Connect with us

Opinion

Wouldn’t we save money and have nicer lawns if we just did our business behind a bush?

Published

3 minute read

It costs $73/tonne to toss out my coffee cup. That is the cost of taking solid waste to the waste management site. It costs about $40 per month for my waste water to get treated and dumped into the river.
Would it not be cheaper to just burn my solid waste in the back yard or dump it over the fence or drop it along some dirt road, or in some farmerā€˜s field? It might be cheaper in the short term but if everyone did it, I can only imagine.
Speaking of farmers’ fields, you know they have manure spreaders for spreading manure on their fields. So manure is a good fertilizer, good for plants. Interesting because that is part of the reason why we pay $40 per month cleaning our wastewater.
Would it not be cheaper if we all just did our business in our gardens or dumped it in the streets and let the rain wash it away or let it fertilize the ground?
Can you imagine how much crop we could get if 7 billion people left their fertilizer on the ground? Now if only we had CO2 to help our crops grow?
You can see where I am going with this and how foolish it appears, but the argument against carbon pricing is very similar.
How many times have we heard that CO2 is not a pollutant but is a necessity for plant growth. Water is necessary too, but nobody wants a flood or a tsunami.
It took many generations, plagues and courage to get the sewage off the streets and solid waste into landfills. It took generations to get recycling into the mainstream, it will take longer to accept a price on carbon.
We have 3 levels of pollution solid, liquid and gas. We pay $73 per tonne to manage our solid waste and since carbon pricing is based on a solid’s scale why not charge $73 per tonne of carbon?
We all understand about our need for clean air just as we understand our need for clean water and removing our trash. We recycle while many third world nations may not, we treat our wastewater while many third world nations may not, so why don’t we clean our air or at least make those who pollute, pay?
My fire and flood insurance is going up due to increased fires and floods, due to climate change, due to CO2, and health care related costs are going up and the list goes on so I guess everyone is paying for our free air pollution.
Shouldn’t the polluters pay a little bit more?
Just asking.

Follow Author

Alberta

Preston Manning: Canada is in a unity crisis

Published on

Preston Manning's avatar Preston Manning

A Canada West Assembly would investigate why

The election of a minority Liberal government on Monday, and the strong showing of the Conservative party under Pierre Poilievre, cannot mask the fact that Canada remains seriously fractured on many fronts. Thus, one of the primary tasks of the Carney government will be to unite us for the sake of our own national well-being — not simply for the sake of presenting a strong front in future dealings with the United States.

But how is that to be done? When parliament meets as scheduled on May 26, will the government’s throne speech acknowledge the main sources of national disunity and propose the immediate adoption of remedial measures? Or will it ignore the problem entirely, which will serve to further alienate Quebec and the West from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, and weaken Canada’s bargaining position vis a vis the United States?

The principal tactic employed by the Liberal party to unite Canadians behind it in the recent election was to employ the politics of fear — fear of U.S. President Donald Trump trying to ā€œbreak us so that America can own us,ā€ as Liberal Leader Mark Carney has repeatedly said.

But if the only way to unite Canadians is through the promotion of anti-Americanism fostered by fear of some alleged American takeover — if reaction to the erratic musings of an American president is the only way to motivate more Canadians to vote in a federal election — then not only national unity, but Canadian democracy itself, is in critical condition.

We need to pinpoint what actually is fracturing the country, because if we can clearly define that, we can begin the process of removing those divisive elements to the largest extent possible. Carney and the Liberals will of course declare that it is separatist agitations in Quebec and now the West that is dividing us, but these are simply symptoms of the problem, not the cause.

Here, then, is a partial list of what underpins the division and disunity in this country and, more importantly, of some positive, achievable actions we can take to reduce or eliminate them.

First and foremost is the failure to recognize and accommodate the regional character of this country. Canada is the second-largest country by area on the planet and is characterized by huge geographic regions — the Atlantic, Central Canada, the Prairies, the Pacific Coast and the Northern territories.

Each of these regions — not just Quebec — has its own ā€œdistinctiveā€ concerns and aspirations, which must be officially recognized and addressed by the federal government if the country is to be truly united. The previous Liberal government consistently failed to do this, particularly with respect to the Prairies, Pacific and Northern regions, which is the root of much of the alienation that even stimulates talk of western separation.

Second is Ottawa’s failure to recognize and treat the natural resources sector as a fundamental building block of our national economy — not as a relic from the past or an environmental liability, as it was regarded by the government of former prime minister Justin Trudeau.

Will the throne speech announce another 180-degree turn for the Liberal government: the explicit recognition that the great engine of the Canadian economy and our economic recovery is not the federal government, as Carney has implied, but Canada’s agricultural, energy, mining, forestry and fishery sectors, with all the processing, servicing, manufacturing and knowledge sectors that are built upon them?

A third issue we’ve been plagued with is the division of Canadian society based on race, gender, sexual preferences and other identity traits, rather than focusing on the things that unite us as a nation, such as the equality of all under the law. Many private-sector entities are beginning to see the folly of pursuing identity initiatives such as diversity, equity and inclusion that divide rather than unite, but will the Liberal government follow suit and will that intention be made crystal clear in the upcoming throne speech?

A final issue is the federal government’s intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction — such as natural resources, health, municipal governance, along with property and civil rights — which is the principal cause of tension and conflict between the federal and provincial governments.

The solution is to pass a federal ā€œact respecting provincial jurisdictionā€ to repeal or amend the statutes that authorize federal intrusions, so as to eliminate, or at least reduce, their intrusiveness. Coincidentally, this would be a legislative measure that both the Conservatives and the Bloc could unite behind if such a statute were to be one of the first pieces of legislation introduced by the Carney government.

Polling is currently being done to ascertain whether the election of yet another Liberal government has increased the growing estrangement of western Canada from Ottawa and the rest of Canada, notwithstanding Carney’s assurances that his minority government will change its policies on climate change, pipelines, immigration, deficit spending and other distinguishing characteristics of the discredited Trudeau government.

The first test of the truthfulness of those assurances will come via the speech from the throne and the follow-up actions of the federal government.

Meanwhile, consultations are being held on the merits and means of organizing a ā€œCanada West Assemblyā€ to provide a democratic forum for the presentation, analysis and debate of the options facing western Canada (not just Alberta) — from acceptance of a fairer and stronger position within the federation based on guarantees from the federal government, to various independence-oriented proposals, with votes to be taken on the various options and recommendations to be made to the affected provincial governments.

Only time will tell whether the newly elected Carney government chooses to address the root causes of national disunity. But whether it does so or not will influence the direction in which the western provinces and the proposed Canada West Assembly will point.

Preston’s Substack is free today.

But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Preston’s Substack that their writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription.

Pledge your support

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

NDP Floor Crossers May Give Carney A Majority

Published on

Walk this way! Ā …singing, hey diddle diddle with the NDP in the middle…

Rumours are bouncing around that a number of NDP MPs are looking at potentially crossing the floor to join the Liberal Party of Canada and give Mark Carney the majority he is looking for. The final count for the Liberal Party was that they finished with 169 seats, a mere three seats short of the number needed to claim majority and not have to work with other parties to create a workable mandate.

From the NDP perspective, I sort of get it. After all, Singh lost in his own riding, the party no longer enjoys Official Party Status and all the accoutrements that come along with this (the biggest one being money), and the party is rumoured to be bankrupt. From an individual’s perspective, crossing the floor gives them four years of employment (beyond that may be more murky as many will say ā€œI didn’t vote for thatā€), and if you are amongst the first to cross, your bargaining position (cabinet position) can enhance your political lot in life fairly materially. If this were to occur it will happen quickly as the law of diminishing returns happens exponentially faster should you be the fourth to cross the line (maybe the Lizzy will join the race!)

From the Liberal perspective, I’m not as convinced the benefits are as transparent, from a nation building perspective. Sure, you get the majority (and thus mandate) you wish to pursue, but you truly would be thumbing your nose at Canada when you know that many NDP votes metaphorically crossed the floor to vote during the election (likely without the foresight that it would result in the death of their party), and that the country is actually pretty evenly split between the Liberals and Conservatives. Language like ā€œnow is the time for Canada to uniteā€ and ā€œwe need a strong mandate to make Canada strong, and now we have itā€ could be thrown around, but that can create real fractures should that occur.

Personally, I am hoping that Prime Minister Carney says no to any floor crossers, and works to bridge the divides that are significant within this country. There is no reason that Canada cannot be one of the greatest countries, other than getting in the way of ourselves. Now is the time for olive branches, not cactus areoles.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack!

Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Continue Reading

Trending

X