Centrist Party of Canada

[Moonlight Graham]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 

Your link messed up, what did it say?

Edit:  Figured it out.  Canada is a massive country with one of the lowest population densities in the world.  It's obviously going to have a higher GDP per capita than the vast majority of countries.  It's not because Canadians are "so bad and so wasteful", it's because ie: shipping something from Vancouver to Montreal is much different than shipping something from Glasgow to London.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Moonlight Graham

[CentristPartyofCanada]

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?

Edited April 16, 2020 by CentristPartyofCanada

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, CentristPartyofCanada said:

"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.  "

Does that include continuing to dig up and drill for as much coal oil and gas as possible for sale to China?

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, CentristPartyofCanada said:

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.

Problem with tariffs is that they'll just slap them on us in retaliation.  We won't be able to make as much selling to China.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Your link messed up, what did it say?

Edit:  Figured it out.   

So quoting us on relative CO2 output is deceptive.  We have to do our part.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, CentristPartyofCanada said:

1.  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.... Our emissions account for 1.5% of global emissions 

-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.

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?

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?

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So quoting us on relative CO2 output is deceptive.  We have to do our part.

I'm not quoting us on relative CO2 i'm quoting us on our total output.

Yes we do need to do our part.  But we also shouldn't do more than our fair share if it causes us economic harm.

[Moonlight Graham]

14 hours ago, CentristPartyofCanada said:

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.

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.

[Argus]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. 'Harm'  ?  Do you plan to meet climate treaty targets?  Does a revenue neutral tax, in theory, harm the economy?

Revenue neutral is a term the Left uses which means "Don't worry! We'll make someone ELSE pay!" That is the way the Liberals have gone through those refund cheques. Of course, they do nothing to address the central issue of the tax encouraging high level industrial and manufacturing emitters to move to other countries which have no such taxes (which is MOST countries).

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Canada ranks 38th by population, comprising about 0.5% of the world's total

Another tactic the Left uses - if the statistics don't support your argument, just change the statistics. In this case, don't talk about the actual emissions, but the emissions per population. It's dishonest, but they seem addicted to it.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Your link messed up, what did it say?

Edit:  Figured it out.  Canada is a massive country with one of the lowest population densities in the world.  It's obviously going to have a higher GDP per capita than the vast majority of countries.  It's not because Canadians are "so bad and so wasteful", it's because ie: shipping something from Vancouver to Montreal is much different than shipping something from Glasgow to London.

But the argument of the leftist environmentalists isn't based on logic, but on guilt-mongering. You're horrible because these statistics I choose to use make you seem that way in comparison to Botswana or Guyana.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. I'm not quoting us on relative CO2 i'm quoting us on our total output.

2. Yes we do need to do our part.  But we also shouldn't do more than our fair share if it causes us economic harm.

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 ?

 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

So quoting us on relative CO2 output is deceptive.  We have to do our part.

No, quoting us on a population basis is deceptive. Deliberately so.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Argus said:

Another tactic the Left uses - if the statistics don't support your argument, just change the statistics. In this case, don't talk about the actual emissions, but the emissions per population. It's dishonest, but they seem addicted to it.

I Googled that.  Blame them if their #1 link is a lie, I guess.  Or you can submit the alternate facts you are reading.  "Do your part" most certainly needs to address about per capita use.  It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.  Otherwise, only countries with large populations need to do anything.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

No, quoting us on a population basis is deceptive. Deliberately so.

Ridiculous.  And to say it's deliberately deceptive is beyond arrogant - it implies onmiscience.  That's your modus operandi anyway so carry on...

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, Argus said:

No, quoting us on a population basis is deceptive. Deliberately so.

This is exactly what you do when you claim that I want to repress information I disagree with.  It's the brash arrogance of people who think they know what's good for you.  

For those of us who enjoy actual discussion, such as Graham, we need differing views to come up with an ACTUAL and personal balance AKA 'Centrism'.  Carry on, though, and please feel free to PM me with lots of other motivations I have that I'm not aware of...

[Argus]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

I Googled that.  Blame them if their #1 link is a lie, I guess.  Or you can submit the alternate facts you are reading.  "Do your part" most certainly needs to address about per capita use.  It's ridiculous to claim otherwise.  Otherwise, only large populations need to do anything.

Why should it be population based? Why not on the actual number? Why not on the GDP or level of industrialization? Why not on the actual physical size of the country - given larger countries require more energy to move things about? Why not on the cold? Given a cold country like Canada requires heat for much of the year or people die? There are a lot of ways to slant the data. The Liberals, for example, require that when developing a new oilfield that regulators take into account the CO2 emissions not just that the mine will emit but that the oil it produces emits. But foreign imports do not face any tariffs or taxes in that regard. Nor are the emissions produced by Saudi oil, say, even counted against them.

[Argus]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is exactly what you do when you claim that I want to repress information I disagree with.  It's the brash arrogance of people who think they know what's good for you.  

Indeed! Your desire to repress information you disagree with is based on the brash arrogance of you and your progressive friends believing they know what's good for me! That information, after all, is er, 'harmful to the public good', and is perhaps offensive to minorities or is just plain wrong in some way or other.

Quote

For those of us who enjoy actual discussion, such as Graham, we need differing views to come up with an ACTUAL and personal balance AKA 'Centrism'.  Carry on, though, and please feel free to PM me with lots of other motivations I have that I'm not aware of...

Do you think I was referring to you? The CO2 emissions per population is a tactic the Left embraced years ago to blithely explain why countries like Canada with their 1.5% emissions are terrible malefactors whilst other countries which emit much more are angelic princes. Thus the Left tends to criticize Canada much more than it does China or India.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Argus

[Argus]

18 hours ago, CentristPartyofCanada said:

1. "The immigration quota needs to be assessed on a yearly basis with an emphasis on economic migrants filling specific positions based on demand."

No, no. Only Quebec is allowed to do that. Anyone else who even suggests lowering immigration is a xenophobe, racist and bigot who hates immigrants.

I note the Quebec govenrment is at this moment pondering a further cut to immigration in light of economic circumstances. Hell will freeze over before the federal government does the same. Even now immigrants are trundling off planes every day and entering a closed-down country with no work for them.

[Moonlight Graham]

10 minutes ago, Argus said:

But the argument of the leftist environmentalists isn't based on logic, but on guilt-mongering. You're horrible because these statistics I choose to use make you seem that way in comparison to Botswana or Guyana.

Yes i know.

[Moonlight Graham]

11 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 ?

 

We'll never be as green as other countries by those metrics because Canada is so spread out.  By those metrics we can bludgeon Canada with guilt indefinitely, we're not going to tear up cities and abandon provinces to make everyone live closer together.  You're making the goalposts impossible.

I keep telling you facts and you completely ignore them.  You're stubborn as hell.  WTF is the point of me typing this?

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

1. We'll never be as green as other countries by those metrics because Canada is so spread out. 

2. By those metrics we can bludgeon Canada with guilt indefinitely,

3. we're not going to tear up cities   

4. You're making the goalposts impossible.

5. I keep telling you facts and you completely ignore them.  You're stubborn as hell.  WTF is the point of me typing this?

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.
 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I am very eager for an actual Centrist party to come up with some well-thought-out ideas.

Except your idea of a centrist party is one firmly on the Left.

[taxme]

On 4/9/2020 at 7:09 PM, CentristPartyofCanada said:

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

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.  

 

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour 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.

6. 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.
 

1.  I've always said we should do our part, my argument is we shouldn't do more than our fair share if big polluters aren't doing similar.  I'm also not defending the statement that Canada is "green".

2.  I never said we shouldn't act.  I've stated the opposite.  What's your metric for action?  What is your statistical GHG reduction goal, and why?  My statistical metric is to match GHG reductions of average of the US, EU, and China's reductions.  Reducing GHG less than that is irresponsible since we should do our part as you say, and reducing by more only harms our economy while barely putting a dent in total GHG.

4. You're trying to say Canada isn't "green" because we have higher GHG per capita than most countries.  I'm not even saying we're "green", but you can't compare Canada to most countries using GHG per capita because we have a much larger area & lower population density than virtually every country, plus a modern developed economy.  "Improvement" isn't a goalpost, it's vague, it literally is meaningless, what's your metric?  How do you measure "improvement"?  By how much do we need to improve, how do we know when we haven't improved enough?  This country needs specific statistical goals based on justifiable measures.  But many people just say "Oil and pipelines bad, we need to save the world".

5. Ok

6. I've disagreed with this person too, like on TFW program.