Keepitsimple

Interesting comment in the article from the Federal judge: “It probably wouldn't have happened if this court hadn't been happening,” he said as he announced a postponement of proceedings. Does that not sound like a partisan comment? Nah, couldn't be - he's a judge.

Taliban Prisoner Poll

Amnesty International is before the Federal Court in Ottawa claiming somehow that turning over Taliban terrorists to the Afghan government is a violation of the Charter of Rights. Thank you, Pierre Trudeau. "Canada's practice of turning detainees over to Afghan security forces, widely accused of torture and abuse, violates international law and the Charter of Rights, Amnesty International and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association say." Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

I didn't want this to become another eco-bashing post. I just wanted to make sure people realized what our "targets" really were and how rediculous it is for us to even think that we can come close to meeting them - no matter what we do.

Kyoto Targets Must be met by 2008 - not 2012. This is still not common knowledge and it's driving me absolutely crazy. All this talk about meeting our Kyoto targets by 2012 is nonsense. According to the Kyoto agreement that the Liberals signed, we have to meet our targets by 2008! Kyoto requires that we achieve our targets as an average for the period 2008-2012. If we are now 30% over our target (which we are), we have to reduce our emissions by that amount by 2008. If we don't, we have to cut deeper and deeper in the following years to achieve our target average for the period. I blame the Conservatives for not clearly communicating the pure folly of trying to meet these targets in one year. But more infuriating is the opposition who have introduced Bill C30 and are trying to force the Conservatives to meet these targets. Here's a supporting excerpt from the CBC's FAQ on Kyoto: Kyoto sets out an agenda for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent from 1990 levels (although "economies in transition," like Russia, can pick different base years). Some reports say the lower target is to be met by 2010. But that's shorthand for the actual target date, which is to achieve those emission cuts over a five-year average (2008 to 2012). Link: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/index.html#s4

The facts on Kyoto dribble out in bits and pieces. I'm waiting for an objective report by the major media to put it all togerther. I won't hold my breath. The Star recently reported that European Union Ministers had committed to reducing their emissions by 20% below 1990 by the year 2020. As has been reported many times on this BLOG - the Kyoto choice of the year 1990 was very self serving. It took advantage of the fall of Communism and the re-structuring of the East-Bloc. In 1990, these countries were still spewing emissions from their state-controlled industries. A couple of years later, most of these factories had closed down. This gave Germany and other countries a whopping reduction in emissions and was the major factor in the EU being able to get close to their targets. But for the last 10 years or more, the EU has mostly been treading water in trying to reduce their GHG. Some have decreased, others have increased. The EU's Kyoto target is to reduce GHG by 8% below 1990 on average for the years 2008-2012. So their "new" committment to reduce them by 20% below 1990 by 2020 is only a net real decrease of 12% from now until 2020! Forget about 1990. As Baird said, our targets - 20% between now and 2020 - are one of the most agressive in the world - almost double that of the European Union. So lets see how smug the Europeans are when they have to start making real cuts that start to really affect their economies. PS: the use of the year 2012 for Canada's Kyoto Target is disengenous. Kyoto requires that all signatories reach their target "on average" between the years 2008-2012. That means we have to meet our target next year - not in 2012. If we don't then we have to cut even deeper in 2009 to make up for it. A lot of interesting information can be found in "Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe 2006" by the European Environmental Agency: Link: http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_20...port_9_2006.pdf

Error in Posting

Statistics, statistics, statistics - phooey. Anybody in their 40's or 50's can think back to when they were in High School. I was raised in Montreal and not one of the better districts - Montreal North. We didn't have swarmings and kids didn't bring knives and guns to school. Now we have 11 and 12 year olds involved in crime - that's elementary school kids for heavens sake. So has violent crime increased?.....without a shadow of a doubt.

Mikedavid00: You've had a rough ride on this post...better cut your losses and move on. Somebody once said "If you find that you've dug yourself into a hole - the first thing you should do is to stop digging".

I have no problem with our levels of immigration in terms of numbers. Many Canadians are stand-offish and even biased towards first generation immigrants. The beauty of immigration though, is that second generation immigrants (Canadians by now, actually) have been schooled in our Public System - they might look a little different, but they speak without accents and go about life as the rest of us do. I personally struggled a bit with whether I was "racist". I found out that I wasn't - simply because once New Canadians went though our melting pot and the second generation popped out, I didn't care one iota about the color of their skin or where they came from. If anything, I was more interested in learning about their family history. I am one of the people who are a bit stand-offish with new Canadians who can't communicate very well. Having said all that, we have to ensure that: 1) Our schooling systems - public and private, always take a "melting pot" approach. For example, if a Private School only taught kids in their native language - that would be bad. Shariah Law in Ontario - bad! 2) We also cannot turn a blind eye to cultural aspects that are bad for Canada. Jamaica for example, has a population similar to Toronto yet they had over 1500 murders in 2006 - over 20 times Toronto's rate. Crime is rampant and there is a cultural history that encourages a single mother/many fathers extended family. Such a country requires a different level of scrutiny for its immigation. One size does not fit all but political correctness dictates that we cannot discuss these aspects. The process should not bar immigration from Jamaica (or other countries) for in fact, it is for precisely those reasons that people want to leave other countries for a better life......but we owe it to ourselves and our New Canadians to select those that clearly have the desire and committment to earn a living and better their lives. There are simply too many good people waiting to get in....and to waste even one "ticket" on a questionable entrant does a dis-service to those waiting in line......and I apologize for "piking" on Jamaica.

Moved.

His comments are infuriating - headlined on Page 2 of the Star today of course. Gore could have said the same thing about the Liberals when they were in power - they signed Kyoto and did nothing - that's the real fraud. Can you imagine if Gore had made the same accusations against the Liberals two years ago.....that Chretien, Martin and Dion had perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people? It's one thing to disagree with a policy but it's quite another to accuse Canada's government of fraud! He's a US citizen (oh excuse me, he probably considers himself a citizen of the world) who is interfering in the politics of another country. Boy, the Liberal media sure is on the attack. In the same edition of the Star (Sunday), there's a long article by Michael Byers speculating that there is a strong case to accuse Hillier and O'Connor of War Crimes. It would be laughable if there weren't so many biased, gullible, pacifists in the media. It's disgraceful. I saw Amir Attaran on CBC Newsworld the other day - he's the guy who started this whole thing. He's obviously a smart fellow but he only looks to be about 30 years old - quite smug and haughty in his demeanor. He's a PHD Law Professor at U of Ottawa. It never ceases to amaze me how these academics are given so much coverage by the media - I mean, how can someone be in their early 30's. become a PHD Law professor, teach at U of Ottawa and still find time to understand what goes on in Afghanistan - in the real world - on the ground. As well-meaning as he may be, he's a texbook academic armchair quarterback - and the media just sucks this stuff up. It's all so infuriating. These are difficult times and the solutions are not black and white - in the environment and also in Afghanistan. If we want to help bring Human Rights to other, less fortunate countries (Afghanistan, Darfur, whatever), we have to be prepared to get our noses dirty and to be exposed to backward cultures. They cannot be changed overnight - it's a process of incrementalism. We can't make them adopt Human Rights - they have to come to understand them and accept them.

What a lovely, feel-good, fluffy little article. The writers seem to be quite enamoured with Mr. Dion and the Liberal party.

You know....any average well-read citizen will somehow have a grasp about the environment...the facts...the lies...whatever there is one would like to know, I'm sure there are books and theories galore available right at your fingertips. Especially when environmentalists are trying to sacre the pants off everyone. But does Suzuki have any understanding at all about ECONOMICS? I would assume....none. That's why he's trying to shove it under the rug...and wouldn't want to talk about it. Doesn't want Baird to talk about. I would bet Baird has more than adequate knowledge about what's going on about the environment - the lies, the truth, the histrionics, whatever - MORE THAN Suzuki has any knowledge about finance. And I would say that Baird is more likely looking at the issue in an objective way...wheras Suzuki' tunnel vision is fueled by passion. My point is: it's like the pot calling the kettle black. Suzuki is nothing more than an environmental hobbyist...or activist. Well said...and I don't understand why more people can't see that. Just about every environmentalist that gets publicity will either not talk about the economic consequences of drastic action or they simply dismiss it. Climate change is a 100 year project for all of us. It starts by changing a mindset and making incremental changes to the way we live and the way the economy works. A steady, continuous direction is what we need as we blend the environment with the economy. Building a framework of legislation and regulation that people understand - and measuring the results....that's the proper way to go about it. Action and results. Will we get results? Let's give it a chance.

Looks like NATO is going to make Harper's nightmare come true: An investigation is coming into the treatment of detainees. On the contrary. It just goes to show that if there is a severe and systemic problem - and that is yet to be proven, it is not just a Canadian problem but one that affects all NATO countries - regardless of what official agreements are in place. We know that Afghans do not run a Club Fed like we do in Canada - and who would expect them to? This inquiry might bring to light whether there is pervasive, systemic torture. I'm sickened by the opposition attempts to demonize the conservatives.....and though the opposition denies it, I'm also sickened by how they have demonized our Military who are simply following the procedures that are laid out by NATO and our politicians - and that is - hand them over to the Afghans. Canada is part of NATO. NATO forces are led by De Hoop Scheffer. He has acknowledged that there may be a problem with prisoners handed over by any NATO country. So let the inquiry do its job and lets move on.

I just want to scream.....here's another perfect example of why we can not even hope to come close to meeting our Kyoto target. Here's an extract from an article - it relates to Denmark's atteempts to meet Kyoto: Because of drastic measures taken over the last decade, the country is struggling to find additional ways to cut emissions and meet its Kyoto commitment - but it still believes it'll come in somewhere around 3 per cent over the target. So if these guys are still struggling after 10 years of drastic action - what insanity would lead anyone to believe that our targets are achievable after doing nothing for 10 years? Nonetheless, this article goes on to lambaste the Conservatives....go figure. Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070427/...ghest&printer=1

Here's something to add to the tempest in a teapot. In today's printed version of the Star, there is a tiny article on Page 10 that basically says that this whole thing is a non-issue. I had to scan and paste the article because the Star's online version now carries a revised story - one put out by the CBC. It's amazing to see how the first story is bland and the second release is so biased. In any event, isn't it funny how Front Page misleading articles are "retracted" om page 10. I guess that's politics. As for an apology from Mark Holland? I won't be expecting one anytime soon. First Article: Ottawa Day wants Liberals to apologize over seat deal accusations: Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day says the Liberals should apologize for suggesting he tried to buy the resignation of an MP so he could win a seat in the Commons back in 2000. Day told the Commons yesterday the RCMP wrote him this week confirming the force had reviewed documents left behind by the Conservatives when they vacated Opposition offices last year, and no further investigation is warranted. The papers discussed then MP Jim Hart's offer to step aside for Day when he was Canadian Alliance leader. Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax Pickering) refused to apologize for accusations made last month, saying forwarding the documents to the RCMP had been "prudent." Revised Article: RCMP won't renew Stockwell Day probe: CBC April 26, 2007 CANADIAN PRESS There is a report that the RCMP won't reopen an investigation into Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day's first election to the House of Commons. CBC's The National is reporting that the RCMP have decided there is no new information contained in documents that the Opposition Liberals discovered in March. The Liberals said they suggested a former British Columbia MP was paid up to $50,000 to give up his seat to allow Day to run in the 2000 election. Day had just been elected leader of the Canadian Alliance and was seeking a safe riding to run in a byelection. He ran in a seat in B.C.'s southern interior that was vacated by the resignation of Jim Hart. At the time the RCMP briefly looked into the matter but decided against launching a formal investigation. It's a criminal offence to resign in exchange for money, but Day said last month there was no wrongdoing. Hart issued a statement last month that said when he first offered to resign his seat to clear the way for Day, there was no talk about whether he would lose out financially and no discussion about compensation. But the statement also said Day told his first caucus meeting in Ottawa that anyone who resigned early would bear no financial losses. The Liberals demanded last month that Day step aside until police decided whether to launch an investigation, something the minister refused to do. Link: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/207919

Mistake - Deleted

It would be nice if one of the choices was "A Reasonably Competent Government".

We'll know in the next 10-20 years whether the temperature trend is going to drastically go up or the sea levels are going to significantly rise - and we'll know from observation, not conjecture and "consensus". We'll also have a better idea of how much humans are contributing to Climate Change - how much is natural and how much is "us". Until that time, we should have a responsible approach to decreasing the various GHG that we pump into the atmosphere but not at the expense of encumbering our economy. We're pretty smug right now because the economy is doing quite well but what if all this was going on in 1989 when interest rates were going through the roof and Canada was literally on the verge of bankruptcy? It's fine to say "let's send billions overseas so we can meet our Kyoto targets" but what if we didn't have that kind of money? The economy ebbs and flows in cycles so we have to build our approach to GHG in rational, incremental and sustainable steps - getting better and better as each year passes. Chasing arbitrary targets like Kyoto is unwise, to say the least. It may have made some sense if we had started 10 years ago but we didn't. It makes no sense now - it's just a number. If we encumber the economy by forcing businesses to curtail their growth, prices will go up because demand will outstrip supply - and we won't collect as much tax revenue to fund our social programs and invest in the environment. If we don't do anything, then we are possibly creating greater peril for future generations. It's a balancing act - one that can greatly affect our lifestyle. So again, the approach has to be rational, incremental, sustainable action. This seems to be the Conservative approach - albeit, a relatively newly discovered one. The Liberal approach is "We have to meet our Kyoto targets". I know which approach works for me.

This program is a substitite for the Liberals Technology Partners Program - which was spending $220 million per year. As other posters have said, it's structured completely different - it doesn't hand out money.....for every dollar a company gets for R & D, the company has to put in 3 or 4 dollars themselves. They also have to start paying back when the R & D is complete - not as before "when the product is commercially viable". That was one big, fat reason why the old program never got paid back - most of the R & D resulted in no viable product. As for how much Quebec gets, I heard Maxime Bernier say each project would be evaluated on it's own merit and projects would come from BC, Manitoba, Quebec and one other place that eludes me. The aerospace industry is very competitive and heavily subsidized in other countries so to some extent, we must give it a hand. The Conservative approach seems appropriate - it's not Welfare as most if not all, will eventually be paid back. We'll see...but it seems to make sense.

It's a start...but it's a long haul. Delivery of healthcare services is a Provincial responsibility so all the Feds can do is offer incentives for key areas along with some coordination and hope that the Provinces see a political upside to cooperating - especially in view of the Charter court ruling in Quebec that gave Quebec one year to clean up their act - or else. That ruling, while specifically for Quebec, obviously exposes the other provinces to similar rulings.

This is unfair!!!

Probably about time. Before the Right was re-united two years ago, they had been split and underfunded - so it wasn't feasible to have facilities like the Liberals - or even the NDP. They obviously have their act together and are rolling in cash - so why not catch up to, and even surpass the other parties.

Your title of "Dismantling Canada" is pretty scary. Funny how the article starts as another whack at Harper but the last sentence of the article says: And with that said....I totally agree - it's a very welcome step.