centric.
2. It does not.
5 hours ago, Rue said:Sorry your platform is not necessarily centralist. It is a hodge podge of reactions lamenting a return to a childhood where things seemed more understandable and safer.
So I agree with Monsieur Harder.
This tells us nothing.
3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:Yes, but a lament is an emotional release, and therefore pre-supposes the existence of a human being with a heart. This has some heart but not enough head. I need head.
We would love to know why you think it doesn't have enough head. Very colorful language but not very insightful.
-
2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:
I looked at it. Congratulations on whoever put all the work in for this.
I don't see it as centrist as much as a throwback party. The call to return to yesteryear is strong in this.
Unfortunately, the causes you identify don't ring true enough to me. Low fertility rates come from women choosing birth control, and that isn't mentioned. Reducing refugees will not reduce CO2. Pulling back from the US and increasing military funding is not a good strategy for defending the Arctic.
You would need to have a great visionary in front of these ideas to convince people they're worth the risk.
But thanks for caring enough about Canada to talk about the issues that affect us.
Fertility rate means the number of children each woman has. It has nothing to do on whether they are on birth control or not. Once women choose to have childre, if they can (financial or other), then they would get off birth control. In 2019 less than 20% of the population growth was due to natural births - it was mostly due to immigration.
Reducing refugees has nothing to do with reducing CO2. Canada has a high per capita emissions. Reducing our total immigration would reduce our overall emissions.
There is no mention of pulling back from the US. The point being made is less reliant on - that is to say increase our military's size.
Thanks.
-
Hello Everyone,
You may remember us from a year ago. We were initially Syncretic Party but due to the short time frame until election, we decided it was unrealistic for us to accomplish anything. Some of us actually ended up running as candidates and supporters for other parties in the Federal Election.
Now that we have 4 years until the next Federal election, we believe we're more likely to get this off the ground. We've taken some of the feedback from forums such as yours, in addition to friends, colleagues, etc and made positive changes.Our website is https://www.centrist.ca.
Looking forward to the feedback and any support you're willing to offer. This may give you something else to talk and think about, other than the Coronavirus
.
Thanks
-
www.centrist.ca
-
Is this really what Canadians want thier military to look like...
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Thanks for the insight.