suds

Good stuff. It's even scarier then I thought. I would like to put out one other question though. This type of message board that we're on now is considered social media.... right? Illegal hate speech is already regulated by the criminal code.... right? But if Bill C-11 passes with the inclusion of social media content, would the CRTC as regulators be allowed to regulate legal speech on these types of boards? Call it whatever you want, misinformation/disinformation, political speech, none-politically correct speech, or whatever. What could they do, how far could they go, before they start treading on our rights to free speech?

Liberals reject senate amendment limiting the scope of CRTC powers over online content (in particular, including the EXCLUSION of social media content from the bill). "After the bill passes, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how to implement the legislation. It has refused to make that document public until after Bill C-11 becomes law." Does this sound familiar to anyone? It sounds a lot like the Canadian version of 'you have to pass the bill in order to see what's in the bill'. Or rather in this case.... what the liberals true intentions are. If I were a senator, i would not pass this bill. No Canadian should support this bill. This is not what I would call open or transparent.

Thank you, that clears things up a bit. Although I would prefer the senate stick to their guns on this one.

So the liberals have rejected one of the senate's amendments. What happens to the bill now? It's my understanding it's imperative the bill passed by the senate (with ALL its amendments) have exactly the same wording as the bill passed by the house (and vice versa) to become law. Shouldn't it have to go back to the senate?

Time for a bit of comic relief for all you apparatchiks out there...

As it stands now, the first priority of those managing investments in federal pension plans is to act solely in the best interests of those participants and beneficiaries of the plan. ESG will change everything, in fact do the exact opposite. The new priority will not be the best interests of participants and beneficiaries but the best interests of the non-participants and the non-beneficiaries. This in my opinion could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. As with most 'things' the devil is in the details.

The notes (under the chart) claim information used comes from Vanguard, and Bloomberg's ESG data service. I admit they're comparing apples to oranges but is there any better way of doing it? The proponents of ESG claim it will create higher returns. Shouldn't it be up to them to provide evidence to the contrary? I'm also reading in the notes at the end of the study that ERISA requires the fiduciary to act solely in the interests of the (plan) participants and beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. Which is one of the purposes of this study. Is that why the proponents are making these (as far as I can tell) unproven claims? To get around ERISA? ERISA (as I understand it) is a federal act and doesn't apply to state or local pensions.

The PDF i was referring to shows a (2020) chart comparing average net returns of Vanguard mutual funds to comparable ESG mutual funds over half a dozen asset classes for 1, 5, and 10 years. Vanguard wins hands down except for the short term bond funds. However the expense ratios of the ESG funds are multiple times higher which whittles the difference down by about 1/2 I'd say. I tried to post the chart here with little success.

For some reason I can't provide a workable link but try googling 'Center for Retirement Research at Boston College ESG investing and public pensions'. You should be able to reach or download a PDF labelled SLP74.pdf. In answer to your questions the study they're referring to used data from state administered pension funds instead of the federal government. The difference in rates of returns between regular state funds and state 'mandated' funds was between 70-90 basis points/yr (or slightly under under 1%/yr) less for the mandated funds.

The Center for Retirement Research (Boston College) have in their database 176 public plans from 2001-2018 which are all state administered (2/3 of which have social investing or ESG policies in place). Results show that those state policies mandating social/ESG policies have significantly lower rates of return. They raise the question of whether social investing should play a role in public pension investing beyond returns. Or are public pension fund boards the right bodies to set foreign and climate policies or is that best left to politicians? It's also unlikely that those making these decisions today will not bear the brunt of any miscalculations.

In Ontario (which has adopted the federal carbon tax plan) farmers are exempt from paying the carbon tax on gas or diesel used for... farm trucks or tractors a vehicle not licensed to be operated on a public road an industrial machine or portable engine Private member Bill C-234 which is in its 3rd reading at the Commons will exclude all farm fuels such as natural gas and propane used extensively for barn heating and grain drying as well. So if the bill gets passed by the Commons and then by the Senate, there will be no carbon tax for farmers that is farm related. With the (possible) exception of fuel for their own personal non-farming vehicle and heating their principle residence. And of course it was a conservative (Ben Lobb Huron-Bruce) who introduced the bill. Who else would it be? https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/bill/C-234/second-reading

Description of a Canadian farm's operating expenses... property tax cash rent - rent for land, grazing fees, buildings cash wages - (if you can find someone willing to work) interest, farm business loans, credit from suppliers building repair electricity heating fuel - for grain and oilseed drying, heating of barns and other buildings fuel expense - petroleum, diesel, oil, (for tractors, combines, generators, and irrigation pumps) machinery repairs and insurance costs fertilizer and lime pesticides commercial seeds and feed irrigation - water and water rights crop and hail insurance livestock purchases rental or leasing of farm machinery artificial insemination and veterinary expenses and last but not least let's not forget the vaunted carbon tax! https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/statistical-programs/document/5214_D2_T9_V1 There are tax deductions and government rebates, but I feel relatively safe in saying that there's likely not much on this list that isn't going way up in price. And we haven't even considered the food processors and grocers yet. No, we don't want price controls. Venezuela tried that and indeed the grocery shelves went bare. Can we agree that we all need food to survive? The carbon tax isn't the problem but part of the problem (maybe a very minor part). My best guess is that whatever government subsidies, rebates, or deductions, are being handed out to the farmers..... double it. And then let's see what happens.

I agree partially, but what does that solve? What happens in China (or the U.S.), doesn't stay in China. It gets exported all over the world. What we need is universal co-operation in order to nip any future pandemic out while in its bud. To share information with one another. What we need is some kind of action plan that all countries agree on to confine the virus geographically to the best of our abilities, at whatever the cost. And perhaps even outlawing this gain-of-function research. I mean, what else could go wrong?

So basically we have 2 theories at play here... Theory #1 (animal to man theory) Past experience tells us this is likely the most probable route for transmission. That said, thousands and thousands of animals have been tested so far and no animal source has been found that could have possibly transmitted this virus to humans. Theory #2 ( Wuhan lab leak theory) Lax bio-safety measures were being used at the Wuhan lab. Gain-of-function research was also being carried out at the Wuhan lab, partly funded (directly or indirectly) by the U.S. government. In this case, gain-of-function refers to viruses taken from animals (such as bats) and genetically modified to make them more transmissible (deadly) to humans. We know the Wuhan lab is only a short walk from the wet market where it was first believed the virus jumped from animal to human. Finally, the actions (and in-actions) of the Chinese government in co-operating with the World Health Organization and other countries was dismal at best leading to suspicions of a major cover-up. Based on what we know so far, I'll go with #2.

With democracies, decisions should be made by elected officials. But then again, sometimes they need a bit of a shove. ?

If the goal is to have our elections decided by Canadians then why not start with the nomination process? As CSIS points out, not having to be a Canadian citizen to be a voting member of a political party almost begs for interference especially with those ridings which have a habitual tendency of voting one way. It does seem rather odd that one must be a Canadian citizen to vote in elections but not a requirement to vote for the candidates who would run in those elections. If Canada suffers from a lack of certain foreign interference laws then how about we start making some?

Speaking for myself, I find all this 'whataboutism' extremely boring. What seems to be overlooked is that Trudeau and senior aides were briefed at least twice on Michael Chan by security officials. In a 2019 briefing, security officials told PMO staff (including chief of staff Katie Telford) that someone should reach out to Mary Ng and advise her to be extra careful when dealing with Chan. But according to Ng, no one from the PMO ever contacted her. A confidant of Ng claims that Chan was dropped as co-chair after public comments condemning Hong Kong pro-democracy demonstrations. The question here should be... why bother having a security agency at all if the highest levels of government pay no attention to what they have to say? Chan does have an amazing reputation at fund raising for federal and provincial Liberal parties which appears to be higher on the priority list than who he allegedly has ties to. As far as I understand, CSIS has nothing on Mary Ng and as such should be completely exonerated for any wrong doing. Chan has brought a libel action against the Globe for a 2015 article but the case has not yet gone to court. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-csis-warned-trudeau-about-toronto-area-politicians-alleged-ties-to/

Western civilization has its basis in 6th century Greek rationalism, Roman law, and Jewish moral codes (which predated but were passed on to Christianity). However it was Christianity which largely spread these beliefs to the rest of the world and for the next couple of thousand years western civilization has evolved into what it has become today. That's it in a nutshell.

Good points, but let's not forget Georgia (also under Obama's watch). The meddling by the governments of Russia and China isn't as much about who wins but rather in eroding the integrity of our elections, and our rights to free speech. Look at the US which has politically polarized itself over what it perceived to be Russian interference with the purpose in getting Trump elected. In effect, it completely handcuffed the Trump administration with the subsequent investigations, impeachments, amid the constant harping of him being an illegitimate president. And not only that, how much have our rights to free speech been eroded by this campaign to stamp out 'misinformation'? What about the politicization of institutions such as the FBI? Can anyone doubt that our enemies of freedom are winning and we're all beginning to look more and more like them every day?

School board trustees are said to be the 'overseers of curriculum and program delivery'. They have nothing to do with the actual curriculum for obvious reasons. However, each individual school board makes up their own 'code of conduct'. The problems began when not long ago this particular board also created their own 'human rights policy' along with how they planned on implementing it. So you can either use your imagination on what this 'implementation' looks like, or... refer back to that lengthy investigation report that you provided a link to. Not only was Lynda Stone blind sided by a combination of the code of conduct and newly created human rights policy, but another trustee by the name of Paul Crawford was as well. Both at the same time. And that's how you rid yourself of speech you don't agree with. Because you can.

If there's a possible lesson to be learned, we (self included) should start paying closer attention to those running for school board trustees. Too many of us just check off a box for mayor and city councilor and other than that really have no idea.

What I found interesting is that after Linda Stone was first censured by the board, she resigns. Next election, she runs and gets voted back in again. Then censured again for the same original 'crimes'. The voting public doesn't seem to count for much.

I'm not sure how that would work. Trustees are forced to sign on the dotted line saying they've read the Code of Conduct. Of course, a lot would depend on interpretation.

First, get rid of this piece of nonsense (section 1.4 of Code of Conduct) ....1.4 Trustees will support the Vision and Values, and Strategic Priorities of the Durham District School Board. It should not be a crime for an elected school board trustee to have a differing opinion on what is racism and what is speech. It should not be a crime to suggest that those kids (who believe they're trans) get counseling before doing something to their bodies they can't undo. And it should not be a crime to suggest that parents should be notified. It says trustees have a dual responsibility... 1) as an 'elected' representative of their ward, and (2) as a member of the board. In practice however, falling into lockstep with the board comes first. If someone asks how is it possible for them to drum dissenting voices off the board.... as miata says... because they can. And finally, if elected municipal councilors are allowed to speak freely why can't elected school board trustees? The reasons given as to why they shouldn't are so lame it's almost laughable.

It's interesting to learn how these so called 'expert consultation panels' are selected. Instead of 'handpicked, filtered out, paid for, and those who broadly agree with the consorship regime', we might be far better off selecting ordinary folks at random from a telephone directory... "I am obliged to confess that I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University. Not, heaven knows, because I hold lightly the brainpower or knowledge or generosity or even the affability of the Harvard faculty: but because I greatly fear intellectual arrogance, and that is a distinguishing characteristic of the university which refuses to accept any common premise." ..... William F. Buckley