Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About CentristPartyofCanada

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm going to have to invoke Godwin's law pretty soon. You haven't addressed any of my arguments but you've proven my point: you're just looking for something to hate. You're not a logic or fact oriented person, that much is clear Firearms have nothing to do with the Kinder Morgan pipeline so I don't see the relation. We need a way to fill those government coffers you know. Also: https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2574
  2. This is a pretty terrible argument. Things like RRSPs are investment vehicles. Firearms are a hobby in Canada. Unless it's a collector's item no one uses firearm as investment vehicles. Someone spending $15k on a firearm that brings them joy doesn't mean they have money to burn, it just means they choose to spend their money a certain way. Just how some people spend upwards of 30k on nice motorcycles or vehicles doesn't necessarily mean they have money to burn - all it means is that it is how they choose to spend their money. I find it disturbing that you're okay with people losing large sums of money at the stroke of the government's pen just because you don't share their passion for a certain hobby. It sounds like you have a lot of anger. I imagine that individual, and many like him, did everything right in terms of following the law. The government gave him regulations and rules to follow, whether it's storage, taking courses, background checks, etc - and he complied. The deal is you follow the government's laws and you can acquire, possess, transport, and use firearms. There are over 2 million firearm licensed individuals in Canada. A few million Canadians own 7 million firearms between them, and the death toll from fire arm related homicides on a yearly basis is less than 200, of which a large part are gang related. 2017 had the most firearm homicides since the 1990s, making it an outlier. In 2017, police reported 660 homicide victims in Canada; The [...] increase [...] was driven by an increase in firearm-related and gang-related homicides; The number of gang-related homicides rose to 163 in 2017 (25% of all homicides); Almost 9 out of every 10 (87%) gang-related homicides were committed with a firearm, usually a handgun; Overall, there were 266 victims killed by a firearm in 2017; and The firearm-related homicide rate increased for the fourth consecutive year, rising 18% in 2017. At 0.72 per 100,000 population, this marked the highest rate of firearm-related homicides seen in Canada since 1992. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/article/54980-eng.htm Research continues to rely on surveys to estimate the number of firearm-owning households, firearm owners and firearms in circulation. Survey findings are fairly consistent but may underestimate the prevalence of firearms in Canada; Recent estimates indicate that 26 percent of Canadian households own at least one firearm; Approximately 7 million firearms are estimated to be owned by private individuals, this number includes as many as 1.2 million restricted firearms; and The overall rate of firearm ownership is at least 241 per 1,000 population and is comparable to ownership rates in other countries where hunting is a significant activity. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/wd98_4-dt98_4/p2.html Due to the proximity to the United States, and the extent to which the Canadian media focuses on American news, Canadians falsely believe that Canada has a gun (violence) problem. A number of studies have concluded that the most effective policies regarding reducing firearm crimes include in-depth background checks, registration, mandatory education of firearm safety and laws, and not allowing a person to carry a firearm on their person in public (concealed/open carry). These requirements have been part of Canadian firearm regulation for decades. Interestingly enough, the Czech Republic allows concealed carry and has less firearm related crime than Canada. In addition, enforcement is a significant factor in the effectiveness of firearm regulation. Canada consistently and strictly enforces firearm regulations. The majority of firearm related crimes are gang related and do not involve the average person. The majority of the firearms used in crimes in Canada are from the US. In addition, paintball and airsoft guns, among others, fall under the category of “firearm” – which can be misleading when interpreting statistics. Currently, there is no logic behind banning or restricting various firearms other than for aesthetic reasons. The AR15, one of the firearms being banned, has only killed ONE person within Canada, since its introduction in the mid 1970s. So why is it being banned? The Ruger Mini 14, a vermin firearm, is being banned because of its usage in the 1989 Polytechnique shooting. Since then (over 30 years!), it has not be attributed to any crime. We're going to spend billions of dollars for what? To try and reduce the ~100 deaths a year related to firearms to 0? Even though a significant number, if not all, of experts and law enforcement personnel agree that it will actually do nothing? All the while the world economy is reeling from the Coronavirus. In the end, you don't care that this new ban will see the loss of over 2 billion taxpayer dollars a year, in perpetuity. You don't care that the crime rate will not actually go down. All you care about is punishing a group you don't like.
  3. A rifle round may over penetrate and end up in your neighbour's kid - where a pistol round may not. A hunting rifle is also difficult to maneuver in close quarters. In small, confined spaces, where there may be multiple assailants who are armed with CQC weapons (handguns, knives, etc)- not being able to properly utilize your self-defense-weapon(TM) of choice can prove deadly. Cut the demand? There isn't really a demand for many types of firearms because of the uncertainty of Canadian firearm legislation. South of the border is a different story but you'll never see that demand cut. That's semantics anyway. Handguns and multiple-round firearms have been around for a century. These things have been "in circulation" for that long. In addition, if a criminal organization requires something - they will not let commercial production stop them. They can make it themselves. It's very old and simple technology. If they can't make it, well - criminal organizations tend to have very strong logistics and supply chains. Your proposed changes are very questionable in regards to what they accomplish. There are over 2 million licensed firearm owners in Canada. Every year, year after year, the (non-suicide) death rate due to firearms has been around 600 - the majority of which are gang related. 37 mil Canadians. Several mil firearms. +2 mil licensed firearm owners = 600 deaths. They are tragic but we're talking about an almost statistical rounding error. Canada does not have a firearm problem. As for easier to kill people with guns, let me remind you of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_van_attack
  4. That's what the Centrist party is. We're about more freedom. All those things you mentioned, especially massive immigration, are things on our platform. The fact that those "chart and graphs" is something that you dismiss, shows how the PPC is the same as the liberals or conservatives. Even when presented with actual legitimate science and proof, the PPC's horde of koolaid drinkers refuse to acknowledge it. The PPC said they were common sense and fact based - but they aren't. Just like the other parties, they manipulate the data or throw rhetoric to justify their beliefs. That isn't any different than how some Liberals see firearms. We're different. We look at the data first, and from there we establish our position. You're right that Canadians don't care. We will all get our just deserts soon enough. You can blame capitalism for that one. The reason these 3rd world countries are polluting so much IS because of us. Corporations are always looking to reduce their costs and maximize profits. To achieve that goal they've outsourced their manufacturing to countries with less regulation, less taxes, less red tape, and cheaper labor. If it wasn't for them doing that, we would have all that manufacturing and other industries at home and we could be more environmentally friendly. How much of your stuff is "made in china"? Pretty much all of it. The pollution in the ocean is 3rd world countries dumping our garbage. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/craig-and-marc-kielburger/canada-manila-recycling_b_5452730.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAI6jsZNOy5k5JkDrPlZ6wbKtPR-kOxrJFkiUbHwQrCV1nb84Bn9Iysp9VKeLKGmzyYMCBoUB0AkjP4O5KX0V532gjaPv_VZr58Q0odulg6pf_KJvwr34a-1La4mB3kHFFxez5D3gDcboHiRpY5HIA5bKBWyBKhFeuDJIY_9E4fFc https://www.thestar.com/calgary/2019/04/24/how-did-103-containers-of-canadas-rotting-garbage-end-up-in-the-philippines.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jun/17/recycled-plastic-america-global-crisis We agree with you on what you're saying regarding people like Suzuki. https://www.centrist.ca/environment If you read the platform you'll see that you agree with us, we just aren't denying climate change is man made like the PPC is. Our plan is to bring back that manufacturing and garbage to Canada, so we can get those jobs back and deal with them in an environmentally responsible way, it's to build nuclear power where they still use fossil fuels for power generation, it's to have our cities build with better public transportation and improve the electric vehicle infrastructure, and it's to stop mass immigration and instead allow Canadians to have enough children to sustain the government's tax collection - among other things.
  5. They are sure it has a very strong negative impact - how large of a negative impact is the question - but it is absolute certainty that humanity has a huge impact on climate change. As mentioned above, the energy in the atmosphere dictates the temperature. Our GHG are the main cause of the retention of this energy. For everything else you wrote, that's exactly what is said on our website. https://www.centrist.ca/environment
  6. They deny that climate change is man made. Of course the climate is always changing but humans have a huge impact on that. They've also provided 0 information on their "plan" or the direction they intend to take. Most of them have a very poor understanding of what climate change is. I'll break it down: The earth receives energy from the sun through the form of electromagnetic radiation Some of the radiation from the sun is blocked by the earth's magnetic field and composition of the atmosphere (ozone for UV rays, etc) A large portion of the energy that makes it through is visible light and infrared. Certain chemicals in the earth's atmosphere, like oxygen and nitrogen, known as linear molecules, are very stable and do not react with the incoming radiation (unless for high energy such as UV) Non-linear chemicals, which have many vibrational modes, such as carbon dioxide, water (vapour), and other organic molecules, absorb the infrared radiation and keep it within the earth's atmosphere. These chemicals are known as "green house gases" The temperature within a system is dependent on the amount of energy in it. More energy, the higher the temperature The energy in earth's atmosphere is an equation which amounts to => temperature = energy received by sun + energy already in atmosphere - energy leaving the atmosphere The amount of energy retained within the atmosphere is dependent on the amount of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and other organic chemicals, since they retain infrared energy instead of allowing it to leave in to space. Thus, the more carbon dioxide, water vapour, and other organic chemicals, the higher the absorption and retention rate of solar energy The increased energy retention within the atmosphere causes an increase in temperature Humans began using coal for power around 1700. The human population then was 710 million. Only a select few were using coal back then. It's 2020. Europe alone has a population approaching 800 million. How much coal, other forms of fossil fuels, and natural gas is used to provide those 800 million europeans electricity, vehicles, consumer goods, and a trove of other modern comforts and necessities? The current human population is 7.7 billion people. So over the past 320 years, we've not only grown the human population from 710 million to 7.7 billion but we've also heavily industrialized our societies. Countries like China are rapidly industrializing. The amount of carbon dioxide, water vapour, and other green house gases being emitted on a daily basis have reached astronomical numbers. Think of the compounding effects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_vibration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy#Absorption_spectrum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
  7. 1. Yes it does. 2. This is impossible to answer. 3. I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse. All you keep mentioning is refugees, despite the fact that you've been corrected multiple times about that. Here are two entire pages that exactly outline the plan: https://www.centrist.ca/environment https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-climate-change The top of every policy page has bullet points that breakdown the information in to a tl;dr format. Agriculture would be one of the exceptions. When we mention TFW we're referring to things like this: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/hd-mining-chief-makes-his-case-for-hiring-temporary-foreign-workers/article8238708/ Canadians will always have a higher per capita output because of the nature of our country - long distances and very cold for a long period of time. The atmosphere does not care about per capita. The atmosphere is a physical entity that follows the laws of physics. In the end it boils down to the total output. The larger the total output, the more dramatic the effect. Per capita is just a metric people have created but it's meaningless on a global scale. Also the per capita takes in to account the oil sands. We would be very interested to hear concrete examples on what you perceive as Centrist. We're not doing this in bad faith - we firmly believe what is on the website. One of our members ran for the PPC. This person was not impressed - they ended up quitting. The PPC has a very strong online presence but offline their presence is very poor. As long as the PPC continues to deny climate change, among other things, they will never stand a chance.
  8. 1. There is a currently point system in places regarding immigration. No need to go in to the intricate details since you can easily find that information online. The bar for immigration in Canada is fairly low. While we generally accept higher quality immigrants than the US, a fair number of our immigrants end up in positions that is "beneath" their level of education or training. Some of these positions don't pay well and/or are unskilled. There is also the temporary foreign worker program. What we would do is increase the requirements for immigration and certain classes of jobs would be abolished. We would also abolish or heavily modify the TFW program. 2. We say that because we are. The majority of the electricity generated from Canada is from very green sources - Nuclear (the greenest) and Hydro (fairly green). The most populated provinces, which are Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, have a significant amount of their energy generated from green sources. Canada has very stringent environmental requirements. Our emissions account for 1.5% of global emissions (source: https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-indicators/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html) , and a portion of that is allocated to the oil sands (and its effect abroad). It would be a carbon tax on imports from countries that heavily pollute such as China. The idea behind it is either countries like China reduce their emissions, and increase their environmental stewardship, or we put a tariff on their products. This will have a few effects: -China will improve its environmental stewardship; -Canadians will purchase less "cheap" products, reducing emissions; -Canadians will purchase overseas products less overall, also reducing emissions; and -It will become more profitable for industries here to take on making these products - creating jobs and reducing emissions. The last one is important because shipping across the oceans carries a very heavy environmental cost. We can reduce that effect on the environment if we keep things local. 3. The world's countries are already starting to become more protectionists in their policies. If a treaty is unrealistic, then what is the point?
  9. The response is in the very same pages those quotes are from. 1. "The immigration quota needs to be assessed on a yearly basis with an emphasis on economic migrants filling specific positions based on demand." https://www.centrist.ca/immigration 2. "Assess placing tariffs on external products from countries that pollute heavily." "While initiatives like the carbon tax may have merit, Canada is already a relatively green country. The carbon tax doesn't make sense if Canadians are going to keep buying products that originate in countries who seem to not be concerned with environmental stewardship." https://www.centrist.ca/environment "The Centrist Party of Canda believes that we must take a proactive approach to climate change. However, the Canadian economy is important for the prosperity of Canada and the transition to a fully renewable energy reliant system should be a progressive process. While aggressively pursuing alternate energy sources and policies is the right path, this must be done without harming the Canadian economy. The revenue gained from our strong resource export economy should be used to pay down debt and invest in new technology." https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-economy The climate treaty targets are unrealistic. No one will meet them.
  10. 1.https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-self-reliance "Opt out of non-binding United Nations resolutions that do not benefit Canadians". 2. https://www.centrist.ca/immigration "Improve the immigration process and integration so that immigrants are set up for success" "By controlling the type of immigrant that enters Canada, we can ensure that the maximum value is provided to the tax payer and the Canadian economy, while still allowing people to have a better quality of life." 3. https://www.centrist.ca/environment "The Centrist Party of Canada believes that climate change is a priority and it must be addressed in a practical manner which does not harm the Canadian economy. "
  11. All good points. Many of which we've already included in our platform. "To help transition the oil industry to being more-green, companies could begin to use electrical equipment and machinery. It seems wasteful to use fossil fuel powered machinery to extract fossil fuels. There is no logic in using 3 barrels of oil to extract 5. Of course, transitioning would take time and the right kind of technology needs to emerge. In addition, we still need coal to make products like steel and oil based lubricants are a necessary component for any machinery". Source: https://www.centrist.ca/environment Very good points - we'll work on this. Thank you. https://www.centrist.ca/environment "Over fishing, destruction of natural habitats, extinction of pollinators, pollution in our waters, untreated sewage being dumped directly in to our waters, recycling practices that are for show - there is more to environmental concerns than just “climate change”. Canada should start by not shipping its garbage to other countries which just end up dumping it in oceans and rivers. There is a lot that can be done and The Centrist Party of Canada intends to take a very strong, but practical, stance on climate change and the environment. "
  12. The purpose of taxes is for the government to collect enough money so that it may function, and provide a number of goods and services to the general public. These goods and services take various forms such as maintenance, upgrades, social services (healthcare) and so forth. A high quality of life demands taxes. Simply stated, these goods and services are dependent on how much money the government can collect. Tax collection, in relation to the country’s population, is based on: 1) Number of working adults; 2) Earnings of these working adults; and 3) Tax rate. If the government can’t collect sufficient tax money, then the quality and/or availability of these goods and services will decline. For this reason, a growing population is not only beneficial but necessary, since the taxes of each new generation of working adults must support the entire population. This means that as a generation enters the working adult part of its life cycle, it must generate enough tax dollars so that the non-working generations are supported while the government maintains or improves a number of infrastructures and services. The nature of this system is that for everyone to be supported, each new generation must be larger than the last. from: https://www.centrist.ca/important-issues-low-fertility The government has figured out that instead of the difficult task of waiting at least 18 years for a baby to become a tax paying adult, they can just import immigrants that can already start paying taxes. Almost a third of our population are seniors, which strains our healthcare and is very costly. The only way to pay for our "free" healthcare is with taxes. Wages only go up when there is a demand for a specific skillset. A janitor will always make around minimum wage because that skillset isn't very in demand and requires very little training. There's a reason doctors are paid more than janitors. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of our southern border with the US. Our population is concentrated within 3 major metropolitan areas which are the GTA (toronto), GVA(Vancouver), and Montreal. You don't need to worry about our wilderness - we have plenty of it. An arsenal of nuclear weapons does nothing. We need a well funded military.
  13. If we gave those sort of answers: 1) Then we would basically be promising the same things as the NDP, Libs, or Tories - why vote for us when those parties already exist? 2) That's exactly what we're trying to change. The point was we recognize the necessity of a well funded military - we are not including *just* because we're "loyal". We think now is the right time to start talking about this. Canadians are getting a rude wake up call with China's encroaching dominion over Canada, the US (Trump at least) showing its true colors regarding our "friendship", and what's going on in the Arctic circle. Our question to you is: are your +30 years of service and loyalty enough to join as a member so we can start bringing these issues to light?
  • Create New...