That's why that advert goes down in history as a spectacular blunder. Every single one of us absolutely would.

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."

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

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.

Indeed. It's also the province with the most to lose with climate change (likely desertification, they can barely keep their soil as it is), and a province with enough wind and scorchingly sunny days to be the Saudi Arabia of wind and solar. But yeah, they manage that potential well by doubling down on an economy based on oil alone. It makes cow-towing to lobbyists easy if there is only the one major one.

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.

You are spreading lies. I hope it's unintentional.

Minors are not getting gender surgery and the few that get access to anything hormonal are not offered anything irreversible.

Equating "story time" with adult burlesque is just simple bigotry. Someone dressing up as a princess to read a story to kids isn't burlesque, regardless of their gender.

Stop talking with the voices in your head. It helps a lot.

Holy shit. Nail on the head. To the OP, I hope that's not so harsh you don't hear the message. You are rather ill-informed on what is acceptable human behavior, and what is that old toxic masculinity that us humans are trying to get rid of. You are absolutely fine hanging out with buddies and doing guy stuff. "Clubs" have been on a downward tend since the mid 20th century, and it's not feminism that did that. It's just that people are less and less interested in joining them and committing time. They all struggle with membership (yes, I belong to one).

There's also the possibility that if you don't have guys to hang out with, it might be that your idea of "shithouse" is just being shitty. I've spent plenty of time in locker rooms -and that kind of behavior gets on peoples nerves as you get older. That's not an attack on masculinity.

Mid density is extremely resource efficient (both in terms of building it, and the infrastructure serving it), and desirable -considering the property values in cities with lots of mid-density housing. It's a shame we lost so many years not building it.

The government has other levers on inflation that the BOC does not. If they were using them, there would be less pressure on the BOC to use their one lever. The government has a choice of levers that impact different people differently, and could help spread out the pain, like corporate tax rates, and passing laws that effect property tax calculations for investment properties.