Every constitution only stands because enough people agree to abide by it to make it functionally real.

Otherwise they're not worth the paper they're written and unwritten on.

We need to ask ourselves why we, as a province, think it's acceptable for a government to legalize its own unethical conduct and investigate itself under circumstances it controls.

For all people claim to care about corruption around here, they sure don't care when it's their guys.

In a policy context, I would generally advise that it's a bad idea to assume people will know what you intend if you don't actually say so.

That's not actually the argument in your column, which claims this will result in equivalent policy effects.

And you keep shifting the argument. Is it better climate policy or a concession to boost the economy because of Trump?

Those are two opposing claims. Either it's better or it's conceding ground to make economic gains.

I mean, I guess it's bad climate policy.

If she agrees to a modest increase but overall reduces the effects over the next five years by killing the committed increases, she gets what she wants.

It's risky to gamble on a negotiation where both sides are willing to chuck out climate for profits.

Yes, because it's not climate policy.

She will get a weakened overall industrial price. She may agree to a slight increase intially, but she'll get them to drop the current commitments to increasing it.

The pipeline is theatre. She's getting what she actually wants regardless.

You mean the moment in which our planet is burning up, which is a major factor in global instability?

I also thought the Trudeau government's climate action was often far more symbolic than effective. However, it was something.

Smith's goal here is killing climate policy. A pipeline is gravy.

People who sit at desks and come up with political directives, ignoring the reality in the bush, in our lakes, are fools. I’m witness to collapse in central and northern Ontario. Putting our heads in the sand is still burning our feet.

They'll reach an agreement, sure. I think it's incredibly optimistic to think that agreement won't result in weaker climate policy overall.

You really think it's some big win for the environment to have multiple climate policies scrapped and reduce the eventual effect of the industrial price?

It's profoundly naive to think Carney isn't just being a friend to big business, in this case oil and gas. It's a pretty clear pattern.

The UCP know perfectly well that a pipeline is not a sure thing, but killing climate policies and ensuring the industrial carbon price doesn't rise to promised levels is a win for Smith. They'll do what they can to get an even lower price in the negotiation, too, and Carney will give it to them.

Love living where the two major parties argue with each other about who has the better plan to set fire to the planet.