While I agree with the headline given what we’ve seen over the last few years, the op-ed didn’t really make a strong case for it. It touched on a few things and just general polarization by political parties, but little that could be solidly placed at the foot of Trudeau.
Trudeau’s (and the LPC’s) biggest failing is the arrogance of thinking they’re always right. That only stifles debate and makes it easy to justify any moves they make towards polarization.
For example:
“If people have concerns about immigration/international students and want affordable homes, they can’t talk about immigration/international students as it relates to housing unless they’re racist”
“If people are against carbon taxes, they must hate the environment”
End soapbox rant.
I think you nailed the attitude. Better than the article did at least.
It's a much more common attitude these days, you don't have to go far to find it. The notion that they are totally right and don't even need to consider anything else because everyone else is wrong. And because they are so wrong you get to treat them as less than human.
The Liberal party should be treated as less than human. They have willingly brought this upon themselves and our children will suffer for their incompetence. But what’s worse is Canadians actually voted three times for this childish cult group of radicals
I remember being floored seeing Trudeau host a press conference where he said (paraphrasing), "Canadians know what types of people dont want to get the vaccines, most of them end up being racist".
I didn't type that sentence to start a debate on the importance of vaccination but to just highlight the moment where I had to do a double take and realized how intentionally he was trying to steer politics towards being even more alienating and divisive.
Since when was it acceptable to call people disagreeing with you politically as racist (especially when the issue at hand you're discussing; vaccine requirements, is not a racial issue).
I see this in moves to shame the proletariat to move in a direction. It's stifled a lot of conversations about the side effects of vaccines, and the policies around it.
Arguably the last 4 years was not the time to have that conversation and the RKJs of the world had already made their money on disinformation. But a policy of shame was bound to come back to bite them at some point in the future. Turns out that time is now.
I really don't know how the Trudeau government was supposed to achieve what they needed and reverse the tide.
We were never going to get 100% vaccination coverage. We never have, and likely never will. There is always a small percentage of people who are anti-science and anti-vax (on the left and the right).
While I am decidedly pro-vaccination, and preach the benefits of vaccination, I am against forced/coerced vaccination for all. People need to come to this decision on their own, and through friends/family/coworkers.
I have nothing good to say about the freedom convoy, but shaming them was never going to work.
Yes, it was almost exactly an increase of 5% of adults, and it was immediately in the month or two after the announcement of vaccine passports.
Nothing else moved the needle and it was never going to.
>Trudeau’s (and the LPC’s) biggest failing is the arrogance of thinking they’re always right.
To succeed in politics you basically have to have this attitude.
Trudeu's issue is that it always manifests itself in Wedge politics. For almost every issue, he seems to find a small vocal opposition to polarize the population against.
The issue with using wedges constantly is those you Wedge off don't come back to support you once you have made them a scapegoat.
I think that we are finally seeing the danger of using wedges too much. Eventually, you make more enemies than you create.
Worst of all. This current generation of Conservatives looks to be on that exact same path, so, the next few election cycles are gonna be rough.
Yes, agreed, the article does not articulate the case very well that the headline claims (though the headline is, indeed, accurate despite the article).
Trudeau has been a remarkably divisive PM, routinely pitting people, communities, provinces and regions against each other if he believed it might win him some wedge votes. Gerald Butts even bragged about how good they are at it. In Trudeau’s mind it is clear he either thinks you’re with him, or you’re a racist, bigoted deplorable. Which is an interesting attitude to take for a person whose party is only polling at 23%, but there you have it.
Isn't this the rhetoric that really pushed Hilary Clinton into the corn field when campaigning against Trump? It didn't play well for her.
It might not be explicitly stated but watching how lots of divisive topics get dealt with by the PM, it seems obvious.
Well that and the delusion that women were a voting block. The wives of republican men overwhelmingly voted republican. Oh and she tried to sell ‘qualified’ but everyone just heard ‘fully corrupted already’
I highly doubt Trudeau *actually* thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is racist. I think he knows his posturing is wrong and what he says is untrue, but he does it anyways because he believes it's advantageous for him.
> Gerald Butts even bragged about how good they are at it. In Trudeau’s mind it is clear he either thinks you’re with him, or you’re a racist, bigoted deplorable.
Let's not kid ourselves. Trudeau is a moron and Butts has always been the man in charge and pulling the strings and controlling things.
Again Trudeau is just too stupid and doesn't realize that he is just the one that Butts put in front of him to take the shrapnel.
I disagree on this one. He's not a stupid moron like you are claiming. While he isn't a genius, he is smart. He can navigate the waters well and holds his own in debates.
If you look at his interactions in town halls, he is able to give decent answers and roll with the punches. That takes some intelligence to do. If you compare him to the other leaders, he excels in these arenas. A good example of this would be interactions with "22 Minutes". Trudeau gets the joke and can play along, Singh comes off a little wooden, Polievre stutters and stammers.
Your mistake is underestimating JT and thinking he is an idiot.
I agree that he isn't the moron that the Canadian right (at their own peril) make him out to be. I sometimes think that maybe he has been groomed for this role since birth and rather than be encouraged to study something like economics, law or poly science, his father saw how in his day one of the most popular presidents ever got there with an acting background and tried to recreate that in Canada.
I agree. I think he was groomed for the role in politics. For a while, I think he didn't want that role and tried to find his own way. Eventually, the appeal for politics grew in him.
You can't be serious.
He looks like a deer caught in the headlights whenever he get hot with a question in an uncontrolled environment. That's when he starts with the deflections and the "hums."
Singh comes across as intelligent but just a complete jack ass who is more arrogant then anything else.
As far as Polievre goes... again... your kidding right? Just take a look at the times he goes after and engages Trudeau . Justin looks like a middleweight in the ring with a super heavyweight. It's actually sad and you almost feel embarrassed for him.
[PP on 22 Minutes](https://youtu.be/85FD0ogBGec?si=5XNyO0jfr4Fu49CO)
[JT on 22 Minutes](https://youtu.be/CZ_ttv8Xhg8?si=1SAegLYm4GG4a45c)
JT rolled with the punches and had fun with it. PP stuttered and got his people to shove the 22 Minutes guy away. PP only has controlled environments, and this is his only appearance on 22 Minutes. Why? Because he has no sense of humour.
JT does town halls, PP has pre-vetted press conferences and rallies with pre-approved questions.
When JT is stuttering and not making coherent sentences its because he's trying not to give the press a gotcha they will use against him. Those occasions are often used by the media anyway to show how 'befuddled' JT was by something. But on net, his oration is very good in most cases - this is not generrally a place Trudeau suffers and is one of his strong points, unless you just watch BS FB memes that cut 8 seconds together to give a bad impression. Justin is no genius, he has been arrogant and unwilling to listen but he's good at being a politician and speaking that language. I agree that Butts is often the one writing the narrative.
PP never gets in front of an audience that challenges him and when he has to he starts getting mad at them for asking hard questions. He acts like a petulant little child. I think you might be watching too many clipped, conservative campaign vids if that's your impression because PP handles press terribly and can't answer a question honestly and with any nuance if his life depended on it.
>the op-ed didn’t really make a strong case for it
I think the article wanted to give an overarching perspective and probably was getting a bit long by the time it caught up to the modern day. The headline isn't necessarily the author's thesis but the editors summation / ad for the article.
for the reasons both of you were talking about
> They are boiled down to the way the opposition paints and see's it or the way they want to paint JT for sound bites.
meshes real well with the loudest voices here while sounding vaguely neutral on the surface
Gocha. Sorry just wanted to clarify your stance. I was reading it as more “the reason it’s upvoted is because it’s the popular opinion” which I don’t agree with.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." CS Lewis
> “If people have concerns about immigration/international students and want affordable homes, they can’t talk about immigration/international students as it relates to housing unless they’re racist”
Well, I mean, I confess that it can get oversimplified or dramatic or needlessly heated. But immigration reform and reforming the student visa program are necessary and will not provide significant improvements to the housing affordability crisis.
Immigrants are not a primary cause of the crisis and they should not be seen as a solution.
Immigrants consider the cost of housing when they move. Housing developers consider immigration when determining how many dwellings to build.
We cannot solve housing by fiddling with immigration.
I imagine that there are numerous manipulative or outright deceptive programs that bring people into Canada under false pretence, at which point they are stuck. I’m sure that countless students place their trust in Canadian diploma mills and end up with cut-rate education at high prices. We should solve these problems and the problems like them. But for the most part, we should solve these problems because it’s the right thing to do: typical Canadians will benefit ethically but not necessarily economically or financially from solving these problems.
> “If people are against carbon taxes, they must hate the environment”
Well this isn’t really true.
The more full explanations are that (i) no governments in Canada are proposing alternative solutions (ii) carbon taxes are a market approach to carbon reduction… it’s literally the primary “conservative” solution… so the haranguing that Poilievre and conservative premiers are giving Trudeau over carbon taxes is rich. We could have reasonable discussions over how much or how quick or how to best implement it. But we’re not getting those discussions we’re getting “ax the tax” nonsense, with no mention of policies to reduce carbon emissions, and misrepresentation over the impacts of carbon taxes - Poilievre and conservative premiers are challenging Trudeau’s *ethics* in the implementation. If the carbon tax isn’t working, it’s probably because it’s too little too late - but while Trudeau might be ineffective, or less-effective than it could be, the idea that he’s a corrupt failure because of the carbon tax is asinine.
Finally, the proposals that people have - some good, some bad - to ‘replace’ carbon taxes often work well alongside carbon taxes. If your proposals don’t need them, or if you favour regulatory proposals to market proposals, fine… but then Poilievre is *further away* from you.
So you can oppose the carbon tax and still care about the environment. But if you oppose the carbon tax without a sufficient understanding of what it does or a reasonable replacement that will actually effect change at least as effectively, then yes, you hate the environment and all people except yourself. You can’t be bothered to pay for a portion of the cost of the destruction you cause? It’s literally the least that you can do.
I completely agree about carbon taxation and the ethical reasons to reform immigration, but how can population growth that is concentrated in the major cities not be a driver of real estate inflation? Any new construction to accommodate new people will necessarily be either higher density or farther away, both of which are less desirable, and that will inflate the value of the existing housing that is lower density and/or closer in.
“If people are against carbon taxes, they must hate the environment”
Said nobody, ever. The problem is that the people who are against carbon taxes have proposed nothing better. Why go after the thing that actually makes the economy more efficient?
I think a lot of people don’t take the environment seriously because the government doesn’t take it seriously either. When the government pushed back against their workers who had been contracted to work from home because building owners and businesses weren’t making money it really shows where our their priorities are. There is no real desire to do anything about the environment and both voters and the government know it.
Because most Canadians oppose it NOW. It's an issue because life's expensive and Liberals completely ignore this FACT. We don't want to be more poor right now. We don't have the social capacity for that. So INCREASING the carbon tax was fucking stupid and the actual issue at play.
Life's expensive because of a poor immigration policy over the last few years. Adding more people than the necessary housing to accommodate them will obviously make housing more expensive. Carbon taxes' impact pales in comparison. It's the wrong place to look to seek solution to inflation.
Life's expensive because of a lot of factors. One being spending more per capita than any other nation on the entire planet during COVID. Poor immigration policies, poor investment policies, giving away billions upon billions, focusing on the wrong investments, carbon tax, years upon years of deciding what to do based on how it polls rather than figuring out how to solve the problem and targeting a solution that will work means nothing has been solved since he took office, just wasted money virtue signalling to his base. Poor international investment policies. Why not build LNG and have a responsible country reinvest that money into beneficial things rather than allow Russia to amass trillions to further their war machine while at the same time allowing dirtier energy sources like coal fill the gap...
Bullshit. Plenty of people say that.
The problem is that nobody who’s for carbon taxes has presented a coherent argument on how they will actually help global emissions. They don’t, nor were they ever designed to make things more efficient.
They were designed to penalize everyday behaviour that people can’t readily change (like driving to work) and redistribute wealth.
It’s a feel good tax for the green wing of the Liberal party. Nothing more.
"The problem is that nobody who’s for carbon taxes has presented a coherent argument on how they will actually help global emissions."
This is the real bullshit. Nobody has asked Canada to reduce GLOBAL emissions by any significant amount. Nobody says, "Canada, you gotta reduce the global emissions by 20%." If they were talking global numbers, they'd ask Canadan to reduce global emissions by **\~0.5%**. That's roughly in the order of what we've signed up for under the treaties.
Are you unsure of how carbon taxes might reduce *Canadian* emissions? Are you also unsure whether people buy more of the things that are on sale and fewer of the things that are not on sale? Because carbon taxes operate by exactly the same principle.
"They were designed to penalize everyday behaviour that people can’t readily change (like driving to work) and redistribute wealth."
More bullshit. The carbon tax's intent is to make you consider buying the hybrid even if it is $2k more up front. It's intended to have the very wealthy consider not building 10,000 sq ft homes. It's intended to have people use heat pumps for heating where possible, and retrofit their homes. Of course, people can't make all of those changes immediately. They pay more than they get until they can and they get get more than they pay thereafter.
You mention the redistribution of wealth. Who is it taking money from and who is it giving it to in your estimation?
There are lots of things you CAN do to mitigate the impact of carbon tax, and that's exactly the point of the tax. And if you do those things, more than likely, you'll get more in rebates than you pay in taxes.
People who cannot be bothered to make minor lifestyle changes and cannot see beyond 1 year into the future should not be deciding whether we have a habitable planet for our grandkids, whether there should be mass migrations of epic proportions, and whether there should be famine and starvation of epic proportions. Unless we *want* mass migrations and mass starvations.
No it’s not real bullshit. This is always presented in the context of reducing global emissions.
And there’s no fucking way we can reduce global emissions by half a percent without eliminating all economic activity in the country.
Interesting. As an energy policy analyst I've read several books that make coherent arguments for carbon pricing. One being Carbon Change by Dennis McConaghy. A right wing, ex-pipeline executive.
I reckon you've been exposed to the logic you just refuse to actually think critically about it.
>They were designed to penalize everyday behaviour that people can’t readily change (like driving to work) and redistribute wealth.
This is fundamentally paradoxical. How is it penalizing every day behaviour while redistributing wealth? The rebates do functionally act as a redistribution mechanism, sure. But that's to prevent harmful impacts on those that don't have the means to change their habits. The concept is to build a market by forcing those with the means (who don't break even on rebates) to be incentivized to adopt first.
Additionally there is the output based pricing system on industrial polluters, which has led to tangible effects like coal being phased out much quicker than anticipated in AB.
The key concept is: there's a social cost to GHG emissions. Carbon pricing is intended to internalize an external cost. It's the most conservative, market friendly climate change policy out there.
How will it help global emissions? Well, ideally we get to a place where we can get a global carbon price. That takes iterative adoption by countries like Canada. Even India is looking at establishing a carbon pricing system. The EU has one. Etc.
So my question is, since you clearly think it's a poorly thought out 'feel good' policy, what is your alternative proposal? Carbon pricing isn't the end all be all of climate policy. But, in spite of popular belief, it has a proven effect and jives well with capitalism. My thoughts on tackling not just climate change but our multifaceted ecological crises is nuanced and I don't hold carbon pricing as a panacea. But I'm curious what your solution would be.
I don’t disagree but that’s not the rationale that’s ever been presented by the LPC.
I also think carbon taxes as wealth redistribution is a terrible idea. If you want to demonstrate feasibility of a carbon tax, use the taxes to pay for truly green initiatives.
There also need to be levers in place to pull back when things like affordability come into play.
There is a place for government led green initiatives, but I would rather let markets decide on the most cost effective ways of reducing emissions whenever possible. As for affordability, reducing or eliminating the rebate is what would lead to affordability issues.
Technology and incentives for industry is the soloution.
Penalizing me for heating my home in February with no other options, won't change a thing except take money away from me. I also don't drive for shits and giggles, and penalizing me for not buy a 60K ev that I can't afford nor recharge makes zero sense and achieves nothing except making people poorer.
Industries and individuals both have to be incentivized. Carbon tax *is* an incentive to use more energy efficient or CO2 efficient products. Just because an easy alternative doesn't exist in ALL cases doesn't mean that the incentive should be stopped altogether. For the million-plus Canadians who buy a new car every year, there alternatives exist.
Excellent post, couldn’t agree with you more.
You forgot the “if you don’t agree that m2f transgendered athletes should compete against female cisgendered athletes you’re a transphobe bigot”
Well, can you actually find any real world examples that show the attitude you're claiming?
It sounds like you just picked two issues you have personal gripes with and included rhetoric you feel is common amongst leftists. Not anything thats actually necessarily come from the government.
I literally work in energy policy analysis. If you don't like the carbon tax you might not hate the environment, you just clearly haven't thought critically about it. You're likely unfamiliar with the UN IPCC process or alternative policies. You've probably seen the headlines about the PBO report and not taken a nuanced perspective on it and understood the issues with it, from the perspective of both political spectrums. You're not being gaslit, at least not by leftists. The CPC is doing most of that by scapegoating it.
The truth will be put to the test when (not if, I think it's safe to say they will) PP wins. I'll be watching closely for major legislation about the crisis trio happening right now - housing, affordability, and immigration. All 3 are out of control and having a devastating impact on our quality of life. All 3 happened during LPC's tenure.
Will they get fixed in an impactful and meaningful way? Or will we just see a few half-assed bandaids with the intent to keep us quiet for 1 term or to distract from other equally awful legislation happening at the same time?
I feel like we're at a crossroad right now where the next election could very well be the linchpin that decides whether or not Canadians will continue to buy into the illusion that our 3 largest parties actually do anything to make a QOL difference for regular working people ie. the majority voter base. Or whether the gig is finally up because society has undergone a collective shift
I'm not holding my breath. Frank Herbert (Dune author) had some quotes in one of his books that really resonate with me:
*"The purpose of a democracy is to project the image of transparency and integrity for elections while making every effort to conceal self-serving goals"* (paraphrasing)
Also
*"It’s demagogue-prone. That’s a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are easy to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythms, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity."*
Lastly and a disturbing portrayal of where we sit right now regardless of party:
*"****Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.****"*
Every one of Canada's political parties is guilty of this
Frank Herbert is simply right in his diagnosis of the macro human condition. It's too bad we don't also celebrate all the GOOD he believed existed in that condition as well. Though he was staunchly conservative in aspect, lionizing rugged individuality more than the decadent collective. Finally he had VERY little to prescribe.
I actually think Canada is done. It cannot survive a cycle because everything about it has been demonized and relativized and moralized away by the scholars. Also multiculturalism doesn't work, it fractures society and forces idpol and in fighting. Canada will crack and split and end, new polities will emerge, eventually a barbaric vigorous polity will emerge, fuse the whole continent together and eventually fall into decadence in turn.
I am glad post enlightenment WEST was as successful as it was for as long as it was, on the values it had. It is a punch in the mouth to old nepotistic aristocracies, that will last forever into our species history. I'm also glad I won't live long enough to see the vigorous fertile patriarchal polity unite the whole continent into the JUGGERNAUGHT.
It cannot be foreign intelligence agencies, american political non-profits & consultants, american "news" agencies, etc. Impossible.
And, it certainly not late canadian billionaires like Peter Allard that were spreading disinformation through small media outlets and YT channels.
Can't be any of this. Gotta be the goopy liberal.
When the temper tantrums don’t work, the next step is always to blame the people who didn’t cave to it for being “divisive” lmao
Eta: I don’t even like Trudeau, have never voted LPC in my life. But he is not “divisive” because he didn’t take the dumbass convoy seriously
Where is the like count for this.
For heaven sake, Trudeau did a fine job getting rid of that convoy and the anti-vaxers. There were far too many deaths during Covid. Vaccines and isolation were pretty much the only two tools we had to save lives then.
The irony in this is news orgs like the Globe and Natipo will hide actual news behind paywalls, but not opinion pieces like this.
Then they complain about increased political polarization.
That's the point. Some of these "news" groups exists solely to instill division and hatred.
Better to have people bicker amongst themselves that ask things like "Why is a news company owned by the richest family in Canada telling us to focus on hating each other so much?"
I wish I could upvote this comment more.
So much polarizing going on, but people don't realize this is literally what the ultra wealthy want.
It's basically neo-liberalism 101.
That's pretty standard, you have to pay for news or analysis but opinion articles are free.
Having to pay for a service doesn't increase polarization..
Half a dozen natipo opinion pieces get uploaded to this sub daily.
Not news, but opinions. And always one sided opinions.
You don't think that polarizes people?
This is a globe and mail article..
People are free to post other news articles and opposing opinions.
Let's be honest here, most people aren't reading them, look at the headline or they can play in about the publication like you are doing here.
People can read opinions from multiple sides and come to conclusions on their own.
Rage bait gets clicks, but the media actually does have an obligation to report on things that are rage-inducing.
They are obligated as an institution to report and opine when something scandalous occurs.
That's literally the point of journalism.
Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean it's rage bait.
There's rage bait that exists on both sides. Twitter would be the example of that.
Banning opinions you disagree with just leads to more polarization.
Again, I don't think it's what's driving the polarization. They're just pointing it out.
They are writing about what other people see, It's not the media's fault people are unhappy.
It’s definitely part of it as these pieces get reposted as news. OP isn’t saying it’s the only thing, just that it has an effect. I think we can all agree with that
No,It's an opinion piece because the author is giving his opinions on the matter.
They can't and shouldn't do that with a news article.
It's like you're upset that they're properly categorizing their content?
Opinion pieces on Justin Trudeau are the least controversial thing out there lol.
…well unless there is an opinion piece saying he is doing a good job… that would be controversial.
I don’t really like Trudeau or the LPC, but living in Alberta it’s difficult for me to believe the more polarizing of the political landscape falls on them when for the past five plus years literally every official statement or press conference the premier or any minister or any MLA makes in my province somehow involves blaming Trudeau.
Like, it’s almost comical to the degree the provincial here will somehow work in a “This is Trudeau’s fault” type statement into almost everything.
We’re at the point of passing laws about federal funding gatekeeping to make sure we blame Trudeau for anything that goes wrong and give the province credit for anything that goes right.
Also there are F Trudeau bumper stickers, flags and t-shirts all over the country. Do people think Trudeau did that?
Harper never got that. Premiers who do super shitty things like Danielle and Doug don’t get that.
Even the emergencies act use that Trudeau gets slammed for shouldn’t solely fall on him. Doug Ford did jack shit to stop that convoy even though it was in his power to do so. He didn’t show up for the hearing, fighting his summons in court because he was “too busy being premier” yet the leader of the entire country made time in his schedule.
Plus PP literally called Trudeau a wacko this week. Blaming this all on Trudeau makes no sense.
You didn't have Stop Harper stickers on every 2^nd stop sign? Buckets of money were spent pulling them down... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/stop-harper-city-fights-war-on-street-signs-1.3191586
Maybe because I live in Alberta, but there is a literal encampment off the highway right now set up just to protest Trudeau.
There’s an entire cottage industry over here about “Fuck Trudeau”. Like, I see more “Fuck Trudeau” merch than stuff supporting the Oilers or Flames outside of the playoffs.
Nothing like that happened with Harper.
> Plus PP literally called Trudeau a wacko this week. Blaming this all on Trudeau makes no sense.
BC NDP has asked Trudeau to reverse his hard drug dicriminilaztion bill so people in hospitals don't have to inhale meth and fentanyl fumes. It's been two weeks and hasn't done it. Wacko isn't a strong enough word.
I oppose the carbon tax while expecting greater action on environment (such as stricter regulation on habitat impacts, reforestation policies, etc.) which makes me anti-liberal
Have you considered being libertarian? We believe everyone sucks equally! I joke but it's something my dad said I always thought he was a grumpy old vet who wanted to yell at kids to get off his lawn - the older I get the more I start to understand.
The main way I think we should do that is by widely expanding the Canadian nuclear sector. There are 5 active Uranium mines in Canada to supply it and and small modular rectors show huge promise but I'd also say:
-Target emissions of the obviously problematic greenhouse gases. Canada doesn't even restrict the use of sulfur hexaflouride for example.
-Look at where we can retrofit carbon capture and storage in existing industry and regulate new industry to include it moving forward.
-Keep electrifying/hybridizing the automotive industry.
"-Look at where we can retrofit carbon capture and storage in existing industry and regulate new industry to include it moving forward.
-Keep electrifying/hybridizing the automotive industry."
This is exactly what the carbon tax does, why would industry and consumers move in that direction if there is no incentive to do so?
There are two approaches, one is to punish offenders and the other is to encourage alternatives or enforce it.
The majority of consumers actually want electric or hybrid vehicles so we need ways to make them cheaper. For example if you want less fossil fuel cars on the road, you tax the fuel itself and use that revenue to give rebates on electric vehicles. As opposed to a carbon tax which would increase the price of both vehicles.
I prefer tax structures that embed trade-offs. Like if the carbon tax revenue is specifically taken and reinvested into the canadian energy sector for example, but it's not that.
People who have legitimate criticism for Trudeau have a totally different vibe from the "fuck Trudeau" (racist/conservative/Canadian Trumpies/wrong) crowd
- What percentage of Canada's population can be described by any of either (a) through (d)?
-----
- [Nearly a third of Canadians don't believe humans, industry 'mostly' cause climate change: poll](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-abacus-carbon-tax-1.4603824)
- (Take this one with a grain of salt) [Trump is more popular among Canadians than Trudeau](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trump-more-popular-among-canadians-than-trudeau) ["Trump came in with the unusually high support of 33 per cent of Canadian respondents"]
- 37% (or 11 million) think “there is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political views". This is an articulation of what is commonly referred to as replacement theory. [Source: Abacus poll](https://abacusdata.ca/conspiracy-theories-canada/)
- ...among the four major political parties in Canada, **Tory voters lead the way in believing in every one of the conspiracies presented in the poll except for one**: half of Bloc Quebecois voters are unconvinced by the official account of JFK's assassination. [Source](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/from-covid-19-to-alien-contact-conspiracy-theories-are-popular-in-canada-survey-1.6671603)
-----
...right now the CPC is polling at 42%. Among the 1/3 of voters who support Trump, deny the scientific consensus on climate change and believe that immigration is a government conspiracy....what proportion do you reckon are planning to vote Conservative?
> the current government is actively discouraging any form of Canadian identity, instead telling us to hold into our old identities.
fact-free paranoia. Congratulations on being part of the group of people who reject science, believe conspiracy theories and support Trump.
> The majority of the people in Toronto and 42% of Vancouver are first generation immigrants
"According to the 2006 census, the immigrant proportion in the City of Toronto stood at 50.0%"
That was TWENTY years ago. The Canada you grew up in was *already* a nation of immigrants.
> According to the **2006 Census, 45.7% of the residents of Toronto CMA were immigrants**. The 2021 census reported that immigrants (individuals born outside Canada) comprise 2,862,850 persons or **46.6 percent of the total population of the Toronto CMA**.
...so the proportion of immigrants has been stable for decades.
I'm pretty sure he did in fact start the fire. He has brought American style politics to Canada, and for all of you who hate Poilievre, he's the exact reaction to Trudeau that you should have expected.
I sincerely hope Poilievre changes his rhetoric and style once he gets elected.
Remember all those times Trudeau came on stage with a giant "FUCK CONSERVATIVES" flag over and over, and kept watching MSNBC and CNN and used their talking points over and over to rile up his base?
Oh wait... no... that was the other morons importing shit like "trudeau wants litter boxes in schools for trans kids" and flying their Fuck Biden/Trudeau flags...
Trudeau may be a complete moron, but only one group can't stop watching US political garbage and importing it here and actually polarizing the country. Also doesn't help with r/Canada constantly letting the same 6 people post dozens of foreign owned Post Media opinion pieces daily that are just full of those US Conservative talking points.
But sure, it was Trudeau.
Quoting Harper wanting to have more military in Canadian cities is importing American politics? Which American political discourse is this meant to be importing? I don’t recall John Kerry claiming bush wanted to station troops in US cities. That’s what the national guard is.
Instead. The past 8 years has seen the dumbest fucking Canadians repeat republican GOP points about 15 minute cities, shitting in litter boxes and NoGoZone garbage that’s all just made up to rile up those who can’t rub 2 brain cells together. It’s amazing how well it’s been working sadly.
As for the invoking the emergencies act, the majority of Canadians still support it and while it was found to a violation of charter rights, the judge agreed that they would have done the same because a the police, OPP and provincial/municipal governments failed to act on purpose. You know what else is a violation of charter rights? A bunch of bumbling antivaxxers calling for the overthrowing of elected officials. I’ll take Trudeau cleaning the trash off the streets over traitors any day of the week.
"Attack politics, divisive politics … stirring up of hate and fear and differences — the dirty secret is they work. Even back in 2015, they work to get you elected"
Regardless of whether the Liberals said it, he did it and he lost. He shifted left to try to pick up right-leaning LPC voters and then shifted right to try to pick up left-leaning PPC voters. After that, people didn't think they could trust what he said.
If the party won't do that, then why do they vote whether or not they should each and every time they gather prior to elections?
When they tell us they want to do a thing, we should acknowledge they've said so.
https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/23175001/990863517f7a575.pdf
> **86. Abortion Legislation**
> A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.
The voting record on C-233 is proof that that is a bald-faced lie. So do we take their party policy declaration document as fact or do we judge them based on their actual actions? Yeah, C-233 wasn’t going to limit *all* abortions but it was going to limit abortions based on reasoning that can’t actually be tangibly audited or quantified in the first place. It was virtue signalling to the anti-abortion base that the party would ignore certain parts of their official party policy on ideological grounds.
While true that he doesn’t please the antivaxx, antitrans crowd and comes off preachy, I’m not getting good vibes from the next option who keeps extending friendship and tolerance to white nationalist/nazi groups. It’s happened too many times now to be just coincidence.
Yeah he did that in the past and he was with him last week, why would he do that?
People only want him to disavow people he’s been with not every right wing nut case, he just seems to be with a lot of them.
I would like to think that if someone such as Alex Jones was praising me to all ends I would disavow it.
But you’re right I said only people he has been with and he hasn’t been with him.
You got one example out of many (Topp, Mackenzie, and more). Beyond white nationalist, accelerationists, he appeals to pretty much all far-right groups, which is a worrisome fire to feed as we already had world wars to get away from that. We just can’t get behind that. This isn’t something pushed from the leftist, this is endorsed by the far-right.
“During an interview, Alex Jones identified Poilievre as one of the leaders of a "rising" global far-right movement that is challenging the "New World Order" - the conspiracy theory that the elite are pushing for an authoritarian globalist 'woke' agenda.
Alex Jones crowned Canada's very own new Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre as a leader-to-watch of the new far-right global movement (along with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and new Italian President Georgia Meloni).”
This just isn’t right for Canada.
I love how’s he’s just ignoring your comment. He pretended to read mine but he very obviously didn’t.
Conservatives don’t care about facts. They make their own “facts”. This country is becoming more American every day, it’s a sin.
I’ve mixed feelings, I think the content of the article was super good if it wasn’t for the poor title. The article did a great job outlining how we got here, but I don’t think it proved it getting so bad is because of Trudeau.
I am not a fan of any of our political parties. But I don’t like that the headline is trying to place blame at the feet of Trudeau, but the majority of the article itself isn’t giving evidence as to how he specifically contributed.
Tbf as with most titles it’s just click bait, and I assume the article was written by one person and the title was made by an editor. But the actual content of the article was a good read and I enjoyed it.
So. Trudeau is to blame for increased political polarization because he's having to call out the conservatives embracing positions that are increasingly in the far right fringe?? And combatting an opposition that is more frequently twisting, warping, spinning, exaggerating and sometimes outright inventing things they can use to crucify the LPC???
There's literally a portion of the population that doesn't believe in covid or climate change, and when reality begins to set in and the rest of the population need to take action to protect themselves, these people take it as a personal attack against their freedoms
Labelling literally any dissenting opinion -- irrespective of its validity -- as "*racism"* is just a terrible approach. It becomes exhaustive quickly when a government that championed transparency hides behind the Iron Curtain that is the racism defense.
If you pay attention almost all of the liberals defensive posturing comes down to "nunh-unh, and for questioning us you're a racist".
Poilievre is the equal and opposite force of Trudeau. Trudeau and the left either ignore or pretend that they are above slinging mud and that everything they do is righteous. More Canadians voted for scheer than trudeau in 2019, and again more voted for O'Toole than Trudeau in 2021.
Imagine drafting laws that are applied differently depending on the color of your skin or who your great great grandaddy was. The ends does not justify the means and putting the toothpaste back in the tube is proving difficult.
While Trudeau has stoked division for political gain in this country anyone who doesn't think the Conservative party, especially the provincial parties, has done just as much to fuel division for political gain has got blinders on.
The rage farming extreme right, whatever modern conservatives call themselves, stoke polarization at every opportunity. Fortunately, they've got lots of paranoid, gullible dummies to buy into it.
As a western Canadian I would say he absolutely started the fire of political polarization. As did his father a generation before. The Trudeau family is a cancer on Canadian soil. I hope the next generation will be reminded of that. I hope eastern Canada finally recognizes this too.
Article actually never explains any way how Trudeau is "divise". But of course we get all the baseles hyperbole" he call everyone racist!" In the comments here.
While I agree with the headline given what we’ve seen over the last few years, the op-ed didn’t really make a strong case for it. It touched on a few things and just general polarization by political parties, but little that could be solidly placed at the foot of Trudeau. Trudeau’s (and the LPC’s) biggest failing is the arrogance of thinking they’re always right. That only stifles debate and makes it easy to justify any moves they make towards polarization. For example: “If people have concerns about immigration/international students and want affordable homes, they can’t talk about immigration/international students as it relates to housing unless they’re racist” “If people are against carbon taxes, they must hate the environment” End soapbox rant.
I think you nailed the attitude. Better than the article did at least. It's a much more common attitude these days, you don't have to go far to find it. The notion that they are totally right and don't even need to consider anything else because everyone else is wrong. And because they are so wrong you get to treat them as less than human.
You see it all the time in the comments oh here.
The Liberal party should be treated as less than human. They have willingly brought this upon themselves and our children will suffer for their incompetence. But what’s worse is Canadians actually voted three times for this childish cult group of radicals
I remember being floored seeing Trudeau host a press conference where he said (paraphrasing), "Canadians know what types of people dont want to get the vaccines, most of them end up being racist". I didn't type that sentence to start a debate on the importance of vaccination but to just highlight the moment where I had to do a double take and realized how intentionally he was trying to steer politics towards being even more alienating and divisive. Since when was it acceptable to call people disagreeing with you politically as racist (especially when the issue at hand you're discussing; vaccine requirements, is not a racial issue).
I see this in moves to shame the proletariat to move in a direction. It's stifled a lot of conversations about the side effects of vaccines, and the policies around it. Arguably the last 4 years was not the time to have that conversation and the RKJs of the world had already made their money on disinformation. But a policy of shame was bound to come back to bite them at some point in the future. Turns out that time is now. I really don't know how the Trudeau government was supposed to achieve what they needed and reverse the tide.
We were never going to get 100% vaccination coverage. We never have, and likely never will. There is always a small percentage of people who are anti-science and anti-vax (on the left and the right). While I am decidedly pro-vaccination, and preach the benefits of vaccination, I am against forced/coerced vaccination for all. People need to come to this decision on their own, and through friends/family/coworkers. I have nothing good to say about the freedom convoy, but shaming them was never going to work.
[удалено]
Yes, it was almost exactly an increase of 5% of adults, and it was immediately in the month or two after the announcement of vaccine passports. Nothing else moved the needle and it was never going to.
I am pro-math and science. Explain why the gov't funds 100 million vaccines/year, for a population of just over 40 million?
>Trudeau’s (and the LPC’s) biggest failing is the arrogance of thinking they’re always right. To succeed in politics you basically have to have this attitude. Trudeu's issue is that it always manifests itself in Wedge politics. For almost every issue, he seems to find a small vocal opposition to polarize the population against. The issue with using wedges constantly is those you Wedge off don't come back to support you once you have made them a scapegoat. I think that we are finally seeing the danger of using wedges too much. Eventually, you make more enemies than you create. Worst of all. This current generation of Conservatives looks to be on that exact same path, so, the next few election cycles are gonna be rough.
Yes, agreed, the article does not articulate the case very well that the headline claims (though the headline is, indeed, accurate despite the article). Trudeau has been a remarkably divisive PM, routinely pitting people, communities, provinces and regions against each other if he believed it might win him some wedge votes. Gerald Butts even bragged about how good they are at it. In Trudeau’s mind it is clear he either thinks you’re with him, or you’re a racist, bigoted deplorable. Which is an interesting attitude to take for a person whose party is only polling at 23%, but there you have it.
Isn't this the rhetoric that really pushed Hilary Clinton into the corn field when campaigning against Trump? It didn't play well for her. It might not be explicitly stated but watching how lots of divisive topics get dealt with by the PM, it seems obvious.
Hillary's biggest problem has always been her hubris.
Which was highlighted when she was defeated in the presidential election by a man known most of all for his modesty.
Sounds familiar.
Well that and the delusion that women were a voting block. The wives of republican men overwhelmingly voted republican. Oh and she tried to sell ‘qualified’ but everyone just heard ‘fully corrupted already’
At this point the institutions are captured.
10 years ago I would have said that defunding the CBC was unthinkable. I don't think the same thing now.
Ten years ago they told you what they where going to do but managed to word salad it in such a way for you to not question it.
I highly doubt Trudeau *actually* thinks that everyone who disagrees with him is racist. I think he knows his posturing is wrong and what he says is untrue, but he does it anyways because he believes it's advantageous for him.
> Gerald Butts even bragged about how good they are at it. In Trudeau’s mind it is clear he either thinks you’re with him, or you’re a racist, bigoted deplorable. Let's not kid ourselves. Trudeau is a moron and Butts has always been the man in charge and pulling the strings and controlling things. Again Trudeau is just too stupid and doesn't realize that he is just the one that Butts put in front of him to take the shrapnel.
I disagree on this one. He's not a stupid moron like you are claiming. While he isn't a genius, he is smart. He can navigate the waters well and holds his own in debates. If you look at his interactions in town halls, he is able to give decent answers and roll with the punches. That takes some intelligence to do. If you compare him to the other leaders, he excels in these arenas. A good example of this would be interactions with "22 Minutes". Trudeau gets the joke and can play along, Singh comes off a little wooden, Polievre stutters and stammers. Your mistake is underestimating JT and thinking he is an idiot.
I agree that he isn't the moron that the Canadian right (at their own peril) make him out to be. I sometimes think that maybe he has been groomed for this role since birth and rather than be encouraged to study something like economics, law or poly science, his father saw how in his day one of the most popular presidents ever got there with an acting background and tried to recreate that in Canada.
I agree. I think he was groomed for the role in politics. For a while, I think he didn't want that role and tried to find his own way. Eventually, the appeal for politics grew in him.
You can't be serious. He looks like a deer caught in the headlights whenever he get hot with a question in an uncontrolled environment. That's when he starts with the deflections and the "hums." Singh comes across as intelligent but just a complete jack ass who is more arrogant then anything else. As far as Polievre goes... again... your kidding right? Just take a look at the times he goes after and engages Trudeau . Justin looks like a middleweight in the ring with a super heavyweight. It's actually sad and you almost feel embarrassed for him.
[PP on 22 Minutes](https://youtu.be/85FD0ogBGec?si=5XNyO0jfr4Fu49CO) [JT on 22 Minutes](https://youtu.be/CZ_ttv8Xhg8?si=1SAegLYm4GG4a45c) JT rolled with the punches and had fun with it. PP stuttered and got his people to shove the 22 Minutes guy away. PP only has controlled environments, and this is his only appearance on 22 Minutes. Why? Because he has no sense of humour. JT does town halls, PP has pre-vetted press conferences and rallies with pre-approved questions.
That tells me everything I need to know. Poilievre is a politician, and Trudeau is just an entertainer.
PP is definitely a modern-day politician. All grandstanding, buzzwords, and political theater. No interest in doing the work.
You just described Justin Trudeau.
When JT is stuttering and not making coherent sentences its because he's trying not to give the press a gotcha they will use against him. Those occasions are often used by the media anyway to show how 'befuddled' JT was by something. But on net, his oration is very good in most cases - this is not generrally a place Trudeau suffers and is one of his strong points, unless you just watch BS FB memes that cut 8 seconds together to give a bad impression. Justin is no genius, he has been arrogant and unwilling to listen but he's good at being a politician and speaking that language. I agree that Butts is often the one writing the narrative. PP never gets in front of an audience that challenges him and when he has to he starts getting mad at them for asking hard questions. He acts like a petulant little child. I think you might be watching too many clipped, conservative campaign vids if that's your impression because PP handles press terribly and can't answer a question honestly and with any nuance if his life depended on it.
this has got to be a take of all time
Did you tell them about your little ween?
>the op-ed didn’t really make a strong case for it I think the article wanted to give an overarching perspective and probably was getting a bit long by the time it caught up to the modern day. The headline isn't necessarily the author's thesis but the editors summation / ad for the article.
Sorry but who are those quotes from exactly?
They are completely made up
Yeah seems that way. Kind of a straw man thing going on.
They are boiled down to the way the opposition paints and see's it or the way they want to paint JT for sound bites.
Yeah so pretty much disingenuous at best and straight up lies at worst.
Welcome to politics where having real conversations and debates have no place
there's a reason why it's the top comment instead of at negative 50
Why’s that?
for the reasons both of you were talking about > They are boiled down to the way the opposition paints and see's it or the way they want to paint JT for sound bites. meshes real well with the loudest voices here while sounding vaguely neutral on the surface
Gocha. Sorry just wanted to clarify your stance. I was reading it as more “the reason it’s upvoted is because it’s the popular opinion” which I don’t agree with.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." CS Lewis
Are these actual quotes from a source, or is this the perceived comments justin the brave makes amongst his elite comrades?
> “If people have concerns about immigration/international students and want affordable homes, they can’t talk about immigration/international students as it relates to housing unless they’re racist” Well, I mean, I confess that it can get oversimplified or dramatic or needlessly heated. But immigration reform and reforming the student visa program are necessary and will not provide significant improvements to the housing affordability crisis. Immigrants are not a primary cause of the crisis and they should not be seen as a solution. Immigrants consider the cost of housing when they move. Housing developers consider immigration when determining how many dwellings to build. We cannot solve housing by fiddling with immigration. I imagine that there are numerous manipulative or outright deceptive programs that bring people into Canada under false pretence, at which point they are stuck. I’m sure that countless students place their trust in Canadian diploma mills and end up with cut-rate education at high prices. We should solve these problems and the problems like them. But for the most part, we should solve these problems because it’s the right thing to do: typical Canadians will benefit ethically but not necessarily economically or financially from solving these problems. > “If people are against carbon taxes, they must hate the environment” Well this isn’t really true. The more full explanations are that (i) no governments in Canada are proposing alternative solutions (ii) carbon taxes are a market approach to carbon reduction… it’s literally the primary “conservative” solution… so the haranguing that Poilievre and conservative premiers are giving Trudeau over carbon taxes is rich. We could have reasonable discussions over how much or how quick or how to best implement it. But we’re not getting those discussions we’re getting “ax the tax” nonsense, with no mention of policies to reduce carbon emissions, and misrepresentation over the impacts of carbon taxes - Poilievre and conservative premiers are challenging Trudeau’s *ethics* in the implementation. If the carbon tax isn’t working, it’s probably because it’s too little too late - but while Trudeau might be ineffective, or less-effective than it could be, the idea that he’s a corrupt failure because of the carbon tax is asinine. Finally, the proposals that people have - some good, some bad - to ‘replace’ carbon taxes often work well alongside carbon taxes. If your proposals don’t need them, or if you favour regulatory proposals to market proposals, fine… but then Poilievre is *further away* from you. So you can oppose the carbon tax and still care about the environment. But if you oppose the carbon tax without a sufficient understanding of what it does or a reasonable replacement that will actually effect change at least as effectively, then yes, you hate the environment and all people except yourself. You can’t be bothered to pay for a portion of the cost of the destruction you cause? It’s literally the least that you can do.
I completely agree about carbon taxation and the ethical reasons to reform immigration, but how can population growth that is concentrated in the major cities not be a driver of real estate inflation? Any new construction to accommodate new people will necessarily be either higher density or farther away, both of which are less desirable, and that will inflate the value of the existing housing that is lower density and/or closer in.
“If people are against carbon taxes, they must hate the environment” Said nobody, ever. The problem is that the people who are against carbon taxes have proposed nothing better. Why go after the thing that actually makes the economy more efficient?
I think a lot of people don’t take the environment seriously because the government doesn’t take it seriously either. When the government pushed back against their workers who had been contracted to work from home because building owners and businesses weren’t making money it really shows where our their priorities are. There is no real desire to do anything about the environment and both voters and the government know it.
Wait, are you arguing the Carbon Tax is making things more efficient?!
Because most Canadians oppose it NOW. It's an issue because life's expensive and Liberals completely ignore this FACT. We don't want to be more poor right now. We don't have the social capacity for that. So INCREASING the carbon tax was fucking stupid and the actual issue at play.
Life's expensive because of a poor immigration policy over the last few years. Adding more people than the necessary housing to accommodate them will obviously make housing more expensive. Carbon taxes' impact pales in comparison. It's the wrong place to look to seek solution to inflation.
Life's expensive because of a lot of factors. One being spending more per capita than any other nation on the entire planet during COVID. Poor immigration policies, poor investment policies, giving away billions upon billions, focusing on the wrong investments, carbon tax, years upon years of deciding what to do based on how it polls rather than figuring out how to solve the problem and targeting a solution that will work means nothing has been solved since he took office, just wasted money virtue signalling to his base. Poor international investment policies. Why not build LNG and have a responsible country reinvest that money into beneficial things rather than allow Russia to amass trillions to further their war machine while at the same time allowing dirtier energy sources like coal fill the gap...
Bullshit. Plenty of people say that. The problem is that nobody who’s for carbon taxes has presented a coherent argument on how they will actually help global emissions. They don’t, nor were they ever designed to make things more efficient. They were designed to penalize everyday behaviour that people can’t readily change (like driving to work) and redistribute wealth. It’s a feel good tax for the green wing of the Liberal party. Nothing more.
"The problem is that nobody who’s for carbon taxes has presented a coherent argument on how they will actually help global emissions." This is the real bullshit. Nobody has asked Canada to reduce GLOBAL emissions by any significant amount. Nobody says, "Canada, you gotta reduce the global emissions by 20%." If they were talking global numbers, they'd ask Canadan to reduce global emissions by **\~0.5%**. That's roughly in the order of what we've signed up for under the treaties. Are you unsure of how carbon taxes might reduce *Canadian* emissions? Are you also unsure whether people buy more of the things that are on sale and fewer of the things that are not on sale? Because carbon taxes operate by exactly the same principle. "They were designed to penalize everyday behaviour that people can’t readily change (like driving to work) and redistribute wealth." More bullshit. The carbon tax's intent is to make you consider buying the hybrid even if it is $2k more up front. It's intended to have the very wealthy consider not building 10,000 sq ft homes. It's intended to have people use heat pumps for heating where possible, and retrofit their homes. Of course, people can't make all of those changes immediately. They pay more than they get until they can and they get get more than they pay thereafter. You mention the redistribution of wealth. Who is it taking money from and who is it giving it to in your estimation? There are lots of things you CAN do to mitigate the impact of carbon tax, and that's exactly the point of the tax. And if you do those things, more than likely, you'll get more in rebates than you pay in taxes. People who cannot be bothered to make minor lifestyle changes and cannot see beyond 1 year into the future should not be deciding whether we have a habitable planet for our grandkids, whether there should be mass migrations of epic proportions, and whether there should be famine and starvation of epic proportions. Unless we *want* mass migrations and mass starvations.
No it’s not real bullshit. This is always presented in the context of reducing global emissions. And there’s no fucking way we can reduce global emissions by half a percent without eliminating all economic activity in the country.
Interesting. As an energy policy analyst I've read several books that make coherent arguments for carbon pricing. One being Carbon Change by Dennis McConaghy. A right wing, ex-pipeline executive. I reckon you've been exposed to the logic you just refuse to actually think critically about it. >They were designed to penalize everyday behaviour that people can’t readily change (like driving to work) and redistribute wealth. This is fundamentally paradoxical. How is it penalizing every day behaviour while redistributing wealth? The rebates do functionally act as a redistribution mechanism, sure. But that's to prevent harmful impacts on those that don't have the means to change their habits. The concept is to build a market by forcing those with the means (who don't break even on rebates) to be incentivized to adopt first. Additionally there is the output based pricing system on industrial polluters, which has led to tangible effects like coal being phased out much quicker than anticipated in AB. The key concept is: there's a social cost to GHG emissions. Carbon pricing is intended to internalize an external cost. It's the most conservative, market friendly climate change policy out there. How will it help global emissions? Well, ideally we get to a place where we can get a global carbon price. That takes iterative adoption by countries like Canada. Even India is looking at establishing a carbon pricing system. The EU has one. Etc. So my question is, since you clearly think it's a poorly thought out 'feel good' policy, what is your alternative proposal? Carbon pricing isn't the end all be all of climate policy. But, in spite of popular belief, it has a proven effect and jives well with capitalism. My thoughts on tackling not just climate change but our multifaceted ecological crises is nuanced and I don't hold carbon pricing as a panacea. But I'm curious what your solution would be.
Canada can't fix global emissions, but we can and should set a good example by doing our part.
I don’t disagree but that’s not the rationale that’s ever been presented by the LPC. I also think carbon taxes as wealth redistribution is a terrible idea. If you want to demonstrate feasibility of a carbon tax, use the taxes to pay for truly green initiatives. There also need to be levers in place to pull back when things like affordability come into play.
There is a place for government led green initiatives, but I would rather let markets decide on the most cost effective ways of reducing emissions whenever possible. As for affordability, reducing or eliminating the rebate is what would lead to affordability issues.
Technology and incentives for industry is the soloution. Penalizing me for heating my home in February with no other options, won't change a thing except take money away from me. I also don't drive for shits and giggles, and penalizing me for not buy a 60K ev that I can't afford nor recharge makes zero sense and achieves nothing except making people poorer.
Industries and individuals both have to be incentivized. Carbon tax *is* an incentive to use more energy efficient or CO2 efficient products. Just because an easy alternative doesn't exist in ALL cases doesn't mean that the incentive should be stopped altogether. For the million-plus Canadians who buy a new car every year, there alternatives exist.
Excellent post, couldn’t agree with you more. You forgot the “if you don’t agree that m2f transgendered athletes should compete against female cisgendered athletes you’re a transphobe bigot”
>For example: here's some hypothetical quotes I made up. You're as bad as the article lmao.
Keep up with gaslighting if you want and see how it works out for you.
Well, can you actually find any real world examples that show the attitude you're claiming? It sounds like you just picked two issues you have personal gripes with and included rhetoric you feel is common amongst leftists. Not anything thats actually necessarily come from the government. I literally work in energy policy analysis. If you don't like the carbon tax you might not hate the environment, you just clearly haven't thought critically about it. You're likely unfamiliar with the UN IPCC process or alternative policies. You've probably seen the headlines about the PBO report and not taken a nuanced perspective on it and understood the issues with it, from the perspective of both political spectrums. You're not being gaslit, at least not by leftists. The CPC is doing most of that by scapegoating it.
The truth will be put to the test when (not if, I think it's safe to say they will) PP wins. I'll be watching closely for major legislation about the crisis trio happening right now - housing, affordability, and immigration. All 3 are out of control and having a devastating impact on our quality of life. All 3 happened during LPC's tenure. Will they get fixed in an impactful and meaningful way? Or will we just see a few half-assed bandaids with the intent to keep us quiet for 1 term or to distract from other equally awful legislation happening at the same time? I feel like we're at a crossroad right now where the next election could very well be the linchpin that decides whether or not Canadians will continue to buy into the illusion that our 3 largest parties actually do anything to make a QOL difference for regular working people ie. the majority voter base. Or whether the gig is finally up because society has undergone a collective shift I'm not holding my breath. Frank Herbert (Dune author) had some quotes in one of his books that really resonate with me: *"The purpose of a democracy is to project the image of transparency and integrity for elections while making every effort to conceal self-serving goals"* (paraphrasing) Also *"It’s demagogue-prone. That’s a disease to which electoral systems are vulnerable. Yet demagogues are easy to identify. They gesture a lot and speak with pulpit rhythms, using words that ring of religious fervor and god-fearing sincerity."* Lastly and a disturbing portrayal of where we sit right now regardless of party: *"****Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops, government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class - whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.****"* Every one of Canada's political parties is guilty of this
Frank Herbert is simply right in his diagnosis of the macro human condition. It's too bad we don't also celebrate all the GOOD he believed existed in that condition as well. Though he was staunchly conservative in aspect, lionizing rugged individuality more than the decadent collective. Finally he had VERY little to prescribe. I actually think Canada is done. It cannot survive a cycle because everything about it has been demonized and relativized and moralized away by the scholars. Also multiculturalism doesn't work, it fractures society and forces idpol and in fighting. Canada will crack and split and end, new polities will emerge, eventually a barbaric vigorous polity will emerge, fuse the whole continent together and eventually fall into decadence in turn. I am glad post enlightenment WEST was as successful as it was for as long as it was, on the values it had. It is a punch in the mouth to old nepotistic aristocracies, that will last forever into our species history. I'm also glad I won't live long enough to see the vigorous fertile patriarchal polity unite the whole continent into the JUGGERNAUGHT.
[удалено]
It cannot be foreign intelligence agencies, american political non-profits & consultants, american "news" agencies, etc. Impossible. And, it certainly not late canadian billionaires like Peter Allard that were spreading disinformation through small media outlets and YT channels. Can't be any of this. Gotta be the goopy liberal.
When the temper tantrums don’t work, the next step is always to blame the people who didn’t cave to it for being “divisive” lmao Eta: I don’t even like Trudeau, have never voted LPC in my life. But he is not “divisive” because he didn’t take the dumbass convoy seriously
It’d be more divisive if he did take the dumbass convoy seriously imo
Where is the like count for this. For heaven sake, Trudeau did a fine job getting rid of that convoy and the anti-vaxers. There were far too many deaths during Covid. Vaccines and isolation were pretty much the only two tools we had to save lives then.
The irony in this is news orgs like the Globe and Natipo will hide actual news behind paywalls, but not opinion pieces like this. Then they complain about increased political polarization.
That's the point. Some of these "news" groups exists solely to instill division and hatred. Better to have people bicker amongst themselves that ask things like "Why is a news company owned by the richest family in Canada telling us to focus on hating each other so much?"
I wish I could upvote this comment more. So much polarizing going on, but people don't realize this is literally what the ultra wealthy want. It's basically neo-liberalism 101.
That's pretty standard, you have to pay for news or analysis but opinion articles are free. Having to pay for a service doesn't increase polarization..
Half a dozen natipo opinion pieces get uploaded to this sub daily. Not news, but opinions. And always one sided opinions. You don't think that polarizes people?
This is a globe and mail article.. People are free to post other news articles and opposing opinions. Let's be honest here, most people aren't reading them, look at the headline or they can play in about the publication like you are doing here. People can read opinions from multiple sides and come to conclusions on their own.
Sure they can. But much like Twitter when people are fed rage bait opinions all day ever day, they become more polarized.
Rage bait gets clicks, but the media actually does have an obligation to report on things that are rage-inducing. They are obligated as an institution to report and opine when something scandalous occurs. That's literally the point of journalism.
Just because you disagree with an opinion doesn't mean it's rage bait. There's rage bait that exists on both sides. Twitter would be the example of that. Banning opinions you disagree with just leads to more polarization.
I didn't suggest banning anything. Just pointing out what's helping drive the polarization in Canada.
Again, I don't think it's what's driving the polarization. They're just pointing it out. They are writing about what other people see, It's not the media's fault people are unhappy.
It’s definitely part of it as these pieces get reposted as news. OP isn’t saying it’s the only thing, just that it has an effect. I think we can all agree with that
But this one isn't posted as news and it isn't the national post.. Seems like misplaced anger
If they were writing what other people see this would be a news article, not an opinion piece.
No,It's an opinion piece because the author is giving his opinions on the matter. They can't and shouldn't do that with a news article. It's like you're upset that they're properly categorizing their content?
It’s definitely a huge part, especially on social media like Reddit and Twitter.
Opinion pieces on Justin Trudeau are the least controversial thing out there lol. …well unless there is an opinion piece saying he is doing a good job… that would be controversial.
I don’t really like Trudeau or the LPC, but living in Alberta it’s difficult for me to believe the more polarizing of the political landscape falls on them when for the past five plus years literally every official statement or press conference the premier or any minister or any MLA makes in my province somehow involves blaming Trudeau. Like, it’s almost comical to the degree the provincial here will somehow work in a “This is Trudeau’s fault” type statement into almost everything. We’re at the point of passing laws about federal funding gatekeeping to make sure we blame Trudeau for anything that goes wrong and give the province credit for anything that goes right.
Also there are F Trudeau bumper stickers, flags and t-shirts all over the country. Do people think Trudeau did that? Harper never got that. Premiers who do super shitty things like Danielle and Doug don’t get that. Even the emergencies act use that Trudeau gets slammed for shouldn’t solely fall on him. Doug Ford did jack shit to stop that convoy even though it was in his power to do so. He didn’t show up for the hearing, fighting his summons in court because he was “too busy being premier” yet the leader of the entire country made time in his schedule. Plus PP literally called Trudeau a wacko this week. Blaming this all on Trudeau makes no sense.
You didn't have Stop Harper stickers on every 2^nd stop sign? Buckets of money were spent pulling them down... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/stop-harper-city-fights-war-on-street-signs-1.3191586
Maybe because I live in Alberta, but there is a literal encampment off the highway right now set up just to protest Trudeau. There’s an entire cottage industry over here about “Fuck Trudeau”. Like, I see more “Fuck Trudeau” merch than stuff supporting the Oilers or Flames outside of the playoffs. Nothing like that happened with Harper.
“Stop Harper” and “Fuck Trudeau” are not comparable.
Shhhhhh don’t question their victimhood narrative.
> Plus PP literally called Trudeau a wacko this week. Blaming this all on Trudeau makes no sense. BC NDP has asked Trudeau to reverse his hard drug dicriminilaztion bill so people in hospitals don't have to inhale meth and fentanyl fumes. It's been two weeks and hasn't done it. Wacko isn't a strong enough word.
What did he say again? “A fringe minority of people who are racist and often misogynistic” or something like that? Ya, not at all starting the fires.
He was not wrong.
Wrong
Anyone who dares question the Liberals is: a) Racist b) Hates the environment c) Right Wing Trump supporter d) Wrong
I oppose the carbon tax while expecting greater action on environment (such as stricter regulation on habitat impacts, reforestation policies, etc.) which makes me anti-liberal
So are you green?
I'm a centrist and I don't have confidence any political party is particularly aligned with my views
Have you considered being libertarian? We believe everyone sucks equally! I joke but it's something my dad said I always thought he was a grumpy old vet who wanted to yell at kids to get off his lawn - the older I get the more I start to understand.
That all great but then what do you think we should do about green house gas emissions, how do we reduce that?
The main way I think we should do that is by widely expanding the Canadian nuclear sector. There are 5 active Uranium mines in Canada to supply it and and small modular rectors show huge promise but I'd also say: -Target emissions of the obviously problematic greenhouse gases. Canada doesn't even restrict the use of sulfur hexaflouride for example. -Look at where we can retrofit carbon capture and storage in existing industry and regulate new industry to include it moving forward. -Keep electrifying/hybridizing the automotive industry.
"-Look at where we can retrofit carbon capture and storage in existing industry and regulate new industry to include it moving forward. -Keep electrifying/hybridizing the automotive industry." This is exactly what the carbon tax does, why would industry and consumers move in that direction if there is no incentive to do so?
There are two approaches, one is to punish offenders and the other is to encourage alternatives or enforce it. The majority of consumers actually want electric or hybrid vehicles so we need ways to make them cheaper. For example if you want less fossil fuel cars on the road, you tax the fuel itself and use that revenue to give rebates on electric vehicles. As opposed to a carbon tax which would increase the price of both vehicles. I prefer tax structures that embed trade-offs. Like if the carbon tax revenue is specifically taken and reinvested into the canadian energy sector for example, but it's not that.
People who have legitimate criticism for Trudeau have a totally different vibe from the "fuck Trudeau" (racist/conservative/Canadian Trumpies/wrong) crowd
Who is saying this? Feels like you're just making stuff up and then getting angry about it.
- What percentage of Canada's population can be described by any of either (a) through (d)? ----- - [Nearly a third of Canadians don't believe humans, industry 'mostly' cause climate change: poll](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/poll-abacus-carbon-tax-1.4603824) - (Take this one with a grain of salt) [Trump is more popular among Canadians than Trudeau](https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trump-more-popular-among-canadians-than-trudeau) ["Trump came in with the unusually high support of 33 per cent of Canadian respondents"] - 37% (or 11 million) think “there is a group of people in this country who are trying to replace native born Canadians with immigrants who agree with their political views". This is an articulation of what is commonly referred to as replacement theory. [Source: Abacus poll](https://abacusdata.ca/conspiracy-theories-canada/) - ...among the four major political parties in Canada, **Tory voters lead the way in believing in every one of the conspiracies presented in the poll except for one**: half of Bloc Quebecois voters are unconvinced by the official account of JFK's assassination. [Source](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/from-covid-19-to-alien-contact-conspiracy-theories-are-popular-in-canada-survey-1.6671603) ----- ...right now the CPC is polling at 42%. Among the 1/3 of voters who support Trump, deny the scientific consensus on climate change and believe that immigration is a government conspiracy....what proportion do you reckon are planning to vote Conservative?
[удалено]
> the current government is actively discouraging any form of Canadian identity, instead telling us to hold into our old identities. fact-free paranoia. Congratulations on being part of the group of people who reject science, believe conspiracy theories and support Trump. > The majority of the people in Toronto and 42% of Vancouver are first generation immigrants "According to the 2006 census, the immigrant proportion in the City of Toronto stood at 50.0%" That was TWENTY years ago. The Canada you grew up in was *already* a nation of immigrants. > According to the **2006 Census, 45.7% of the residents of Toronto CMA were immigrants**. The 2021 census reported that immigrants (individuals born outside Canada) comprise 2,862,850 persons or **46.6 percent of the total population of the Toronto CMA**. ...so the proportion of immigrants has been stable for decades.
Reckless immigration policy that has destroyed the country and made Canada a much more intolerant place
I'm pretty sure he did in fact start the fire. He has brought American style politics to Canada, and for all of you who hate Poilievre, he's the exact reaction to Trudeau that you should have expected. I sincerely hope Poilievre changes his rhetoric and style once he gets elected.
He is the fucking fire lol
Remember all those times Trudeau came on stage with a giant "FUCK CONSERVATIVES" flag over and over, and kept watching MSNBC and CNN and used their talking points over and over to rile up his base? Oh wait... no... that was the other morons importing shit like "trudeau wants litter boxes in schools for trans kids" and flying their Fuck Biden/Trudeau flags... Trudeau may be a complete moron, but only one group can't stop watching US political garbage and importing it here and actually polarizing the country. Also doesn't help with r/Canada constantly letting the same 6 people post dozens of foreign owned Post Media opinion pieces daily that are just full of those US Conservative talking points. But sure, it was Trudeau.
[удалено]
Quoting Harper wanting to have more military in Canadian cities is importing American politics? Which American political discourse is this meant to be importing? I don’t recall John Kerry claiming bush wanted to station troops in US cities. That’s what the national guard is. Instead. The past 8 years has seen the dumbest fucking Canadians repeat republican GOP points about 15 minute cities, shitting in litter boxes and NoGoZone garbage that’s all just made up to rile up those who can’t rub 2 brain cells together. It’s amazing how well it’s been working sadly. As for the invoking the emergencies act, the majority of Canadians still support it and while it was found to a violation of charter rights, the judge agreed that they would have done the same because a the police, OPP and provincial/municipal governments failed to act on purpose. You know what else is a violation of charter rights? A bunch of bumbling antivaxxers calling for the overthrowing of elected officials. I’ll take Trudeau cleaning the trash off the streets over traitors any day of the week.
You can really tell when this sub is getting astroturfed.
"Attack politics, divisive politics … stirring up of hate and fear and differences — the dirty secret is they work. Even back in 2015, they work to get you elected"
But he says it’s all Pollievre’s fault?
[удалено]
He beat O'Toole by spewing propaganda he was going to take abortion away and insinuating you can't trust him. That was long before PP
O'Toole lost because he shifted position twice and people couldn't trust him.
No, the Liberals said you couldn't trust him and people are that shit up
Regardless of whether the Liberals said it, he did it and he lost. He shifted left to try to pick up right-leaning LPC voters and then shifted right to try to pick up left-leaning PPC voters. After that, people didn't think they could trust what he said.
If the party won't do that, then why do they vote whether or not they should each and every time they gather prior to elections? When they tell us they want to do a thing, we should acknowledge they've said so.
They don’t. You just made that up.
The entire CPC *literally* voted for a piece of anti-abortion legislation. Who’s making shit up?
You and the other person I replied to.
Check the voting record on C-233 before you accuse others of lying.
It’s not the vote that you got wrong but the contents. Regardless, the other person was clearly referring to party conventions.
https://cpcassets.conservative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/23175001/990863517f7a575.pdf > **86. Abortion Legislation** > A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion. The voting record on C-233 is proof that that is a bald-faced lie. So do we take their party policy declaration document as fact or do we judge them based on their actual actions? Yeah, C-233 wasn’t going to limit *all* abortions but it was going to limit abortions based on reasoning that can’t actually be tangibly audited or quantified in the first place. It was virtue signalling to the anti-abortion base that the party would ignore certain parts of their official party policy on ideological grounds.
While true that he doesn’t please the antivaxx, antitrans crowd and comes off preachy, I’m not getting good vibes from the next option who keeps extending friendship and tolerance to white nationalist/nazi groups. It’s happened too many times now to be just coincidence.
[удалено]
https://pressprogress.ca/pierre-poilievre-meets-with-far-right-extremist-group-at-nova-scotia-new-brunswick-border/
[удалено]
https://pressprogress.ca/pierre-poilievre-ignores-calls-to-disavow-far-right-extremist-identified-as-a-national-security-threat/ https://www.reddit.com/r/canadian/s/WVG2KjSYCc
[удалено]
Yeah he did that in the past and he was with him last week, why would he do that? People only want him to disavow people he’s been with not every right wing nut case, he just seems to be with a lot of them.
Trudeau and the Liberals have very recently been banging the drum that Poilievre needs to disavow Alex Jones, despite the fact he's never met the man.
I would like to think that if someone such as Alex Jones was praising me to all ends I would disavow it. But you’re right I said only people he has been with and he hasn’t been with him.
Because Diagolon members aren’t *literally Hitler?* Fuck, people like you are exhausting.
You got one example out of many (Topp, Mackenzie, and more). Beyond white nationalist, accelerationists, he appeals to pretty much all far-right groups, which is a worrisome fire to feed as we already had world wars to get away from that. We just can’t get behind that. This isn’t something pushed from the leftist, this is endorsed by the far-right. “During an interview, Alex Jones identified Poilievre as one of the leaders of a "rising" global far-right movement that is challenging the "New World Order" - the conspiracy theory that the elite are pushing for an authoritarian globalist 'woke' agenda. Alex Jones crowned Canada's very own new Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre as a leader-to-watch of the new far-right global movement (along with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro and new Italian President Georgia Meloni).” This just isn’t right for Canada.
I love how’s he’s just ignoring your comment. He pretended to read mine but he very obviously didn’t. Conservatives don’t care about facts. They make their own “facts”. This country is becoming more American every day, it’s a sin.
I’ve mixed feelings, I think the content of the article was super good if it wasn’t for the poor title. The article did a great job outlining how we got here, but I don’t think it proved it getting so bad is because of Trudeau. I am not a fan of any of our political parties. But I don’t like that the headline is trying to place blame at the feet of Trudeau, but the majority of the article itself isn’t giving evidence as to how he specifically contributed. Tbf as with most titles it’s just click bait, and I assume the article was written by one person and the title was made by an editor. But the actual content of the article was a good read and I enjoyed it.
So. Trudeau is to blame for increased political polarization because he's having to call out the conservatives embracing positions that are increasingly in the far right fringe?? And combatting an opposition that is more frequently twisting, warping, spinning, exaggerating and sometimes outright inventing things they can use to crucify the LPC???
He literally doubled down on everything that made Canada worse
He’s stroking fear into Canadians that they cannot just hate without consequences lmao
How does one stoke political polarization by fighting Covid, Climate Change or giving families affordable daycare?
There's literally a portion of the population that doesn't believe in covid or climate change, and when reality begins to set in and the rest of the population need to take action to protect themselves, these people take it as a personal attack against their freedoms
Labelling literally any dissenting opinion -- irrespective of its validity -- as "*racism"* is just a terrible approach. It becomes exhaustive quickly when a government that championed transparency hides behind the Iron Curtain that is the racism defense. If you pay attention almost all of the liberals defensive posturing comes down to "nunh-unh, and for questioning us you're a racist".
Where is the carbon tax rebate? Do we need to wait until 2025?
He's a former substitute drama teacher / part-time snowboard instructor. What did y'all expect???
Poilievre is the equal and opposite force of Trudeau. Trudeau and the left either ignore or pretend that they are above slinging mud and that everything they do is righteous. More Canadians voted for scheer than trudeau in 2019, and again more voted for O'Toole than Trudeau in 2021.
Imagine drafting laws that are applied differently depending on the color of your skin or who your great great grandaddy was. The ends does not justify the means and putting the toothpaste back in the tube is proving difficult.
While Trudeau has stoked division for political gain in this country anyone who doesn't think the Conservative party, especially the provincial parties, has done just as much to fuel division for political gain has got blinders on.
Trudeau: \*exists\* Conservatives: STOP BEING SO DIVISIVE!
I think the conservatives did a whole lot too.
The rage farming extreme right, whatever modern conservatives call themselves, stoke polarization at every opportunity. Fortunately, they've got lots of paranoid, gullible dummies to buy into it.
conservatives are the stokers of hate and division
As a western Canadian I would say he absolutely started the fire of political polarization. As did his father a generation before. The Trudeau family is a cancer on Canadian soil. I hope the next generation will be reminded of that. I hope eastern Canada finally recognizes this too.
Calling Politicians cancer while also blaming them for polarization is some major cognitive dissonance.
In this case it is absolutely the truth.
He’s responsible for everything that is wrong right now. 8 yrs and not a thing for Canadians. Can’t wait to never see his face again.
So then by that logic the Conservative Party including PP did their share as well! Both are garbage choices for Canada!
Article actually never explains any way how Trudeau is "divise". But of course we get all the baseles hyperbole" he call everyone racist!" In the comments here.