The farce goes to Leduc -

The farce goes to Leduc


An excerpt from an op-ed in the Leduc Representative by Conservative MP Blaine Calkins.

Unfortunately, while our Government continues to support economic growth, the NDP is focused on promoting their $21 billion carbon tax. This tax would not only take money out of the pockets of hardworking Canadians, but kill jobs and cripple businesses. We will always be against job killing tax increases that will hinder Canadians.

Here again is the rough guide to the Conservatives’ carbon tax farce.


The farce goes to Leduc

  1. I guess ‘support the troops’ is out of fashion now, because it was the only phrase Calkins missed.

  2. The media will not do their job and tell Canadians the massive increase in taxes the NDP will need to fund their socialist schemes, so individual MP`s are telling the people that the anti-trade, increasing social programs, and pro-tax NDP would destroy our economy.

    No wonder Conservatives are laughing.
    Who will the people believe in the next campaign ?
    The government who can point to their 9 years in power with no large tax increases or any new carbon taxes, or a left-wing media who insist that somewhere in a speech in 2008 Harper might have said the words cap and trade.
    Harper plays you guys like a banjo.

    • Andrew-The-Smurf….blue from bathing in all that Kool-Aid.

    • You must be a Con MP. They’re the only ones so demoralized they would repeat these talking points.

    • I submit the real farce is Aaron Wherry who has made it his mission statement to defend NDP Cabon taxes that can be factually proven as being in the NDP election platform, and no, not from the 2008 election, but the most recent election that people actually voted on.

      I submit that Wherry is an embarrassment to non partisan professional journalists and is part of the media elite party that believe how they view certain events is more important then how everyday Canadians do. I would love to see Wherry actually travel to Leduc and explain how the NDP proposal that proposed to increased revenue from Carbon to the tune of $ 21.5 BILLION would not be viewed by a tax to some people regardless of whatever fancy name name people like Mulcair and Wherry choose to dress it up as.

      But of course we know Wherry will say “but, but the Conservatives tried to do the same thing four years ago…” as his defense, because after all we know, “In defense of Mulcair Aaron Wherry is there….”.

      • We would all like it if you lot stopped trying to intimidate journos, and stopped being Con shills on here.

        • I simply voiced my opinion. Mr. Wherry voices his opinion daily whenever he arbitrarily declares any factually accurate criticism of the $ 21.5 BILLION in increased carbon revenue proposed in the NDP campaign platform as being “a farce” It is of course “a farce” in the opinion of Mr.Wherry but as I actually took the time to seek out the NDP platform and viewed firsthand the $ 21.5 BILLION IN the NDP platform in my opinion it is fact and not farce.

          So what you are suggesting EmilyOne is that those who have a different opinion then Mr.Wherry does should not be entitled to comment here and express our views ? I have used no slang or profanity and believe that I am just as entitled to voice my opinion as you are to yours.

          I submit that as a left leaning Macleans journalist, Mr. Wherry has understandably accumulated a leftist following on here and some of you clearly do not like that those of us who do support free enterprise right wing Government have a different point of view and feel that we must stand up against partisan media bias such as demonstrated by Mr. Wherry’s.

          • Could you at least make an effort to come up with your own material instead of spewing, repeatedly the assigned talking points. Besides from making you sound like idiots, you’re boring us to death.

          • Didn’t you mean Marxist journalist? Need to update your TPs Bill.

          • Is there any way you could put BIGGER CAPS on BILLION? Because that would surely shore up your dimwitted seal-clap. Maybe you could use the ‘red in the face’ font? Or, while you’re typing, YELL it. That might transfer your righteous outrage into actual pixels.

        • Give him a link to Stephen Gordon’s blog, it’ll make him cry.

      • Bill, I suppose there are two ways to lay out the future of Canada. Now you happen to believe that economic prosperity now is what really matters and that this will pave the way to economic security for future generations. Now there is definitely some truth in that.

        Others feel that environmental stewardship must be a priority. Afterall, what is the economic prosperity we bequeath to our children if their world is fouled or if they have to surrender said prosperity to clean up their environment. Well, there is definitely some truth in that too.

        Now, experience has shown me that the Conservatives pay lip service to the environment, but are hell bent on breaking down any environmental barriers that get in the way of “progress.”To make matters worse, they didn’t campaign on any of these changes, but feel justified in back dooring them through grotesquely large omnibus bills. To me that is sneaky and just not right, you know?

        I don’t want environmentalists running the show, but I really think it is an epic failure to neglect our stewardship and dump it on future generations. Living it up now, and leaving the bill to tomorrow’s generations seems plain old irresponsible.

        Now I don’t mind paying taxes. In return I live in a civil society that helps those less fortunate and also provides me with health care. I also would not mind paying a little more to ensure real environmental stewardship. To me that is reasonable. Do you think I’m wrong? Why? How do you see this?

        • I think you make some valid points and very effectively encapsulate two opposing views that currently dominate much of our political discussion. However the point I have been trying to convey is that I believe the media has a responsibility to fairly and accurately report the facts in a non partisan manner (unless they openly disclose their political bias as Sun news does) In my view it should be up to the reader/viewers to decide on an issue with factually accurate information without partisan slant from a journalist. In fairness to Mr.Wherry he did just finally put up a post showing both sides of a debate on Bill C45 and he did so without inserting his own political bias and managed to not call one side “a farce” or come “in defence of…” a side (and of course in both instances we know which side Wherry is on.

          Getting back to your question, (and again I really appreciated your comments in general) – ultimately you are prepared to pay more (by your own admission) From my perspective I don’t see Canada as having a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. Rather then spending more, I would like to see greater efficiencies and more waste and ineffective spending reduced and eliminated. My spouse works in the federal public service and the daily horror stories are ongoing. We are barely scratching the surface and yet the doom and gloom every time a change is made are always over the top. Typically we are generally not getting the facts as to what is really going on.

          Let me point this out as an example. Read the Navigable Waters Protection Act (not some Q&A on a website but the actual act) nowhere does this act reference or protect the environment in ANY way. What it protects is the navigation interests even on bodies of water that are non navigable. How many media reporters have reported that because that is the truth ? It amazes me that some media will go out of their way to report on what they see as a “farce” and yet ignore a far greater farce which is the mischaracterization of the Navigable Waters protection Act as being some sort of “environmental” act when in fact it is not. However reporting the true facts would of course negate much of the opposition false arguments to date – this is why I think partisan journalists do a disservice to readers and that they should stick to reporting the facts. Unfortunately for partisan journalists they fail

          Where am I going with this ? How much money is wasted on administration to regulate the Navigable Waters protection Act on non navigable bodies of water which of course is the vast majority?. From my perspective rather then continue to waste that money perhaps it could be better spent on some of the issues that you have identified.

          • fair enough and thanks for the views

          • The “farce” Wherry has referenced isn’t merely taking a biased side of a debate, it’s presenting a logical argument using actual facts, that can be followed if you have an interest in seeing the value truth in politics not entirely disappear from the current political scene.

            You obviously did not read the original NWPA, because it did clearly reference the environment any number of times. If that wasn’t enough there are articles readily available from environmental lawyers that clearly show the link between the two, the act functioning as a trigger to the original environmental review act. How could you possibly have missed this?

            Journalist have a duty to report the facts and you have a duty to inform yourself before posting this drivel.

    • The government who went from surplus to structural deficit and who
      increase propaganda … er, advertising … spending while slashing
      funding to depts that actually do something? The government more
      interested in spin than work; the government who tries very hard to
      avoid responsibility or any close scrutiny of their legislation or
      accounting? That government?

      • The government that will point to their economic RECORD for the past 9 years in comparison to socialist economic disasters in the rest of the world and the potential of a possible economic disaster in Canada if we have a government led by a combination of tax and spend socialists and a pretty-boy drama teacher.

        • See it’s this kind of misinformation, misquotes, language abuse, outright lying and attempts to discredit people that get Cons into trouble.

    • I noticed yesterday that I received about 20 thumbs-down for insisting that a good journalist should examine what a possible alternative government should look like and not concentrate solely on what the government is doing to enlighten the populace on the tax plans of the NDP.
      Now, it is certainly not unusual for me to receive large disapproval from the regulars on this left-wing blog, however the local troll here made on of her profound comments on the same thread—-something about the Cons being a stupid Party—and she then received a large approval from many of the lemmings here.
      C`mon guys—-your insistence on supporting mediocrity is becoming laughable.

      • ” Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, most stupid people are conservatives.” – John Stuart Mill

        • C`mon lemmings—support the troll.

          • I suggest you look up John Stuart Mill.

          • A doesn’t read books ‘n stuff – he just believes what his lying govt tells him.

      • Actually we’re laughing at you , didn’t ya notice yet?

      • Hey – mediocrity would be an improvement over what we currently have.

        All this focus on what the NDP might do if elected three years from now is purely intended to distract us from current failures (tainted meat anyone?) investigations into corrupt politics (Pierre Poutine, where are you?) and spending practices, and all the crap they are sliding past us in those omnibus bills they refuse to debate.

        In short, it’s all sleight of hand to keep us from peeking behind the curtain and seeing what they are up to.

    • ‘…or a left-wing media who insist that somewhere in a speech in 2008 Harper might have said the words cap and trade.”

      You can’t even lie honestly.

      • Liberals lie honestly ?

        • I thought that might stump you.

    • Harper plays you guys like a banjo.

      And you play Harper like a flute.

      It’s hilarious how the most Hooverific supporters of Harper like to brag about the fact that Harper’s promises are worthless tissue.

      • I`ll try this again for you:

        While you guys are flogging yourselves over the possibility that Harper

        may have talked about a carbon tax a few years back, he is using the media to report on the real agenda of the NDP—more taxes. The message is not for you or Wherry. It is for the people who will decide in the next election if they would like a government with no substantial tax increases over the past 9 years or an NDP government that has promised large tax increases to fund their programs.

        This little agenda Wherry is on will soon be forgotten.

        • So you’re in agreement with me that the Conservative message is targeted at the shallowest end of the gene pool. The sub-70 set, the morons who watch Sun-TV and dutifully call up to order aerosol ice-melter by phone. The same delusional, barely functional, feeble and fearful folks who make monthly contributions to the CPC bloodsuckers who call to menace them with with their latest buffoonish boogeymen?

          Here’s a tip for you Andrew, most of the people here not morons or – as I suspect you are – barely post-pubescent losers who’ve been freshly recruited into partisan politics. We are all well aware that the NDP favours a higher tax, higher services style of government. Like I said, we’re not morons. What we are objecting to is the cartoonish style of pure idiocy displayed by this government and it’s minimum wage boosters found here, and elsewhere, dribbling and drooling like they’ve got head injuries and calling themselves “part of the debate.” You’re not even in the right hall and I for one am getting tired of pretending respect for your moronic behaviour.

          If you can’t say anything intelligent – and clearly you can’t – then shut the fuck up.

          • Don’t hold it in there Igarvin. Let it all out. Feel better now? :)

          • I know I did when I read it. I just wish someone in opposition would get up in the house and say it.

          • It’s funny you should say that, I made the mistake of watching those buffoons in the House of Commons today. Probably half of the vitriol I directed at Andrew should properly be targeted at that sweaty porcine, Peter Van Loan, and at Pierre Polievre, the stink that you can smell with your eyes.

          • “The stink you can smell with your eyes.”

            *slow clap*

            Honestly, that is The Best. Though ‘sweaty porcine’ is disturbingly evocative. As for Andrew, please keep riling him up. At some point the algorithm will surely malfunction and start buying Zynga shares or something. And we will all be much better off.

          • Well I have really enjoyed this troll bashing rant. Bravo! Well done. You have a gift, sir.

          • Not really, I just have to vent once in a while or I would truly despair for this country. I just need to remember that folks like Andrew are just working stiffs who are paid to regurgitate inane talking points over and over and over again. Not a job I would choose for myself, but everyone has to make their own way,

          • This comment was deleted.

          • Andrew, if you paid even the slightest attention to anyone else, you would know that I am anything but a “lefty” or even a lefty lover. My wife, god love her, is even more conservative than I. The problem that you have, dear Andy, is that you are no kind of Conservative at all. You’re a rube whether you are the genuine article or whether a paid facsimile.

            You’re just a mindless cheerleader for a party that is every bit as profligate as the McGuinty Liberals and every bit as corrupt as the Chretien Liberals.
            You think you’re being “intelligent” because you’ve memorized a series of talking points and are able to repeat them on command. Sorry dude, not impressed.

          • And if you had a little lower opinion of yourself and were better able to comprehend the written word you would know my recent rants are not so much in praise of Harper as a criticism of the likes of Wherry who refuse to examine or even imagine what an NDP government would do to the Canadian economy.

            All this effort to bash Harper for pointing out the NDP agenda and never a critical word about the dippers.

            If you were really a conservative with any perception you would know any problem you might have now with PM Harper will seem miniscule compared to the mess you would have under PM Mulcair.

          • Man you must have a pretty peaceful life if you are dedicating all this time and effort, and horribly inept thinking, to a problem that may or may not occur three years down the road.

            If I have to choose between an NDP vote and a CPC vote in 2015, I’ll likely punt. In the meantime, on a day to day basis, I will continue to pay attention to the news of the day. And when I see people behaving dishonerably and dishonestly I will speak out about it everytime. If you’re more afraid of an NDP government 3 years from now then you are of a corrupted parliament today then you are – exactly as I’ve said – a moron and a rube. Literally, stupid beyond belief.

          • Carry on then.
            Keep reading Wherry and o`Malley`s version of Parliament.
            You must miss those good old days when the opposition could gang up on the government and call them in contempt.
            And when you find yourself losing the argument—call the other guy a moron and stupid—-makes you feel manly.

            Actually, I don`t worry much about a future NDP gov`t—-Canadians are much too intelligent for that silliness, but I do wish those in the media would examine their policies closer. And I do enjoy riling up the local lefties who hang out here.

        • Given that many economists agree that Harper’s regulatory approach costs more than cap-and-trade, Harper isn’t saving the cost of a carbon tax; he’s merely burying it… at a greater cost to the taxpayer.

          Typical Harper; everything has to be done by subterfuge. He and his cronies can’t do anything without lying about it.

  3. He said a number so it must be real.