Hydraboss

He hides from other posters like a little boy. He is a wimp. And in his shill voice engages in cowardly attacks on Harper over nothing. That blatant misrepresentation thing by Gerry is a joke!! I have never seen such a baseless and contrived criticizm before. It is bizarre. TOUGHEN UP GERRY, FOR GODSAKE. FACE THE REALITY, THE CONSERVATIVES ARE THE PEOPLES REPRESENTATIVES....SO OF COURSE YOU WILL WANT TO MAKE STUPID ACCUSATIONS. INSTEAD OF CRYING THAT THE CONSERVATIVES DON'T LOVE YOU JUST ACKNOWLEDGE THEY'RE RIGHT. Yes, I know the lad is not reading this, but perhaps if a Liberal reads it he or she can pass it on to Gerry.

Margrace, Why go to Detroit for an MRI? My wife has been waiting for one on her back for 2 1/2 months and hasn't even received confirmation of when it will be booked. I got tired of that crap and called an imaging clinic in Edmonton. Amazingly enough, call today and you have your choice of this Friday morning or Tuesday afternoon (long weekend, you know!). $495 out of my pocket, and someone in the private que moves up a notch. "Here, have my place in line. Your welcome, Mr. Stranger."

g, You already know that he won't answer anything directly, because he can't. His only response will be sarcasm and name-calling which is the last defense of the stupid. He has no proof, he has no passports, he has no power, he has no lands. All he has is dim-witted sarcasm. Shame. I wonder how embarrased his honorable ancestors are right now. A war of empty words and hollow premonitions. He's a con! Come on Tsi Tsi, answer us a question if you please. Can't do it? I hear that every poster has that problem from time to time. Factual impotency is nothing to be ashamed of. Provide some real information instead of the propaganda sites that you always link to. Where's the .jpg or .img file of a Six Nations passport? Answer g_bambino's questions. And on and on!

She's a con! Still won't answer the whole question, eh? Gutless. Coward. So, if you don't follow the rule of law, why are those six still in prison? Too afraid to have your "government" demand their extradition? Do you really have a government? Or just more of your "secret warriors" that you went on and on about. And as for "things are changing", I'll wait and see if you guys can accomplish anything. The only reason the Canadian Armed Forces haven't kicked your ass already is that everyone is waiting to see how it will look on the world stage. Incidentally, which seat is yours on the world stage? UN seat, anyone? I love playing with the minds of morons that can only selectively answer questions. It's fun, kind of like pulling the wings off flies. On and on again!

She's a con! So you're not bound by any laws or rules, eh? What a load of shit. You can have your ass thrown in jail every bit as fast as any person in this country. You have your own government too, eh? So why are they leaving so many Indians in prison? I've asked you this a couple of times and all you ever say is "Your government has no right..." But my government does it, doesn't it? So why do you leave your brothers and sisters there if your people don't have to follow our laws? Are you just too afraid that you'll join them in their incarceration? Or maybe you are incarcerated. Who knows. Who cares. So please continue with your annoyance trolling. You used to irritate me, but now I just laugh at you. There is no having intelligent conversation with you, as you will only answer those select questions that you have cut & pastes ready for. You're a parrot, and not a very good one. Maybe we should ask for a separate part of the MLW to be opened entitled "Indian Affairs" and then you and your troll buddies can go there and impress each other. There are native posters on this board that hold meaningful conversations, like Riverwind, and then there are people like you. Go away. (...waiting for typical "You can not make us go away just because you wish it, whitey...) On again....

There you go, in the most labour crunched time in Alberta and Canada's history, most people on welfare are lazy. By your numbers, there are 14,000 people who should not be able to collect welfare because they are f**king lazy (well said, Geoffrey). 14,000 X $5000/yr = too much in handouts in this province. When able bodied people don't work, able bodied people don't get any money.

I don't believe that decriminalization would increase demand anyway: I'll continue to smoke pot even though it's illegal; you'd not want to smoke it even if it were. I suspect more kids try it because it's a widely available black-market product than would try it if it were just another legal drug, so ultimately yours is a human-rights-gone-too-far argument and not one opposed to decriminalization per se. Though I still don't believe that if someone performs at an incompetent level, no matter what the root cause, you can't remove them from the job for that reason. I am 100% opposed to decriminalization because it is stupid. To me, it makes about as much sense as decriminalizing murder. "You killed your cousin; that'll be $8500 please." Sound ridiculous? It should. And no, I am not equating the two. Simply pointing out the stupidity. It should either be legal or illegal. My little nearly-scientific poll (sans the science) this morning proved to me what I suspected. These workers would openly smoke it if it were legal. And I suspect more people that have never tried it would as well. The human rights issue is every bit as stupid, but on another front. People will always succeed in finding a way to blame their screwups on someone or something else. The Human Rights Circus should be absolutely abolished once and for all. If you don't believe that someone can be protected without reason for their own incompetence, please search the HRC sites (provincially and federally) for litigation and decisions. The moment dependancy is brought into the situation, the employer is powerless. I have been in front of the HR Circus several times, and I have learned to just sign the Non-Competition Agreement and be done with it. gc, If I posted that smoking at work is rampant, I apologize for misleading you. I meant to indicate that there are a pile of people coming to work stoned, and smoking it on lunch, etc off site. They do not openly smoke it on company property, but they told me this morning that they would if it were legal. And yes, I could easily work for any other company in my industry (and a few others), but I accepted my position to protect people and drugs are one area where the "government and associates" have tied my hands. I could leave and someone would eventually replace me, but he or she would run headlong into the same problems. I have stated several times before, and I will state it again: If they allow for reasonable ability for employers to address the situation, I will (under protest) play along. And perhaps legalizing it would make it safer, but to me that is the same as making bullets that only maim you instead of killing you. If pot has properties that can provide further benefit to certain people, I am not aware of them. But I have never proclaimed to be a herbologist, so I will concede the point to you. As for mental vs physical addiction, the same can be said for alcohol. Alcoholics are psychologically addicted as the body does not actually need the ingredients (as in nicotine). PPS - there is already legislation coming down that addresses the sleep issue (fatigue management). If you look under the National Safety Code (Transportation), the new regulations coming into effect January 1, 2007 dictate that any driver of a vehicle with a GVWR of 4500kg or over is limited to 14 hours on duty time per 24 hours. Please don't make any more ps's of this nature, or the Gods of Regulation will make my life even tougher.

If they are high at the time, then their motor skills will be impaired. But there's no evidence showing even long-term use degrades motor skills or any other functions. This is exactly what I am getting at. If they are high, they will be impaired. But I still can't do anything about it due to the current testing science available, and bad motor skills in my industry can kill people.

My understanding is it is supposed to be a two strikes and you are out system. i.e. the first time someone screws up they must be given an opportunity to clean up. However, if they screw up again then they can be shoved out the door. Not necessarily. If you are placed in rehab and "pass", I can put you back in your original safety sensitive position. If you continue to use, I may have to reassign you to a non-safety sensitive position. This depends entirely on the situation of the individual company (undue hardship). Anytime a worker is let go and has admitted to a dependancy problem, there are usually extenuating circumstances. While this is not an absolute, it is common. The rules change completely if the workplace is union. Some collective bargaining agreements surpass the legislation and are binding because the employer accepted the agreement. The only thing a CBA cannot do is reduce the legislation (ie. agree to ignore a law). My concern with regards to drugs and the workplace is that if pot is legalized but labour law does not change to accomodate the legalization, it's going to be a free-for-all. Here comes the obligatory question: If your child was killed by a worker who was drunk or stoned, who would you blame? Only the worker? Or would you be wondering aloud in front of the news cameras how the employer could possibly let someone who is impaired operate his equipment? Legal or illegal, pot doesn't find it's way into my lungs. Nobody is going to force me to smoke it. I accept that. All I ask is that they change the system to allow me to protect people from the stupid ones (the ones who are stoned at work or driving or flying). I just don't want someone who's stoned eating my fries at the drivethru before I get them.

"My science (most recent studies have found that even long-term pot use has little or no substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users) is powerless before your anecdotes." What can I say...my anecdotes can beat up your science. Neurocognitive functioning perhaps. What about neuromotive pupil reactions and neuromotor functions? Both are required to be unobstructed to work in this industry. The brain is willing, but the body is unable. "Has it occurred to you that the same young 'uns who are smoking "way too much pot" are also probably drinking way too much and taking god knows what else?" Amazingly enough, not very many of these guys drink. I've asked them about it and they find it too expensive. (?) Our company did have a really bad run with guys doing meth in the motel. Law or no law, we got rid of those guys (of course, it took one of them stealing a company truck before we made a move). "As fo rthe work place safety issue, if someone's pot habits are affecting their job performance, then the job performance alone should be adequate grounds for discipline. IOW, if someone can't do the job (because they are stoned or because they are incompotent) you should be able to cut them loose)." If the performance were not tied to drug use, your answer would be correct. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The moment drugs are introduced into the equation by either side, it is unjustifiable termination. While it makes absolutely no sense to me, it is the way it is dealt with by the HRC and the labour board. Here's a hint for anyone who is freakin' useless at their job. If you think you may get skidded, go smoke a joint before they call you in the office to fire your ass. Before they actually tell you goodbye, look at them and confide that you have a dependancy problem. Shazam! The employer is screwed unless they can prove undue hardship, which is very nearly impossible for any company that is of any size. I've had it happen to me. I sent the guy for a test, and sure enough he tested positive. I had to pay for his "rehab" and then reassign him to a non-safety sensitive position. Couldn't fire him, even though I don't believe that drugs were his problem. Stupidity was his problem. I think I may exchange our current safety awards for gummy bears. Maybe then I'll have something these guys want. Sucks to be me.

-- that's too funny! No employer would put up with workers drinking on the job either. One of my coworkers, if he's had a liquid lunch with one of his clients comes back to work all glassy-eyed and chatty. I can't imagine trying to do my job under the influence of weed or alcohol. Smelling pot on an employee would be enough to a.) send them home or b.) fire their butt. No one randomly tests for alcohol on the job so lack of "testing ability" is a poor argument. If a guy showed up at work and you knew for certain he'd had a few beers, would you whip out the breathalizer? No, because chances are you don't have one. So how does one tell a person has had a few beer without the official breathalizer or blood test? One doesn't. One simply goes on the fact that they smelled it or that the employee is acting "strange". Sorry about getting so far into the testing aspect... Drea, no one randomly tests for alcohol - true. If I have a guy that smells of booze, he is driven to our contracted testing lab ten minutes away; no exceptions. This constitutes reasonable cause and is legal. Positive results over 0.04 (meaning bad) allow me to take disciplinary action because the testing proves that he is "drunk" at that moment in time. For the record, I have suspended and terminated employees for being under the influence of alcohol. However, while smelling pot on a worker also constitutes reasonable cause, a positive test for THC does not prove current impairment. I can take no action against a worker because I cannot definitively prove he is stoned at that moment. Because I cannot prove that he didn't smoke it last week, I can't suspend or fire him (as per Canadian Human Rights Circus decisions.) Would it matter if I showed up to work baked if I worked in an office? Probably not, other than the paperwork and data entry errors that I would be guilty of. These people don't concern me as much. But what happens when they go to drive home? What about the people I have working here in safety sensitive positions that can potentially kill someone due to inattention?

gc; "Maybe your anger is misdirected. The problem is not the fact that people are smoking pot, but that they are showing up to work high and that you can't fire them. I'd rather see the labour laws changed to allow firing people who are impaired at work rather than making it illegal altogether. Besides, making it legal won't necessarily mean more people will smoke it at work. The people who will only start smoking it if it's legal (and have avoided it since it's illegal) are usually responsible enough not to show up to work high." So here it is. I just went outside to have a smoke, so I asked eight guys that were standing there about pot. Six openly admitted to smoking it. When I asked whether they would smoke it at work if it were legal, seven said they would, and one said he would smoke it "whenever the hell I feel like it". I then asked why they don't smoke it at work right now. One guy actually grinned. The other five (of the current smokers) said they don't because "the shits illegal". So what does that tell you about "legalization = increased use?" As for labour laws changing, I have already stated that I would play by the rules when the rules allow me to test workers, and fire them if they're stoned. Current technology does not have the capacity to prove "current impairment" and the Human Rights Circus won't allow this testing anyway. "I think you are agreeing with me here. Allow people to smoke pot on their own time, punish those who show up to work high." See my point above. "This is an excellent argument in favour of legalization. If it is legal and regulated by the government (like alcohol) it will not be laced." Again, I do not disagree. My problem is availability and the false pretense that smoking pot is harmless. "It is my personal belief that everyone has the right to freedom, unless they cause harm to others. Putting someone in jail violates their right to freedom (unless they cause harm), so smoking pot should be a right." There is no way I can legitimately argue against your personal beliefs. "Marijuana has a lot more medicinal purposes than that. People have been harmed by not smoking weed....and by the way morphine is much more addictive than pot." I do not claim to know every medicinal use for weed, I was simply pointing out a well accepted one. As for addiction, tell a long time pot smoker that you're taking away his stash and see what happens. (And I am speaking from intimate experience here) Pot smokers react to their weed the way alcoholics react to their booze. I just know this comment is going to start shit. "People should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. Camping in the middle of the 401 does cause 'harm' to others because they won't be able to drive on that road. That means they are being inconvenienced, especially since they pay for that road through taxes." So if I inconvenience someone, that's considered harm. What about the people who are inconvenienced by pot smokers, ie. other employees having to work harder because the guy who's cooked works about half as fast (and no, "half" is not a scientifically proven statistic)? Are those good employees being "harmed"? As for taxes, I handle all the WCB claims for the corporation, and if you want to talk about taxes and stress on the health care system (which we all pay for), you should first see the dollars spent to heal people hurt at work due to inattention. And yes, I can equate a portion of these numbers directly to pot smoking. Bubber; "If your employees' incompetence is the issue, fire them for their incompetence. If they showed up for work all dozy from lack of sleep and tried to operate heavy machinery, you wouldn't have to prove they stayed up too late to fire them for being negligent in their job." Yes, I would have to prove the reasons for their incompetence. As an employer, you cannot just fire someone because they suffer from a lack of sleep. The governing bodies want a root cause (read: where did I screw up as an employer that caused the worker to be in that condition and why did I not notice it immediately). You can look this up on the HRC federal site, the provincial HRC sites, the provincial HRDC sites, and in the National Labour Code. I can give them warnings and send them home, but if I take any action against them, all they have to do is say "I have a problem" and I'm basically stuck with them for life. As for the lacing issue, it is not an urban legend. The guys here smoking it are lacing it themselves. If there is enough of a market, the dealers will pick it up. One local guy already has (I get this from one of the guys that I have put up in a motel for out of province workers I bring in.) How is anyone going to regulate that? Are we (who?) going to test every joint these guys roll? Let me be clear: I personally don't want pot legalized because I have seen the effects, and I don't like them (personal opinion). I professionally don't want pot legalized because I have seen the effects, and I have no legal control over them. It not only puts my ass over the fire, but I have a duty to protect all employees, not just the ones who smoke weed. Workers who show up stoned on weed are not violent, granted. The only thing they would attack is a Coffee Crisp. They are, however, very inattentive and this poses severe risk to everyone on site. That is not fair to others that are here to make a paycheque.

BD, the problem is that while you say smoking pot doesn't endanger anyone, neither does free-basing. Too much weed will make you do stupid shit (I know, trust me), too much crack will f**k you up, too much Wild Turkey is no better. The argument is always "pot isn't addictive", "pot isn't dangerous", "pot doesn't hurt anyone". Bullshit. I've spent years dealing with young workers (admittedly, this is the demographic) that are smoking waaaayyyy too much pot, and I will tell you first hand that the above arguments are not true. As with anything, there are always individuals that can handle it. You should see me drink beer...it's truly astounding. But where is the line between what is good for individuals and what is good for society as a whole. It is illegal to work drunk (don't get too picky here) and it is illegal to work stoned. All I am asking for is the ability to disallow these workers if they are. Not possible at this time for dope smokers.

I just remembered that I said I wasn't going to rant. Oops. Sorry all.

BD, the drug testing nightmare is well documented through the psuedo-government Human Rights Circus. The two-second tour? I cannot test for drugs unless I have "reasonable cause", and that is a hell of a lot harder to prove than most may think. Even if I do test you and you come up positive for THC, or anything else for that matter, I cannot fire you because I cannot prove "current impairment" (you know, the 28 day rule). Even if I could prove "current impairment", I cannot fire you because the Human Rights Circus makes me responsible for "duty to accomodate" because you choose to do drugs. With alcohol, I can skid your ass for being drunk at work, unless (heaven forbid!) you state that you have a dependancy problem. Then I'm right back to the "duty to accomodate" BS. Now, if you show up to work stoned, operate one of my 10,000lb capacity loaders with a 3000lb drill collar in the forks, suddenly get that "far away look" in your eyes and *crash*, you kill someone, guess what? I am guilty of "failing to ensure the safety of workers" because I allowed you to operate that machinery while impaired. Same situation applies to alcohol, but it's a hell of a lot easier to detect. In general, I don't give a damn what you do on your own time. But when it affects MY time (at work), then I have a problem. But dope smokers have rights!!! As I have clearly said, if the government makes it legal, I will play along. It is the indecision that drives me nuts. As for your second question, people will go to the dealer with the best weed (Read: most effective). If the dealer is lacing, then that throws out the argument about "soft drugs". THC content does not vary greatly in naturally grown supply (but I have a feeling you already knew that). If the weed is laced for performance, are we then allowing legalization of the not-so-soft-drugs as well? "No with booze you have to constantly increase the amount you consume to get the same effect. The same applies to pot, to a degree. However, I'm less worried about someone who has to smoke three bowls instead of one than I am someone who has to drink a two-four instead of a six pack." Why is that? Do you actually believe that (in my scenario) any worker is safer when impaired by weed than by alcohol? I know that every pot head I know says that that is true, but I probably know more people who would swear on a stack of bibles that they can drive fine (or even better) after a six pack. So who's right? I don't care. Don't drive and don't work. No one has the right to endanger another persons life. Smoking pot is not a right. Smoking cigarettes is not a right. Booze is not a right. They're just legal. If the government wanted to commit political suicide, they could outlaw all three. They are not charter rights and therefore all would take is a swing through the House and a quick stop at the Senate. Nobody has ever been hurt or killed because they didn't smoke pot. Now, I will caveat that by accepting the fact that cancer patients find relief with weed, but then morphine accomplishes the same thing. Let me ask you this: How come I can't dance on an airplane? Why can't I walk naked through the House of Commons? It's not hurting anyone. Why can't I yell "paki" at an east indian or "squarehead" at a German (I'm part German by the way)? There is no physical harm in any of these, but I cannot do them without fear of consequence. You can't smoke pot because it's illegal. I can't yell "pig" at a cop. Want both to be allowed? What else should we allow? Let's see....things that I want to be legal....how about camping in the middle of the 401? I wouldn't be hurting anyone just because I set my pup tent up on the pavement. Sure, it may endanger others, but if I am persecuted for it I'll just scream and whine to the Human Rights Circus and then the government will have a "duty to accomodate" me. p.s. - I still get drunk on the same amount of beer as I used to 15 years ago.

"So why is alcohol legal while marijuana remains illegal?/" This is not an exact answer, but I'll give you this: Alcohol (currently legal) can be controlled in that it can be tested for by methods that detect current impairment. When the test arrives that can test for current impairment from cannabis (currently illegal), AND I AM ALLOWED TO TEST FOR IT, I will have less problem with the legalization of it. Notice I did not say decriminalization. (rolls spliff) Another problem with weed is that it can be "enhanced" quite easily. This makes sure you keep going back to the same dealer, cause Johnny got good weed. (cough) This is not the case with alcohol. Now if you think that the government can grow purer crops and market them successfully, fine. But not until it is legal. (Got any Doritos?)

Andrew, do you actually believe that anyone cares if we "alienate the common arab"? I believe that the vast majority of Canadians couldn't care less one way or the other about arab beliefs or governments. BUT WE DO NOT LIKE TERRORISM. Your statements, which call Israeli Jews terrorists, say so matter-of-factly that Israeli's "...kidnaps civilians and puts them in torture prisons without any trial, never to be heard from again. Hezbollah merely captures soldiers. Israel kills civilians...", and then calls people from other geographical locations of your own country "ignorant rural bumpkins" and subject to "western conditioning". Your statements lead me to believe that perhaps you should move to Lebanon and join the Hezbollah, since you harbour such strong feelings of support for their good and righteous ways. Defenders of the faith, protectors of the innocent, and all that. By the way, your crying because your beloved Liberals got booted out sounds like sour grapes to many of us, but the anti-conservative tone in a thread aimed at middle east events proves your childishness. Why don't you paint an anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-Jew sign and go join a rally.

Andrew, that is a lot of bullshit in such a small amount of space. I hope you enjoy your stay in Never-Never Land. Try the veal. Signed, Ignorant Rural Bumpkin

You are right! Does it help if I say, it should be legalized but carefully controlled and taxed like booze or tobbacco> Rue, at this point I really couldn't care less which way Canada goes on this. All I want is a definitive answer; legal or illegal. Canada is way too wishy washy on things. "This is the law, and everyone must abide by it....unless they don't want to....or we don't feel like enforcing it." An unenforced law is not a law, it's a recommendation. Want to tax it? Okay. Don't care. My personal problems with pot is more from an employers point of view. It's illegal, but I can't do anything about it in my workplace. Give me the rules, and I'll play by them. As for me personally, don't smoke it so it doesn't matter. Hopefully, my kids will not smoke it either (or cigarettes) and the law will not affect my message to my kids: Smoking pot makes you an idiot. Anyone that disagrees with that should try mental aptitude testing while they're stoned. Friggin hilarious to watch the results on that one.

Because I see EVERYDAY the effects that it has. Not the weekend smokers, hell my next door neighbours do that. I'm talking about all the 19 and 20 year olds that work for me (just the one location that I operate out of has over 200 labourers) that spend the majority of their paychecks on the shit, and then come to work (when they come to work!) cooked out of their skulls. I have the legal responsibility to prevent them from operating machinery etc when they're in that condition (but WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T DRUG TEST THEM). If those same workers came in drunk, I could send them home or fire them. I have ranted extensively on this before, and have no intention of doing it here. Let's just say that one side will portray pot as dangerous and of no good use to society (yes, just like my cigarettes), and the other side will say that it is their right to smoke it, that what they do on their time is their business, and that it is no more harmful than cigarettes, booze, hang gliding, drinking coffee or playing with Lego. These two sides will NEVER agree, even though everyone knows that I'm right.

Firstly, I am 100% against legalizing pot. Secondly, my opinion means absolutely nothing. Thirdly, I would much rather the government make a damn decision. Either it is legal or it is illegal. Decriminalizing it is stupid. "Oh, you can't have that, but we'll take your $50 fine thank you." Ridiculous nonsense. If you believe it should be legal as cigarettes are, then fine. Lobby your politician. If you think it should be banned, then put some real deterrent into the process. Get caught, and it carries the same penalties as any other crime...jail time. Fourthly, see point #2.

But does the terrorist have a "plan" to committ genocide? I'm not sure I can be convinced of it. Hitler did not just send the odd bomb or kidnap a couple of people. He had a (twisted) purpose and a definite plan to execute it. These terrorists are disorganized and stupid.

What do you want to discuss? NO government official from ANY country should be discussing ANYTHING with a terrorist organization. If you treat them with the niceties with which you treat any foriegn diplomat, you DO lend credibility to them. I would not want Canada negotiating or even speaking with anyone from Alkeida, so by the same token I do not want anyone from our government speaking with Hezbollah. As for cancelling the trip, maybe there actually is a security concern due to the only recent cease fire. Don't know, and probably never will. The government may have intelligence information that they are not making public, but then why didn't they share it with the all-party committee? I highly doubt we will ever be given the real reason. Concerning the Nazi comment, I can see where they would draw a comparison but I think it went too far. While their intentions are right on par as concerning the Israelis, I am not aware of any manifest destiny to take over the world. They're just not that smart.

Then the people in Toronto should keep to themselves as well, let Alberta deal with its pollution in the economical ways that we are."It's called global warming, Geoffrey. Burning fossil fuels in Alberta affects the planet's environment. Local smog is a local problem easily avoided by moving elsewhere."But the majority of the burning of fossil fuels is not done in Alberta. The taking of fossil fuels from the ground is done here, but the vast majority of raw materials is sent east or south for processing. While we produce greenhouse gases here in Alberta, we do not have the population to produce anywhere near what east-central Canada does. Per capita may or may not be comparative, but sheer numbers will never even be close, hence the smog in Toronto, London, and (my favorite) Sarnia, Great Land of Petrochemicals. So who pays the carbon tax? The producer, or the secondary/tertiary manufacturer, the end-user or all? The idea that the tax-grab will end up in General Revenue is justified, as this tends to be where a lot of unaccounted for money ends up (Read: EI).

I see what you're getting at with the Toronto comparison. If the oilfield were located in Ontario, and the manufacturing sector was located in Alberta, you can bet that the latter would be the root of the greenhouse evil. Environment be damned, this is not about health and wellness of people and planet, it is about votes and Ontario has more seats. The remainder seems to be a re-hash of the old "Kyoto-good/Kyoto-bad" argument. The two sides will never agree about the benefit/non-benefit of purchasing carbon credits. (I feel that it accomplishes absolutely nothing for the planet's environment...not gain=0). Mikey is looking for the double whammy: massive tax grab without affecting the most seats, and paying back Alberta because it's fun and it just doesn't matter what we think unless it's a very close election.