5 years of Harper: Your report card?

[The_Squid]

Harper's government gets an 'F'.

Increased defecit, unrealistic "tough on crime" emphasis, poor drug policy (taking BC to court over the safe injection sight), poor environmental policy, no EEE senate, getting Canada passed over on the Security Council, and many deaths in Afghanistan.... a war that we are abandoning before we have accomplished much of anything. A war where young Canadian's lives were wasted.

His record is dismal. His achievements may make his "base" happy (how, I don't know...), but he has been bad for Canada.

[Moonbox]

I'd give him a B-, possibly a C+. Most of the credit goes to him not rocking the boat too much and managing a minority. I like his stance on the environment and not signing onto idiotic treaties like Copenhagen. I like his immigration policies. I like his steady hand on the economy and I approve of his arctic ambitions.

There is, however, a LOT of room for improvement and I think and I eagerly look forward to the Liberals actually fielding a contender eventually.....

Edited January 24, 2011 by Moonbox

[waldo]

I like his stance on the environment and not signing onto idiotic treaties like Copenhagen.

Harper has a stance on the environment? Who knew! As for your other misinformed commentary... despite the obstructiveness, despite the numerous fossil awards, Canada was a signatory to the Copenhagen Accord. Hey now... you must have meant Cancun... no wait, Canada was also a signatory to Cancun's COP16/CMP6 agreements. What was it you actually meant to say again?

[Moonbox]

Harper has a stance on the environment? Who knew! As for your other misinformed commentary... despite the obstructiveness, despite the numerous fossil awards, Canada was a signatory to the Copenhagen Accord. Hey now... you must have meant Cancun... no wait, Canada was also a signatory to Cancun's COP16/CMP6 agreements. What was it you actually meant to say again?

Harper's stance on the environment is that he's not going to sign on to any retarded treaty that will impose restrictions on Canada but not on the world's biggest polluters like India and China. Why would we put ourselves into a position where all we would be doing is making our manufacturers less competitive and ship even more jobs to China, where they don't have the same restrictions?? How does that make sense??? All you're doing is shipping your pollution and jobs to the third world.

At any rate, Canada and the US refused to sign a binding accord at Copenhagen which left it as just another toothless and worthless piece of paper. In effect, Copenhagen accomplished nothing. I hope you realize that.

[waldo]

I like his stance on the environment and not signing onto idiotic treaties like Copenhagen.

Harper has a stance on the environment? Who knew! As for your other misinformed commentary... despite the obstructiveness, despite the numerous fossil awards, Canada was a signatory to the Copenhagen Accord. Hey now... you must have meant Cancun... no wait, Canada was also a signatory to Cancun's COP16/CMP6 agreements. What was it you actually meant to say again?

Harper's stance on the environment is that he's not going to sign on to any retarded treaty that will impose restrictions on Canada but not on the world's biggest polluters like India and China. Why would we put ourselves into a position where all we would be doing is making our manufacturers less competitive and ship even more jobs to China, where they don't have the same restrictions?? How does that make sense??? All you're doing is shipping your pollution and jobs to the third world.

At any rate, Canada and the US refused to sign a binding accord at Copenhagen which left it as just another toothless and worthless piece of paper. In effect, Copenhagen accomplished nothing. I hope you realize that.

clearly, by your own words, the Harper environmental "stance" is one you've solely attached to climate change/emission controls... like I said... Harper has a stance on the environment? Who knew! Further, again, as inferred by your own words, the Harper environmental "stance" is then one solely determined by the United States... given the direct committed emissions linkage proffered by Harper. So Harper has outsourced his environmental "stance" to the U.S. - hee haw!

as explicitly detailed in other MLW threads, the ship has long sailed on 'western countries' already, effectively, outsourcing a significant portion of emissions to China/India. In any case, you might want to bring your suspect knowledge forward and recognize the (now) dated exception aspects of Kyoto... just where is there any current suggestion to provide China/India exceptions? Copenhagen accomplished nothing? Nothing? Again, who knew? Perhaps you might actually acquaint yourself with the Copenhagen Accord and the foundation it provided for the Cancun COP16/CMP6 agreements.

[scribblet]

I'd give him a B-, possibly a C+. Most of the credit goes to him not rocking the boat too much and managing a minority. I like his stance on the environment and not signing onto idiotic treaties like Copenhagen. I like his immigration policies. I like his steady hand on the economy and I approve of his arctic ambitions.

There is, however, a LOT of room for improvement and I think and I eagerly look forward to the Liberals actually fielding a contender eventually.....

I agree, I would give him a B-, considering that he's PM of a minority gov't he's done allright. I too agree with him not signing on to climate ponzi schemes.

[waldo]

whaaa! The best any of the die-hard partisan Harper Conservative hacks can do is a... "B-"... a "C+"!!! Low expectations... or what! Dagnabit, they say - if only he had a majority, you'd see the real Harper shine!!!

[Scotty]

Canada lost billions. It could have invested in production of the technologies needed to implement Kyoto and exported it, the "better technology" movement is catching steam, it is just who leads it. money.

I'm all for better technology, but Kyoto was doomed when the Liberals spent nine years after signing it doing essentially nothing. Only a herculean effort which included paying off dictators to 'buy' credits would have allowed us to meet what was essentially a pointless number anyway.

I don't think there is anything we can do, or should do, with any of these foolish international treaties which will have any real effect on global warming. Improving technology might, but that is straight money into science. I'm for that.

I have seen no evidence, by the way, that anyone is making big money on climate change/co2 reduction technology, or that its implimentation would be feasible in the short to medium term without greater advances in technology and without damaging the economy.

Harper has been dishonest but programatic on climate change, suggesting he's in favour of fighting it, but delaying everything. I don't approve of the dishonesty, but I approve of the pragmatism.

[Scotty]

I'll give him a weak C. They could have done more on crime, more on prison reform and drug treatment, and especially on health care. They've essentially done nothing to the upcoming problems( not to mention the present ones) of health care. They've done reasonably well, but not terrifically so in supporting the military. I think they're weak in protecting our borders. I'd like to see the legal system streamlined and would love to see some bold initiatives there. Unemployment and the way the unemployed are dealt with are haphazard, and retraining is too little and too poorly thought out.

There are just a lot of areas they could improve. I'm not singing their praises on anything, really. I do like that our foreign policy has some backbone now, and some principals. And they haven't wasted as much money on vote buying as their predecessors. They could easily get it up to a B but i need to see some vision and innovation to address issues, not the desire to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Scotty]

whaaa! The best any of the die-hard partisan Harper Conservative hacks can do is a... "B-"... a "C+"!!! Low expectations... or what! Dagnabit, they say - if only he had a majority, you'd see the real Harper shine!!!

Wouldn't a "die-heard partisan Harper Conservative hack" say something like this is the best government in Canadian history and award him and A+?

Perhaps I misunderstood just how you're using your pejorative string of adjectives.

[Evening Star]

Wouldn't a "die-heard partisan Harper Conservative hack" say something like this is the best government in Canadian history and award him and A+?

I think the point is that no one could say that. Even people who seem like major supporters of him seem to agree with me, who have never voted for him, that he is a fairly mediocre leader.

[Bob]

I'll give him a weak C. They could have done more on crime, more on prison reform and drug treatment, and especially on health care. They've essentially done nothing to the upcoming problems( not to mention the present ones) of health care. They've done reasonably well, but not terrifically so in supporting the military. I think they're weak in protecting our borders. I'd like to see the legal system streamlined and would love to see some bold initiatives there. Unemployment and the way the unemployed are dealt with are haphazard, and retraining is too little and too poorly thought out.

There are just a lot of areas they could improve. I'm not singing their praises on anything, really. I do like that our foreign policy has some backbone now, and some principals. And they haven't wasted as much money on vote buying as their predecessors. They could easily get it up to a B but i need to see some vision and innovation to address issues, not the desire to let sleeping dogs lie.

I agree with everything you've said. I want to see more, but we have to recognize that Harper isn't a strong leader and cannot sway the undecided to his corner. That's why he can't be more bold without greatly offending the entrenched leftist establishment of Canada. It's really too bad we can't get a stronger leader in the conservative camp.

[Scotty]

I think the point is that no one could say that. Even people who seem like major supporters of him seem to agree with me, who have never voted for him, that he is a fairly mediocre leader.

It's a fundamental aspect of human society that a "partisan hack" can support damned near anything. Witness George Bush's fierce defenders. There's nothing so mediocre that someone won't enthusiastically and zealously support it. Witness WHAM still being played on radio stations and the crowds at Maple Leaf Gardens.

[Saipan]

He gets an E on human rights issues.

You still have right to lie. What more do you want?

[Saipan]

I think the point is that no one could say that. Even people who seem like major supporters of him seem to agree with me, who have never voted for him, that he is a fairly mediocre leader.

If that was so we would be in the same miserable shape as most European countries.

[Esq]

I'm all for better technology, but Kyoto was doomed when the Liberals spent nine years after signing it doing essentially nothing.

...

.....

......

........

*loaded*

stronger together

Liberal Party of Canada

Conservatives Blow Smoke on

Liberal Environmental Record

The Harper government is spreading misinformation about the Liberal environmental record.

It’s time to clear the air.

Myth

The Liberals signed the Kyoto Protocol and then spent a decade doing nothing to reduce

greenhouse gases or protect Canada’s environment.

Facts

Canada formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol on December 17, 2002. Since that time

the Liberal government took a number of measures to meet our Kyoto targets.

 Even before Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol, the Liberal government was

addressing the issue of climate change. Budget 2000 included $625 million for

programs to accelerate climate change research and science and reduce Canada's

GHG emissions. In 2000, the Liberal government announced its five-year Action Plan

with some $500 million towards concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gases by

about 65 megatonnes each year.

 In 2002, the Liberal government introduced Canada’s first climate change strategy,

reflecting the principles proposed by Canada’s environment and energy ministers and

responding to key concerns raised by industry and business.

 Budget 2003 allocated $3 billion in new funding for environmental priorities, including

$2 billion in new climate change funding over five years to enable the government

to implement the Climate Change Plan for Canada.

 Budget 2004 committed $15 million over two years to develop and report on better

environmental indicators on clean air, water and greenhouse gas emissions. In

March 2004, it became mandatory for Canada’s large emitters to report their GHG

emissions.

 Budget 2005 was the greenest budget in Canadian history, combining smart

economic policy with smart environmental policy. It introduced new market

mechanisms, tax measures and incentives for business to spur innovation in Canada

to create a more environmentally sustainable economy.

 Budget 2005 invested in initiatives to clean up the environment, protect wildlife and

natural habitats, improve our National Parks and conserve our resources.

It also advanced the development of environmental technologies and the use of

greener practices and technologies such as renewable energies.

 Budget 2005 also allocated the transfer of $5 billion in gas tax revenue to

municipalities, in addition to the $800 million from Bill C-48, to support environmentallysustainable

infrastructure projects.

stronger together

Liberal Party of Canada

 In April 2005, Stéphane Dion launched Project Green, an innovative plan for a healthy

environment and a competitive economy. The plan harnessed the power of the market

to integrate climate change considerations into the day-to-day decisions of Canadians.

It also safeguarded our health by cutting emissions of smog-creating pollutants, making

our communities greener, protecting wild spaces and boosting our economic

competitiveness.

 Under Stéphane Dion’s leadership at the UN Conference on Climate Change in 2005,

the global community broke five years of absolute deadlock, and finally agreed on the

Montreal Action Plan to facilitate the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The

agreement committed to holding a dialogue on approaches for long-term, global action

on climate change and was a huge achievement in terms of welcoming all countries

back into the tent.

Myth

The Conservatives have seen the light and are now committed to protecting Canada’s

environment.

Facts

 The Harper government’s recent environmental conversion is based solely on poll

numbers.

 Prime Minister Harper is a climate change denier. During the 2004 election, Harper

actively campaigned against the Kyoto Accord. As president of the National Citizens

Coalition, Mr. Harper authorized attack ads against the Liberal government to

discourage ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

 Immediately upon taking office, Mr. Harper scrapped or froze all federal programs

and initiatives under Canada's existing climate change plan. Mr. Harper cancelled

successful programs like Energuide, halted initiatives to increase renewable energy

such as wind power, and effectively killed a national plan to regulate large final emitters

and work to establish a carbon trading market in Canada.

 Last May, at the UN Conference on Climate Change in Bonn, leaked documents

revealed the Conservatives had instructed Canadian officials to deliberately

undermine the current Kyoto regime and stall any progress beyond 2012, reversing

Canada’s Kyoto position in favour of the Bush Administration’s position of voluntary,

non-binding targets.

Myth

The Liberal government left Canada with the worst environmental record in the world.

Facts

 When comparable figures are used, pollution in Canada in 2002 actually decreased 13

per cent from 1998 levels.

stronger together

Liberal Party of Canada

 Emissions of sulphur oxides, which cause acid rain and smog decreased by 50 per

cent.

 Emissions from toxic substances lead, mercury, cadmium and dioxins and furans

dropped by 65 to 75 per cent from 1990 to 2003.

 In the chemical sector, annual releases of toxic substances have been reduced by twothirds

since 1992, down to 1,100 tonnes from 3,400 tonnes.

 Since the 1970s Canada has reduced its mercury release by 90 per cent and more

reductions are expected.

 According to internal government documents, had the Conservatives not scrapped

Project Green, Canada would have met 80 per cent of its Kyoto targets two years

before the deadline.

I don't think there is anything we can do, or should do, with any of these foolish international treaties which will have any real effect on global warming. Improving technology might, but that is straight money into science. I'm for that.

Well it sounds like you might be liberal, cause that is partly what they did.

What type of technology grants have the Conservative Party of Canada given?

I have seen no evidence, by the way, that anyone is making big money on climate change/co2 reduction technology, or that its implimentation would be feasible in the short to medium term without greater advances in technology and without damaging the economy.

Harper has been dishonest but programatic on climate change, suggesting he's in favour of fighting it, but delaying everything. I don't approve of the dishonesty, but I approve of the pragmatism.

I think it is needed to address how climate change will effect Canada, and concrete steps taken to deaden the impact. From the reports I have read, there are many dangers to climate change in Canada.

[Topaz]

I'll give him a C for PM but I'll give him an A+ for brainwashing 5 miilion voters who voted the last time. Even after the Interest Trust, etc. he's got the way to get people to believe whatever he says.

[Scotty]

...

.....

......

........

*loaded*

There's no point in repeating Liberal Party talking points. They did nothing to meet the obligations of the treaty they signed. When the Conservatives took power our CO2 emissions were not only not reduced in the slightest, they had grown by a higher margin than American emissions had grown. I believe ours had actually gone up something like 50% more than theirs even though they had repudiated the treaty.

What type of technology grants have the Conservative Party of Canada given?

I didn't say anything about the Tories. I said "I" would support money for science and research into improving our energy use and development.

I think it is needed to address how climate change will effect Canada, and concrete steps taken to deaden the impact.

Sure, so long as the money doesn't go to some futile attempt at piping CO2 into the ground or something, or to closing down power stations in favor of ridiculously pricey and inefficient energy sources like solar or wind power.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

This thread is about Steve, not tree huggers or tech weenies. Steve is a PM with successive minority governments. He has accomplished little because that is what Parliament wanted, he governs at their pleasure. This really is all about Steve, lets not forget that.

[Saipan]

- if only he had a majority, you'd see the real Harper shine!!!

Soon.

[eyeball]

I think this notion that Harper has united the country is a bit of a joke. If the posters in this forum are anything to go by I'd say the exact opposite is true.

[Bonam]

You really gotta define what these "grades" mean. Different people think of an A or a B or a C as meaning completely different things.

Now, to me, an F is "failure", that is, failure to carry out the duties of a prime minister. A Prime Minister who presides over the demise or near-demise of Canada as a nation for reasons that can largely be attributed to the PM would get an F, but that's about it.

An A is outstanding/excellent. Someone needs to really achieve something of great notability, a lasting legacy of near-universally acclaimed good. Few if any of Canada's PMs could be given this grade.

[Moonbox]

whaaa! The best any of the die-hard partisan Harper Conservative hacks can do is a... "B-"... a "C+"!!! Low expectations... or what! Dagnabit, they say - if only he had a majority, you'd see the real Harper shine!!!

LoL. If I'm a die-hard Harper partisan, what does that make you? I mean...I don't even like the guy. In comparison I don't even know what we'd call you. A frothing lefty pogie glutton?

[kimmy]

I think this notion that Harper has united the country is a bit of a joke. If the posters in this forum are anything to go by I'd say the exact opposite is true.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that Harper has united Canadians to be of one opinion. That people have differing opinions is to be expected.

However, I think that National Unity has become a much less significant issue since Harper has been in office.

Quebec separatism and Western alienation have ramped down dramatically since the Liberals, and particularly Chretien, left.

-k

[kimmy]

I would also give Harper a C or so.

There have been a number of disappointments. The budget deficit and the G20 fiasco are high on that list, from my POV.

I think they've been competent, but not much more. Their best quality has been the lack of corruption. Their worst quality has been the lack of transparency. No great achievements, but no big screw-ups either. Things have been steady, and for most people in Canada, steady ain't that bad.

Harper's greatest asset has been the array of clowns, dimwits, losers, nerds, wimps, and scumbags that have been pitted against him during his tenure as Conservative leader.

-k