This is the only question that really matters. If it's overpriced? meh, it's a cheap alternative to a NUC. But if it's going to be stuck on obsolete software forever, run.

It's the least painful, most economically efficient way to encourage those things and other transitions. When it comes to transportation, higher gas prices have historically resulted in a market for more fuel efficiency (and inflation-adjusted low gas prices have lead to oversizing of vehicles). Unlike the 70s, this time, the carbon tax is brought in slowly and smoothly over many years to encourage conservation (including the things you mention), drive demand for more fuel efficiency, and in the long term, encourage the electrification of the remaining fleet.

The vast majority of Canadians want the government to do something serious about climate change, but they don't know what that thing is. Economists said a carbon tax and rebate was the most efficient, but public support isn't driven by economic papers, but by propaganda machines. It's just too easy to blame the carbon tax for everyone's problems. It's the perfect boogeyman for inflation. Heavy handed regulation of industrial emitters would probably be the most supported by the public, but it would have a terrible impact on Canadian industry, and actually be limited in it's effectiveness, as most of Canada's emissions would still be "free."

She dug her heels in because she's jockying to move up to the provincial legislature. Getting fired is part of building her reputation as a conservative culture warrior. The board really did not want to fire her.

And like several things Douggie has put through, it will ultimately be deemed illegal. That bill is a clear violation of charter rights.

And if people are suffering, the solution is to increase the rebate (or increase it's frequency). If it ends up being revenue deficit temporarily, fine, still better than vanity exemptions like this. This breaks the whole model. It removes the incentive to switch for people already looking replace old equipment, it removes the reward for those who did change, and it creates a whole inefficiency of administration for figuring out which fossil fuel burning is "free" and which is taxed. That bureaucracy is just going to burn money that could have went into the rebates.

Almost ALL brand new furnaces being installed even the most heatpump friendly places in Canada are NG or propane right now, and will continue to be for years to come. Even new home builds are virtually exclusively gas. This is taking away event he slightest incentive to change that.

Agreed. Fuck off with this "we have no free speech" bullshit, substack (and it's freedom of conscience in Canada in the first place, not free speech). All of the things listed are social consequences, not criminal prosecution or some other government persecution. Sarah was booted by her party, not the government, and the rest are employers and universities. If there is fault, it lies with those organizations.

It's also not protected speech, so if there is fault, those organizations will have to suffer social consequences themselves, as it doesn't seem that they broke any laws.

Not just to prop up O&G company stock prices, but also to further their long-running process of tying absolutely every Albertan's financial well-being to O&G. Right now, if O&G drops, yeah, Albertans will lose jobs and the province's social services go unfunded, but they still have CPP to rely on. With this change, their retirement will also vanish.

The more they go "all in" on O&G, the more every voter in Alberta absolutely NEEDS the O&G industry to remain profitable. Keep that going, and the political party that is most pro-O&G will stay in power perpetually.

Yes. It's certainly less of a problem in an agrarian society where nearly everyone provides simple labour, but in any technical or urban society, being able to focus on complex tasks is going to improve your quality of life. Of course the degree of impact and the nature of the problem is going to vary widely depending on the fabric of that society. It would look different, indeed.

There really needs to be a consequence for using the notwithstanding clause or otherwise violating charter rights. Time and time again, populist politicians violate them to stoke votes, gain political momentum, then many years down the road, lose in court and their policies are reversed (paid by a future government with tax dollars). It's usually not as egregious as this, but it's a constant thing. Look at the public pay freeze that was just reversed in Ontario.

It needs to be stated clearly every time this comes up:

The notwithstanding clause TAKES AWAY RIGHTS, IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM. Using it doesn't give "parents rights," it takes away children's charter rights.

And simple narratives like “everybody in the SS was guilty of war crimes” are more pervasive because they’re much simpler to grasp.

Your whole wall of text seems to be a strawman based on this projection. Canadians obviously don't believe this, or these former SS members would have been strung up by their necks decades ago. However, they should never be honoured, regardless of whether they directly participated in crimes. That membership implies being complicit in those crimes, as they would have sworn allegiance to Hitler, and would have known and understood the Nazi ideology and supported it through their military action.

If a SS fighter doesn't have enough evidence for a conviction, they should simply live out their lives quietly and in shame for being part of something truly evil. If they were fooled in youth, and understood as they grew older, they would abhor any sort of valour or recognition. I'm not going to engage in whataboutism. There are plenty of other examples of people who should do the same thing.

The arguments for parking minimums always sound so poorly thought through that they would be laughed out of the park if it weren't for the entrenched tradition.