Policy alert

In the Speech from the Throne that followed its reelection in 2008, the Harper government stated its intention to “develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases.” A year later, the Harper government claimed to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.” At present, the government’s climate change website describes cap and trade as an “option” (though one that will “only” be implemented if the United States does likewise).

Nonetheless, when John Baird turned up at the National Press Theatre yesterday afternoon, apparently to restate his party’s doubts about Michael Ignatieff’s patriotism, he described cap and trade (at least as proposed by the Liberal party) as both “dangerous” and “unCanadian.”

I wondered aloud if this description indicated the Conservative side was renouncing any intention of ever bringing in a cap and trade system in Canada. Below, Mr. Baird’s answer in its entirety.

I think the Liberal party’s efforts in the early 80s that divided this country, like few other issues have, it is incredibly divisive the proposal that Mr. Ignatieff has talked about. I think we’ve been very clear with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, with respect to air pollutants, that we will regulate, working with the United States. It’s not easy, but we’ve finally got an administration where we’re getting real results. We’ve worked incredibly hard on a North American auto standard. We’re doing that by regulation, not by capping and trading. We’re working hard on light trucks, that’s been done. We’re working hard on civil aviation with ICAO, on marine transportation with the IMO, International Maritime Organization. We’re working hard on dirty coal, electricity generation. I think it’s just, if we’re going to do it, we can’t be pitting one part of Canada against another and trying to redistribute wealth from Alberta and Saskatchewan to other provinces. The divisions caused in the early 80s are still felt today. I think President Obama has spoken about the capacity to get a cap and trade bill through the United States congress as dead and let’s move forward on regulation. That’s where I think we’re going to get the best reductions, rather than a cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax, whatever you’d like to call it.




Browse

Policy alert

  1. Baird's answer….6 bulls and a couple of cows.

    Plus some calves….maybe a few sheep…

    • It sure feels full of "sheep" to me, too.

      • LOL certainly does!

    • good for you emily, you're first again. Get a JOB!

      • Dear DPT….get a life.

    • Emily,
      So would you enter into a cap and trade program witout the U.S.? Iggy is talking about putting it in place immediately.

      • EU has one…why worry about the US?

        • Well it puts Canada at a cost disadvantage. So do I manufacture a car in Ontario or Michigan? If all your cost s are X% more in Canada for steel, plastics, and energy costs, then you move the manufacturing some place else. Oh…. I forgot you are all for robbing Western Canada to pay for welfare programs elsewhere.
          Emily,
          I am now of the opinion complex subjects are beyond your grasp. Your perky, little, trite answers are beginning to become boring.
          Back to the hockey game. Go Leafs Go!

          • New emission rules for cars in NA will take care of it….even tho medicare gives Canada the advantage anyway.

            Don't try to be cute Curt…you haven't got it in you

            Flash…Leafs have already lost Stanley.

  2. Baird's answer….6 bulls and a couple of cows.

    Plus some calves….maybe a few sheep…

  3. "That's where I think we're going to get the best reductions, rather than a cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax, or cap-and-murder-kittens, or cap-and-let-Ignatieff-have-his-way-with-your-wife, whatever you'd like to call it."

    Nobody works in the scare quotes like Baird.

    • cap-and-murder-kittens, or cap-and-let-Ignatieff-have-his-way-with-your-wife

      This made me laugh out loud.

  4. "That's where I think we're going to get the best reductions, rather than a cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax, or cap-and-murder-kittens, or cap-and-let-Ignatieff-have-his-way-with-your-wife, whatever you'd like to call it."

    Nobody works in the scare quotes like Baird.

  5. I thought Baird only gave really stupid answers (albeit to stupid questions) in Parliament?

    • The man's got a future to think about.

  6. I thought Baird only gave really stupid answers (albeit to stupid questions) in Parliament?

  7. It sure feels full of "sheep" to me, too.

  8. Is Baird suggesting that it's un-Canadian to support something that Americans do not?
    I'm not anti-American but that's not really supporting your claim. The American Government is about to be shut down so if you want to use that as the pillar of your argument go straight ahead, I wouldn't, but I'm not you.

    • You mean they're gonna prorogue?

  9. Is Baird suggesting that it's un-Canadian to support something that Americans do not?
    I'm not anti-American but that's not really supporting your claim. The American Government is about to be shut down so if you want to use that as the pillar of your argument go straight ahead, I wouldn't, but I'm not you.

  10. cap-and-murder-kittens, or cap-and-let-Ignatieff-have-his-way-with-your-wife

    This made me laugh out loud.

  11. Uh, so are the Conservatives renouncing any intention of ever bringing in a cap-and-trade system in Canada?

    • A campaign is no time for answering questions.

      • It seems Parliament isn't the place for them either.

  12. Uh, so are the Conservatives renouncing any intention of ever bringing in a cap-and-trade system in Canada?

  13. You mean they're gonna prorogue?

  14. A campaign is no time for answering questions.

  15. John Baird, you have to give him brownie points. Every time he speaks, I say to myself "man this guy is on something" it amazes me how MORE stupid stuff he can say. It just keeps coming. He sounds like a guy who is VERY frustrated with life. Does he have any friends?

    • Charlie Sheen, maybe.

      • Duh, WINNING!

  16. John Baird, you have to give him brownie points. Every time he speaks, I say to myself "man this guy is on something" it amazes me how MORE stupid stuff he can say. It just keeps coming. He sounds like a guy who is VERY frustrated with life. Does he have any friends?

  17. LOL certainly does!

  18. After five years as the governing party the Conservatives are still behaving as if they are the Opposition, expecting the Liberals to account for the lack of action on the climate change (or any) file.

    I say as voters we grant their wish and return them to Opposition where they can be free to criticize the Liberals and never have to follow through or create a coherent policy. It really is the only thing they are good at.

    • Totally agree….both with your premise, and your solution.

      • I’d rather give them the Kim Campbell mandate.

        • Good lord, you want them naked???

  19. After five years as the governing party the Conservatives are still behaving as if they are the Opposition, expecting the Liberals to account for the lack of action on the climate change (or any) file.

    I say as voters we grant their wish and return them to Opposition where they can be free to criticize the Liberals and never have to follow through or create a coherent policy. It really is the only thing they are good at.

  20. It seems Parliament isn't the place for them either.

  21. Totally agree….both with your premise, and your solution.

  22. Don't forget it was the one and only Bruce Carson who was indispensable in offering advice within the PMO on energy/environmental issues – a position he maintained (just changed titles) after he moved to Calgary at some newly formed school. Remember the pic with do-nothing Prentice, Michael Wilson and US Energy Sec Stephen Chu?

    • Pamela Wallin says we can't talk about Carson anymore.

      • I think it's an open question whether he was just another Conservative hack given a nice trough and expected to accomplish little, or a rather important player in shilling for filthy tarsands oil and in the whole process of turning Canada into a petrostate and a US protectorate.

        But Harper is making changes to Canada's scientific research institutions, and not in a good way: http://sixthestate.net/?p=1134

    • .
      Given Mr. Get-Tough-on-Crime Mr. Harper's standards, we can expect to see Conrad Black among the Government of Canada's trusted policy-makers.
      .

        • I'd like to know he got across the border to attend the high level climate talks. Given his criminal record he wouldn't be allowed in if he was travelling alone. So he must have been given some sort of cover.

  23. Don't forget it was the one and only Bruce Carson who was indispensable in offering advice within the PMO on energy/environmental issues – a position he maintained (just changed titles) after he moved to Calgary at some newly formed school. Remember the pic with do-nothing Prentice, Michael Wilson and US Energy Sec Stephen Chu?

  24. Charlie Sheen, maybe.

  25. I’d rather give them the Kim Campbell mandate.

  26. "I wondered aloud if this description indicated the Conservative side was renouncing any intention of ever bringing in a cap and trade system in Canada." I wonder aloud "do you call yourself a journalist?" As you only seem to question one sides policies. At least the rest of the blogs on Macleans.ca point out the follies of both sides. It disappoints me that my subscription pays for helps pay for such unbalanced commentary.

  27. Harper – adaptable and pragmatic.

    The US can't afford to even think about doing cap and trade right now. They are letting their EPA front run any potential to impose environmental costs on US industries.

  28. Harper – adaptable and pragmatic.

    The US can't afford to even think about doing cap and trade right now. They are letting their EPA front run any potential to impose environmental costs on US industries.

  29. Pamela Wallin says we can't talk about Carson anymore.

  30. The Liberals have come our for cap and trade. Seems appropriate to ask what the Conservatives are planning, if anything.

  31. The Liberals have come our for cap and trade. Seems appropriate to ask what the Conservatives are planning, if anything.

    • Except Wherry never…..never…scrutinizes or criticizes the Liberals, and incessantly attacks the CPC.

      He is, undoubtedly a Liberal political operative, utilizing the assets of Macleans to further the Liberal politcal cause.

      • Yada, Yada, Yada, Why don't you tell us chet, you're obviously an insider – has Harper abandoned bringing in cap and trade?

      • good grief….I am so tired of Conservative whining about the fictionous "Liberal Media"…….do you understand what a blog is????

  32. I think it's an open question whether he was just another Conservative hack given a nice trough and expected to accomplish little, or a rather important player in shilling for filthy tarsands oil and in the whole process of turning Canada into a petrostate and a US protectorate.

    But Harper is making changes to Canada's scientific research institutions, and not in a good way: http://sixthestate.net/?p=1134

  33. good for you emily, you're first again. Get a JOB!

  34. Dear DPT….get a life.

  35. Obama's cap-n-trade is deader than a doornail. He doesn't even mention it anymore. European cap-n-trade is riddled with billions of euros of fraud.

    Japan's greenhouse gas commitments went poof with the quake/tsunami/nuclear accident.

    The West using food to fuel their cars is not going to go over well in the emerging world where food prices are skyrocketing.

    The world energy and food crises are more critical than a-climate-that-has-always-been-a-changing.

    • So then Do nothing until our grand kids are left with an unlivable planet? News flash for you. we only have the one planet so far. If the "Atlantic Conveyor" ( The current that moves warm water from the tropics to the arctic and cold water in the other direction) shuts down, the eastern seaboard of North America will be pretty much unlivable. Mega storms, Force 5 Hurricanes in the North Atlantic; Polar cap gone. And we are SCREWED. Estimates from some scientists is the Atlantic Conveyor could stop, it the ocean temp goes up 3'. Do you really want to take a chance? I sure don't.

  36. Obama's cap-n-trade is deader than a doornail. He doesn't even mention it anymore. European cap-n-trade is riddled with billions of euros of fraud.

    Japan's greenhouse gas commitments went poof with the quake/tsunami/nuclear accident.

    The West using food to fuel their cars is not going to go over well in the emerging world where food prices are skyrocketing.

    The world energy and food crises are more critical than a-climate-that-has-always-been-a-changing.

  37. chet? …. chet, where are you? chet?

  38. chet? …. chet, where are you? chet?

  39. Oh my,

    what a corrupt Liberal media deliberately chooses not to tell you about Conservative campaign screening:

    Those poor innocent students…who on facebook vow to "take Harper out". Ahh yes, and the shooting of Giffords was just months ago.

    Astounding:
    http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2011/04/inventing-sc

    • Only problem with this "theory":

      All these students who got kicked out already cleared an RCMP security pre-screening. They were confirmed to have no weapons.

      Once inside, they were then removed by party staff. Not security.

      In any event, the RCMP have made clear, going forward they will not be kicking out anyone who isn't a security threat:
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/s

      • I agree Matlock.

        Wait times which inflict untold suffering on us.

        Concerns about our economic well being. My job, my family's economic future.

        Whether a seperatist party intent on breaking up Canada will have a seat in government, thereby seeking to destroy Canada from within….

        all pale in comparison to….conservative campaign screening. You….and your friends in the media, telling the rest of us, this is THE most important story facing Canadians are correct.

        You keep on that.

        • These students wanted to hear about Harper's plans for the economy. For health care wait times. For their families' economic future.

          Instead, staffers kicked them out.

          • How do you know your assertion is correct?

          • The teen in question stated, “We just repeated we were only there to listen.”
            http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/04/178

            I have no more to go on than their assertion. But at the very least, when they state that, I think it is incumbent on the CPC to prove the opposite if they are to go to the drastic measure of kicking someone out.

    • By the way, how do you feel about the Tories prior support for cap-and-trade?

    • Chet, could I interest you in some nice beachfront property? It's got a bunker and it's going cheap, cheap, cheap!

    • "talking about the importance of pre-emptive medical screening and how the wait times increase our likelihood of dying"
      Is rather amusing coming from a conservative follower since _your_ elader has made it plain what he intends to do to universal health care.

      "The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."

      - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition,
      Yes sir Horrifying isn't it? Health care in our constitution! The right to access to health care for every citizen. Disgusting isn't it? Let them die if they can't pay! Right Chet?

  40. Oh my,

    what a corrupt Liberal media deliberately chooses not to tell you about Conservative campaign screening:

    Those poor innocent students…who on facebook vow to "take Harper out". Ahh yes, and the shooting of Giffords was just months ago.

    Astounding:
    http://blackrod.blogspot.com/2011/04/inventing-sc

  41. As for the subject at hand,

    rather than scouring for obscure comments, I'd like to see where in the CPC platform they are actually for a hard cap on emissions.

    This type of "gotcha" reporting is simply dishonest. No one believes Harper is campagining for a hard cap on emissions.

    Meanwhile, Iggy has it specifically in his platform and he gets a pass.

    Why?

    Well an economy destroying cap on energy is sooooo irrelevant (as is, apparently every other issue facing our citizenry) compared to say…..screening for malcontents at campaign rally's.

    In fact, just the other day around the dinner table, one of my guests interrupted me as we were talking about the importance of pre-emptive medical screening and how the wait times increase our likelihood of dying…when a guest interrupted…."I can't think of unimportant trivialties of my loved ones dying an early death….when the issue of Conservatives campaign screening procedures hangs over our heads!!!!"

    Our ever centered, every "balanced" "progressive" leftist media…telling Canadians what SHOULD be important to us.

    • From the 2008 Speech from the Throne, written by the Tories themselves and no one else:
      http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1378

      "We will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period."

      Why does Harper get a pass from you, chiff? Why?

      • That you have to go back to a speech made three years ago,

        and not to anything in the lead up to this election,

        let alone within the last few years,

        proves my point entirely.

        So while the liberals scour for years old speeches, they argue that A CURRENT PLATFORM IN THIS VERY CAMPAIGN by Iggy shouldn't be scrutinized.

        I guess that's what they call being …."progressive".

        • That you have to go back to a speech made three years ago

          HAHAHAHAHAHA! So tell me, Chet, what is the half-life of a Harper committment?
          And how does that square with your faith in Harper's pledge of income splitting 4 years from now?

        • So basically, when Harper promises something today, we shouldn't hold him to that promise 3 years from now?

          -family income splitting
          -adult fitness tax credit
          -child fitness tax credit extension

          Sure, he's promised these things when the budget is balanced, but since that won't happen until 2015-16, we shouldn't actually expect him to implement these, correct?

          I wasn't aware promises had time limits.

          Rebuttal?

        • Okay, let's see if I have this right. According to you:

          The current Liberals, headed by a new crop of politicians, are to be held responsible in perpetuity for Adscam. Something that happened under Chretien.

          Harper, on the other hand, isn't expected to honour his own words from less than three years ago.

          Cognitive dissonance to such a degree must hurt like hell…

          • Is it okay if I copy/paste that a couple hundred times?

          • Be my guest! :-)

        • The Conservatives haven't released a platform. Why did they think it was a grand idea just 30 months ago but think its an awful, evil idea now?

    • "talking about the importance of pre-emptive medical screening and how the wait times increase our likelihood of dying" Funny how a conservative believer should say this, since Mr Harper has made no bones he wants to dismantle the Canadian Health Care system.
      "The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."
      -Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition

      I think that makes it pretty clear what Mr Harper thinks of Canadians having a viable public Health Care system. Guess it's not "American" enough for him.

  42. As for the subject at hand,

    rather than scouring for obscure comments, I'd like to see where in the CPC platform they are actually for a hard cap on emissions.

    This type of "gotcha" reporting is simply dishonest. No one believes Harper is campagining for a hard cap on emissions.

    Meanwhile, Iggy has it specifically in his platform and he gets a pass.

    Why?

    Well an economy destroying cap on energy is sooooo irrelevant (as is, apparently every other issue facing our citizenry) compared to say…..screening for malcontents at campaign rally's.

    In fact, just the other day around the dinner table, one of my guests interrupted me as we were talking about the importance of pre-emptive medical screening and how the wait times increase our likelihood of dying…when a guest interrupted…."I can't think of unimportant trivialties of my loved ones dying an early death….when the issue of Conservatives campaign screening procedures hangs over our heads!!!!"

    Our ever centered, every "balanced" "progressive" leftist media…telling Canadians what SHOULD be important to us.

  43. Only problem with this "theory":

    All these students who got kicked out already cleared an RCMP security pre-screening. They were confirmed to have no weapons.

    Once inside, they were then removed by party staff. Not security.

    In any event, the RCMP have made clear, going forward they will not be kicking out anyone who isn't a security threat:
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/s

  44. By the way, how do you feel about the Tories prior support for cap-and-trade?

  45. Except Wherry never…..never…scrutinizes or criticizes the Liberals, and incessantly attacks the CPC.

    He is, undoubtedly a Liberal political operative, utilizing the assets of Macleans to further the Liberal politcal cause.

  46. ",,,Climatologist Andrew Weaver, at the University of Victoria, said the new report highlights the "hypocrisy" of the Harper government's approach to climate change.

    The Conservatives agreed internationally to take steps to help keep warming below the 2 C threshold, but the government continues to promote expanded use and export of Canadian oil and coal that are driving up emissions.

    "If we want to deal with this problem, we have to start transforming our energy systems now," said Weaver. "Not yesterday, not tomorrow, now. That means we should be weaning ourselves from our dependency on oil, not trying to expand it as fast a possible."…"
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Canada+ha

  47. ",,,Climatologist Andrew Weaver, at the University of Victoria, said the new report highlights the "hypocrisy" of the Harper government's approach to climate change.

    The Conservatives agreed internationally to take steps to help keep warming below the 2 C threshold, but the government continues to promote expanded use and export of Canadian oil and coal that are driving up emissions.

    "If we want to deal with this problem, we have to start transforming our energy systems now," said Weaver. "Not yesterday, not tomorrow, now. That means we should be weaning ourselves from our dependency on oil, not trying to expand it as fast a possible."…"
    http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Canada+ha

  48. From the 2008 Speech from the Throne, written by the Tories themselves and no one else:
    http://www.speech.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1378

    "We will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period."

    Why does Harper get a pass from you, chiff? Why?

  49. There's something in politics called "lip service".

    Like when Chretien signed Kyoto, and promptly….and correctly….chose to ignore that rediulous accord.

    No one believed Chretien, the ever astute leader, would inflict eco socialism on our economy,

    and no one…obscure comments by Harper notwithstanding…believes Harper will do so either.

    Which is why Harper dares not make that a campaing promise.

    Iggy?

    It's right in the platform.

    Iggy WILL destroy our economy to satisfy the eco socialists in the socialist/seperatist detent he is contractually bound to by his nefarious coalition.

    • The Speech from the Throne is an "obscure comment" to you?

      I didn't know "obscure comments" required the pomp-and-circumstance of the Governor General being involved.

    • I just realized now Wherry linked to the same Speech page I just did, and find it even more amazing you accuse him of scouring "obscure" documents.

      By the way, do you actually respond to posts? Or do you just cut-and-run when people show evidence that your posts are a pile of bull?

      • A single comment in a throne speech made three years ago,

        is to be interpreted as a current campaign platform, even while the CPC specifically say it is not in their platform.

        But a specific promise by Iggy in this year's platform, shouldn't be scrutinized.

        "Progressive" sense of fairness at work.

        • In case you don't intend to read my above post, I'll repost here also.

          So basically, when Harper promises something today, we shouldn't hold him to that promise 3 years from now?

          -family income splitting
          -adult fitness tax credit
          -child fitness tax credit extension

          Sure, he's promised these things when the budget is balanced, but since that won't happen until 2015-16, we shouldn't actually expect him to implement these, correct?

          I wasn't aware promises had time limits.

          Rebuttal?

        • So you're saying Harper knowingly and deliberately lied in his Throne Speech to buy some temporary political peace? And that Throne Speeches are just sops to the plebes and not to be taken seriously as government policy?

          Nice!

        • A Throne Speech is where the government sets out their agenda and beliefs. No one forced them to put anything about cap and trade in there. They thought it was a grand idea thirty months ago, but not anymore?

      • So I guess bombing Iraq, and being pro torture is in the Liberals current platform.

        I seem to recall Iggy was pretty rah rah about the torture thing, and was pretty open about it.

        I wonder what Iggy's coalition partners would think about this being in his platform. Oh sure, it's not specifically in there, but he's voiced fairly strongly in the past.

        Hey, I kind of like this notion of attributing past proclamations as being part of a current platform.

        Today's Liberal party. We're pro torture.

        Has a nice catchy ring to it.

        Or is this yet another of the countless ways in which things should only operate against Harper, and not Iggy?

        • No, I am now pointing at parts of the current Tory platform.

          -family income splitting
          -adult fitness tax credit
          -child fitness tax credit extension

          You have not rebutted that the Tories made a promise 3 years ago they have now disowned. Based on this, you accept the Tories made a promise 3 years ago and are now breaking it. I now ask about their current platform, have they made promises they do not intend to keep as they would not be implemented for 5 years?

          They have already set the precedent.

          • What is Iggy's hidden agenda Matlock?

            Pro torture?

            Sounds scary to me.

            He's done it before, he'll do it again.

            Why aren't you answering MY questions. If Iggy was so open about being pro torture, why can't we attribute that to his campaign?

            So to recap,

            He'll destroy our economy with a cap on emissions, AND

            destroy Canada's human rights record with advancing his pro torture, not-so-hidden, agenda.

          • You did not rebut my point. You therefore accept that Harper will make a promise today and break it in three years.

            'Say anything Steve' hasn't an ounce of truth to him, does he? Why should I believe his promises when he's proven he won't keep them?

          • You did not rebut my point,

            Iggy is pro torture,

            and the coalition is therefore pro torure.

            Somebody tell Jack and Gille!!

          • You know, chet, it seems to me that a throne speech carries a lot more weight as government policy than Iggy's comments. But since you raised torture – why has Harper been trying so hard to hide those documents about our military's actions in Afghanistan? Iggy was speculating; it seems our military was indirectly acting – on Harper's watch.

          • Chet you have created what is called a 'straw man' argument. Since you can't win against the actual point, you _create_ a false premise argument you _can_ win at. Simple delay tactics when you can't refute a point made by some one else. You must have read the CPC playbook on suborning committees. It's what they did in parliament and the Senate since they got elected. ;)

          • Claiming he's pro-torture is patently absurd, and has been debunked several times, and is there for anyone to read if they read the piece in its entirety and not a selective quotation.

        • I see there's no expiration date on chet's talking points.

  50. There's something in politics called "lip service".

    Like when Chretien signed Kyoto, and promptly….and correctly….chose to ignore that rediulous accord.

    No one believed Chretien, the ever astute leader, would inflict eco socialism on our economy,

    and no one…obscure comments by Harper notwithstanding…believes Harper will do so either.

    Which is why Harper dares not make that a campaing promise.

    Iggy?

    It's right in the platform.

    Iggy WILL destroy our economy to satisfy the eco socialists in the socialist/seperatist detent he is contractually bound to by his nefarious coalition.

  51. I agree Matlock.

    Wait times which inflict untold suffering on us.

    Concerns about our economic well being. My job, my family's economic future.

    Whether a seperatist party intent on breaking up Canada will have a seat in government, thereby seeking to destroy Canada from within….

    all pale in comparison to….conservative campaign screening. You….and your friends in the media, telling the rest of us, this is THE most important story facing Canadians are correct.

    You keep on that.

  52. The Speech from the Throne is an "obscure comment" to you?

    I didn't know "obscure comments" required the pomp-and-circumstance of the Governor General being involved.

  53. I just realized now Wherry linked to the same Speech page I just did, and find it even more amazing you accuse him of scouring "obscure" documents.

    By the way, do you actually respond to posts? Or do you just cut-and-run when people show evidence that your posts are a pile of bull?

  54. These students wanted to hear about Harper's plans for the economy. For health care wait times. For their families' economic future.

    Instead, staffers kicked them out.

  55. Chet, could I interest you in some nice beachfront property? It's got a bunker and it's going cheap, cheap, cheap!

  56. That you have to go back to a speech made three years ago,

    and not to anything in the lead up to this election,

    let alone within the last few years,

    proves my point entirely.

    So while the liberals scour for years old speeches, they argue that A CURRENT PLATFORM IN THIS VERY CAMPAIGN by Iggy shouldn't be scrutinized.

    I guess that's what they call being …."progressive".

  57. Emily,
    So would you enter into a cap and trade program witout the U.S.? Iggy is talking about putting it in place immediately.

  58. That you have to go back to a speech made three years ago

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! So tell me, Chet, what is the half-life of a Harper committment?
    And how does that square with your faith in Harper's pledge of income splitting 4 years from now?

  59. A single comment in a throne speech made three years ago,

    is to be interpreted as a current campaign platform, even while the CPC specifically say it is not in their platform.

    But a specific promise by Iggy in this year's platform, shouldn't be scrutinized.

    "Progressive" sense of fairness at work.

  60. So basically, when Harper promises something today, we shouldn't hold him to that promise 3 years from now?

    -family income splitting
    -adult fitness tax credit
    -child fitness tax credit extension

    Sure, he's promised these things when the budget is balanced, but since that won't happen until 2015-16, we shouldn't actually expect him to implement these, correct?

    I wasn't aware promises had time limits.

    Rebuttal?

  61. In case you don't intend to read my above post, I'll repost here also.

    So basically, when Harper promises something today, we shouldn't hold him to that promise 3 years from now?

    -family income splitting
    -adult fitness tax credit
    -child fitness tax credit extension

    Sure, he's promised these things when the budget is balanced, but since that won't happen until 2015-16, we shouldn't actually expect him to implement these, correct?

    I wasn't aware promises had time limits.

    Rebuttal?

  62. So I guess bombing Iraq, and being pro torture is in the Liberals current platform.

    I seem to recall Iggy was pretty rah rah about the torture thing, and was pretty open about it.

    I wonder what Iggy's coalition partners would think about this being in his platform. Oh sure, it's not specifically in there, but he's voiced fairly strongly in the past.

    Hey, I kind of like this notion of attributing past proclamations as being part of a current platform.

    Today's Liberal party. We're pro torture.

    Has a nice catchy ring to it.

    Or is this yet another of the countless ways in which things should only operate against Harper, and not Iggy?

  63. How do you know your assertion is correct?

  64. From a prior comment:

    "I thought Baird only gave really stupid answers (albeit to stupid questions) in Parliament?"

    But they're not just bumbling doofuses who can't keep their lies straight. They are also actively evil and are conducting a race-baiting and xenophobic campaign in French while showing lots of happy Chinese families in their English ads.

    Consider how the Conservatives are campaigning in Quebec (and only in Quebec):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcptS3RSvyY

    It seems Harper's National Citizens' Coalition roots are showing.

  65. From a prior comment:

    "I thought Baird only gave really stupid answers (albeit to stupid questions) in Parliament?"

    But they're not just bumbling doofuses who can't keep their lies straight. They are also actively evil and are conducting a race-baiting and xenophobic campaign in French while showing lots of happy Chinese families in their English ads.

    Consider how the Conservatives are campaigning in Quebec (and only in Quebec):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcptS3RSvyY

    It seems Harper's National Citizens' Coalition roots are showing.

  66. EU has one…why worry about the US?

  67. The teen in question stated, “We just repeated we were only there to listen.”
    http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2011/04/04/178

    I have no more to go on than their assertion. But at the very least, when they state that, I think it is incumbent on the CPC to prove the opposite if they are to go to the drastic measure of kicking someone out.

  68. Meanwhile,

    buried deep, deep, deep inside a newsblog and likely never to see the light of day on actual news pages…let alone in headline upon headline accross the country…

    evictions from IGGY'S campain:
    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

    The sickening selective reporting by a corrupt leftist media continues apace.

    • Akin used to be a good reporter. He lost what he had of his credibility in defending Brian Lilley's indefensible lies.

      • No doubt Akin will be appropriately punished by the rest of the media pack for even daring to mention this.

        With the appropriate "reeducation" he will be…as you say…. a "good reporter" once again.

        • If reeducation involves printing facts as opposed to lies, then okay.

    • Yes indeed. Closing one event to the general public when dozens of others are open to all and sundry is equivalent to only holding invitation-only events, and refusing to extend or honour invitations to people who are not avowed Conservative suppoters.

      Logic fail.

    • As opposed to a blindly obedient Corporate funded "National Citizens Coalition" viewpoint?

  69. Meanwhile,

    buried deep, deep, deep inside a newsblog and likely never to see the light of day on actual news pages…let alone in headline upon headline accross the country…

    evictions from IGGY'S campain:
    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011

    The sickening selective reporting by a corrupt leftist media continues apace.

  70. No, I am now pointing at parts of the current Tory platform.

    -family income splitting
    -adult fitness tax credit
    -child fitness tax credit extension

    You have not rebutted that the Tories made a promise 3 years ago they have now disowned. Based on this, you accept the Tories made a promise 3 years ago and are now breaking it. I now ask about their current platform, have they made promises they do not intend to keep as they would not be implemented for 5 years?

    They have already set the precedent.

  71. Yada, Yada, Yada, Why don't you tell us chet, you're obviously an insider – has Harper abandoned bringing in cap and trade?

  72. I see there's no expiration date on chet's talking points.

  73. Akin used to be a good reporter. He lost what he had of his credibility in defending Brian Lilley's indefensible lies.

  74. No doubt Akin will be appropriately punished by the rest of the media pack for even daring to mention this.

    With the appropriate "reeducation" he will be…as you say…. a "good reporter" once again.

  75. Well it puts Canada at a cost disadvantage. So do I manufacture a car in Ontario or Michigan? If all your cost s are X% more in Canada for steel, plastics, and energy costs, then you move the manufacturing some place else. Oh…. I forgot you are all for robbing Western Canada to pay for welfare programs elsewhere.
    Emily,
    I am now of the opinion complex subjects are beyond your grasp. Your perky, little, trite answers are beginning to become boring.
    Back to the hockey game. Go Leafs Go!

  76. What is Iggy's hidden agenda Matlock?

    Pro torture?

    Sounds scary to me.

    He's done it before, he'll do it again.

    Why aren't you answering MY questions. If Iggy was so open about being pro torture, why can't we attribute that to his campaign?

    So to recap,

    He'll destroy our economy with a cap on emissions, AND

    destroy Canada's human rights record with advancing his pro torture, not-so-hidden, agenda.

  77. You did not rebut my point. You therefore accept that Harper will make a promise today and break it in three years.

    'Say anything Steve' hasn't an ounce of truth to him, does he? Why should I believe his promises when he's proven he won't keep them?

  78. New emission rules for cars in NA will take care of it….even tho medicare gives Canada the advantage anyway.

    Don't try to be cute Curt…you haven't got it in you

    Flash…Leafs have already lost Stanley.

  79. John Baird is his own renewable energy source.

    • And a major source of air pollution and global warming all on his own…

  80. John Baird is his own renewable energy source.

  81. Duh, WINNING!

  82. You did not rebut my point,

    Iggy is pro torture,

    and the coalition is therefore pro torure.

    Somebody tell Jack and Gille!!

  83. Okay, let's see if I have this right. According to you:

    The current Liberals, headed by a new crop of politicians, are to be held responsible in perpetuity for Adscam. Something that happened under Chretien.

    Harper, on the other hand, isn't expected to honour his own words from less than three years ago.

    Cognitive dissonance to such a degree must hurt like hell…

  84. So you're saying Harper knowingly and deliberately lied in his Throne Speech to buy some temporary political peace? And that Throne Speeches are just sops to the plebes and not to be taken seriously as government policy?

    Nice!

  85. You know, chet, it seems to me that a throne speech carries a lot more weight as government policy than Iggy's comments. But since you raised torture – why has Harper been trying so hard to hide those documents about our military's actions in Afghanistan? Iggy was speculating; it seems our military was indirectly acting – on Harper's watch.

  86. And a major source of air pollution and global warming all on his own…

  87. If reeducation involves printing facts as opposed to lies, then okay.

  88. The Conservatives haven't released a platform. Why did they think it was a grand idea just 30 months ago but think its an awful, evil idea now?

  89. A Throne Speech is where the government sets out their agenda and beliefs. No one forced them to put anything about cap and trade in there. They thought it was a grand idea thirty months ago, but not anymore?

  90. Claiming he's pro-torture is patently absurd, and has been debunked several times, and is there for anyone to read if they read the piece in its entirety and not a selective quotation.

  91. Yes indeed. Closing one event to the general public when dozens of others are open to all and sundry is equivalent to only holding invitation-only events, and refusing to extend or honour invitations to people who are not avowed Conservative suppoters.

    Logic fail.

  92. The man's got a future to think about.

  93. Good lord, you want them naked???

  94. Is it okay if I copy/paste that a couple hundred times?

  95. Be my guest! :-)

  96. good grief….I am so tired of Conservative whining about the fictionous "Liberal Media"…….do you understand what a blog is????

  97. .
    Given Mr. Get-Tough-on-Crime Mr. Harper's standards, we can expect to see Conrad Black among the Government of Canada's trusted policy-makers.
    .

  98. I'd like to know he got across the border to attend the high level climate talks. Given his criminal record he wouldn't be allowed in if he was travelling alone. So he must have been given some sort of cover.

  99. So then Do nothing until our grand kids are left with an unlivable planet? News flash for you. we only have the one planet so far. If the "Atlantic Conveyor" ( The current that moves warm water from the tropics to the arctic and cold water in the other direction) shuts down, the eastern seaboard of North America will be pretty much unlivable. Mega storms, Force 5 Hurricanes in the North Atlantic; Polar cap gone. And we are SCREWED. Estimates from some scientists is the Atlantic Conveyor could stop, it the ocean temp goes up 3'. Do you really want to take a chance? I sure don't.

  100. "talking about the importance of pre-emptive medical screening and how the wait times increase our likelihood of dying" Funny how a conservative believer should say this, since Mr Harper has made no bones he wants to dismantle the Canadian Health Care system.
    "The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."
    -Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition

    I think that makes it pretty clear what Mr Harper thinks of Canadians having a viable public Health Care system. Guess it's not "American" enough for him.

  101. As opposed to a blindly obedient Corporate funded "National Citizens Coalition" viewpoint?

  102. "talking about the importance of pre-emptive medical screening and how the wait times increase our likelihood of dying"
    Is rather amusing coming from a conservative follower since _your_ elader has made it plain what he intends to do to universal health care.

    "The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things."

    - Conservative leader Stephen Harper, then vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition,
    Yes sir Horrifying isn't it? Health care in our constitution! The right to access to health care for every citizen. Disgusting isn't it? Let them die if they can't pay! Right Chet?

  103. Chet you have created what is called a 'straw man' argument. Since you can't win against the actual point, you _create_ a false premise argument you _can_ win at. Simple delay tactics when you can't refute a point made by some one else. You must have read the CPC playbook on suborning committees. It's what they did in parliament and the Senate since they got elected. ;)

Sign in to comment.