Royal Galipeau has an oddly selective memory -

Royal Galipeau has an oddly selective memory


The Conservative MP for Ottawa-Orleans rose before Question Period yesterday to recount what Megan Leslie had said the day before.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this chamber the NDP member for Halifax quoted the Prime Minister as stating in November 2008, “…our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes”.

Mr. Galipeau was apparently hoping that anyone listening to him yesterday hadn’t been listening the day before. Or maybe he himself had only heard half of what Ms. Leslie said on Tuesday.

For everyone’s benefit, the full sentence, spoken by the Prime Minister in 2008, is as follows.

I should mention that while our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a tonne, growing to that rate over the next decade, our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes.  

And therein lies the farce.

For the record, Royal Galipeau was first elected as a Conservative in 2006 and he was a Conservative MP in 2008 when the party endorsed “a domestic cap-and-trade system.” He was a Conservative MP when Jim Flaherty committed $66 million towards establishing a “price on carbon” and when, as noted above, Stephen Harper promised “a price on carbon of $65 a tonne” and when John Baird said “the establishment of a market price on carbon are key parts of our Turning the Corner plan to cut Canada’s greenhouse gases.”

When Mr. Galipeau ran for relection in 2008, the party platform he ran on included a promise to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system. He was a Conservative MP when that pledge was repeated in that year’s Throne Speech. He was a Conservative MP a year later when Jim Prentice announced an offset system that would “generate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … by establishing a price on carbon.” He was a Conservative MP when the Harper government claimed in December 2009 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.” He was a Conservative MP in May 2011 when Peter Kent allowed that a continental cap-and-trade system could be something to consider in the future. And he is presently a Conservative MP in a Conservative government that refuses to definitively rule out implementing a cap-and-trade system if the United States is prepared to do likewise.


Royal Galipeau has an oddly selective memory

  1. Mr.Galipeau is just parroting the Harper cabal’s mantra that facts are “transient” with a shelf life as needed. They are to be used and then tossed aside if they suddenly become a liability. Though some may well be placed in the green bin for recycling.

    • It’s the new style. Not only are opinions transient and malleable, but so are the facts. It appears that his govt has broke a natural law ,they are both entittled to their opinions and their facts. Quite an achievement in the age of the net, or maybe it’s down to that?

  2. If one must choose only the portion of a speech that fits his agenda, or constantly rant on about the same subject day in and day out, or use his pedestal to offer up slanted opinions about Members of his least favourite Party, in order to be labelled as having ” an oddly selective memory ” then I know a certain MacLean`s blogger who has an ” oddly selective memory “.

    • And a commenter who may have heard the expression “it takes one to know one …”

    • In a blog, we expect opinion. In our Parliament, we expect the truth.

      • Game, set, and match. Well played, sir.

      • Opinion!!! You mean i’ve been wasting my precious time reading opinion on what the CPC has said? I expect, no, demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…or as close as Aaron can get to it.

      • Well, I will take the truth anywhere I can get it.

        You and San Diego dave and those that need to be directed by said blogger may be happy with reading a blog in our national magazine where said blogger seems to think he is enlightened by referring to government answers in Question Period as “responses” , while at the same time never a critical word about an opposition who appear to have no agenda for the economy or job creation—they simply spend their time defending their policy of increased taxes by sending up one high school debater to question the government for cutting taxes and then another to say —-it looks the government wants to increase taxes just like us.
        Listen, a lot of what you hear in Parliament and read on liberal blogs like this is propaganda, but if you want better government, try to convince the opposition to appeal to the wants of the public and not just their narrow followers.

        • Aaah, you’re new here, then.

          • I`ll take that as an agreeing nod.

          • Proof you’re not connected to reality.

        • You do understand what the role of “opposition” is, correct?

          Hint: It’s not to govern.

          • I understand the role of opposition is to ask relevant questions ( that which concerns the public ) and provide sensible alternatives if they disagree with government policy. This blog seems to celebrate the fact that the opposition brays about that which will satisfy only their most ardent supporters and then are amazed that the government simply (responds) to their silly questions.

            Maybe lenny can read this and become enlightened—and maybe not.

          • Then you do not understand the role of the opposition.

            The role of the opposition is simply to hold the government to account.

          • If an opposition cannot give the impression that they could be a practical alternative to the government, then they will remain the opposition.
            If that is how you feel about today`s opposition, then I will agree with you.

          • The time to give that impression is during the campaign. The time to be opposition is when they’re the opposition.

        • Answers that are unrelated to their preceding questions and utterly fail to answer them are not answers at all. Calling them such would not be an acurate description of reality. If you’re unhappy about that reality complain to your government, not the author of this blog. If reality is to painful for you, stop reading.

    • Why don’t you point out the bit in that Harper speech where he says…i was only kidding, everyone knows i would never suggest we put a price on carbon, it might come back to haunt me in the future if some smart arse liberal blogger @ macleans should ever dare to quote me? You’re pathetic.

      • ….and I still think you are an idiot.

        • I’d usually say it takes one to know one, but given the two participants here.. it looks like just being one isn’t sufficient.

        • Somehow i find that quite reassuring…thankyou.

  3. Sterling work AW. Perhaps you need to start running some quotes/interviews/first hand opinions of those in the GHG abatement business who in the past took the PM at his word?