08.08.2015 08:16 AM

KCCCC Day 7: it’s the weekend, dammit


  • Up at the cabin FOR MY LAST WEEKEND AS A SINGLE GUY IN CANADA, so I’ll keep this one brief. You don’t pay me for this stuff, you know. 
  • Eastern Dipper Sinks Western Dippers: It’s hard, running a truly national political party, and Linda  McQuaig has reminded us why. From her perch in Deepest Rosedale, it seems Linda wants Tom Mulcair to (a) conduct the election campaign on a bicycle and (b) sink every NDP candidate in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Not smart. 
  • Fed-Prov Slugfest! The Wynne/Notley vs. Harper grudge match is something, but it ain’t something new. Remember Danny Williams vs. Paul Martin? Mike Harris vs. Jean Chretien? Several Dozen Premiers vs. Pierre Trudeau? These grudge matches happen all the time, and they aren’t usually in any way relevant. I don’t know of many Queen’s Park staffers (Liberal or PC) who have taken leaves of absence to work on the federal campaign.  That should tell you plenty. 
  • And the winner is…: No one! Those of us in the punditocracy love to declare winners – and hate it when we can’t. But the fact is there was no clear winner in Thursday’s leader’s debate: every one of them had ups and downs. Leaving the commentariat in a quandary, and leaving citizens to – SHOCK AND HORROR – make up their own minds!
  • Survey says: Per my theory that not as many people watched the Great Debate as you might think, I did a survey of my staff – at a, you know, political consulting firm. A quarter of them didn’t even watch it. With politically-inclined pals, the numbers – accurate 19 times out of 20 – were even higher: most watched the Jays sweep the Twins, or went to see Tom Cruise at the movies, or whatever. By the time the 2015 Long March Campaign™ is over, no one will remember that single debate, either. 


  1. Pipes says:

    I know it was unintentional, but announcing -“FOR MY LAST WEEKEND AS A SINGLE GUY IN CANADA” just broke the hearts of all the single fair maidens in our vast country dreaming about a date with you.

    Hey-congratulations and I and on behalf of the heartbroken, wish you the absolute best! 🙂

  2. MF says:

    Congrats on the pending nuptials.

  3. MF says:

    Linda McQuiag is a known commodity. She’ll be the gift that keeps on giving for the other parties.

    Why is she always shaking and blinking wildly in her television appearances? She seems like she’s possessed.

  4. Christian Giles says:

    Its true. We get what we pay for! Lol! Good analysis. I agree no one was really watching the debate. I myself was flipping between the Jays game and the drone fest (I’ll leave it to you to figure out which I found more exciting). Anyway, Enjoy your last days as a bach!

    • MississaugaPeter says:

      I too was busted.

      After the first two breaks, couldn’t handle the amateurish 3-4 minute segments any longer, and caught myself first flipping to the Blue Jay game as well and staying longer every time. Last break, went looking for the Republican debate and never even knew they had closing remarks until it was mentioned here.

      Two days out, I agree that the debate will not be remembered on E-Day, but it’s importance I believe is understated. My thoughts are:

      1. It revealed that every Liberal’s fear and every other party’s expected hope, that Trudeau would fall on his sword and go off script in a debate, could be avoided. As a result, Liberals across the land are reinvigorated and have hope. It could have been a lot different if Trudeau faltered.

      2. It revealed that the NDP debate prep team is pathetic or Mulcair was medicated or sick. Mulcair ‘s performance was simply pathetic the first couple of segments. He looked like Jack Nicholson from The Shining. After the medication wore off or he forgot his debate training, Mulcair the Leader of the Opposition, the guy who shines in Question Period showed up. Unfortunately, a perception was created. Comments here by the host reveal that during closing remarks he was back to following his pathetic debate team’s closing remarks. His performance disappointed me and other Orange Liberals who were hoping he would unite the Left and end the Harper era. Failed to reinforce the idea that he was prime ministerial. Also, either lose a few pounds or get a new suit please. Who dressed him for the debate? Maybe he was just suffocating?

      3. It revealed Harper will probably get at least a strong minority. The hate shown between Trudeau and Mulcair will make it impossible to work together before E-Day. No strategic voting agreement even when there is a fear that Harper may be close to a majority. Crap. Harper, was most prime ministerial of the four. No problem looking at the camera and saying whatever he feels he needs to say to get elected.

  5. doconnor says:

    To repeat my comment from another post, unless you are a denier, you do realize that we can only put so much carbon into the atmosphere, so a lot of it must stay in the ground, including a lot of the tar sands. As oil demand drops more expensive supply ends first.

    She is talking about what is environmentally necessary, rather then what is politically expedient.

    • cgh says:

      You do realize that you don’t have the slightest notion of what you are talking about?

      • Don Wilson says:

        cgh: What’s your solution to global warming?

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          There is no solution, to what is essentially “variable climate change” that’s been going on for hundreds of millions of years.

          We can shut down every car, truck, tractor and lawn mower in Canada. We can shut down anything and everything that burns fossil energy.

          We can basically return Canada to the Stone Age.

          And we still wouldn’t meet Kyoto targets, and it still wouldn’t make one effing iota of difference to global climate.

          That’s the fact of it.

          Anyone who says different is pumping pixy dust up your butt!

        • Joe says:

          Please provide us all with the raw data that indicates there is indeed global warming. So far all the raw data I have found indicates no warming from land, sea and space observation. However I have found a lot of ‘smoothed’ data (smoothed data meaning false data) that indicates global warming. Now which is a real scientist and not a government teat sucker going to believe?

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            It’s a damned disgrace, isn’t it? Kinda like…

            “You were doing 123 km/h in a 100 zone. I’m going to have to give you a ticket, sir.”

            “Well, not so fast. I “adjusted” for the earth’s rotation, wind factors, variable errors inherent in both my speedometer and your speed gun, and the number of punctuation marks used in the latest issue of Encyclopedia Britannica, and I come up with 99.8 km/h.”

            “…???…you trying to be a smart ass with me?”

            “Nope. I’m a climatologist, “adjustments” are what I do for a living.”

            “…oh…never mind. On your way then…I guess…???”

            “…Heh, gets ’em every time!”

          • doconnor says:

            Berkeley Earth, found by climate skeptic Richard Muller, analyzed the raw data and concluded humans was causing climate change.

        • cgh says:

          Don, it’s not yet determined that:
          1. any warming is actually happening. There’s been no rise in temperature according to the ground surface records used by the IPCC for 18 years.
          2. CO2 emissions cannot produce any significant rise in temperature by the IPCC’s own admission. A positive feedback effect must exist to trigger a rise in water vapour. Despite such a positive feedback being included in all the climate models, there is zero physical evidence that it exists. All the physical evidence suggests the reverse, that earth’s climate is driven by negative feedback effects.
          3. it has not been demonstrated that the general rise in temperature from the late 19th century is anything more than recovery from the low temperatures of the Maunder and Dalton Minimums. The temperature regime is in fact barely back to the median between the lows of the Little Ice Age and the highs of the Mediaeval Warming period.

          Hence, it’s entirely unclear that there is a problem requiring a solution. Show me some evidence that there is a problem and then we can talk. But the fact is that the IPCC has offered only two general pieces of physical evidence over the past 25 years in all five ARs: tree rings and ice core samples, and both are deeply flawed.

          • Don Wilson says:

            cgh: This exchange has now turned into a game of bid poker. OK. I will see your 3 aces and raise you a NASA web site. These are the scientists who run the USA’s space program. These are the scientists who managed to put a man on the moon. This is an organization that employs some of the best scientists in the world. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            NASA (and the Pentagon, for what that’s worth) believe that (A) anthropogenic global warming is real and (B) mankind needs to take urgent action now.

            At bottom, this debate may not be about science at all. http://theinquisitivenarrative.com/tag/cornwall-alliance/

            If I may quote PMSH: “Let me be perfectly clear on this point”. A prime minister has the right to practice his religion as he/she sees fit within the context of his/her community, family and personal life. A prime minister should not impose his/her beliefs on his/her country. That, at bottom, is what this election is about. Canada must remain a free, open and secular nation that does not impose its religious beliefs on others or on its own citizens.

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            Don, WTF are you talking about with the religion stuff??? The next time I hear one single word about religion from Harper will be the first. And why is it that nobody ever questions the religious beliefs, or intents in that regard, of Catholic PMs???

            And I don’t do “religion”.

          • Bill says:

            “These are the scientists who managed to put a man on the moon. This is an organization that employs some of the best scientists in the world.”

            This is an organization that can no longer send men to the space station let alone the moon and must rely on Russia to do the job for them.

          • cgh says:

            Yes, this is the organization now so degraded that its only access to the international space station is hitching rides on a designed in the 1960s Russian Soyuz. Tell me again how technically competent NASA is. And while you’re at it, remind us all of the number of people at NASA, those who were actually part of the manned lunar program, who have come out firmly against AGW.

          • Al in Cranbrook says:


            Followed your link.

            Here’s the problem with that: Science has been co-opted to form new religions, replete with zealotry, inquisitors out to burn heretics at the stake (of public opinion – not as messy, but just as effective these days), and dripping righteousness that would shame Christ Himself. Nobody is allowed to question or be skeptical any more, once the very bedrock of what science was all about. Consensus never was a premise of real science, and it is a travesty that it has become the byword of the day. The notion of “theory” has gone by the wayside.

            This government is not against “science”, that’s preposterous and hysterical fear mongering. What it is against, and rightfully so, is duplication that means every damned project proposal must be studied umpteen times by umpteen levels of bureaucracy, and at two levels of government, to the point of utter paralysis. The world moves relentlessly forward, while bureaucrats wrangle with each other for primacy and advancement of personal agendas rooted in their own ideological biases. Look at what’s going on with Keystone, just for one example. Five different studies over six years, each and everyone arriving at the same conclusion. Nevertheless, one single SOB is poised to trash the whole project on the basis of nothing more than pandering to pure environmental fundamentalist fanaticism and the big money they’re dangling on the end of stick like a carrot in front of a donkey. And you think Harper is anti-science??? Give me a GD break!!!

            Read the incredibly informative post by Matt Ridley I posted further down this page for a depressing insight at what “science” has become this day. And it didn’t start with climate change, either. Now there’s a massive climb down happening over the “science” that claimed saturated fats caused heart disease for the last several decades. And what to we find behind this fiasco? One man who started it all, and then a litany of half truths and deception, wrapped it petty politics, religious zeal, and the inquisitors after all those skeptics and deniers to the new faith.

            We see it in the fight against genetically modified foods that are preventing mass starvation. We saw it in the fight against DDT that ultimately led to deaths of millions in the third world from malaria. And we see it this day with AGW. CBC sensationalizes 30 blue herons found dead in an oil sands containment pond, but try and find one article of concern on their website about the deaths of between 300,000 and 1,000,000 bats and birds (including all kinds of raptors) each and every year from wind and solar farms. That’s suitably “green” stuff outside of the narrative du jour, so who gives a rats ass about that, eh?

            It’s a damned disgrace, all of it!

          • Don Wilson says:

            Al, Bill,cgh: So the scientists at NASA are not to be listened to because they use Russian rockets to commute to the ISS these days. You know that funding is a political decision, not a scientific one, but let’s leave that one. OK, so is the Pentagon also suspect? Is the US Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, also blowing smoke through his ears? Doesn’t the Pentagon employ some very smart, practical people who can do research and interpret research? The Pentagon seems to feel that global warming is a security issue for the USA. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/14/us/pentagon-says-global-warming-presents-immediate-security-threat.html?_r=0

          • Al in Cranbrook says:

            Don, “climate change” has become the convenient excuse du jour, and it certainly is not beyond the scope of massively expensive security agencies stateside to exploit it, especially when budgets are being laid out, ya think?

            Did you hear the one about the 49 NASA employees, including scientists and famous astronauts, who wrote and signed a letter to NASA and the Goddard Institute, pretty much telling them to drop the alarmist crap regarding climate change?


            And if I understand correctly, what they all had in common was that they were all retired. Meaning, they had nothing to lose…like, f’rinstance, their jobs…by speaking out.

    • Lance says:

      Being on ground level, or even underground, does not mean that we are not still within the bounds of Earth’s atmosphere.

      What CGH said.

      • doconnor says:

        I know I was being cryptic, but I thought a lot of the issues where obvious. We have to limit global warming so we have to limit the amount of carbon dioxide emitted, so we have to limit how much fossil fuels are burned so we have to only extract so much which means leaving a lot of it in the ground. If you calculate how much you have to leave behind it includes a lot of Canadian reserves.

        Of course, all this means nothing to the global warming deniers who are going to vote Conservative reguardless. Thier denial is caused by the fact that thier flawed ideology has no solution to the problem so they deny it exists.

        • Bill says:

          I’ll try again. Let’s say we left all of our fossil fuels in the ground. What impact is that going to have on climate change?

          • doconnor says:

            If by “we” you mean humanity then cutting back on our fossil fuel usage will reduce the amount of global warming that happen around 2100.

            If by “we” you mean Canada, as a holder of a significant amount of the world’s unextracted oil, we can make a significant difference.

    • lance mclean says:

      You do realize that a search generally shows that estimated numbers for CO2 emissions per capita that many cheap middle east oil producers including Saudi Arabia have a higher per capita emission than we do here in Canada. As well they have far more lax environmental enforcement and mitigation. So if the goal is to reduce CO2 then buying their cheap oil is not the way to go. Better to produce at home where at least we try to do something. I know many will argue we do not but in reality we do, could it be better of course, it can always be better.

    • Bill says:

      It doesn’t really matter whether or not the earth is warming and it is man made. All that matters is what China and India propose to do because that is where the growth in greenhouse gases is going to come from. As Al has pointed out, Canada can disappear tomorrow and it would have no impact on the climate, we are insignificant. We cannot be a leader on this issue and the only sensible position is the one our government has adopted and articulated so well by Prime Minister Harper – reduce greenhouse gas emissions but not at the expense of our economy. Other than President Obama, climate change is rapidly falling of the radar of all major economies. Why? Take a look at this worldwide poll where people ranked their concerns. No prizes for guessing that climate change ranked 16th out of 16 issues.


      • doconnor says:

        Obviously preventing worse global warming will require more then just Canada. During the negotiations at the international level Canada has been a major factor blocking agreements to deal with the problem.

        • Al in Cranbrook says:

          Yes, Canada is to blame. Not Japan, not Australia, not the US, and certainly not China who have agreed to start doing something about it in 2030…maybe, depending on the whims of their communist dictator of the day. I don’t doubt Putin, middle east oil producers like Saudi Arabia and Iran are all over AGW, too, ya think? Did I mention Nigeria and Venezuela? And who doubts that the some one to two billion people who live in abject poverty every miserable day of their lives, start every day by crawling out of their huts, feed their kids some scraps of marginally edible substance, and then turn their attention to the matter of Anthropological Global Warming and how it’s affecting them…beyond, that is, western environmental activism hell bent on keeping them living in huts and eating non-genetically modified food.

          Nevertheless, Canada…which produces a little less than 2% of the 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere that is generated by mankind…should dutifully trash our economy and the livelihoods of millions, if not relegate itself back to the Stone Age to meet Kyoto, to prove to the world that we reeealy, reeealy care about climate change. But more importantly, so left wing AGW bedwetters in Canada can go to sleep every night and rest assured that the world thinks we’re really swell people up here…something which clearly worries a hellluva lot of posters on public forums (especially CBC comment sections) , and certain federal party leaders.

          Right. We get it.

    • Derek Pearce says:

      “…necessary rather than what was politically expedient.” And you’re right about that. But that means she’d rather be right (and righteous) than win, which makes for a poor politician. She just cost her party seats. This is an election after all, save the seat-losing talk for once your power for gawd’s sake.

      • doconnor says:

        In the end winning by surrendering your principles is indistinguishable from losing. The NDP could have won years ago by doing everything the Liberals do, but what would be the point?

  6. JH says:

    BTW I think the Liberal candidate, whoever he is, also agreed with her on P&P. WTF is up with that? At this rate, they’ll have us all freezing our arses off in the dark.

  7. Houland Wolfe says:

    Speaking on behalf of McCuaig and Mulcair and all Dippers everywhere, I would like to clarify certain misunderstandings. When the Stone Age ended, we still left many stones in the ground. I trust that clears up this matter. Yours truly, etc.

  8. gyor says:

    At such low viewership, it almost doesn’t matter if someone had hit a knockout punch, there would be two few people to see it.

    Although it will be interesting as you suggested to see if anyone cuts out clips for attack ads.

  9. torontonian says:

    Bicycles are good. People — even adults — ride them in Alberta, sometimes even in winter. Having said that, I didn’t see a word about bicycles in that McQuaig article.

    • Warren says:

      Are you mentally defective?

      • torontonian says:

        No, but I guess I was more oblique than I meant to be. My point was that it struck me as over-rhetorical to say that McQuaig wants Mulcair to campaign on a bicycle (although it worked for Jack Layton, didn’t it?). McQuaig is right, even though she may have made her point in a politically clumsy way. On climate change, there is going to have to be a tradeoff between desirable macroeconomic policy and desirable environmental policy. This will become clearer and clearer in the next few years. In fact, this could be the last election in which it’s not a major issue.

        Stephane Dion, bless his heart, was perhaps just a little ahead of his time.

        • Bill says:

          Let’s say that Canada does whatever it takes to reduce it’s greenhouse gas emissions by whatever number you choose. What impact is that going to have on the climate?

          • cgh says:

            Zilch, nada. It will be utterly undetectable to measure in atmospheric concentration and its effect, even assuming the IPCC models are correct predictors will be unmeasureable.

  10. Maurice says:

    Congratulations Lisa and Warren on your tying the knot. Lisa will go straight to heaven for this selfless deed, and you to that other place, where I will most certainly join you ( and I don’t mean the Senate…:-)

  11. Michael Bluth says:

    A debate with nobody winning is telling for potential trends to spot.

    Tom did get a little angry. Pestering Trudeau didn’t look good on him.

    Trudeau was at least able to stick to a script. Not a well-written script, but safer than him improvising.

    Harper played defence well enough. Always difficult for a long-term incumbent to differentiate himself in this type of situation. He didn’t lose anyone who might have considered voting for him.

    It was as if Harper and Tom were treating Trudeau with kid gloves. When it’s only three of them it’s going to be a different game.

    Not sure if Mulcair’s condition that there be an equal number of French and English debates is a winner. Plays pretty much to his Quebec base and doesn’t really win him any votes. We might only have one more debate, although I suspect there will be three more.

  12. davie says:

    Apparently, increasing levels of carbon in our atmosphere and its effects on our oceans has an impact everywhere except in air conditioned split levels and condos in the Toronto metro area.

    IPCC report of last year suggests a budget, suggests leaving a whole lot of it in the ground. But, I guess IPCC reports are considered something like Save-On-Foods flyers.

    • cgh says:

      You also don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Did you take the trouble to read AR5? Not a shred of actual evidence in the entire thing, same as AR4 before it. Nothing but computer generated simulations. And yes, given the information actually in the IPCC’s ARs, Save-On-Food flyers are probably more useful to human understanding.

      • davie says:

        Then I take it that you , cgh, Al, and Peter, are not only ready to repeal any emission controls already set (because they are useless), at that you are all gung ho to get that stuff out of the ground and burned up just as fast as the oil industry can turn even greater profits.
        Please urge your party, the leader who represents you, to have have the integrity to make that clear on the hustings.

        (Be sure not to run your vehicles in closed garages…although, I am not sure why.)

        • cgh says:

          You really are a first class fool, aren’t you? Who said anything about emission controls? We were discussing CO2 emissions only. Your kind of stupidity is precisely why political trolls have no business in a scientific debate. For you, it’s not about science, it’s about the remedies that you want to shove down the throats of the electorate.

        • Peter says:

          That’s a very “oughts” way to argue, davie–anybody who disagrees with your doomsday scenario is a science denier who wants to let ‘er rip and fill the atmosphere with emissions. Getting in touch with your inner Al Gore? This issue is now thirty years old and, despite a steady stream of alarmist “observations” the vast majority of the globe’s population has detected little if any change in their climate. I believe in anthropogenic warming, but I don’t believe you or the so-called consensus or a spokesperson for the beautiful people of Toronto have any idea what the effect of leaving Albertan oil in the ground would be. I suspect zilch, but I do believe it could have immediate negative economic consequences and trigger serious constitutional divisions.

          • davie says:

            Until last year I lived and worked over 40 years in the patch in northern BC. In those 4 + decades I saw some changes in winter weather. Now, in my golden years, I have moved my poor wife and me to drought area, complete with burning forests. I have followed IPCC reports for over 2 dozen years, as well, work by Schindler at U of Alberta. Extremists to me, are people who are wrecking the live-ability of our environment. Leaving tar in the ground in Alberta is in the context of scientist advice that leaving most fossil fuels in the ground around the globe…if we are to stop fouling the climate and oceans.
            I was in Toronto in 1970 for a couple of days. You’re right: they are beautiful
            Good to see that you are able to modify your stance when the logic of your pro ‘burn-it-up-faster’ position is made clear.

          • cgh says:

            Very sensible, Peter. There’s in fact a great deal of agreement about atmospheric science between warmers and skeptics regarding the issue of climate change. The dispute boils down to some fundamental physics questions regarding the sensitivity of atmosphere to changes in CO2 concentration. Unfortunately this is a much more detailed discussion for another place than Warren’s blog devoted to Canadian politics.

    • Peter says:

      No, not Save-on Food flyers because with them, when you go to your grocery store, you find they really are offering stuff at the advertised prices.

  13. Al in Cranbrook says:

    Good read here, assuming anyone actually is interested in some truth…


    BTW, “Climate Change: The Facts”, was a best seller on Amazon.com.

    • Maps Onburt says:

      Great article Al Thanks! It’s nice to see someone referring to the real science being done on this subject for a change. It’s a new favourite for me now. Warren, congratulations on your upcoming nuptials ! May you and Lisa have a lifetime of happiness together.

  14. Ronald O'Dowd says:


    They may not remember this debate on voting day. But what will be important is whether this debate ultimately served as the launching point for Justin getting out of the basement otherwise known as third place.

    • nic coivert says:

      I think you are correct Ronald O’Dowd, and I think it will. Mulcair didn’t look like a national candidate.

  15. Melrose Munch says:

    Harper needs to stop attacking the female premiers. Not good.

  16. Focus Groupie says:

    Economics 101

    That “star candidate” Linda McQuaig is talking about abandoning the tar sands “to meet our climate change targets,” shows how out of touch the NDP is with economics. Saudi Arabia, “The world’s largest oil exporter has already increased output to a 30-year high of 10.3 million barrels a day in a bid to check growth from nations including the U.S., Canada and Brazil. It will add even more to the global glut, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Citigroup Inc. predicts the kingdom will push toward its maximum daily capacity, which the bank estimates at about 11 million barrels, in the second half of 2015…With an increasingly compelling picture of lower oil prices over the next 10 to 20 years.” (Bloomberg) The tar sands are already imploding without Linda McQuaig’s help.

    To spell it out for the dense, Saudi Arabia wants to completely destroy the oil operations of the U.S., Canada, Brazil, Venezuela. These last two, with shaky economies at the best of times, are already descending into total anarchy; Canada is already in recession. 70% of this Arab oil is going to Asia where concern for the environment seems to only occur when the air becomes literally poisonous i.e. global warming be damned. (Qatar, incidentally, has the highest CO2 emissions per capita. If NDP-Greens are to be consistent: total boycott of World Cup.) The tar sands represent 2% Canadian GDP; gutting the oil and gas sector represents an incursion into 8 % of GDP; one must assume adding mid-single digits to the unemployment roles. While the NDP-Liberal plan is based on taxing corporations and the “1%”, they seem to have not factored in the grim reality of capital flight.

    Nor is it realistic to assume the manufacturing sector (11% GDP) can be greatly revived. It has and is being gutted by China and other low-wage regions and even these regions are under serious pressure due to automation/robots, e.g.: Martin Ford, Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future notes: “According to the International Federation of Robotics, [China] will have more installed manufacturing robots than any other country by 2017…Foxconn, which makes consumer electronics for Apple and other companies, plans to automate about 70 percent of factory work within three years, and already has a fully robotic factory in Chengdu… Automation has already had a substantial impact on Chinese factory employment: Between 1995 and 2002 about 16 million factory jobs disappeared, roughly 15 percent of total Chinese manufacturing employment. This trend is poised to accelerate.”

    In a globalized context, the long-term result of at least 20% of the Canadian economy set to whither, is that Canada will increasingly be vulnerable to foreign machinations. Already, foreign buyers have inflated real estate in Vancouver to the highest in the world. Even an old one bedroom apartment can cost a cool half million. Canada has already experienced sub-replacement fertility for decades. Many parents will not live to see even one grandchild.

    Some answers to our economic woes.

    1. A 50% levy on real estate purchases by foreign buyers – after all, it is an Arab-Asian initiative to torpedo the hitherto Canadian petro-dollar. Why should they now be allowed to purchase real estate at a great discount they engineered?

    2. Moratorium on all immigration, temporary foreign workers, and illegals. Jobs are now precious. In the context of a contracting economy and an already over-stressed social services, there is no other option short of civil unrest and bankrupting the Canadian state via loans.

    3. Minimize the purchase of all Chinese trade goods. NDP-Greens: China is responsible for 25% carbon dioxide emissions globally.

    4. Move to total autarky in the Americas as a defense against Arab-Asian hegemony.

    5. A national project to reduce waste, inefficiencies, and redundancies to greatly stretch the capital of Canadians.

    6. More babies, more babies, more babies.

    7. Massive focus on reenergizing the service sectors of the economy – health, science/ technology, military/security, education, finance, tourism, IT, media, arts,

    As it stands, the NDP’s Utopian plan seems more like Jonestown on a national scale.

  17. Derek Pearce says:

    Congrats Warren!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.