Wilber

It is one example where making a system more efficient really does conserve energy and reduce emissions, not some PC feel good tax that does nothing but take more money out of people's pockets. If all roads were strictly user pay, how many towns or regions in this country would be inaccessible by road because there were not enough users to pay for them? Parts of the Trans Canada Highway would not be viable, certainly through the Rockies and coast mountains. Among many other things, without government involvement there would be no Confederation Bridge or ferry service to Newfoundland or Vancouver Island that anyone could afford. The only reason this country exists in its present state was on the promise of building a railroad, which would never have happened without government involvement.

Pardon my ignorance, hybrids don't idle? Not as a rule. The engine charges the batteries and augments the electric motor under certain conditions, although there may be a need for if for heat and AC if stopped for a long period. Some hybrids like the Prius get better mileage in the city than on the highway.

Like the US is the only country in the world with fixed election dates.

I believe that was 1.2M between 2001 and 2006, not per year.

In BC the next election is four years from the last election. In a non confidence situation an election would be called and the following election would be four years from that date unless there was another non confidence situation before that.

Then how would that work? A government brought down half way through a "fixed" period, would we then have a new fixed period or the new government rules until the end of the old fixed period? My biggest objection to fixed dates was that we would get electioneering seemingly forever like happens in the USA but Steve has not stopped electioneering since his ad campaign started who knows how long before an election is even called. Thats true but so what? The important thing is that governments cannot put the country through the disruption and expense of an election on a whim or for pure political advantage, not strict adherence to an exact date. Politicians are always electioneering whether there is an election impending or not. The only reason the CPCs are doing more right now is because they have more money and can afford to do so.

5 year maximum in our parliamentary system is like maximum sentences in our legal system. It is a very rare occasion when either of them means anything. The only thing important enough for a majority government to seek a new mandate is to perpetuate or increase its power. It is completely self serving. When it is elected it's mandate is to govern, period, not create the conditions for a successful election campaign whenever it is convenient to them. The only reason for having an election before its term is if it becomes impossible to govern. The only way that can happen is if a minority looses the confidence of the house. There are no other ethical reasons for calling an election, trashing all business before Parliament, bringing government to a standstill for months and blowing 100M or so of the peoples money before its term expires. A lame duck government will never call an election voluntarily.

That last sentence is now highly questionable. Much less questionable than the alternative.

That's kind of how I see Gore.

Hindus used to practice the Suttee until the Brits put a stop to it. I notice India didn't bring it back when they left. Would we now respect it as a valid expression of religion if they had? Gere is guilty of stupidity and possibly a misdemeanor like taking a leak in a public place but a crime, I don't think so unless the lady wants to charge him with assault.

Canada signed the protocol then ratified it and did nothing about it. The US signed it, didn't ratify it and did nothing about it. In spite of ratifying the protocol, Canadian emissions rose at a higher rate than the US. Which is the most hypocritical. A Liberal Canadian government signed and ratified the protocol. A liberal Democratic US government signed the protocol and continued to do nothing for the remaining two years of that administration. Gore was 2IC of that administration. Gore is a liberal, is it any wonder he doesn't like it.

" The Chinese are the most remarkable race on earth, and I have always thought and still believe them to be the coming rulers of the world. They only want a Chinese Peter the Great or Napoleon to make them so and in my idle speculations upon this world's future I have long selected them as the combatants on one side of the great Battle of Armageddon, the people of the United States of America being their opponents. The latter nation is fast becoming the greatest power in the world. Thank Heaven, they speak English , are governed by an English system of laws and profess the same regard that we have for what both understand by fair play in all national as well as in private business." Lord Wolseley Commander in Chief British Army 1903 Now that was a futurist. The last sentence is something to ponder if you are planning on taking sides.

Having a plan is one thing, implementing it is another. When Canada signed on to Kyoto it would be reasonable to assume the people who signed it had a plan. If they did, we still don't know what it was because nothing was done. Regardless of whether or not the Conservative plan is considered adequate, if carried out, it will still be 100% better than the performance of the people who put their name on the Kyoto Accord.

David Suzuki has the advantage of never having to come up with the policies which will actually impact the lives of Canadians or have to take personal responsibility for them unless he runs for office and gains a position of responsibility. That makes it so much easier to be a critic and tell those who are that you are disappointed in them.

There are people who favour one party states in every country. Not excluding some who would call themselves Liberals in this country, who seem to think that it is their party's divine right to govern. In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats have a majority in both houses. So much for a one party Republican US.

Correct. The point is that people will have a direct incentive to reduce their consumption if there is a price compared to when it is free. That is what we want: reduced emissions. It won't get you reduced emissions if people have no other alternative than to sit in traffic idling. I'll give you an example. In the late eighties they built the Coquihalla highway between Hope and Kamloops with a connector to the Okanagan. It cuts two hours off the driving time and the toll is $10.00. Two hours on the alternative route at an average of 90 KPH would be 180 KM or 112 miles. Say you have a reasonably efficient car that can get 35 MPG in mountain driving. That two extra hours would use 3.2 gallons or 14.5 liters. At $1.05 a liter that would be $15.22 - $10.00 = $5.22. There you go, not only do I save 2 hours but I save $5.22 on gas and that is 14.5 liters of fuel that didn't get burned. Now that's a charge I can get behind, it saves me time, money and reduces emissions drastically. Don't say it doesn't matter where the money goes. You reduce emissions by making the system more efficient, not charging people more for something they can't change.

Not necessarily, hybrids do not sit and idle, Vancouver just implemented a bylaw against excessive idling. They won't be able to use the road less until they have alternatives. While you're at it I want all public transit to be user pay with no subsidies. I can't use it so I shouldn't have to pay for it. It doesn't matter where the revenue goes? Geez, what a concept. Why waste it on solving the problem? We'll just send it to government and they can burn it for us. No thanks, they do enough of that already.

I visited London quite a few times before and after the charge was put in place. I didn't notice much difference. Red Ken, that should tell you something. Besides, unlike Canadian cities they both have real transit systems.

I I don't

Really, all I hear is a great sucking sound and a giant belch as government absorbs even more of the country's wealth. If that makes me a Soviet then so be it but that is an odd comment from someone advocating even more taxation.

If it doesn't , should we get rid of it. What then? You think we get no benefit from our transportation system? Why have one? Sure idling vehicles impose a cost on society as well as on the people who are stuck in them. The solution is not to tax vehicles because they idle, it is to use vehicles which are more fuel efficient, pollute less and don't have to idle. That will reduce costs to society, your tax will just increase them because you can bet that government will not use that revenue to solve the problem, they will find more politically productive things to spend it on. People will still be stuck in their idling cars because they have no alternative.

These problems have been endemic in the RCMP for years. Interesting that you would single out a party that has been in power for less than a year and a half for the blame. At least they are the ones who are addressing them now. Where were those who were in power for years before?

Charles You don't seem to understand that our society depends on the movement of people and goods. You just can't tax that into non existence. Sure, if there were no people at all we wouldn't have to worry about their pollution at all, but then we wouldn't be here to worry. In the case of Vancouver and the Fraser Valley you are talking about the biggest port in the country. The whole country depends on it's links with the rest of the country, even you. Not using them is not an option. Our transportation systems are not businesses that can succeed or fail on whether or not they make money. The country cannot survive without them. Our standard of living wouldn't change all that much for most of us if we didn't have universal healthcare. It would change drastically for all of us if we didn't have an efficient and cost effective transportation infrastructure. Of course we pay for poluting the environment. Among other things we pay in the form of all the vehicle related taxes we already pay, you just want to add another one. You're another one of those people who think anything can be cured if we just add another tax.

I've just listed just a few of the taxes vehicle operators pay that non operators do not. How can you say the prices are zero? If you don't know what something costs or how much revenue it generates, you have no business plan. We only know that our system would collapse without it. If we are serious about solving transportation problems and the polution that goes with them we need to make sure that all the revenue it generates goes back into improving the system, be it roads or transit. We are having this debate right now in the Fraser Valley. The no more roads advocates think that even thought the regional population has tripled and Vancouver is the largest port in the country, the area can continue to be connected to the rest of the country by a four lane road and bridge that were completed in 1963 and that all we need is more transit. Of course the answer is we need both. In this case a congestion tax won't do anything because alternatives are very limited and don't apply to the transport of goods at all.

Now theres a plan. We'll come up with a pricing mechanism when we don't even know what something costs or how much revenue it generates. No big deal.