Canadian Government Sacks Science Advisor
Canadian Government Sacks Science Advisor

Mainstream Media Ignore the Story
The Canadian government is closing the Office of the National Science Advisor (ONSA) and sacking its principal, Dr. Arthur Carty, a move that has garnered virtually no attention from the mainstream press.
Credit must go to the Discovery Channel, to the UK-based Nature News and to CBC's excellent Quirks and Quarks host Bob McDonald for reporting the story.
The Harper government's hostility to science seems to match that of the Bush administration, at least. Canada has been boldly out of step internationally on climate policy and Harper's Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn recently fired the head of Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission because she had refused to let political and commercial considerations trump safety concerns.
Now the Harper Conservatives have opted to shut the ONSA - perhaps thinking that, since they weren't listening to the advice anyway, they should save the money. The Harperites also suggest that they have replaced the ONSA with the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC), a group that is veritably festooned with blue ribbons. But STIC's mandate is to promote Canada's international competitiveness, and to respond "on issues, referred to it by government."
The record shows, again, that Prime Minister Harper is not inclined to "refer" issues like climate change or nuclear safety. The government bias is toward using technology to make money - safety and environmental degradation be damned.
Once again, the ultimate responsibility for this decision may rest at the feet of the media - even the public - rather than the government itself. Political self-interest will always mitigate against troublesome public officials who might give inconvenient - and heavily fact-based - advice. But it's the media's job to hold politicians to account, to ensure that political expediency does not supersede sound public policy. It's a job, in this instance, that has been largely left undone.
- Richard Littlemore's blog
- Log in or register to post comments





















Comments
Richard, I would have to
Richard, I would have to disagree with you on the issue of nuclear safety. Tens of thousands of seriously ill people were being denied medically critical tests because no provisions were taken to find replacement supplies of medical isotopes.
What you call "political and commecial concerns" was a matter of life and death for some patients.
If you happened to catch Ms
If you happened to catch Ms Keen's TV performance when chastising the AECL honcho making a command performance before her, you would have wildly cheered her demotion. Her arrogance and technical ignorance epitomized the unfortunate cartoon public perception of bureaucrats.
Her subsequent protest that she was responsible only for the enforcement of regulations and not for the flow of isotopes to hospitals was certainly true but, as a high level executive, she should have used better judgement. Parking one's brains at the door is not part of a powerful civil servant's job description.
Isotopes and the real agenda
I would humbly suggest that the isotope saga has little to do with Isotopes and everything to do with the future of our Country's political agenda as well as nuclear power production in Canada and around the world.
Harper's team has made it abundantly clear since forming this minority government that they will take every opportunity afforded them to reshape the public service with those politically aligned with their agenda.
What is remarkable is how effective they have been as a minority in doing this. Not only have they begun a successful cleansing of the public service, its boards and commissions, they have also orchestrated a remarkable paradigm shift in policy and status as positive economic force and peacekeeping nation in the international community.
That this remarkable shift has occurred under a minority government with slim support and without the hallmarks of political accountability our country is known for, marks a turbulent and profoundly resounding point in history we all will eventually be ashamed of if we continue to condone such practice.
nuclear safety
Nuclear safety and nuclear production are two different jobs entirely. If Keen's responsibilities were to ensure adequate flows of medical isotopes, she would be running the facility, not making sure they follow safety regulations.
If it were her job, don't you think there would be a clause in the legislation that mandates the CNSC to consider medical issues? It's just not her job, frankly the two issues are in conflict with one another.
Paul S wrote: ...Tens of
Paul S wrote: ...Tens of thousands of seriously ill people were being denied medically critical tests...
That is a damned lie and utter nonsense. The government could have acquired isotopes from several European sources, but the lying Conservatives said no. It was a crisis manufactured by the government, probably for their agenda of privatizing AECL.
http://jimbobbysez.blogspot.com/2008/01/mps-and-msm-finally-get-it-isotope.html
http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/592/
Other posts on both of these blogs have followed this story, also other blogs they have linked to.
And shame on Zog for that
And shame on Zog for that nasty little smear of Linda Keen, who knows how to do her job and does it, unlike the incompetent Conservative minister Gary Lunn.
http://inthehouseandsenate.blogspot.com/2008/01/keen-firing-curiouser-and-curiouser.html
http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/that-nuclear-pile-is-getting-bit-messy.html#links
Lunn incompetent? I'll drink
Lunn incompetent? I'll drink to that. He's in cabinet to fulfill the good old Canadian requirement for "geographic balance". However, he is at least elected, as are the MPs who voted unanimously to order that NRU be restarted, and he doesn't share Keen's God complex.
I thought that my post was extremely kind to Keen who was 'way out of her depth as "Chief" - a cartoon bureaucrat with a keen (not pun intended) grip on the rule book but little common sense or, in the case of the shutdown, no sense of proportion.
The lies are from your side
The lies are from your side VJ. You offer unsourced allegations and no facts.
We supply medical isotopes to many countries. NONE of these countries were able to obtain the isotopes from alternative sources putting lie to your claim.
In your effort to protect a bureaucrat, you would put the lives of thousands of ill people at risk. How sad.
sources
I admit to not following this isotope thing, so I'm coming at this unbiased by anything. I didn't look at VJ's links. But Paul S seems hypocritical saying she offers unsourced allegations while offering absolutely no sources himself.
Getting back to the thrust of Littlemore's post, I wonder if anyone has information suggesting that the Harper gov't is supportive of objective science. There seems to be a lot of support that it is not.
I provided four links, each
I provided four links, each of which gives plenty of information to anyone who wants more; those blogs have intelligent analysis backed up by links to sources.
Paul S on the other hand makes wild statements with no back up whatsoever. It is obvious to anyone reading this thread that Paul S. lied when he wrote: "The lies are from your side VJ. You offer unsourced allegations and no facts..."
Back up your statments, Paul S. Where did you get your Conservative talking points from? Are there Conservatives out there who deplore your dishonesty?
Steve L., it seems to me that the Harper government is so invested in lies and in inventing their own reality, that there is no place for any objective thinking that might explode their little fictional world. As Dante said of the people in Hell, they have lost the good of the intellect.
LOL at your links. The blogs
LOL at your links. The blogs simply provided unsourced, made-up allegations VJ. 'Intelligent analysis'? Nowhere to be found as they simply regurgitate innuendo and uninformed opinion.
If you can provide a link backing up your odious insinuations with FACTS, please do. I suspect I will be waiting a very long time.
As I said previously, all you offered up are lies VJ and I suspect that is the best you can do.
You are lying about my
You are lying about my links, as anyone who really visits them will be able to tell.
No Lie About Your Silly Links
I looked at your links, and Paul is correct. They are laughably tendencious, and ridiculous. They do not back up your claims with any facts or evidence whatsoever. About par for the course for you, I'd say.
Check out JimBobby's blog
Check out JimBobby's blog posts which link to AG Sheila Fraser's report, news reports in the Gloe & Mail, the National Post and Bloomberg.com among other links.
Check out PoliticsnPoetry which references Le Devoir, a press release by MDS Nordion, the company which make money selling the isotopes from Chalk River, other blogs and email conversations with people involved with the events. That's in only one of PnP's posts; there are many other posts about Chlk River, with good research.
Check the other two blogs, which also do their research.
So when Paul S. and Rob say the blogs are unsourced, they are lying. Of course it takes effort to follow up links and read them, and the liars Paul S. and Rob are too lazy to do that.
Isotope thing? Is that what
Isotope thing? Is that what it is? Thousands of ill peoples lives endangered and you call it a 'thing'? You are clueless on the subject yet see fit to call others hypocritical? Please give us all a break and refrain from commenting on subjects you haven't bothered to educate yourself about.
Provide evidence that
Provide evidence that anyone's life was endangered. Provide links that have real facts and figures and not your bullshit about "thousands" of people.
You don't believe that tens
You don't believe that tens of thousands of people have cancer? And that thousands of people require timely medical tests? Are you serious? Have you not followed this issue in any manner?
Thousands of lives were needlessly endangered but that matters not at all to you. How hard-hearted are you?
Get a clue VJ.
Provide evidence.
Provide evidence. You're a liar.
How dense are you VJ? "This
How dense are you VJ?
"This is a catastrophe for patients,"
- Sandy McEwan, M.D.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/GeneralRadiology/tb/7620
'Isotope shortage hits Winnipeg hospitals'
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/12/05/isotopes.html?ref=rss
'Reactor Shutdown Causing Medical Isotope Shortage'
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/business/worldbusiness/06reactor.html
'Isotope shortage almost 'catastrophic,' MD says'
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/283277
'Isotope Shortage Threatens Health of Patients Nationwide'
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/12/isotope-shortage-threatens-health-of-patients-nationwide/
'Isotope shortage could be catastrophic: Doctor'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071206.wisotopesupdate1206/BNStory/National/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20071206.wisotopesupdate1206
Did you actually read these?
VJ is right, you are either lying or didn't read the reports you quoted. Maybe you read them but your intellectual ability is too low to allow you to interpret them correctly.
These report state quite clearly that the major "catastrophe" is to the politicians, both in Canada and the US for their inept handling of this matter for the past 15 to 20 years. They all have black eyes according to the reports.
The reports also do not say anything about "endangering the lives of thousands" of patients. They were inconvenienced but not put in any danger since limited supplies (20 to 40%) were given to the most needy patients.
Paul, your complete hatred for science and anyone daring to discuss real science with you is appalling. you are part of the government's "war on science".
Ian Forrester
What jaw-dropping stupidity
VJ, apparently you've been lucky enough to live in a fool's paradise, where none of your friends or family have been stricken by cancer in it's many forms.
You are truly a pathetic and reprehensible buffoon.
why not take advantage of the opportunity?
Paul, you have a history of offering nothing when asked for supporting documentation. Remember how long it took to get you to finally admit that you had nothing to support your contention that a few million dollars couldn't be used to sway public opinion (via effective propaganda)? Now I come and admit that I haven't read up on some issue (I deal with a lot of issues), and state that you haven't provided any information. Here I am, ready to be educated. You could have suggested what you thought was the best summary. You balked.
Steve, it remains my
Steve, it remains my contention that the trail of pennies leading to Exxon can not override public opinion on AGW as you and so many others claim. That you have swallowed this leftist urban myth hook, line and sinker means you are more gullible then I believed. The whole Exxon thingy is a paranoid myth, get over it.
Contention
Paul, what I can't get over is how badly you react when someone asks for supporting information. I see that you've just now included some links in response to VJ. (I wonder if any of them supports the claim of thousands of lives risked?) Back when the discussion was about Exxon funding various agencies to combat the science of AGW in the media, it took a long time to figure out all you had was a contention. I'm glad that this time you readily state that it is simply your contention. Now, back to the issue (sort of) at hand, do you have any source quantifying the lives put at risk by the reactor shutdown, or is that only your contention, too?
From your NYT link: "In Canada, several hospitals have canceled nonurgent tests that require the isotope." I don't have a lot of time to follow every issue that comes up, Paul, so I just scanned a few of the articles and didn't find support for the number you threw out there. Did I miss it? No reason to get snarky -- if this is such an important issue to you then you should be able to send me to what you consider the best source.
I don't know how many more
I don't know how many more articles from reputable sources you would need Steve, but my estimate was an extremely conservative one.
The radioisotope -- technetium-99m -- is used in about 14 million nuclear medicine procedures a year in the U.S., Dr. McEwan said.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Radiology/GeneralRadiology/tb/7620
Since the isotopes are used extensively for cancer diagnosis, the numbers affected by this foolhardy shutdown would have been much higher if it had continued any longer.
PS: Regarding Exxon, it is the eco myth-makers who rely on contention: that for less then a penny per year per person, Exxon is able to paralyze public action on AGW. They never explain how such propaganda can be accomplished with such tiny amounts of many, but make the unfounded claim anyways.
tens of thousands of lives endangered
versus 14 million nuclear medicine procedures per year. This is getting nowhere, again, because I don't know how many of those 14 million nuclear tests were needed to prevent death. I've had radioisotopes in my body for medical procedures that were not treatments or tests for anything life-threatening. How many of those 14 million per year were prevented by the shutdown? Did anyone die or is anyone dying because of the shotdown? On and on, and all I can gather from this is that tens of thousands of lives is your contention and nobody else's. Another point, but broader: this decision was reversible (as you point out); it should be recognized even by the thick that reversible errors are less serious than irreversible ones.
And one last time back to the propaganda thing (don't take offense that I used the word "thing"), I'm not a leftist, and I don't know why you think it's a leftist myth that marketing works. Exxon knows it. Are they leftists?
Well out of 14 million
Well out of 14 million medical tests, how many do you think are critical Steve? 3? 7? 13?
Medical experts said the results could be "catastrophic" and you quibble over nothings because no one can provide you with an exact number. How many deaths would be 'OK' for you?
A catastrophe was avoided because the government ran roughshod over the independent regulators who had decided to play with the lives of patients because of their ill-advised decision.
-------------------------
Note: Re: Exxon. You can't do propaganda on a pittance. Money spent by Exxon over the last ten years is what, $26 million? That's less then a penny per person per year. Yes, propaganda can be done, but it can't be done with the pennies that Exxon has spent.
The leftist myth is not that marketing works, it is that the trail of pennies from Exxon has somehow hopelessly confused the general public on AGW and paralyzed the poor masses from taking effective action.
Exxon is simply a convenient strawman constructed to deflect blame from ourselves and our own inertia on deciding what to do in response to AGW. As such, it is a psychological method of transference whereby we redirect responsibility for own consumptive lifestyles away from ourselves onto another party. We demonize Exxon to avoid honestly assuming our own culpability on this issue.
But hey, you wanna waste time blaming Exxon too? Go right ahead.
Once again, you miss the point
A recent history: First, Littlemore's post was about the Harper government's attitude toward science. You focused it on 'the isotope thing' by claiming tens of thousands of lives risked. Then when someone said you were wrong and posted some links, you said she had no evidence. Then when I pointed out that you had posted no evidence for your claims, you attacked me. Finally you posted some links, none of which supported your claim of tens of thousands of lives risked. So, unfortunately, we've come to the juncture where once again someone who thought he could learn something useful from the discussion (me) only found that a guy who posts under two different Paul identities litters his comments with made-up figures as if he got them from somewhere.
------------------
I don't blame Exxon, any more than I blame someone who buys a Superbowl add, but I recognize marketing (guerilla and legitimate) for what it is. As far as I can tell, you are the ONLY person who claims they have been ineffective. I might think otherwise if you had EVER posted anyTHING supporting your claim. There are you happy? You've got me commenting in all-caps.
You failed to check my links Paul
one of which has this quote, and of course supplies the link for the quote there:
"...Opposition parties are accusing the Harper government of manufacturing last month's medical isotope crisis.
The parties levelled the accusation Monday based on a report that the government did not speak to alternative European suppliers of isotopes until Dec. 10 - 19 days after the research reactor at Chalk River, Ont., was shut down.
Even then, according to a Montreal newspaper, the government advised officials at three European reactors that they didn't need to increase their isotope production because the shutdown at Chalk River would be remedied shortly..."
http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/that-nuclear-pile-is-getting-bit-messy.html#links
So it was the Conservative government which put all those cancer patients in danger; though it is questionable how many if any were actually in peril. Can you name some specific emergency diagnoses which require isotopes and which cannot be made by performing other tests, Paul S.?
You're not getting off that
You're not getting off that easy with your fabrications VJ.
Accusing someone is not the same as proof. Quoting the Le Devoir article:
"Nobody at the Department of Natural Resources at the Health and Foreign Affairs and International Trade has been able to confirm any contact between Canada and the European leaders reactors. It is not known precisely who, on the Canadian side, took part in the conference call."
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ledevoir.com%2F2008%2F01%2F28%2F173663.html&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
So we don't even know if there was a conference call meaning Le Devoir can not prove their allegations.
But being a person committed to ideology rather then truth, this does not matter to you. Seriously ill patients do not matter to you. Only your odious ideology matter to you.
"Can you name some specific emergency diagnoses which require isotopes and which cannot be made by performing other tests, Paul S.?"
My goodness VJ, you truly are cruelly uninformed, or vapid, or both. Have you never heard of nuclear medicine? Can you honestly have no idea what type of tests medical isotopes are used for? Are you suggesting patients with advanced cancer requiring further diagnosis using medical isotopes be forced to use some other test (maybe acupuncture?)?
I figured you would not be
I figured you would not be able to answer that question.
Who knows the answer to your
Who knows the answer to your question and who cares VJ. As if you are some medical expert who would have a clue about the issue.
Numerous experts stated that the lack of isotopes posed a potential catastrophe for patients.
But no, you know better!!
Instead we find you off in La La land suggesting that other tests could easily have replaced those using isotopes.
Answer your own question if you are smarter then all the medical experts who decried the shortage of medical isotopes. Remember, you know better!!
Stop showing your stupidity
Paul S/G said: "with advanced cancer requiring further diagnosis using medical isotopes be forced to use some other test (maybe acupuncture?)" you are just showing how stupid you are. Acupuncture has never been classified as a diagnostic procedure.
There are many other test which can be applied in place of Tc99m. Canada only produces 40% of the world's supply of Mo99 (the precursor for Tc99m). It is despicable that you support the Harper government (you are not SH in drag are you?) on this black mark for Canada. AECL and the government (the Liberals are probably just as guilty) are covering up the shaky status of Chalk River. They should have let in be known long ago the state of the facility so that other producers could have been more prepared.
I suggest that you find out what Dr. Tom Perry thinks about the lies that Lunn has been issuing. You can listen to it at the following site:
http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/8752/asithappens/20080117-aih-1.wmv
Who should we believe, politicians (Lunn and Harper), a stupid blogger (PS/G, who will not tell us about his qualifications for all his wrong information) or a medical doctor who is very familiar with the field of nuclear medicine?
Ian Forrester
Ian, I did hear that Tom
Ian, I did hear that Tom Perry interview; it was very good.
In the news now, two new reactors were supposed to replace the Chalk River one and produce isotopes, but they have serious problems. This blogger links to the CTV news story and gives her own take:
http://inthehouseandsenate.blogspot.com/2008/02/when-keen-said-it-she-was-being.html
Glad to see you are willing
Glad to see you are willing to play politics with peoples lives also Ian.
"Canada only produces 40% of the world's supply of Mo99"
Only 40% of the world's supply. No worries then, eh? Millions of diagnostic tests annually are dependent on Canada's isotope supply.
Who cares what Dr. Tom Perry thinks. Many more experts stated patients were facing a looming catastrophe unless Chalk River was brought online and quickly. Now we've seen the shutdown was completely unnecessary as the mandated repairs could be done while Chalk River was operating, as has now been done.
The AECL and CNNC completely bungled this issue and it took a vote supported by all parties to fix this mess.
And if you actually believed I recommended acupuncture Ian, you may be denser then I thought.
My suggestion though, quit playing politics when patients lives could have been at stake. It would make you look humane.
VJ had no evidence Steve,
VJ had no evidence Steve, that has been shown. She linked to an article which stated itself that it could not prove what it was claiming. I am right, she is still wrong.
Next you say: " . . . none of which supported your claim of tens of thousands of lives risked."
How hard-hearted are you Steve? Does your blood run cold?
With headlines like 'Isotope Shortage Threatens Health of Patients Nationwide' and 'Isotope shortage almost 'catastrophic' what would it take to move you? How many dead bodies would be necessary? Are you more competent then medical experts to comment on this issue?
And to accurately quote myself, I said: "Tens of thousands of seriously ill people were being denied medically critical tests." If lives were not at risk yet, they were very soon to be according to medical experts. Buy hey, you know better.
------------------------------------------
Exxon is a dead horse. I am the ONLY one HERE who claims Exxon can't do propaganda on pennies. Outside of sites attached to the paranoid delusion that Exxon is engaging in some type of voodoo propaganda, few people would agree with you.
posts filtered, trying again:
To quote you accurately, this is what you wrote on Jan 31:
"Thousands of ill peoples lives endangered and you call it a 'thing'? You are clueless on the subject yet see fit to call others hypocritical? Please give us all a break and refrain from commenting on subjects you haven't bothered to educate yourself about." You also said your estimate was conservative. It's becoming quite clear that you're not educated on the matter and your 'estimate' relies on the word "catastrophic" taken from headlines. My body temperature has nothing to do with it. I understand that something can be catastrophic for one person or one family. You put a number on those families and I, trying to learn more, asked where that number came from. You have been no help to my education.
----
Given the discussion we've had, a reasonable person would probably have posted a link to one of these outside websites where the 'paranoid delusion' doesn't reign. But as usual, more statements from you with nothing to back them up. Thanks for nothing.
The most interesting aspect
The most interesting aspect of this thread and your comments Steve is how not once have you ever supported the concerns of the patients whose lives might have been seriously affected by this crisis.
The lives, the health, and the concerns of the ill seem not to matter to you at all. Medical experts can warn of a "looming catastrophe" and it bothers you not a bit.
In conclusion, it appears I am the reasonable person, VJ definitely isn't, and you I am unsure about.
If only you had read your cites
You would have discovered that there was no major concern for patients. As I mentioned earlier the only people who have been "hurt" by this are the politicians who have fumbled this for years.
The only one in your cites who claimed a "catastrophe" is Sandy McEwan and he is the head of a US organization that has been pushing the US government for years to build their own facility. So he is trying to get publicity and show how the US Government has failed the patients.
Grow up and get a life and do some reading before you make any more erroneous comments.
Ian Forrester
You've got rocks in your
You've got rocks in your head Ian.
"This week it's devastating, and next week potentially catastrophic," said Dr. Chris O'Brien, president of the Ontario Association of Nuclear Medicine.
You missed that one, eh Ian? No surprise there.
A medical catastrophe was avoided, and just barely. Petty politics is more important to you then the lives of patients. Sad of you, and sick too.
You like to bail out your political friends
The words he used were "potential catastrophe." You cannot differentiate between political obfuscation and exaggeration and the real world. What kind of job do you have. Speech writer for a lying politician?
As I said before take some English comprehension courses and stop believing all the political exaggerations you keep repeating on all sorts of stories.
Are you a politician? You sure sound like one, lying, exaggeration and always trying to protect your image.
Ian Forrester
Gotcha Ian. Eminent and
Gotcha Ian. Eminent and respected doctors warn of a "potential catastrophe" threatening the well-being of their patients and you see the doctors as living in a fantasy world.
Even politicians have more compassion for patients then persons like you do Ian. How very sad.
An asteroid hitting the Earth is a "potenial catastrophe"
You are exaggerating as usual. If you have nothing honest to offer then keep quiet, many people would appreciate it.
You are the sad one not me. I at least understand what I am talking about. Ignorance makes you look so sad and pathetic every time you type some thing on this blog, and the many other you infect with your arrogant ignorance.
Ian Forrester
Just thought I'd jump in
Just thought I'd jump in here to point out that this whole discussion, and the point that generated it (Harper dismissing his only science adviser) are indicative of how poorly scientific issues, nuclear in particular, are understood by the public and our elected representatives. It's a subject that should be front and centre right now, because like it or not, nuclear power is glaring us in the face as a possible alternative to fossil fuels. Our governments and regulatory bodies should be amassing the most accurate, up-to-date information available, rather than escorting the experts out the door. We have to get past the nuclear bogeymen and deal with it, and part of that process is public awareness.
And as for the isotopes, I had a test myself a couple of months ago -- a cardiac procedure to fine-tune a diagnosis. It was on the low end of the urgency scale, as I assume a great many such procedures are (I have had two others that I recall, neither one was life or death). As I understand it, the reserve of isotopes is being saved for tests where time is a critical factor. If I had been required to wait until the shortage was over, I doubt it would have caused me any anxiety. I am frankly more concerned about the length of time it takes to get scheduled in for treatment once a diagnosis is made, but that's for another blog . . .
Manufactured isotope crisis
More news about the manufactured isotope crisis; Harper restarted an unsafe nuclear plant so MDS Nordion could protect its market share. Canadians were suckered.
http://jimbobbysez.blogspot.com/2008/02/isotope-crisis-profit-motivated.html
http://www.pogge.ca/archives/001788.shtml#comments
"Harper started ..." All by
"Harper started ..."
All by himself? What a superman! I think that the scientists and technicians of AECL which did the job as requested by Parliament (ALL parties) might have helped him a little. Deputy Speaker Blaikie (one of yours by the way) described Paliament's rare grown-up response to the emergency as one of its high points.
Back before they learned
Back before they learned that it was a manufactured crisis.
Are you insinuating that NDP
Are you insinuating that NDP MPs are stupid and incapable of evaluating evidence? -- Oh, wait, you're probably right. Most of them, including Blaikie, believe in AGW.
Oh grow up, you tiny little
Oh grow up, you tiny little organism.
Fern Mackenzie
More about the Harper
More about the Harper Conservatives (and Paul S.) exaggerating wildly about isotopes:
http://jimbobbysez.blogspot.com/2008/02/1000s-of-lives-at-risk-tell-me-another.html