Trudeau Addresses Delegates in Belgium

[littledoggie]

https://www.blacklocks.ca/pay-tv-personality-for-praise/

Federal departments and agencies last year spent more than $600,000 on payments to tweeters, bloggers and other social media influencers, records show. Local celebrities including a CBC-TV Dragons’ Den personality were hired to praise government’s work.

Federal departments have justified paying for Facebook friends and favourable tweets as a means of communicating with taxpayers.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

ajl, I've had those very thoughts for some time.

The best joke of this would be, if they are posting and cutin' an' pastin,,, and not being paid !

haha Too Funny !

I'm going to go with the second option.
Not even the most grossly irresponsible and unaccountable government department or NFU propaganda arm would pay for someone to be as embarrassingly ineffective, hypocritical, demeaning, insulting and grossly ignorant of facts as our very own chuck chuck.
He has single-handedly done more harm to the causes he pretends to support, than all of his detractors put together.

Unless of course the proprietors of agriville themselves pay him to stir the pot to keep post counts up.

Almost certain he is just an ideologically driven useful idiot who desperately wants to be the smartest guy in the room. Still bitter and resentful and seeking vengeance from his CWB defeat.

[dmlfarmer]

To claim all or even the majority of the EU parliament opposed or dished Trudeau's speech because 3 persons spoke out against his position is as credible as if I would claim that the position of Agriville on glyphosate and climate change is represented by Chuck or Austrcanada posts.

3 speakers representing far right wing parties in the EU were critical of Trudeau. 7 other speakers however praised his talk. Those 7 represented parties that hold 664 or the 705 seats in the EU parliament. Funny how only those opposed to his speech get mentioned on Agriville. Those 3 with negative views have just as much right as the 7 who supported Trudeau, but that does not mean they represent all of EU views just as Chuck or Austracanada does not speak for all Agrivillers.

And because you do not agree with Chuck or myself does not mean we are being paid by anyone. What I write is strictly my own thoughts. I have never been paid by anyone to post anything on this site. I am no more a paid troll, than Sumdumguy is for making a claim that can be proven false simply by viewing the video I linked to or reading the first person tweets of the journalist in attendence. The worst part is no one else on this thread even questioned Sumdumguy's numbers because if fit in with your bias and hate, and instead of looking for the truth, you attack the questioner. So sad.

[WiltonRanch]

Think it pisses a lot of us off that Trudeau can go over there and make his usual scripted speeches full of feigned emotions and what not about nato unity while Canada spends relatively nothing on its own defence let alone their share of nato. Big hat no cattle.

[dmlfarmer]

Think it pisses a lot of us off that Trudeau can go over there and make his usual scripted speeches full of feigned emotions and what not about nato unity while Canada spends relatively nothing on its own defence let alone their share of nato. Big hat no cattle.

agree fully. We should be spending a lot more on defense budget.

[shtferbrains]

Liberals have always used defence spending to regionalize pork barrel contacts.

Hard to regionalize F35 high tec fighters in time for the next election.

[WiltonRanch]

Fwiw Canada is a third rate power. Wouldn’t we be better off with some F15 or F16 fighters? Lot cheaper than F35’s. Almost seems this idea they’re dealing on F35’s is pie in the sky with no intentions to actually purchase any. Warfare is evolving and drones are phenomenally cheaper. Heck Canada could build fleets of these themselves. Maybe our perennial corporate welfare recipient Bombardier could build them. Our north is potentially under threat and uav’s would be a great fit for keeping a military presence. Tanks are becoming antiquated like battleships and horse cavalry.

[sumdumguy]

Dml, don’t take my word for it. Go to Calgary Herald this morning for a report of what the world thinks of your illustrious leader. Seems not only was his audience sparse, some in the audience were brave enough to publicly call him out.

[Hamloc]

agree fully. We should be spending a lot more on defense budget.

What was very telling was that while Canada announced more sanctions against Russia, when asked about Canada increasing it’s defence spending he would not commit to an increase, giving his usual non answers!

[Hamloc]

Article in the National Post today: “There is going to be a cost: Federal carbon pricing to generate net loss for most households, PBO finds.”

What a surprise: “The latest findings from the Parliamentary Budget Officer are fuelling arguments that the federal price on carbon is an economic burden for families - and could only increase in years to come.”

This year in Alberta the lowest income households could expect to receive up to $246 back in their pockets but the highest income households can expect to pay up to $1925. In the end, Albertan’s will end up paying $507 per household on average. By 2030 this average net loss will rise on average to $2282 per household. Imagine what the net loss will be for the average farm by 2030!!!

“There could be potential benefits, for example, by mitigating the impact of climate change or fostering the development or adoption of new technologies, but to expect these benefits to be realized before 2030-2031 is… wildly optimistic,” said Giroux.




Personally I think anyone who believes any policy that has been enacted by Justin Trudeau or for that matter any policy that will be enacted by Justin Trudeau and his government to actually benefit your average rural Canadian voter has been smoking far too much of Justin Trudeau’s legalized marijuana. Increasing the size and cost of government only benefits the government, never the taxpayer imo!

[Hamloc]

Article in the National Post today: “There is going to be a cost: Federal carbon pricing to generate net loss for most households, PBO finds.”

What a surprise: “The latest findings from the Parliamentary Budget Officer are fuelling arguments that the federal price on carbon is an economic burden for families - and could only increase in years to come.”

This year in Alberta the lowest income households could expect to receive up to $246 back in their pockets but the highest income households can expect to pay up to $1925. In the end, Albertan’s will end up paying $507 per household on average. By 2030 this average net loss will rise on average to $2282 per household. Imagine what the net loss will be for the average farm by 2030!!!

“There could be potential benefits, for example, by mitigating the impact of climate change or fostering the development or adoption of new technologies, but to expect these benefits to be realized before 2030-2031 is… wildly optimistic,” said Giroux



Personally I think anyone who believes any policy that has been enacted by Justin Trudeau or for that matter any policy that will be enacted by Justin Trudeau and his government to actually benefit your average rural Canadian voter has been smoking far too much of Justin Trudeau’s legalized marijuana. Increasing the size and cost of government only benefits the government, never the taxpayer imo!

Funny story, I intended for this to be a new thread. My granddaughter arrived and I instead posted it as a reply, such is life lol.

[chuckChuck]

Now for the rest of the story:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-study-finds-60-per-cent-of-households-are-financially-burdened-by/

Study finds 60 per cent of households are financially burdened by federal carbon pricing
Patrick Brethour
Tax and Fiscal Policy Reporter

"University of Calgary professor Trevor Tombe cautioned against simply concluding carbon pricing is a costly policy. Any policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will carry costs, he said. The question is how efficient such measures are in minimizing those costs.

On that front, he said, the market-based mechanism of carbon pricing is widely acknowledged to be much more efficient than regulatory measures. Such regulations might be less visible and, perhaps because of that, less controversial. But according to Prof. Tombe, they would ultimately require higher economic costs to achieve the same level of reductions.

Inaction is not cost-free, either, he said. A rapidly warming climate would disrupt the global economy, although other countries would likely bear a disproportionate share of those costs, he noted.

In a statement, the federal Environment and Climate Change department said carbon pricing is recognized as “the most efficient policy to reduce emissions as it imposes the lowest overall cost on the economy.” The statement also noted that weather-related disasters tied to climate change have soared over the past five decades.

Michael Bernstein, executive director of Clean Prosperity, a non-profit group, critiqued the PBO study as being too narrowly focused. The analysis did not, for instance, attempt to account for the economic benefits of the emerging green economy, he said.

Mr. Bernstein acknowledged there will be costs associated with any transition away from fossil fuels, but the question, he said, is how to minimize those costs and maximize the benefits. It is “plausible” that those benefits will outweigh costs in the long run, he added.

He said he understands why the federal Liberals chose to emphasize most households would receive rebates larger than their direct costs from carbon pricing, given the intensity of critics’ attacks. But he said political strategy has come up against the reality he has seen in focus groups, where participants express fundamental skepticism that people can be made better off through this kind of government program.

A more nuanced approach that talked about relative costs, and the relative advantage of carbon pricing, would be preferable, he added. “Focusing on how many people were better off is probably not the most compelling way to sell this in the long run, even if there is math that supports them.”

[Hamloc]

Now for the rest of the story:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-study-finds-60-per-cent-of-households-are-financially-burdened-by/

Study finds 60 per cent of households are financially burdened by federal carbon pricing
Patrick Brethour
Tax and Fiscal Policy Reporter

"University of Calgary professor Trevor Tombe cautioned against simply concluding carbon pricing is a costly policy. Any policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will carry costs, he said. The question is how efficient such measures are in minimizing those costs.

On that front, he said, the market-based mechanism of carbon pricing is widely acknowledged to be much more efficient than regulatory measures. Such regulations might be less visible and, perhaps because of that, less controversial. But according to Prof. Tombe, they would ultimately require higher economic costs to achieve the same level of reductions.

Inaction is not cost-free, either, he said. A rapidly warming climate would disrupt the global economy, although other countries would likely bear a disproportionate share of those costs, he noted.

In a statement, the federal Environment and Climate Change department said carbon pricing is recognized as “the most efficient policy to reduce emissions as it imposes the lowest overall cost on the economy.” The statement also noted that weather-related disasters tied to climate change have soared over the past five decades.

Michael Bernstein, executive director of Clean Prosperity, a non-profit group, critiqued the PBO study as being too narrowly focused. The analysis did not, for instance, attempt to account for the economic benefits of the emerging green economy, he said.

Mr. Bernstein acknowledged there will be costs associated with any transition away from fossil fuels, but the question, he said, is how to minimize those costs and maximize the benefits. It is “plausible” that those benefits will outweigh costs in the long run, he added.

He said he understands why the federal Liberals chose to emphasize most households would receive rebates larger than their direct costs from carbon pricing, given the intensity of critics’ attacks. But he said political strategy has come up against the reality he has seen in focus groups, where participants express fundamental skepticism that people can be made better off through this kind of government program.

A more nuanced approach that talked about relative costs, and the relative advantage of carbon pricing, would be preferable, he added. “Focusing on how many people were better off is probably not the most compelling way to sell this in the long run, even if there is math that supports them.”

This article does not in any way address what the PBO found. It is still saying rebates will be larger for the majority which is not what the PBO found. Remember the PBO is non partisan, Globe and Mail, that is apparently debatable.

This article states that regulation is more expensive than carbon taxes yet the government is planning to regulate sales of passenger vehicles. It is also subsidizing electric vehicles. Why is that necessary if a carbon tax is so effective?! The government is regulating the end of coal generation. They want to regulate fertilizer use. On and on. Why so many regulations if the carbon tax is so effective?!

[chuckChuck]

You should ask the government of Alberta and Saskatchewan about the costs to the economy because they also have a carbon tax program for large emitters and also regulate industry.

[furrowtickler]

This article does not in any way address what the PBO found. It is still saying rebates will be larger for the majority which is not what the PBO found. Remember the PBO is non partisan, Globe and Mail, that is apparently debatable.

This article states that regulation is more expensive than carbon taxes yet the government is planning to regulate sales of passenger vehicles. It is also subsidizing electric vehicles. Why is that necessary if a carbon tax is so effective?! The government is regulating the end of coal generation. They want to regulate fertilizer use. On and on. Why so many regulations if the carbon tax is so effective?!

Because it’s a wealth transfer scheme and has very little to do with climate change .