Economists Denounce Harper "Climate Plan"
Conservative policy "highly likely" to fail
Three top economists, led by Dr. Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, have released an analysis (attached) of the Conservative government's climate policy, saying that, as designed, the might make no headway whatever in reducing Canadian CO2 emissions.
Jaccard and fellow economists Nic Rivers and Jotham Peters, say the Stephen Harper plan is particularly faulty on two counts: it sets "intensity targets" that allow allow absolute emissions to continue going up, and it allows companies to purchase "offset" that completely absolve the firm of making any CO2 reductions itself. Both of these policies are proven failures in actually limiting or reducing the total emission of CO2.
The report, entitled "Assessing Canada’s 2008 Climate Policy," also calls into question the value of "emission targets" that are not linked to firm caps.
"Emission targets are meaningless by themselves and often a red herring. Some
environmentalists have applauded politicians for setting aggressive targets for GHG
reduction (called “stretch targets” or “aspirational targets”) and the media tends to focus
on these. As a consequence, many politicians select ambitious targets even while their
actual policies have negligible likelihood of achieving them."
In the current circumstances, all five Canadian political leaders have set emission targets for 2020 - calling for reduction of CO2 emissions of between 20 and 30 per cent.
But while the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party have all accepted the international benchmark date of 1990, the Conservatives have chosen a baseline of 2006. Because Canadian emissions rose between 1990 and 2006 by nearly one-third, that means that - even if successful - the Harper Conservatives would reduce emissions by only three per cent from 1990 levels.
Even that, however, is too optimistic, according to the Jaccard report's conclusioin:
"... it is highly unlikely that the policies of the government of Canada will achieve the target of reducing national emissions 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. The lack of an economy-wide emissions price and the allowance for 100% offsets for industrial emitters make it highly likely that emissions will be significantly higher than target levels in 2020 and indeed might even be close to today’s levels. Since the government claims that it is intent on achieving its 2020 emissions reduction target, it is difficult to understand why it does not immediately convert the intensity cap to an absolute cap and eliminate or severely reduce the offset provision. It also needs to extend its cap to cover all emissions in the economy."
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| AssessmentofCanadasClimatePolicySep26-08.pdf | 44.82 KB |
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/stor
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/07/25/fedfinance.html
deficit in april-may
The deficits are only starting. The US is in recession, the rest of the world is slowing down, and commodity prices are going to fall, resulting in less tax revenue. And budget-wise, things are only going to get worse, since federal spending will have to increase in order to avoid the worst effects of economic recession, and because of some continuing spending commitments. Harper spent way too much money buying people's votes with their money with ill conceived populist economic policies (anti fiscal-conservative policies), like the GST cut, money for kids even when their parents don't need it, money for bus passes, money for kids who play sports, in addition to large increases in spending on things like health transfers and "equilisation". I didn't like the liberals voting for that anti-conservative budget.
My Father is in government in a science oriented leadership position in projects involving multi-decadal timelines and not insignificant amounts of money. He tells me horror stories about how decisions are made: there is no method to how large projects are funded in Canada, with many small granting agencies, which don't have formal cooperative methods, and may have conflicting rules, and which can't promise long term commitment. International projects are made difficult as a result. He's worried sick all the time, because he gets no direction or even interest from Ottawa, and because the department he works for is not optimally run, yet nothing changes. The conservatives promised a science strategy for Canada, and, since it doesn't have any mechanisms for how such large projects are done, I have to say that they did not deliver a competent Strategy. By the way, while I am critical of Harper, the Liberals were not much better in their decision making processes either. So I'm not a Dion fanboi like Jr Wakefield implies. Why shouldn't Harper strive to do better, rather than worse or equal, than the PM that came before him? Right now, he is worse.
And I am right about questioning Harper's qualifications for the job. Why the heck didn't he get a terminal degree? He couldn't wait to jump into political life, that's why. And, prior to becoming a reform MP, then leader of the CA, and now Conservatives, he had not done anything notable with the little education he's got. He's not a businessman, he's not an academic, he's not a professional, like a lawyer or an economist. Prior to becoming PM, he had not held positions where his ideas would be consistently intellectually challenged. He has not reacted particularly well when things don't go his government's way, as happens from time to time, still preferring to blame things on the Liberal government preceding him. I'm a political agnostic, but I prefer well-educated, well-tested leaders in all parties.
As for the economy, a
As for the economy, a separate post. Yes, there is no doubt that we could see the worse yet to come. The best way to handle this is to make sure the tax burden on the public is as low as possible. People will be suffering financially big time, reducing the burden with lower taxes is the responsible thing to do.
Yes, it is very likely government revenue will drop if this gets worse. But raising taxes to cover any short fall is completely wrong and would make the situation much worse. Rea proved that in Ontario.
What would have to happen, to stay in the black, would be to cut unnecessary programs, like arts. Choice: Send a bunch of dancers to Africa or fund people on UI? No brainer.
One of the good things Harper has done is to pay down the debt. That $30B in debt reduction has removed some $2B in interest payments which can be used for other worthy causes. Though I do not like deficits, the fact that Harper now has some wiggle room, could for a short time run a small deficit until things improve. The last budget had a $9.8B surplus which all went to the debt. That could be used to run a small deficit. Recall also that they would likely borrow that money by issuing T-Bills, CSB, etc, which Canadian's buy. So it helps that way too.
This is not the time to invoke a major tax shift, which Dion is asking Canadians to trust him on. It would result in many losers, which the Liberals fail to tell us who they are, only who the winners could be, which would ultimately hurt the economy. Asking Canadians to trust an unknown tax scheme at a time when the future economics is unknown is grossly irresponsible.
Politician is a no win situation
Interesting story. Seems to me your argument would justify closing most of government down. It's gotten way too big to manage. It needs to be broken up into private entities who get grand funding from government. Or disbanded all together. Maybe universities should be doing this science work, not the government.
I'm also a bit surpised at the accusation that because Harper is not some PhD he is unqualified to run government. Interesting in that when some of these previous politicians were such, or lawyers, company executives, they are ridiculed for not being "down to earth" and not understanding the average person. Seems it's a no win situation.
For me, I would rather have a "normal person" who is a director of others who have their expert understandings. It's a common complaint about experts that they cannot see the big picture, only what they have been trained to understand.
What Conservative deficit?
For all you nut cases that have complained that the Harper government has a current deficit:
Final tally of past fiscal year shows federal government surplus of $9.6B
Mon, 2008-09-29 14:40.
By: THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - The federal government says it had a budget surplus of $9.6 billion in the 2007-08 fiscal year.
Today's final number for the year ended March 31 was down from the $10.2-billion surplus forecast in last February's budget and tallied in a preliminary estimate in May. The Finance Department says revenues were $2.1 billion lower than forecast and program expenses were $1.7 billion lower than forecast.
The federal debt stood at $457.6 billion at March 31, a reduction of $105.2 billion from its peak of $562.9 billion in 1996-97.
This debt amounted to $13,774 for each Canadian, down from $14,215 per capita a year earlier.
The ratio of federal debt to gross domestic product was 29.8 per cent, the lowest level since 1981 and down from a peak of 68.4 per cent in 1995-96.
$10 billion is like $300.
$10 billion is like $300. per person - maybe Harper should bribe us all with a nice pre election rebate cheque.
no wait - thats Liberal thinking
No. Actually, that sounds
No. Actually, that sounds more like something Ralph Klein or Ed Stelmach would do. Wait, actually, they sent out cheques of $400 per person!
Nice list today
EU CLIMATE GOALS UNDER PRESSURE AS RECESSION LOOMS
EurActiv, 26 September 2008
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/eu-climate-goals-pressure-recession-looms/article-175773?Ref=RSS
ECONOMIC CRISIS THREATENS EU MEASURES ON CLIMATE CHANGE
AFP, 21 September 2008
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1222005723.17
EASTERN EUROPE FEARS EU CARBON PLAN EMPOWERS RUSSIA
Reuters, 27 September 2008
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=28855
BACK TO THE DARK AGES: NATIONAL GRID RAISES THE SPECTRE OF UK BLACKOUTS
Daily Mail, 26 September 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1062089/Back-Dark-Ages-National-Grid-raises-spectre-blackouts-winter.html
CARBON DEADLINE ADDING TO CREDIT CRISIS DOWN UNDER
News.com, 29 September 2008
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24417385-5007133,00.html
GULF STREAM HERE TO STAY: ANOTHER CLIMATE SCARE BITES THE DUST
Aftenposten, 26 September 2008
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article2677486.ece?service=print
Ulysses Reveals Global Solar Wind Plasma Output at 50-Year Low" [23 September 2008]
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_08241_Ulysses.html
The Global Warming Trend Has Stopped (indicating that the multi-decadal oscillation overwhelmed the greenhouse effect of CO2)
Syun Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
Recent studies of the global temperature changes by the University of East Anglia (UK), the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), NOAA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the University of Alabama Huntsville show that the global warming trend stopped in about 2000-2001. This is contrary to the prediction of the IPCC. They claim that the global average temperature will continue to increase so long as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere keeps increasing.
Harper isn't qualified to
Harper isn't qualified to call himself an economist: to my knowledge, he hasn't published any economic papers, hasn't taught economics, and only has a master degree in economics. Very little he's done as a politician makes one think he has an excellent grasp on the subject. He's squandered a huge surplus while economic times were good (when it is proper for government to run surplusses) so much so that he is currently running a deficit, making any future fiscal stimulus result in a huge deficit. Economic hard times have only begun to hit. He runs his government horribly inefficiently, refusing to delegate authority, and controlling nearly all spending through word of mouth. There is little planning being done in any department for future spending projects, since Harper has removed those functions from his incompetent, ill-educated cabinet ministers, and refuses to trust any civil servant, believing, quite literally (witness his first reaction to the Isotope scandal), that they are all Liberal plants out to get him.
He is on track to leave the government in a total shambles, incapable of facing the looming problems of the future. Not dissimilar to what Bush has done to the US.
False, false and false
Harper isn't qualified to call himself an economist: to my knowledge, he hasn't published any economic papers, hasn't taught economics, and only has a master degree in economics. So his education on the subject means nothing. Rubbish Very little he's done as a politician makes one think he has an excellent grasp on the subject. He's squandered a huge surplus AKA overtaxation while economic times were good (when it is proper for government to run surplusses) so much so that he is currently running a deficit, FALSE, $2B surplus as of July, plus they have paid off some #30B in debt, freeing up $2B in interest payments making any future fiscal stimulus result in a huge deficit. baseless prediction Economic hard times have only begun to hit Right and we should trust DION's carbin tax to make it better? That's a HUGE leap of faith. . He runs his government horribly inefficiently, refusing to delegate authority, and controlling nearly all spending through word of mouth. Fabrication with no evidence There is little planning being done in any department for future spending projects and you are inside the government and know this for a fact, right? Rubbish , since Harper has removed those functions from his incompetent, ill-educated cabinet ministers, and refuses to trust any civil servant, believing, quite literally (witness his first reaction to the Isotope scandal), that they are all Liberal plants out to get him. They are
He is on track to leave the government in a total shambles, incapable of facing the looming problems of the future. Not dissimilar to what Bush has done to the US.
Well then, the next 4 years will be a surpise to you. Willing to eat your words if you are wrong, WHEN you are wrong?
so why would Evil
so why would Evil Incompetent Steve and his band of lackeys be trusted ahead of everything else put up on offer?
they are trusted ahead of the rest, you know.
How about casting your critical eye on the other choices just to be fair. Surely there must be something wrong with the 3 rejects.
If a tax or carbon program
If a tax or carbon program doesn't drastically affect the oil industry, then it what way is it effective? The oil industry in Canada, (the tar sands) spews out CO2.
If you don't kill it, the CO2 machine keeps rolling. What kind of useless anti carbon program are these parties coming out with if they won't kill the oil industry?
That should be the objective, wouldn't you say?
Tar sands
Kill the tar sands and gasoline will jump several fold. Home heating oild will also jump, and so too diesel fuel, which means food will jump.
Like it or not, we need the tar sands cranking out as much as it can.
Liars
It is truly disappointing and does not bode well for the future when we again see a so-called conservative who supposedly has economic training spew falsehoods on carbon pricing. In the latest press release on the matter the Harper party website says that a carbon tax would "do untold damage" to Alberta's energy sector, and predicted that a carbon tax "will erase and even reverse the gains" that Alberta's economy has made in the last few years (www.conservative.ca/EN/1091/106401).
Yet again, ignore the accompanied income tax decrease and ignore the fact that there is no evidence that a modest carbon tax would hurt Alberta economically. Even a $50 per tonne carbon tax, the highest level being proposed by any party in this election (the Greens and we all know the likelihood they`ll get elected), is equivalent to an increased cost of $3 per barrel of oil for a state-of-the-art oil sands facility (source: www.pembina.org). Need we remind anyone that the market value of oil is consistently above $100 per barrel and that many experts are forecasting up to two times that value in the near future?
Norway has maintained one of the world's largest oil and gas industries while charging a higher carbon tax than any of the main proposals on the table in Canada. Last time I checked, Norway was ranked the best place to live in the world. But that`s the best place for people, not for oil companies. Guess which one the Harper party is most concerned for?
Carbon Tax losers
"Yet again, ignore the accompanied income tax decrease"
According to the Liberal website a single mom earning $30K with 2 kids in an apartment will get $1600 back. No way of changing here carbon footprint. Contrast to a long haul truck driver earning $50K with 2 kids a stay at home mom with a house $600, which will be consumed with the 7c/ltr tax on diesel. Contrast to a pensioner, alone on CPP. Measly $120 and no recourse on reducing their carbon tax. Dion is spinning the benefactors of the CT without telling us who are the losers. Who are the losers?
"Norway was ranked the best
"Norway was ranked the best place to live in the world. But that`s the best place for people, not for oil companies. Guess which one the Harper party is most concerned for?" - MACK
No need to guess.
Harper gets more votes then any other political party. Guess it's the Libs and Dippers who are less concerned about the people.
It's simple
"it is highly unlikely that the policies of the government of Canada will achieve the target of reducing national emissions 20% below 2006 levels by 2020."
It's easy to achieve this.
1) shut down 25% of our industry
2) shut down the tar sands
3) shut down our cement/concrete industry
4) this will put millions of Canadians out of work, hence they won't be driving to work.
5) no more vacations, especially air travel. That will unemploy even more people who won't be driving.
6) everyone shuts their heat off 20% of the time in the winter.
7) and lastly, stop all immigration. Each new person consumes energy, requires food to be trucked in, schools to be built, homes to be built (on once productive farm land).
Done, see simple. Europe is certainly on this path. Sure they are getting some reductions, but industry is leaving in droves, unemployment is way up and these so called "green jobs" are highly subsidized by government.
EU countries are screaming to get out of this carbon noose.
thats the 7 part plan
thats the 7 part plan towards the socialist paradise! and don't worry about the unemployed - we'll just raise taxes to pay for everybodies welfare benefits. plus we'll have more unemployed young people who can spend their energies on shutting down coal plants and selling drugs! - it's a win-win.
"Conservative Climate policy
"Conservative Climate policy bound to fail."
Yes. So?
Whats your point?
We all know that.
All of the climate policies are bound to fail.
It has never been about climate. Its about wealth redistribution.
All I can say is economists
All I can say is economists do not elect governments. If Canadian citizens want drastic C02 reductions, they will elect a government to do that.
Canadians are well aware of and well informed on issues of the environmnet. That they are likely choosing the Conservatives to form their next government means Canadians don't buy into alarmist warming scenarios.
Paul, you assume that the
Paul, you assume that the Canadian electorate is well-informed.
The question is, who's doing the informing?
For someone to hold the position you have written, you have to deny the advice and professional opinions of scientists *and* economists. Who's left? The politicians? Isn't that kind of circular reasoning?
Only AGW alarmists consider
Only AGW alarmists consider the Canadian electorate poorly informed. AGW alarmists constantly claim overwhelming support for the Canadian public when the opposite is true.
And when AGW alarmists don't get their way, they cry that the system is "undemocratic" and threaten to break the law to get their way.
And that makes them very
And that makes them very dangerous. I guess the lessons of Stalin havn't sunk in.
What if?
If Canadians knew what was going on, why would the Conservatives fib by saying their plan had a good chance of reducing emissions? If someone showed that Canadians aren't well informed regarding climate change plans (for example, by interviewing prospective voters and asking them if they know the difference between absolute and intensity targets, or by asking them which parties refer to a 1990 baseline and which refer to 2006), would you:
A. Admit you are wrong?
B. Go away?
C. Decry misinformation that leads to weakened democracy?
D. Keep repeating the same incorrect stuff over and over?
Asking Canadians
Why don't you ask Canadians if they known what reduction of CO2 actually means to them, their families and their way of life? Give us a list of what each person would have to do.
Most Canadians against Conservatives
While one could argue how aware and informed Canadians are on environmental issues given how the media covers them, or whether warming scenarios are alarmist or alarming, the fact is that most Canadian voters will not vote for the Conservatives and it is only the undemocratic nature of our electoral system that will result in them being government.
"it is only the undemocratic
"it is only the undemocratic nature of our electoral system that will result in them being government."
How so? How is it undemocratic? maybe you gave give us an example of a better system, then explain how we change into a new system.
Polls show the Conservatives at 40%, Liberals and NDP statistically tied below 25%. That means 75% of Canadians reject the carbon tax and the Liberals.
Would you rather be like Italy? Personally, I'd like to see us with fewer parties. The Bloc is useless, always has been. They should go extinct. And it looks likley that the Liberals are heading to the garbage heap as well.
Parliamentary "democracy"
This issue used to be one that reform party supporters decried forcefully. The liberals, under Chretien, never won 50% of the vote, more in the 40-something percent range but they were utterly dominant in parliament.
This is a shame. Although our system is really pretty good, it is not perfect. Parliamentary prime ministers have effectively dictatorial powers if they lead majority governments because there is virtually no check or balance to hold them back. Again, this used to infuriate the Reformers, but this time out is more likely to really irritate the much larger proportion of Canadians who are dead-set against the Conservatives.
I would like to see at least some check on the power of prime ministers, particularly in the case of a Harper-led government. He's centralized power to a greater extent than has historically been common and would be a real terror at the helm of a majority. Of course, that's a subjective opinion, but locking up 14 year olds and throwing away the key? Why do this? His climate change policy is too weak to even bother talking about.
Having said that last, however, the acceleration of emissions in China really is a game changer. That issue has to be addressed effectively. It would be great if the next government (which, I hate to say it, seems like to be Conservative) would stop pissing in everyone's drink at international climate negotiations. We solutions, not obfuscations.
JTK
Dion -- dead man walking
The numbers so far look to be a Conservative majority with the NDP living in Stornaway. I think the next four years will open people's eyes when Harper governs this country, all that fear will evaporate. Have you ever even talked with Harper? I have several times when he was Reform leader. He's not the boggyman. We have more to fear from the NDP (close to communism) than Harper.
So you would agree to a more US style system?
And locking up 14 year olds who commit violent crimes? Absolutely. Did you see that poor Brazillian visiting in Calgary who lost his sight to a gang shooting? They caught the guy. Habitual criminal. Spent 8 years in prison for attempted murder. Your lax justice just cost this man his eyesight. On Mike Duffy the other day he interviewed a criminologist who said that more than 50% of the criminal activity is being done by repeat offenders, the worst of which have more than 20 criminal convictions, some as many as 100. Throw away the key alright, and they give thanks we send them food through the bars. This criminologist said that drug runners are using youth because they know if caught will be out in no time.
Non sequitur
As you said, the guy who shot our guest was a career criminal, not a 14 year old. Canadian society, and indeed all societies I am aware of, define a 14 year old as a child. Society recognizes that a 14 year old is too young to be responsible enough to drive, too young to be trusted to make an adult decision about voting. But not too young, if Harper has his way, to be thrown out of society essentially permanently. So, my dear JR, I remain at a bit of a loss to see why we should lock up a child in a penitentiary. What's next? Chopping off the right hand of shoplifters? Crime rates are low and trending lower. Why the fear?
All I said was we needed a check on the power of prime ministers. Perhaps that means a more US system. I don't really care that much. I would not like to see a system that is so blatantly in the hands of lobbyists and special interests as the US system, if that is what you mean.
Sure, Harper is not the anti-christ. That's faint praise. As you say, it looks very likely we'll have to deal with him for four years. I am not looking forward to this - that's just my personal worry. We had a neocon in Ontario (Harris) and he was a complete disaster for the entire time he was in office, a point that is not really that debatable. Our friends to the south have had a neocon (albeit an especially wacky, dumb one) for the past 8 years and nothing about their country or indeed the world is better now than it was 8 years ago. Perhaps Harper won't behave like the few neocons who have made it to power and we can all stop being afraid of what he might do. I sure hope so.
Maybe we can keep the discussion civil? This blog is pretty crappy when it comes to troll comments, so I am keeping my fingers crossed.
JTK
Harris saved the province
"As you said, the guy who shot our guest was a career criminal, not a 14 year old. Canadian society, and indeed all societies I am aware of, define a 14 year old as a child. Society recognizes that a 14 year old is too young to be responsible enough to drive, too young to be trusted to make an adult decision about voting. But not too young, if Harper has his way, to be thrown out of society essentially permanently. So, my dear JR, I remain at a bit of a loss to see why we should lock up a child in a penitentiary. What's next? Chopping off the right hand of shoplifters? Crime rates are low and trending lower. Why the fear?"
Then when we let these "kids" out after they have murdered someone you will have them in YOUR home and if they re-offend YOU will do his jail time, right? Because that is EXACTLY what you are throwing upon the rest of society. There needs to be ZERO tolerance for murder and attempted murder. Permanent incarceration. It's not like they have not had it drummed into them from birth that killing is wrong.
"We had a neocon in Ontario (Harris) and he was a complete disaster for the entire time he was in office, a point that is not really that debatable."
That's complete nonsense. Harris saved this province. It was on the verge of bankruptcy because of Bob Rea, and IN SPITE of major cut backs by the Liberal Federals in their transfers, Harris restored the province. At least he did not force government employees to take unpaid days off by breaking, illegally, contracts.
"Maybe we can keep the discussion civil? This blog is pretty crappy when it comes to troll comments, so I am keeping my fingers crossed."
I'm always civil, and point out when others are not. And yes you will be surpised by a Harper majority. You really should get to personally know "neocons" as you call them. I have, and they are very descent people with desires for the country that make sense
If you believe Harris saved
If you believe Harris saved Ontario, you're an absolute fool! Harris' cuts left hundreds, if not thousands, in the hallways of ERs throughout the province because of his hospital cuts. Harris cut the water monitoring service, which led directly to the Walkerton tragedy and debacle. Harris didn't mind that a peaceful protester at Ipperwash was shot and killed by the OPP.
No. Mike Harris' time as Premier of Ontario was a complete catastrophe. If you cannot realize this, your position is chock full of irrationality.
Those cuts came from the
Those cuts came from the fact that the FEDERAL Liberals cut transfers to the provinces. How do you think the Liberals balanced the budget? By massive cuts to programs and transfers.
Facts are: Rea almost had the province in bankruptcy. Taxes were WAY too high (one of the items Harris cut). Payments to welfare dramatically rose under Rea and Harris cut it back to where it was before Rea raised them. Harris cut the deficit and restored the province.
It's so easy when you dislike a political party to spin their actions (under dire circumstances) in the negative, but when the party is to your liking you fail to apply the same spin. The Federal Liberals invoked MASSIVE spending cuts, which affected all Canadians including those very services you mentioned.
Now specifics:
"Harris' cuts left hundreds, if not thousands, in the hallways of ERs throughout the province because of his hospital cuts." The Federal Liberals take part of that blame. BTW, you do realize that healthcare spending actually ROSE during Harris's time!
http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/english/budget/ontariobudgets/2000/00healt.html
"Harris cut the water monitoring service, which led directly to the Walkerton tragedy and debacle." No two drunks caused Walkerton. Would not have mattered what Harris did.
"Harris didn't mind that a peaceful protester at Ipperwash was shot and killed by the OPP." Factually incorrect. Harris was cleared by a court of law.
"No. Mike Harris' time as Premier of Ontario was a complete catastrophe. If you cannot realize this, your position is chock full of irrationality." No, the NDP was the worse.
"Harris cut the water
"Harris cut the water monitoring service, which led directly to the Walkerton tragedy and debacle." - STEPHEN BERG
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Did you not read any of the reports on Walkerton? Grotesque incompetence by a government employee who criminally ignored his responsibilities was at the root of that tragedy.
As for "cuts" the Walkerton Public Utility Commission had ample funds:
=It is important to note that his failure to receive the required training was not related to a shortage of funds at the Walkerton PUC, which allotted between $1,500 and $3,000 a year for training. The PUC had large reserves, and there is no evidence to suggest that requests for training funds were ever denied by the commissioners.=
http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/walkerton/part1/WI_Chapter_05.pdf
"Harris didn't mind that a peaceful protester at Ipperwash was shot and killed by the OPP."
Why? Cause you say so? Please, Stephen, no more of your mind reading tricks. You have no idea how Harris felt.
Disagreeing...
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you completely on your remarks about Harris. For various reasons, I am pretty familiar with how things developed here before, during, and at the end of that government, and I'm afraid an argument that Harris saved the province is not one that I can agree with you on.
Senate, yes, Harris, no.
I believe your view on criminality among children is also too extreme for me and I disagree with almost everything you said. I respect your difference of opinion on this, but perhaps a climate change blog is not the place for disagreements like this to be aired.
JTK
"I would like to see at
"I would like to see at least some check on the power of prime ministers, particularly in the case of a Harper-led government." - JTK
Well that kind of makes you a hypocrite JTK, plain and simple.
Hyprocrite was an overly
Hyprocrite was an overly strong word JTK. I apologize.
But you are inconsistent in advocating more strongly for controls on Harper and less so for others who are agreeable to your political views.
No worries
No worries. I was kind of hinting at a problem on this blog: there's so much trolling (on both "sides"), that it's easy to misread a post quickly. So, no worries.
I wasn't being inconsistent, or I didn't mean to convey inconsistency. I think our prime ministers need a real check on their power. ALL of them. An effective senate would be helpful provided it did not become a sock puppet for the ruling party. My personal views and background lead to me SERIOUSLY dislike and mistrust Harper. Some of my reasons for that dislike are the main focus of this blog, but there are others. So, I'd like to see him checked effectively but I think the problem applies everywhere. We need better balance in our system of government, even when people I am more inclined to agree with are in power.
So, I think there is no inconsistency. If (forgive the humour) Dion were to lead a majority, I'd like to see him balanced out by an independent decision-making body of some sort. There, I'm on the record! Canada needs checks and balances, no matter who is leading.
Just my $0.000002
Cheers,
JTK