Canadian Politics Redux

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Whew.
Thank god.
http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/gay-men-will-be-included-among-syrian-refugees-in-addition-to-women-children-families/ar-BBnm7HV?li=AAacUQk&ocid=mailsignout

Is that sarcasm?

Yes, whew. Great for them. Gay men are in real danger in the Middle East.

PJ_Soul

So the 25,000 refugees "deadline" is extended to March 2016. Fine with me. I know the media is treating this as a Trudeau campaign promise that is not fulfilled because of the thing about the end of 2015. But seriously, does anyone care about a 3 month difference unless they are looking for things to criticize just for the sake of criticizing? I know I don't care. I would if it was much longer because I don't think the refugees should continue to suffer like they are while Canada has the resources to help, as long as there is a will to do it. But 3 months difference to get them all here seems fine to me under the circumstances. But I do think the Paris thing probably has at least something to do with the delay, despite Trudeau claiming otherwise.

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^^
Are not the majority of these refugees already approved and were on their way anyway?
You failed to mention the 10000 that are coming before years end.

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^^
Are not the majority of these refugees already approved and were on their way anyway?
You failed to mention the 10000 that are coming before years end.

The approval process is still underway, but yes, many have already been chosen and approved.
Yeah, the process is happening now. It's just the deadline is being extended. Did anyone think that all 25,000 would be coming on the same day or something??

PJfanwillneverleave1

^^^
I don't think so.
But it is not clear if 25000 includes the 10000 or not.
Why is the press reporting that 25000 will not settle by deadline instead of the 15000 remaining?

PJ_Soul

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

^^^
I don't think so.
But it is not clear if 25000 includes the 10000 or not.
Why is the press reporting that 25000 will not settle by deadline instead of the 15000 remaining?

Because they are being dumb? I dunno. Not sure what news you're reading, but I just read this in the past hour, and it details such things very clearly:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-plan-syrian-refugees-1.3333623

Highlights you are asking for:

The Liberal government is extending its deadline to bring 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada by two months, setting the end of February 2016 as a new target date.

While unveiling details of the massive resettlement program today, the government said it will identify all 25,000 selected refugees by Dec. 31, 2015, but only 10,000 will arrive by year's end.

"They will include a mix of privately sponsored and government assisted refugees," said Health Minister Jane Philpott in Ottawa on Tuesday.

"The remaining 15,000 — mostly government-assisted refugees — it is our goal that they be resettled in Canada in January and February of 2016."

"Full medical exams and security screening will be completed overseas prior to arriving in Canada," the health minister said, adding that "further screening for communicable diseases will be done upon arrival, as is the usual process for all travellers to Canada."

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Minister John McCallum said the extra time was needed to give host communities more time to prepare to receive the refugees.

1ThoughtKnown

Scatterine Winnd and Rachel Knothead separated at birth:

— A carbon tax will be introduced on all emitters, including regular citizens driving cars and heating their homes. A $20-per-tonne, economy-wide levy will start in January 2017, then increase to $30-per-tonne in January 2018, growing over time based on inflation and based on competitive jurisdictions. For the average household, that means about $320 extra in 2017 for gas, natural gas and electricity, and $470 in 2018.

— But the carbon plan, which will bring in an estimated $3 billion, aims to be revenue neutral, with the government offering rebates through various programs to approximately 60 per cent of people with Alberta’s lowest income. For those not afforded the rebates, the government will create efficiency programs to help people reduce their energy use.

“Low- and middle-income families will get support to help them make ends meet, so I think ultimately they will be able to manage this in a way that encourages reduced use of high-emissions activities while at the same time ensuring we don’t put an unnecessary burden on families,” Notley said. “Overall, every cent that comes out through this carbon tax will go back in (to Alberta).

Sorry, that Rachel Hood. Or Robin Notley. Carbon Tax is just a tax. Why hide behind your bogus environmental plan?
This NDP government is going to tax the hell out of everyone, all the while driving us further in debt and drive more and more industry out of the province.

Aaaaaaaaaaah, such sun shiny days.
Luckily I work in high voltage, so this boondoggle of renewable wind energy means a whole lot of government money going into these capital projects.

1ThoughtKnown

If you really believe that carbon is going to destroy the planet, the answer is nuclear energy.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNRdmaJkrM

PJ_Soul

I am very much in favour of nuclear energy in theory. Who wouldn't be? ... It's just that the chance of a catastrophic accident still seems so risky. Yes, accidents (or damage) are rare, but the results are so extreme that doesn't matter much.

polaris_x

PJ_Soul said:

I am very much in favour of nuclear energy in theory. Who wouldn't be? ... It's just that the chance of a catastrophic accident still seems so risky. Yes, accidents (or damage) are rare, but the results are so extreme that doesn't matter much.

problems with nuclear energy:

1. cost - really, it's the most expensive form of new energy
2. mining - the environmental impacts of mining uranium are problematic. Like most mining operations (at least domestically) are tied to supposed regulations to ensure public safety and environmental concerns - they are often ignored or not regulated.

we've had the solutions to global warming for a long time now ... we just need to get our collective heads out of our asses ...

PJ_Soul

polaris_x said:

PJ_Soul said:

I am very much in favour of nuclear energy in theory. Who wouldn't be? ... It's just that the chance of a catastrophic accident still seems so risky. Yes, accidents (or damage) are rare, but the results are so extreme that doesn't matter much.

problems with nuclear energy:

1. cost - really, it's the most expensive form of new energy
2. mining - the environmental impacts of mining uranium are problematic. Like most mining operations (at least domestically) are tied to supposed regulations to ensure public safety and environmental concerns - they are often ignored or not regulated.

we've had the solutions to global warming for a long time now ... we just need to get our collective heads out of our asses ...

I'm definitely interested in alternative energy sources. Wind energy is good. The possibilities of solar energy are even more interesting. Also, fuel cells. That is the most interesting by far when it comes to transportation, and hopefully advancements there will be better considered soon.

1ThoughtKnown

^^^^
Watch the documentary, it alleviates those concerns.

To rely on wind and solar power for power generation is not possible.
Now BC won't even allow for new hydro developments due to environmental concerns.

As for the risk of nuclear power, the documentary shows the safety features new reactors have. They cannot melt down.

PJ_Soul

I don't mean one method should do it all. A combo of all those things I mentioned (along with hydro power) was more what I was thinking.

1ThoughtKnown

Biomass energy has been discussed as an option.

My cousin built a fancy shack in Lloydminster which uses thermal energy to heat and cool his place. It was expensive but he says it works.

But with an NDP Government I could burn cowshit for,heat and Notley would figure out a way to tax me for that too. Shame on you for burning cowshit like the rich prick that you are. Since you won't share that cowshit with the less fortunate I am going to tax you on that cowshit.

PJ_Soul

I actually looked up antimatter as an option, since so "little" of it packs so much power. However, it turns out that, while it's true that a very tiny amount of it can power an incredible amount, it costs something like a billion dollars to make that amount, lol, so it's not a viable option (yet).

polaris_x

Fuel cells have a major obstacle. Hydrogen storage. Plus, how do you make the hydrogen. Better off spending that time/money on developing batteries. That's the key to transitioning to a renewable energy strategy. That and waste reduction.

PJ_Soul

polaris_x said:

Fuel cells have a major obstacle. Hydrogen storage. Plus, how do you make the hydrogen. Better off spending that time/money on developing batteries. That's the key to transitioning to a renewable energy strategy. That and waste reduction.

I happen to know that scientists and industry are actually working hard to make fuel cell technology more widely accessible (I know this because I used to be in a relationship with a French material physicist who specialized in fuel cell research).

PJfanwillneverleave1

PJ_Soul said:

polaris_x said:

Fuel cells have a major obstacle. Hydrogen storage. Plus, how do you make the hydrogen. Better off spending that time/money on developing batteries. That's the key to transitioning to a renewable energy strategy. That and waste reduction.

I happen to know that scientists and industry are actually working hard to make fuel cell technology more widely accessible
(I know this because I used to be in a relationship with a French material physicist who specialized in fuel cell research).

I happen to know that scientists and industry are actually working hard to make fuel cell technology more widely accessible because everyone knows this.

I like timbits.

1ThoughtKnown

No partisanship at all, but that was funny.

1ThoughtKnown

I guess Trudeau and his advisors didn't want to state the obvious (to anyone with a 6th grade education in math) that the income tax adjustments will reduce the federal revenue stream until after the election. That's Real Change.


http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6163239-liberal-admit-tax-changes-will-cost-1-2-billion-more/