All-Candidates Meeting

A group of local organizations concerned about sustainability have announced that they will be organizing an all-Candidates meeting.  Chambers of Commerce from Northumberland are organizing one but it’s just for members so it’s good that the sustainability group are organizing this event which is open to everyone.  It will be via Zoom but will allow Q and A.  All Candidates have confirmed.  The idea is to get the position of all candidates – and presumably their parties – on where they stand on “the climate crisis, sustainable communities, and the human right to a healthy environment”.  To participate, you must register via Event Brite although tickets are free.  When you register, you get an email with a link to the Zoom meeting that will activate 30 minutes before the event.

The event will be held on September 16, at 7:00 pm.

The organizers described the event:

If ever there was a year for the climate and sustainability to be front and center in an election campaign, it is this one. Over the summer of 2021 we have been witnessing a world on fire, including here at home as Canadian communities struggled with heat waves and forest fires. Meanwhile, the report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), issued just as this election was called, said many of the most catastrophic consequences of a warming planet have yet to be realized and may now be unavoidable.

Our next Federal government will play a critical role in Canada’s response and will determine whether we make good on our commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

All the major party platforms now include a climate action plan. Will their policies be enough to ensure a sustainable future? How will their different approaches impact communities in Northumberland-Peterborough South?

All five candidates have confirmed their participation in this all-candidates forum where they will respond to prepared questions from local community groups working on environment and sustainability. Attendees will also have a chance to ask their questions of candidates during a live Q&A.

Here is the list of Organizers:

Meeting Organizers

The link to Event Brite to Register is in the Links below.


Addendum – 10 September

There will also be an all-candidates debate shown on Cogeco’s channels 10 and 700 (YourTV) on September 15.  First screening will be at 3:30 pm with repeats at later times.  The Public will not be able to ask questions.

Print Article: 


Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
9 September 2021 4:31 pm

Thanks for the info Mr.Draper.
I believe the net zero targets by 2050 are unachievable and our current “leaders”, financiers, and industrialists are kicking the can down the road for
other “leaders, financiers and industrialists in the future to solve.
I look forward to hearing what our local candidates have to opine.

Cobourg taxpayer
9 September 2021 12:16 pm

I have started doing my homework on an EV purchase. The vehicle I am interested in would get 357km per charge under optimum conditions less then 300 km in the winter. The quickest charging station, a level 3, would allow a charge to 80% in 40 minutes, if I can find one as there are few. So a drive to my mother’s in rural sw Ontario has gone from an unpleasant drive going through Toronto to a horrendous expedition. A drive to Alberta becomes impossible. While I am all for reducing emissions this makes no sense. To the candidates pushing for evs how many currently drive one? How many heat with natural gas? Have you priced out what it would cost to switch to electric heat? We have: $10000, plus the increased cost of electricity costs as compared to natural gas. I ask the reduce emissions groups to put their money where their mouths are and start leading by example. And get rid of all products in your life that have plastic in them as all are derived from petroleum products. Your household would be empty.

Reply to  Cobourg taxpayer
9 September 2021 5:01 pm

And on top of this all, it looks like the Liberals are cooking up a plan for a new capitol gains tax on the sale of your primary residence.

Reply to  cornbread
9 September 2021 5:33 pm

sources please otherwise it is an urban myth and fake news!

Reply to  ben
9 September 2021 6:53 pm

Look who’s asking for sources and accusing others of fake news.😊

“there were far more abuses of the system by business than workers.”

Reply to  Frenchy
12 September 2021 1:11 pm

Read this all facts here:

OK Frenchy one for you, you asked for facts, compiled from sources in the MSM – follow the links: a paragraph about Mr O’Toole and his approach to CERB and CEWS.
“His fiscal conservatism did not, however, equally apply to the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS)—which saw the federal government pay 75 percent of wages directly to employers to re-hire and retain their workers. A poorly conceived program with no checks on corporate manipulation, the funds have been parasitically siphoned off to the upper echelons of companies (think hedge funds and wealth managers) or as dividends to shareholders. Profitable enterprises have hoarded the money while laying off staff—but O’Toole’s support has never flagged. In total, over $90 billion has been disbursed through CEWS, surpassing the total cost of CERB and with none of its “trickle down” effects.”
I used the alias as “OK Frenchy” to get your attention – Ben Burd
source =

John Draper
Reply to  ben
12 September 2021 1:20 pm

Ben also submitted a duplicate of this using the name OK Frenchy although it was signed Ben. Both needed moderation because they used more than one link. The duplicate has now been deleted since it was not needed.

Reply to  John Draper
12 September 2021 5:52 pm

thanks John

Reply to  ben
12 September 2021 6:09 pm

Good for you Ben. If nothing else, through all your research, you’ve learned the difference between CERB and CEWS and the plethora of other programs out there.
I didn’t see in any of those links, proof that “there were far more abuses of the system by business than workers”. It sounds like more money was dispersed through CEWS than CERB but not how much of either was improper. If I missed it, please point it out to me. Thanks in advance.
And Ben… you always have my full attention.😉

Last edited 1 year ago by Frenchy
Reply to  Frenchy
13 September 2021 8:20 pm

How patronising of you Frenchy I hope you enjoyed writing your riposte. I on the other hand cannot understand how you can blow off the fact that there were documented abuses of CEWS outlined in the articles underneath the links. Links Frenchy are the words underlined and in in blue text, when clicked they lead to more information. Perhaps you do not know that, if you did then you should read the articles and not be know-it-all. When you have done that and understood what the articles are about get back to me and you will have my full attention!

Reply to  ben
13 September 2021 9:37 pm

Links Frenchy are the words underlined and in in blue text, when clicked they lead to more information. Perhaps you do not know that,

I didn’t notice the underlined part, but yeah, I know that Ben. Didn’t you notice the one in my reply? I use them all the time. Sheesh, and I’ve been told I have reading and comprehension deficiencies. 😧
Of course there were/are abuses of CEWS as there were/are of CERB and CRB and every government program since the beginning of time. But you stated that there were far more abuses of the system by business than workers” and none of those links backed up your assertion of that comparison. Is that comparison just your personal guess of the situation or do you actually have facts to back that comparison up? If so, trot them out and you’ll make me a believer.
BTW, as of August 29, 2021, more money has been doled out through CERB and its successor CRB. than doled out through CEWS.

Last edited 1 year ago by Frenchy
Reply to  ben
9 September 2021 7:03 pm
Last edited 1 year ago by jimq
Reply to  jimq
10 September 2021 8:38 am

Your link connects to a private blog, sponsored by contributions through PayPal, that has absolutely no credibility.

The author reveals his hidden agenda in the paragraph that says: “If word spreads about the Liberal plan to make life more expensive, then Canadians will turn against the Trudeau Liberals in huge numbers.”

Therefore, start a rumour to that effect, obviously.

The Toronto Sun clarifies: “’We will establish an anti-flipping tax on residential properties, requiring properties to be held for at least 12 months’ reads… the Liberal Party’s campaign website.”

Which is as it should be.

The first casualty of war is truth, traditionally, and the same would appear to apply to elections.

Last edited 1 year ago by JimT
Ken Strauss
Reply to  JimT
10 September 2021 8:46 am

Why do you think that a “flipping tax” is necessary or even appropriate? Life situations — new job, divorce, separation, death, disease — can change and require properties to be sold. Why penalize the owner who is already in a stressful situation?

Wally Keeler
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 September 2021 12:39 pm

Is an individual who is in a “stressful situation” exempt from financial responsibilities towards taxpayers? Or should they be given preferential treatment or exemptions because they are in a “stressful situation” such that the government becomes an insurance agent for property owners under emotional stress. Taxpayers have zero responsibilities towards anyone experiencing divorce, separation, etc. So pay the flipping tax on a profit.

Reply to  JimT
10 September 2021 9:19 am

OK – then Google – jason hickey liberal – and read the “truth” as he said it live yesterday. Might be worth your while to hear exactly what he said with your own ears.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  jimq
10 September 2021 11:10 am

Perhaps reading the Liberal platform on their official website ( will clarify things:

Establish an anti-flipping tax on residential properties, requiring properties to be held for at least 12 months.

Yes, they mention special rules but, like temporary income taxes, I suspect that the tax will be expanded to cover all sales. It is just another example of complicating things for no benefit except to accountants. After 6 years with no plan and no results, they need to convince voters that they now have a great plan.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ken Strauss
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 September 2021 11:58 am

I believe a tax scheme of some sorts has been in the works for some time. There is a reason that you are required to to disclose the sale of your primary residence on your tax return. We are moving towards the long term goal of taxing the sale of everyone’s primary residence. I wouldnt trust any party on this topic. Someone has to pay for all the stimulus money thats been given out.

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Informed
10 September 2021 1:04 pm

I agree, Informed. The problem is changing things. Your primary residence has always been treated differently from other investments — no deduction for maintenance, no deduction borrowing costs, tax on gains (planned) but no deduction for losses, no CCA deduction, no deduction for property tax, no consideration of personal use benefit, long-term vs short-term gains, etc. Changing the tax treatment now will be traumatic and will cause a massive disruption to the investment and succession planning of many families!

Wally Keeler
Reply to  Ken Strauss
10 September 2021 4:11 pm

Changing the tax treatment now will be traumatic and will cause a massive disruption to the investment and succession planning of many families!

If they change the tax treatment a year or so in the future, will it remain traumatic?

CAMH defines trauma “is a term used to describe the challenging emotional consequences that living through a distressing event can have for an individual.” 

How will it cause a “massive disruption” compared to a just being a brief inconvenience?

Ken Strauss
Reply to  Wally Keeler
10 September 2021 6:37 pm

The change, as I contemplate it, (hopefully it will be just another broken Liberal promise) would cause massive — traumatic — disruption to people’s tax planning since many use their house as a retirement plan. Paying half of any gain in taxes would be traumatic. There would be no incentive to discharge a mortgage since interest would be deductible against other income. You would need to keep receipts for all repairs and improvements; the underground economy for handypersons and renovators would be eliminated. If, as with normal investments, there were a deemed disposition upon death there would be no family homes passed between generations. Etc, etc. I think that that qualifies as “traumatic”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Ken Strauss
Reply to  Ken Strauss
11 September 2021 7:18 am

All the deductions(assuming these are permitted such as when selling your principal residence in the USA) will be a liberal spin on things to make it sound like this is a good thing. Who wouldnt like all the write-offs associated with home ownership? Taxing lottery wins would have been a better idea.

Reply to  Wally Keeler
11 September 2021 7:23 am

Brief inconvienance? The only way many families can afford to purchase a house today is because their parents are able to help, because of the equity in their homes. I would rather leave money from the sale of my house to my kids and not the government.

Wally Keeler
9 September 2021 10:06 am

Nuclear power.
Smaller footprint than solar and/or wind
More reliable than solar and/or wind.

Wally Keeler
Reply to  Wally Keeler
9 September 2021 10:44 pm

This will make wind and solar unreliable antiques.

“On Sept. 5, 2021, for the first time, a large high-temperature superconducting electromagnet was ramped up to a field strength of 20 tesla, the most powerful magnetic field of its kind ever created on Earth. That successful demonstration helps resolve the greatest uncertainty in the quest to build the world’s first fusion power plant that can produce more power than it consumes, according to the project’s leaders at MIT and startup company Commonwealth Fusion Systems.”
A Star in a Bottle: The Quest for Commercial Fusion – YouTube

9 September 2021 9:01 am

If the world has not made a dent in Climate change and Pollution over the last 24 months of Covid lock down I don’t know what will .
Air Quality supposedly improved , due to the fact Cars an commuting were nearly eliminated , Factories shut down , Gas sales were lower .
so short of food production and consumption The Govt can do what .?
Taxxxx us .
Most of us had started to reduce the use of Plastics in our daily lives
pre Covid even the food stores stopped using / selling plastic bags
and drink bottles . I have not heard 1 candidate explain what is actually in the Plan just that they have one

Bill Thompson
Reply to  Sandpiper
9 September 2021 9:35 am

Mustn’t overlook the contribution those huge diesel guzzling Election tour buses are playing in controlling the climate pollution “reduction”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bill Thompson
Reply to  Sandpiper
9 September 2021 5:34 pm

due to the fact Cars an commuting were nearly eliminated”

Hmm ever driven the 401 in rush hours these past few weeks – way worse than before the pandemic.

9 September 2021 8:32 am

Confusion about the time of this event. Two places say 7:00 pm and another on the website says 8:00. Hope the event is better organized than this would indicate.