-1=e^ipi

Canada warming at twice the rate as the global average isn't new. It's been known for decades. What is puzzling is the fact that all of these journalists think that this is news.

This idea is so awful. You want the state to pick and choose which religions it likes, tax the religions it dislikes, and subsidize the religious beliefs it does like. Furthermore, you want to institute compelled speech. You really don't understand how dangerous and authoritarian that is?

Yes. Although, to be fair, the centrist Canadian position does involve violating separation of religion and state. Catholic schools, god in the anthem/charter, and the Anglican Monarchy all violate separation of religion and state. Edit: Also, to be fair, Islam isn't a people, but a religion. But yes, I agree that the above proposal is crazy and immoral.

Your proposal is crazy and immoral. There should be separation of religion and state.

That's silly though. You effectively want Canada to turn down free money. This is is sort of creepy... the obsession with how much people breed. Are gay people considered undesirable in your world view since they tend not to breed as much? The government should get out of people's bedrooms!

If foreigners want to come to our country, buy our goods, or invest here, then we should welcome that. If foreigners want to buy real estate here, let them and tax it. That will generate tax revenue to pay for services. Requiring that foreigners have to become Canadian tax residents will cause them to have to pay taxes to two countries. That's too extreme and will cause too many to flee. I think that you will be well on the wrong side of the laffer curve at that point.

Why? What's the justification for this? If the concern is about housing affordability, I suggest that the issue is too much regulation and not enough job opportunities. Municipal zoning laws and restrictions on the construction of new houses prevents the supply of housing to adequately increase, causing unnecessarily high prices. In addition, a business unfriendly environment due to high taxes and certain governments wanting to impose their social justice agenda on businesses (such as requiring that businesses satisfy the "intersectionality of gender and other identity factors") reduce job opportunities and the ability of people to afford housing.

Nuclear is a good source of energy, but you should allow for different methods of CO2 reduction to compete with each other. Pigouvian taxes are the optimal way to respond to the issue of negative externalities (at least from a utilitarian perspective), be it due to cigarettes, water pollution, or CO2 emissions. This was demonstrated by economist Arthur Pigou in the 1930s and is well accepted in economics. I am not a conservative, I have never voted conservative, nor do I plan to vote conservative. Andrew Scheer and his Harperites are freedom hating conservatives who don't want gay people to marry, don't want us to have the freedom to smoke weed, and believe that 300% tariffs on dairy is free trade.

Honestly, the platform is decent, and the website is well designed as well. Much better than the current mainstream parties. I find it interesting that your party acknowledges men's issues (such as suicides), which is at compete odds with all major parties and the mainstream establishment. That said, I'll probably side with Maxime Bernier's People's Party this election. With respect to climate change / energy policy, if you want evidence based policy, I suggest you consider the approach of a pigouvian tax to internalize the externalities, where the level of taxation is calculated using the world's best integrated assessment models, such as the DICE model by William Nordhaus, who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics in 2018.

The impact of CO2 on global temperature was first quantified by Svante Arrhenius is 1895. He quantified the magnitude of warming by CO2 at 4 degrees C per doubling of warming. Arrhenius' back-of-the-envelope calculations using basic physics gave an estimate that is very similar to modern estimates, be they based on instrumental observations, paleoclimate data, or general climate models.

Yes, the government should get out of the culture business.

HadCRUT4's main problem is that it underestimates warming over the instrumental period. It fails to adequately account for coverage bias due to the fact that not all parts of Earth, specifically polar regions which warm the fastest, have data coverage; other datasets such as Berkeley Earth and Cowtan & Way mostly correct for coverage bias using a statistical technique known as kriging. In addition, the ocean component of HadCRUT4, HadSST3, has a cool bias due to not adequately taking into account the recent switch from ship engine intake measurements to buoy measurements; this is taken into account by NOAA's ocean dataset ERSSTv4 however. Also, a recent paper that compares sea surface temperature observations with nearby island / coastal land measurements provides some pretty convincing evidence that there could be an underestimate of temperature change prior to 1950 due to the treatment of bucket measurements. Overall, HadCRUT4's main results are confirmed by the other datasets, there are only minor differences between the various temperature datasets (like +/- 0.1 C difference in trend since 1880). If you are skeptical of HadCRUT4's temperature data, then I encourage you to look into Berkeley Earth's dataset, which you may find more reliable and convincing.

CAQ wins majority.

Is the people's party an option for this poll tracker? No. Seat projections on the basis that Bernier's party isn't an option is meaningless.

I disagree with the premise that had great ideas to begin with. Why would I want conservatives to win? They dislike gay marriage, marijuana legalization, freedom, and want to conserve bad policies like the dairy cartel. With respect to 'Americanizing' Canada, this highlights a problem. Many policies in Canada are not justified based on what is the best policy, but on what fills people with the most nationalistic feelings. Most people have a natural tendency towards tribalism, and in modern society, this takes the form of nationalism. As Canada has no good reason for existing as a separate country from the US in the first place (the monarchy is immoral), people have to tie their nationalism to love of the state and state intervention in the economy in order to satisfy their nationalism and justify the existence of Canada. Unfortunately, this has many terrible consequences for society, such as causing people to support a worse healthcare system (i.e. a rank 30th healthcare system compared to a rank 1 mixed healthcare system in France according to WHO rankings), which causes people to die unnecessarily. Canadian nationalism causes Canadians to die unnecessarily. What an awful thing.

I love this motion!

No it won't. 3 terms is more than enough time to win the battle of ideas. Having people in politics argue for positions like the abolition of supply management and moving towards a mixed health care system is a big game changer. The people who advocate for the abolition of supply management and a mixed health care system have the better ideas and the better arguments. But you can't win the battle of ideas if you don't have representation, and historically Canada has not had representation of these ideas. Look at how quickly public opinion has changed on issues such as gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana. Also, basically every other developed country has abolished supply management (if they had it at all) and has a mixed health care system, so I don't see why it can't happen here We will win the battle of ideas and defeat those beholden to the cartels! Also, as long as Canada chooses 300% dairy tariffs over free trade, the trade war will continue and the economic situation will get worse. Eventually, the population will get fed up.

Ensaf Haidar, the wife of Raif Badawi, the jailed Saudi Blogger, has joined the people's party. This is pretty expected if you have been following her on twitter. Maybe she will be a candidate in the next election.

The libertarian party, which has been around since 1973 and is Canada's largest political party not represented in the house of commons, is considering a merger with Maxime Bernier's People's Party. The merger is likely to happen since the libertarian party's leader, Tim Moen, is completely supportive. Since Maxime Bernier lost the Conservative leadership race with 49% of the vote, Tim Moen has offered Bernier leadership of the libertarian party on multiple occasions and the libertarian party has adopted many of Bernier's policies in an effort to attract disaffected Bernier supporters. The libertarian party ran in 72 ridings last election, gaining 1% of the vote in contested ridings and capturing 0.21% of the vote nationally. It has a lot of the on the ground organization that Maxime Bernier needs for the next election. Thoughts? For me personally, this would make it much easier to decide who to vote for since before I was conflicted. Obviously, the implications of this for the next election are that Bernier's party will be very organized in the next election and is much more likely to have candidates in all ridings. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-libertarian-party-merger-1.4827241 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDi1upN3qI4

No it doesn't. See sections 1 and 33 of the charter.

It's not perfect, neither is the Canadian constitution. I just listed two ways in which it is better than the Canadian constitution. Better if we could replace our constitution with an even better one.

US constitution is better in that it protects freedom of speech and gets rid of the damn monarchy.

The monarch gets free handouts from cradle to grave. Sounds like socialism to me. It is also conservatism though, as conservatism is the irrational desire to conserve the status quo / tradition; no matter how insane it is.

According to the charter, Ontario tax payers must fund that catholic church with tax money. According to the charter, we don't actually have freedom of speech, we merely pretend we do. Section 2 of the charter is made ineffective my sections 1 and 33 of the charter. According to the charter, the state recognizes the supremacy of god, and this recognition of the supremacy of god comes before anything, including rule of law. I could go on. Our charter is terrible. Unfortunately, idiots blinded by nationalism pretend it's the best thing in the world, often without having read it.

Feminism is not synonymous with equality of the sexes. In some contexts it is, but in other contexts it has different definitions. One such alternative definition is advocacy of women's rights. If you take a gender studies course in a university you will get a different definition along the lines of feminism is the political movement to overthrow the patriarchy.