Keepitsimple

The IPCC is the driving force behind the information that feeds the Global Warming debate. IPCC's mandate and funding is provided by the United Nations. It's accepted that the United Nations has credibility problems. Kyoto/IPCC have driven an agenda that rightly or wrongly, will result in the expenditure of billions of dollars and the transfer of billions from rich countries to poor countries. Developed countries all have some sort of Auditing function (e.g. Canada's Chief Auditor, Sheila Frasor) for verification that departments are working efficiently and that taxpayer's money is getting value. I am not aware of any truly independent "audit" that has been done to ensure that the scientific process that is actually carried out, and the manner that "results" are reported meets the generally accepted criteria of the Scientific community. By an audit - I mean a comprehensive and independent look at the processes and interpretations - not hearsay and rhetoric or simply reading IPCC guidelines. I have heard the word "consensus" far too many times - a word that real scientists usually frown upon. It has been said that all 2500 of IPCC's scientists and researchers agreed with their last Summary Report. That in itself is a dubious claim, to say the least - and should raise a giant red flag. When have 2500 people ever agreed on anything, let alone scientists? If there is a consensus, that means there is disagreement. What do those who disagree have to say? As the world begins to expend these many billions, if not trillions of dollars, surely it is not too much to ask that we collectively enlist scientific auditors (independent and separate from the UN and IPCC) who will, on an annual basis, audit the processes and reporting methods to ensure that goals and objectives are clear, the Science is indeed being conducted properly and thoroughly, and the resulting reports are truly independent and unbiased. The world would be negligent in not doing so.

Dion (and Canadians) still doesn't understand what his Liberal Party signed. Canada is at least 30% (probably more) over our target. To comply with Kyoto, we don't have to meet the target by 2012....we are obligated to average that target over the period 2008-2012. That really means we have to meet those targets by next year and keep them there! If we don't, we have to make up for it before we get to 2012. For example if we reduce our GHG by 10% in 2008 and get it to 15% in 2009, 20% in 2010, and 25% in 2011 .......then we don't have to hit 30% in 2012....in order to average 30% over the period 2008-2012, we'd have to hit 80% in 2012!!!!! Ludicrous? Of course, but that's what we agreed to in Kyoto and if you want to meet your obligations as the Liberal legislation demands - that's what we'd have to do. If you don't believe it - look it up in Wikipedia (Kyoto Protocol) - it's clearly stated. How anyone would think that the Conservatives should blindly follow this "law" is really mind-boggling. Here's an excerpt and Link: From Wickipedia: By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland. Reduction targets expire in 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Let's keep things in perspective. All that's been said by the RCMP is that there is no evidence to lay any criminal charges against Goodale or a Member of Parliament. There is still the factual matter of incompetence and loose lips. There is no doubt that the markets "spiked" before the Liberal announcement. There was no such spike prior to the Conservative announcement. It's not a coincidence as some would have you believe. Secrecy and discretion are absolutely vital when dealing with issues like these - so notwithstanding the lack of criminal charges, it's clear that there were loose Liberal lips that led to this debacle.

Media articles have maintained that Kyoto targets must be met by 2012 or Canada would be in violation of the Treaty - this is misleading. The Kyoto Protocol actually says that "By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an AVERAGE of 5% below their 1990 levels". In Canada's case, we have to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions by about a third starting NEXT YEAR and maintain that level right through to 2012. This "averaging" concept means that if we exceed our targets in 2008 and 2009, we 'll have to cut even more to make up for it in 2010 and 2011. Here's an excerpt and a link to the full Globe & Mail article. To support the article, I've also included some information from Wikipedia. From the Globe & Mail: Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol in April of 1998, committing the country to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions to an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the years 2008 to 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...on0201/BNStory/ From Wickipedia: By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland. Reduction targets expire in 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Please supply a link to a credible source to back up your surprising claims.

An article follows my musings: In general, Conservatives are simply trying to reverse a wave of Liberal/liberal influence in the Judiciary. Some (but not all) liberal judges are prone to judicial activism. Again, in general, Conservatives want judges who interpret the laws as written. Laws are passed and modified by Parliament. It is the job of judges to enforce those laws as they were written and not "read into" them elements that were not in the spirit of what was intended. If there is a contentious area, it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court but even there, it should be interpreted according to the intentions of Parliament and our Constitution - by the letter of the law. If it can't be, then it should be thrown back to Parliament....because laws are developed by the elected representatives of the people - not by unelected judges. Judges can still grant leniency in sentencing based on circumstances but they must apply the law and provide sentences according to guidelines established by Parliament - and that includes minimum sentencing. As for the "committees" that will now include a member of the Police Force - these committees to not actually "choose" judges - they simply provide a list of qualified candidates and some supporting advice. All this said, it's clear cut to me: Parliament makes the laws. Judges apply them. I think the Liberals and their activism have strayed a bit from that concept and it's time to get back to basics. Ironically, that's the only way to maintain separation of Politics from the Judiciary. We're on the right track. Here's an article that should add to the discussion: Judging Liberal bias Political appointments to the bench an honoured Grit tradition By LICIA CORBELLA It started on Monday. The Globe and Mail's front-page headline screamed: "Partisans filling judge nomination committees." That, of course, got Canada's opposition parties in a tizzy, charging that by appointing people with some ties to the Conservative party to committees that select judges, an "ideologically driven" judiciary will be created, which is "shameful." Well, if an ideologically driven judiciary is so shameful, why have these people remained silent for so long? Apparently people with ties to the Conservative party appointed only to lowly nomination committees are "partisans" but dozens, if not hundreds, of judges with ties to the Liberal party are independent, non-partisans and to say otherwise is irresponsible as it throws our entire judiciary into disrepute. Let's look at some real facts about judicial partisanship. During the Gomery commission into the Liberal sponsorship scandal, it was revealed under oath that judicial appointments might as well have been put up for sale by the Liberal government. Remember that? Benoit Corbeil, a former executive-director of the Liberals in Quebec, testified about eight lawyers who campaigned for the Liberal Party in Quebec during the 2000 federal election were awarded judicial appointments. It was also revealed that 13 Quebec judges appointed after the 2000 general election donated money to only one political party -- the Liberals -- in the years prior to their appointments. You could argue that in Quebec it would be hard to find lawyers who were not Liberal party supporters. PARTY LOYALTY But what about Alberta, where Liberals are on the endangered species list? Well, if you're ever in desperate need of a Liberal in Alberta, fear not -- head straight to your nearest court and look for someone wearing a black robe. Chances are, not only do many of the judges you run into support the Liberals financially, they've run for public office for the party, too! When Anne McLellan was justice minister she did her best to stack Alberta's judiciary with loyal Liberals. McLellan appointed Marsha Colleen Erb, a Liberal fundraiser to Alberta's court of Queen's Bench in 2001. In 2000, when McLellan donated just $599.83 to her party, Erb donated $1,058.92. At the same time, McLellan also appointed Bryan E. Mahoney to the same court. Mahoney ran in two federal elections as a Liberal candidate, losing by landslides to Conservative MP Myron Thompson. In 2002, Liberal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon found yet another one of those rare Alberta Liberals to appoint to the Court of QB, Vital O. Ouellette, who ran for the Alberta Liberals in two provincial elections in 1997 and 2001. More recently, Liberal Justice Minister Irwin Cotler appointed John J. Gill as a supernumerary judge in 2005. Gill co-chaired a federal Liberal election campaign in Alberta. One year earlier, Cotler appointed his former executive assistant and senior policy adviser, Michael Brown, to Ontario's Superior Court. Another Cotler staffer, his chief of staff Yves de Montigny, was appointed to the federal court in 2004. This list could go on and on and includes appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada that appear ideological and partisan in a big-L Liberal kind of way. A 2004 Ottawa Citizen report found more than 60% of the 93 lawyers who got federal judicial appointments in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan since 2000 donated exclusively to the Liberal party in the three to five years prior to receiving their prestigious posts. Another point of interest: According to an electronic search, it appears that during the 12-year Liberal reign, the Globe ran exactly...wait for it... zero front page editorials masquerading as news stories declaring Liberal partisans were filling our courts. Now that's ideologically driven partisanship. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/02/14/pf-3616464.html

Al Gore and Nicholas Stern. A fine pair. The sad part is, one day this planet will face a very real, imminent crisis - one that we can't ingnore.....and because of the Global Cooling (70's/80's) and now the Global Warming alarmists - people won't be listening.

Now that it's come to a head, let's see if our mainstream media can give a balanced account of what it actually means to meet our targets by 2012. Anyone can see from reading this Blog and others that knowledgable people overwhelmingly acknowledge that the targets can't be met. The BC government just announced what the papers call an aggressive environment plan that will see them reduce their GHG by one-third by 2020. That doesn't come close to meeting Kyoto's 2012 date - and that's just BC - not dirty Ontario and Alberta. So mainstream media - poop or get off the pot.

I think "newer" Canadians will have a bigger say. I think when a new Canadian arrives in the country, they are grateful to the party in power who "let them in" - and of course, the Liberals were uninterrupted for 13 years. It takes a while for these new Canadians to get acclimated to our politics and understand that there is more than one party and it is OK to vote for someone else. Many new Canadians have strong family values and they tend to live in pocketed communities where a few voices can have a lot of effect. We've heard from more than one prominent community that the "Liberals have taken our vote for granted". I think we'll be seeing a shift in many of the ethnic communities that will help the Conservatives.

I just took a look at the French ads on the Conservative website. My elementary French allows me to follow along. I think they are really going to do well in Quebec. They are funny, witty, and they have a point. Even if you can't understand French, have a look - and a chuckle......my apologies to Liberals.

The press always focuses on the negative, so we should take some solace in the fact that the Auditor General's report was reviewing seven key areas that had previosly been cited as "unsatisfactory". Of those seven, five have now improved to "satisfactory" in terms of the improvements that they were asked to make as a result of the last audit. The Toronto Star of course, did not mention this larger context. Regardless, there's lots of work to be done. Here is an excerpt from today's Toronto Sun: The auditor's findings came within a larger status report on seven government programs and departments that had previously been criticized by Fraser's office. Only two of those programs, SINs and managing the Coast Guard fleet, received an "unsatisfactory" grade in the auditor general's new report. "This status report shows that the government has taken satisfactory action in the majority of the areas we revisited this year," said Fraser. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...pf-3616486.html

This is where I think the Liberals have some movement, regardless of the small numbers of Canadians affected by the CPC decision. I saw John McCallum on Newsworld giving his pitch - pleading that it would help get all the money back for the people who lost money. Baloney. Let's get one thing straight....at this point in time, the only people who actually lost money are those people who sold their income trust shares.....and no plan can help them. Those people who were wise enough to hang onto their shares are still being paid "distributions" as they were before - and in most cases, those distributions are about the same as before - because really, nothing has materially changed in the company itself, and won't until they convert to a non-trust company....and everybody has 4 years to plan for this. Until they sell, any "loss" is strictly on paper. So McCallum's plan doesn't really help "the little guy" - but of course it would give new "buying" opportunities to all the big investers....and of course, CBC never asked any simple questions that would have exposed this charade. The real sin is with the investment advisers who gave advice to Seniors to put most of their eggs in one basket. I'll bet many of them followed that sin with another one - "advising" them to sell so they could make even more commissions. Sad.

I'm not endorsing Kinsella-- he's after all a long-time Chretien loyalist and apologist, which makes him guilty of bad taste, at the very least. Nor do I read anything into his "Calgarian" pedigree. He's Calgarian in the same sense that Stephen Harper is a Torontonian. With that out of the way, I often read Kinsella for his take on pragmatic politics. He's not a philosopher of issues like national identity and so on... he might have views on such things, but his primary expertise and interest is on strategy, image, perception, and how to wage a campaign (in this respect, he's arguably a lot like his former leader.) I think that's why he was such a frequent guest on TV panels during the last election (although, his intense dislike of "Team Martin" added some color to procedings as well.) I just found Kinsella's commentary a distinct contrast to what so often comes from Liberals. We so often hear "so-con" and "Bush's puppet" and "religious fundamentalist" and all manner of other "scary" language coming from Liberal supporters and Liberals themselves when it comes to talking about Harper. So for Kinsella, a long time Liberal insider and possibly a member of their campaign committee in the upcoming election, to be talking about intelligence, ethics, and decency as characteristics that Dion and Harper have in common was quite a pleasant change. He even describes both Harper and Dion as "Trudeauesque", which if I recall is something that you've said of Harper in the past, perhaps in discussing the William Johnson biography of Harper. Usually when I read Liberals talking about Harper, I get the impression that they expect that if he ever wins a majority government his first act will be to rip off a latex mask to reveal that he's actually Dick Cheney (or an12 foot tall lizard, or something.) I just found it refreshing to hear a partisan willing to talk about "the other guy" with such respect. It's something that's been sorely lacking in politics in this country from both sides for a long time. -k Well said, Kimmy.

How can you possibly consider this move reasonable? The money is not even in the bank yet as the $1.5 billion will come from the NEXT federal budget, which has neither been tabled in the House of Commons, nor adopted by MPs. Harper is acting to quickly on this one and leaving Canadians out of the picture concerning details of the Eco-trust fund and his 'green plan'. It should be up to the federal government to develop a 'national green plan' and not up to the provinces that can squander the money on insignificant ventures or plans to create another handful of millionaires with no real benefit to Canadian environmental concerns. Harper should hang his head in shame on this one and stop wasting tax payers money trying to buy votes. A National Green Plan would be the typical "grandiose" plan that the Liberals are famous for - a one-size-fits-all that ends up costing tons of money, leads to bickering with the provinces, and ultimately goes nowhere - that's why all we heard for years was talk, talk, talk. Each province has distinct initiatives that they can embark on. Quebec uses mainly clean energy from Hydro. Ontario needs to shut down coal and go nuclear. Alberta needs to invest in ways to help the Oil & Gas industry reduce emissions. Newfoundland and Labrador are trying to expand Hydro. Canada is blessed with 10 very mature & competent provincial governments who have the ability to develop Green Plans that may be attractive for other provinces - "Green Best Practices". Although I despise the Bloc, Gille Duceppe was correct in saying the Liberals were like "Father Knows Best". That approach was tearing Canada apart - it wasn't only Quebec who was rebelling - Alberta, BC, and Nfld were also fed up and separatist thoughts were percolating. Conservatives have in one year, started to turn that around by going back to basics and respecting Provincial juristictions. The feds can do their part by setting national regulations and targets for emissions & GHG and encourage investment in Green Technology. And a final point - the provinces won't be wasting the money because they have to match funding on Green projects dollar for dollar. PS: Someone asked if Alberta will get a big chunk of the money because they are big "polluters". No - the money will be divided on a per-capita basis.

The $1.5 billion is to be divided among all provinces and accessed via co-payment. As I understand it, if a province wants funds for a green project, they have to match it dollar for dollar. In the case of Quebec, I think they have already made specific investments in green projects and will be looking to use some of that previous investment as their "co-payment". I think that might also apply to certain investments made by other provinces as well. I think you'll find that this might help Ontario kick-start a new Nuclear facility and finally close the coal generating plants. In establishing the Eco-trust fund, Harper is putting the onus on provinces to develop green plans - and that's where the onus should fall, for the most part, because each province has their own set of circumstances. As for Harper governing by the polls and not by principles – remember that he was against the Liberal approach of making one-off deals with provinces. His principle was that all provinces should be treated equally or at least fairly. That principle is upheld with the Eco-Trust fund – he has given Quebec what it asked for, but not at the expense of other provinces. Seems like a reasonable move to me.

The Toronto Star, backed up by the provincial NDP, and endorsed by Federal NDP leader Jack Layton have been pushing to increase Ontario's minimum wage from $8.00 to $10.00 as part of the Star's action on Poverty initiative. While in principal, such a move would seem to help those at the fringes of the labour force, there are problems that have not entered into discussion yet. Critics already point to the fact that many small business would not be able to pay the higher wage which would likely mean fewer jobs available at the minimum wage level. But the increase to $10 also works it's way up the line - as the dishwasher sees his wage increase to $10, what happens to his colleague who was already making $10 per hour, presumably at a job that was "worth" $2.00 more than the dishwasher. Using this analogy, one can see that there can be a cascading effect. Another serious problem which has not yet surfaced is the attractiveness of a $10 minimum wage to out-of-province workers. Unless the entire country follows in some sort of lockstep, there will be an influx of "outside" workers to Ontario. The net result will be more workers competing for fewer jobs. Minimum wages are a delicate balancing act between providing a wage that can provide some level of income and the ability of small businesses to survive. Superimposed on that are the variances between provinces that balance cost-of-living with keeping workers in their own province. What are your thoughts on such an increase - especially as it relates to your own communities and business or personal situations?

Interesting column from Chantal Hebert on Mr. Turner: http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/179800 Turner now Liberal red but he's no Red Tory TheStar.com - opinion - Turner now Liberal red but he's no Red Tory February 09, 2007 Chantal Hébert No one would accuse Liberal leader Stéphane Dion's research team of lacking the journalistic instincts to dig into a story. After all, some members of the group that lays the groundwork for the official opposition's onslaught on the Conservative government these days once starred in the Parliamentary press gallery. But they might have done more homework before letting Dion herald the Liberal conversion of maverick MP Garth Turner as a progressive second coming. In two statements that should have Joe Clark spinning in his political grave, Dion framed Turner's decision as proof that the Liberal party had become the new home of the Red Tories, the progressive wing of the defunct Progressive Conservative Party. Well, Turner has certainly been many things over the course of his political life. But a Red Tory he most certainly was not. On the contrary, when he ran to succeed Brian Mulroney in 1993, it was as the candidate of the ultra-right wing of his party. At the time, Turner promoted the most radically conservative policies of all five contenders, including deep cuts to social programs, reduced old-age security pensions, maternity leave and employment insurance payments, and the introduction of hospital user fees. He also called for the privatization of Canada Post and the CBC and the elimination of the multiculturalism ministry. Over the course of that campaign, Turner was often described as a soulmate to Reform party founder Preston Manning, a comparison he did not reject. "There are a lot of Conservatives who think the party today is too centrist," Turner told The Globe and Mail in June 1993. "Those people are looking for a return to conservative values within the Conservative party. And quite frankly, I'm out to appeal to a number of those people, because I share that belief. It's basically a conservative message. It's just one that they haven't heard from the Conservatives for a while." If he had been more fully briefed on his recruit's well-documented background, Dion might have been more selective in his choice of words. But he would likely have been as effusive in his welcome. It seems the Liberal party felt it needed Turner as much as the banished Conservative MP needed a new home. Few political manoeuvres reveal as much about the fears of a party as the successful seduction of MPs previously elected under a different banner. Notwithstanding Dion's fighting words, such manoeuvres are all about papering over glaring weaknesses. After the last Quebec referendum, Jean Chrétien went out of his way to get a handful of Quebec Tory MPs to cross over to the Liberals to drive home the message that his party was the only viable federalist alternative to the Bloc Québécois. By bringing Bloc co-founder Jean Lapierre back into the Liberal fold, Paul Martin wanted to attract nationalist voters. And he hoped that winning over Progressive Conservative Scott Brison would help the Liberals fend off a reunited right. David Emerson and Michael Fortier would not be in the Conservative cabinet if the party had done well in Montreal and Vancouver in the last election. And ex-Liberal MP Wajid Khan might have been excluded from Harper's caucus if he had not held a seat in Toronto's crucial 905 belt. In Turner's case, the Liberal hype over the recruitment of a right-wing MP addresses three unpalatable realities for the party. The first is that it has yet to find its ideological compass. Dion is right on at least one score. Compared to the significant rump of social conservatives in his caucus, Turner does qualify as a progressive. The second is that the Liberals have yet to find a way to make up for what is likely to be a permanent loss, i.e. the return of a significant number of traditional Conservative constituencies to their natural ideological home. Turner's Halton seat is one riding that the Liberals won handily when the right campaigned under two conflicting banners. It is no accident that the Liberals first lost their majority, and then power, after the two conservative factions reconciled. Finally, the warm welcome extended to Turner reveals just how anguished Liberal strategists are over how Dion will play against Harper in the suburban belt of Southern Ontario, in places where his dream team of Gerard Kennedy, Bob Rae, Michael Ignatieff and Martha Hall-Finlay, with their trendy downtown Toronto undertones, will not be able to do the job for him. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chantal Hébert's national affairs column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. [email protected].

Just came back from casting my vote in the Markham bi-election. All the names were listed on the ballot but no party affiliation. No obvious documentation around the voting booths either. It wasn't a problem for me because I knew who I was voting for.....but I would imagine that others might just arrive wanting to vote for their party. I'm sure they could run around and find someone to ask but I'll bet some people just ended up taking a last-minute guess. Am I missing something? I have now edited this post - apparently I was missing something. I went back to the polling station and asked them about the situation. They pointed out that there was a yellow information sheet that was supposed to be at each polling station that had the names and the parties listed. Since I had no need to refer to it, perhaps I missed it....but upon returning, I did notice a couple of them lying around. Should be a better process but I guess I made a mountain out of a molehill.

Every now and then, a post from a member gives me a chuckle, a chortle, a guffaw. Thank you Scriblett.

Well said Geoffrey.

Nope, you're wrong. Just because the Globe provides the article free of charge doesn't give you right to copy and paste it into a forum. For more information on Fair Dealing in Canada, please read: http://www.robic.ca/publications/Pdf/032E-LC.pdf The article is pretty vague as it relates to the post but of course I will honour your wishes with my apology....didn't intend to break any rules.

That about says it all - except we now only have 5 years to go until 2012.

Finally - a balanced view on Kyoto. Left wing or Right wing - it doesn't matter as long as you deal with the facts - especially Alberta bashers. I have a newfound respect for the Globe & Mail seeing as this article comes from their Editorial section. If we can get the CBC and CTV to actually follow up on this story, perhaps we'll finally get somewhere on Climate Change, instead of all the yapping and politicking. From Saturday's Globe and Mail February 3, 2007 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

Perhaps you have a point but I understand that this was also in the print version of the Globe - that puts the article in the Public Domain. I picked it up from another board and thought it was important enough to share.....I forgot that the Globe and Mail is the one paper that charges for access to its online articles. If it has to be removed, so be it. That said, it was wonderful to see some rational thought.

Finally - a balanced view on Kyoto. I have a newfound respect for the Globe & Mail seeing as this article comes from their Editorial section. If we can get the CBC and CTV to actually follow up on this story, perhaps we'll finally get somewhere on Climate Change, instead of all the yapping and politicking. From Saturday's Globe and Mail February 3, 2007 Global warming is a reality. Canada must join the global effort to curb greenhouse gases. But it has to be smart in the way it does so, and Stéphane Dion is advocating an exercise in futility. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home