What will the Harper government's regulations cost? - Macleans.ca

What will the Harper government’s regulations cost?


Megan Leslie writes to the Environment Minister to inquire about what projections and analysis are guiding the Harper government’s environmental policies.

The very basis of your government’s decision-making on this file has been called into question by your inability to provide essential information on cost. Your government’s understanding of the risks to Canada’s economy and the well-being of Canadians has been called into question by your lack of transparency respecting the projected impacts of climate change.

Sound policy decisions must be based on good science and good accounting. You and your government have failed to show evidence that you are meeting this standard. Similarly to your decision to withdraw from Kyoto, your plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been roundly criticized as inefficient, ineffective and more costly over the long term than other plans. With the latest round of international climate negotiations taking place in Doha, Qatar this week, this information is even more pertinent.

See previously: By how much will Stephen Harper raise the price of your Thanksgiving turkey?


What will the Harper government’s regulations cost?

  1. Caught on have you NDP? Took you long enough.

  2. And in an unrelated development…NDP MP’s and supporters announce that they disagree with the Harper agenda. Yup….lot’s new here. Maybe next Leslie can write to explain that the pro Carbon tax crowd doesn’t like the Harper Government either. That would be news to everyone I am sure….
    Good that Wherry keeps promoting the work of Megal Leslie

    • Good to see you have a firm grasp on the role of executive govt and that of the loyal opposition. Not to mention critical thinking or the media.

      • That is my point…parroting the same ol’ same ol’ NDP talking points of Megan Leslie is not “critically thinking” by the media at all.

        It just exposes Wherry for being the media shill that he is.

        • What on earth are you taling about? Stephen Gordon has made the same arguments as ML and they have been linked from this blog. There have been posts about Mintz’s views on costs of regs vs CT or Cap’n trade – which the govt misquoted.
          You’re basically claiming that arguments that can be backed by evidence should receive the same level of respect as the govt’s tripe…good luck with getting that by a thinking person.