Dutch01

Dave I'll grant you this, if the money collected is not earmarked for a special fund that can only be used for "green initiatives", then you are correct, it is not a legitimate exercise. I actually don't know if the funds are going to general revenue or not. I'll see what I can find when I have a minute...

Cliff, If you have honestly evaluated O'Leary's position on the issues and decided he stands for what you stand for, then vote for him with my blessing (not that you need it, just saying).

I'm sure we're not the only three

Nice dodge! (Being serious, you sidestepped the question deftly!)

I don't know enough about him myself, but he seems to be one of the few serious contenders. There are just too many candidates right now, they need to whittle it down a bit.

Thanks dude. I'm not sure that's the consensus opinion but I'm not trying to win friends here. Just me being me. I will say I stayed up way too late last night researching the Fraser Institute but I'm glad I did. I'll know to be wary the next time I see them quoted in an article. Just the association with the Koch brothers alone is enough to put me off.

A little less off topic, everyone at the debate seemed to focus on attacking Maxine Bernier. That tells me they saw him as the biggest threat on the stage. I'm sure they'll be attacking O'leary at the next one.

I'm sure I'm rufling feathers here, but to be clear I am not advocating for liberal partisanship, I am arguing against all partisanship. "Joining a tribe", liberal or conservative, rarely leads people to more reasonable and rational thought on issues.

I would say it means he's screwed over a lot of people and been sued on a regular. If getting rich by ripping people off is a guy you want running the country, I can't agree with you there Cliff. Read the article, see what Mattel had to say about him after losing billions dealing with him.

Also, it's almost impossible to win an election without Quebec's seats. Quebec will never vote for someone who doesn't speak French. I know, he's taking lessons. We'll see if QC buys it or not.

Somehow these goons manage to convince the people they fleece that they are their only savour. It's mind boggling. Trump made a career out of not paying working class people for work performed, and somehow they think he cares about "the little guy"'.

He's actually not a very good business man at all, he just plays one on tv. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/kevin-oleary-hes-not-a-billionaire-he-just-plays-one-on-tv/article4564334/

Did I say that you said you agreed with it? I did not. You could post a link to bomb making instructions and say but I only posted a link, I didn't say I agreed with it. But you'd still be guilty of spreading dangerous information, or in this case misinformation. Don't take it personal, I'm not attacking you here. I'm amazed how many posters here attack the Liberals (rightly so in many cases) while giving a free pass to anyone conservative. They are not different. They are in competition. They are each trying to screw us better than the other.

Do you believe you are getting the straight facts from Conservative politicians?

No, but it would drastically accelerate it (ever heard of nuclear winter?). My point was to show you that your statement was rooted only in believe, not fact.

Belief is not the same as knowledge. Do you believe that if man launched all of the world's nuclear arsenal at one time, there would still be no effect on the climate?

Doesn't even have to be a compound. My 45# recurve with a broadhead can cause plenty of damage.

Fair enough. I thought you might like to know who you are listening to.

Consider the source. I say that in all seriousness, because this article is a propaganda piece. First, it's from the Toronto Sun, a conservative newspaper not known for journalistic quality or integrity. Second, it's reporting on a piece by the Fraser Institute. The following information may help you to understand the Fraser Institute's motivations. Catherine Windels is the Director of International Affairs at international drug giant Pfizer, and also served as the Secretary Treasurer for the Fraser Institutes Board of Trustees. The Fraser Institute has put out several "reports" critical of internet pharmacies and generic drugs, and has lobbied for direct to consumer advertising by drug companies. All things that would benefit Pfizer. Then there's Gwyn Morgan (of oil company EnCana) and R. J. Pirie (Sabre Energy). They are on the board too. Oh and the Koch brothers, those conservative American oil billionaires, they gave $500,000 to the Fraser Institute. Actually Exxon gave them $120,000 too, seems like all the oil guys want to get in bed with Fraser. Perhaps that is why the Fraser Institute are essentially climate change deniers. You may have read recently, as I did, that corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash. Interestingly, the Fraser Institute supports cutting corporate taxes. Perhaps they think the corporations need more cash. I wonder if that has anything to do with board members Peter Brown (Cannacord Capital) and James McGovern (Arrow Hedge Partners). These guys control hedge funds with investments of approximately $300M for the ultra rich. I'm sure there's more, the board is actually huge. I'm not sure why anyone who isn't filthy rich would think the Fraser Institute would ever do anything for them. They don't care about regular people at all. They use big corporate money and a rag like the Sun to convince the "working man" that they've got your back. While I didn't do the research, I'm sure the Liberals are just as bad on the other side. Google Mike Crawley, former President of the Liberal Party of Canada. He started a power company (despite no prior experience) and received a 20 year guaranteed contract to provide green energy to the Ontario Liberals. The payout? A paltry $66,000 per day. The point is these guys have all read Sun Tzu, and as long as they keep us divided into liberal or conservative tribes, we will remain conquered.

I'm not sure there's anything to worry about, at least where Simcoe is concerned. It's been hammered every winter for decades and there's still no shortage of perch.

LOL! Sounds like you have the makings of a screenplay there scuro!

It probably could have been implemented more smoothly, but you're right that the "new" policy is pretty much the same as the "old" policy.

Ontario is struggling because of horrendous mismanagement by the Wynne crime gang, not because of immigrants.

When you say who is paying the cost, you are missing the point. On the whole, immigration returns more to Canada than it costs us. On the flipside, stopping immigration because of an erroneous perception that it costs us money, would actually have the reverse of the intended effect. Canadians are not having enough children to sustain our tax base. Without immigrants' contribution to Canada, the government would have to cut social programs further, or run higher deficits.

I'm sure he would answer, correctly, that study after study has proven immigration provides a net benefit to Canada. Study after study has also shown that without immigration our population would decline at a rate that would not sustain economic growth. This isn't rocket science, people. But it is science. Everybody has their own gut feel about things, but if your gut feel tells you we need to cut back on immigration, then your gut feel runs contrary to the facts.