Again I have to ask myself how we got to this position of allowing sovereignists like Bloc MP Carole Lavallée feast at the Federal trough while she indignantly criticizes PM Harper’s attempt to encourage Quebec students to visit Canada’s National Parks? [Google translation]
According to Lavallée, that is propaganda!
As with the refugee quagmire, only in Canada would such self-destructive behaviour be tolerated – all in the name of ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’.
Everytime I see Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest getting together I cringe with fear. Their latest mission is a renewed push for cap and trade because the feds just aren’t moving fast enough – especially now that “they have dug themselves out of the recession.” (Who knew? Does that mean that Alberta can quit sending equalization payments?)
Coincidentally Lorrie Goldstein has addressed the recent inclusion of climate change into the G8-G20 agenda, (Summit will deliver more hot air) with a note of warning regarding the possible economic ramifications:
Indeed in the real world, getting the global economy moving again, presumably the main concern of the G8/G20 leaders, will cause greenhouse gas emissions to rise.
Unless, of course, they were to establish a global cap-and-trade market by putting a world price on industrial carbon dioxide emissions, thereby allowing the same giant U.S. investment banks that just finished crashing the global economy by trading in highly speculative and ultimately worthless subprime mortgage bonds, to do the same thing all over again with carbon credits.
My own suspicion is that the Green Scheme Twins see this as a golden opportunity to not only appease a very powerful environmental lobby, but also push for a new speculative industry that might cause some serious economic backlash if handled improperly (not to mention the potential for fraud.)
Lorrie Goldstein has addressed this issue many times before, for example in his March 27 column – Inconvenient Questions:
Does the fact the earliest corporate boosters of Kyoto and carbon trading were the fraudsters at Enron never cause you to wake up in a cold sweat?
How about the fact your “allies” on cap-and-trade are the giant U.S. money houses that just finished wrecking the global economy, now looking to make another quick killing by brokering trading in highly speculative carbon credits, the European market for which, aside from doing nothing to cool the planet, is awash in multi-billion-dollar frauds?
Largely ineffective
What about the 2002 report by Statistics Norway that Norway’s 1991 carbon tax has been largely ineffective in reducing emissions?
Or last week’s story in the Times of London that the U.K.’s energy regulator has found many of Britain’s wind farms are a bust when it comes to delivering electricity?
That, in the words of Michael Jefferson, professor of international business and sustainability and a former lead author of the IPCC: “Too many developments are underperforming. It’s because developers grossly exaggerate the potential. The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if the money was not available.”
Gee. Hard to see that one coming, eh? Who knew that when governments insanely guarantee to pay grossly inflated prices for “green” electricity for 20-25 years, thus handing developers windfall profits from the hides of electricity consumers, many don’t deliver the goods?
Not you, obviously. Or Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.
One thing for sure. Whenever you see Premiers McGuinty and Charest put their heads together, you’d better hang on tight to your wallet – until they pry it away by force.
* * * *
Related
Scan of Arctic ice dispels melting gloom, scientist says – Citizen (H/T NNW)
Even though Jean Charest and the Federal Conservative government frequently find themselves at odds on environmental issues, they appear to be co-conspirators regarding the export of asbestos as Jeffrey Simpson points out this morning:
…But Mr. Charest said it was up to India to act if it felt asbestos led to health problems. He was accompanied by a representative of an asbestos lobby group that receives money from both the federal and provincial governments; his group, he said, gives information to asbestos users about its possible risks. In other words, caveat emptor! Meantime, it’s business as usual for Quebec’s asbestos exports…
Or is it just the environment that Jean Charest cares about? Not the health of people in developing countries?
And to the Conservative government, how about showing some backbone on this issue? You really don’t have much more to lose in Quebec anyway.
And to Mr. Iffy – Have you finally figured out where you stand?
Hypocrites the lot of you!
* * * *
* * * *
Charest faces questions about export of asbestos during visit to India – Record
UN climate guru on skeptics: “hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day” - B.C Blue
Charest: Asbestos “is politically part of our history” – B.C. Blue
* * * *
Feb. 12 Update
On hot seat over asbestos – Gazette:
…On the trade mission, the premier was quoted in La Presse as saying “Chrysotile (asbestos) can be used in a safe manner; this is what WHO reports say. It is not a banned substance. It is up to the government of India to put the necessary laws in place.”
In fact, the World Health Organization has said that all types of asbestos, including the type mined in Quebec (chrysotile) cause asbestosis, mesothelioma and cancer of the lung, and recommends against continued use of any form of asbestos. The International Labour Organization adopted a resolution in 2006 urging the elimination of use of all forms of asbestos and of materials containing asbestos…
O.K. We have a definite variance of opinions on the Conservative flyers being distributed in Quebec. Obviously my readers want to discuss this so I thought I may as well start a new thread.
On one side we have the belief that this is not a good idea, spearheaded by Gabby. She worries that this approach will backfire and would prefer to see some positive ads put out emphasizing what the Harper Government is doing to protect children, etc.
On the other we have Ed, Bruce, Lorraine, Mary T, Bec and others saying that charges of the Bloc being pedophile-lovers have been read into the text – that in fact the issue has to do with child prostitution and trafficking and that the opposition parties and liberal-friendly media are deliberately interpreting it otherwise.
ChuckerCanuck shoots down the Bloc’s bogus objections to the bill. (C-268)
[Voting record here.]
Richco says that we shouldn’t be talking about this at all - That there are much more important stories out there like this: Tories climbing rapidly to top of the polls.
My personal preference is for the Conservative Party to lay off attacking the Bloc. I think it’s a losing proposition no matter how factual in information. On the other hand, getting positive messaging out there is a good idea. So I guess I agree with Gabby.
Not that anyone is necessarily listening.
* * * *
Update: Conservative Messaging II: Are we taking control? – Sean Calder at The Politic
I have been flummoxed for several weeks by the this question - Why is Michael Ignatieff’s popularity continuing to rise in Quebec?
Is it because:
(a) He’s not Stephane Dion?
(b) He’s not Stephen Harper?
(c) Quebecers prefer style over substance?
(d) They have a thing about eyebrows?
If the answer is all of the above, then Canada is in big trouble.
If it is simply (b), then there is hope because so far Michael Ignatieff has failed to distinguish himself from Stephen Harper in any notable way in terms of policy and ideological leanings (except for Iggy’s weak E.I. proposal.)
Today’s National Post editorial points this out After the Honeymoon:
…The neoconfriendly Mr. Ignatieff has done little to separate himself from the Conservatives ideologically, and he can do little Liberal monument-building with the federal balance sheet so far underwater. He and the Prime Minister both pushed for Quebec to be recognized in Parliament as a “nation.” He and the Prime Minister, thank goodness, both refuse to follow through with explicit constitutional tinkering.
The editorial goes on to show how PMSH has actually done more for Quebec than Iggy possibly could given the Liberal party’s traditional ideological view of concentration of power at the Federal level:
The Prime Minister can take credit in Quebec for actual devolutionary accomplishments, ones that would have been unthinkable for a Liberal government, such as giving the province a seat at UNESCO…
Add to that the current revolt of the grassroots concerning the Tory Bill on crime which is an area that has always been a little ‘iffy’ for Quebec, the asbestos flipflop, and Iggy’s rejection of C-307, and you really have to wonder how long this honeymoon is going to last.
Over the past few months we here at BLY have tried to understand what exactly it is that makes Quebec tick politically.
Personally, I see a culture of self-interest that plays one faction against the other, hoping to get the best deal. Always in the back pocket is the unity/separation card which Quebec partisans and scheming politicians are not shy to play when the chips are down.
Looking back at Conundrum #1 back in October, Gabby’s observations were right on – especially regarding the Conservative Party’s questioning the relevance of the Bloc:
5. Anyone who watches QP regularly has heard Conservative MPs question the validity of the Bloc’s 18 years spent in Parliament. Although more and more Quebecers, both ordinary citizens and some media personalities, have been asking the same questions about the relevance of the Bloc being in Ottawa, the Conservatives should not have pushed those buttons so furiously. Notice how Michael Fortier’s play backfired.
So learning from this, my readers and I feel that the best approach is to be honest, but don’t attack the Bloc. Let Iggy and Duceppe duke that one out.
Nicola pointed out that young people in Quebec are brainwashed with the refrain of “C’est la faute du fédéral”. Well, what can you do to counter that?
But at least let’s show some integrity.
Don’t pander to Quebec, but don’t ignore it either. Today’s Gazette editorial makes an eloquent plea for Prime Minister Harper to continue to work towards including Quebec in his plans, and they note that he still begins his ‘public pronouncements in French’. He should continue to do so, because to stop would be interpreted as giving up.
Let’s treat Quebec with respect; but no more special favours.
The way forward is fairness for all provinces. And then let the chips fall where they may.
Wednesday Update: Bloc takes the lead in Quebec (translation from Cyerpresse – H/T National Newswatch)
And this is almost worth a separate post, but I don’t have the time this morning:
Conservatives should go back to what works in Quebec – L. Ian MacDonald:
…But there’s one element of the Quebec City speech that’s been unfulfilled, and it could prove very strategic in the event Harper chose to revisit it. And that’s his promise to limit the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction unless a majority of provinces signed on to it.
In other words, Ottawa would not invade provincial jurisdictions such as health care, education, and cities, unless invited in.
If you think the Québécois nation resolution had the potential to send all three opposition parties scattering in all directions, a resolution or bill to limit the federal spending power would sow discord among the Liberals, while the Bloc would be forced to support it even while denouncing it as inadequate, leaving the NDP completely out in the cold as a party that has always supported new federal programs in provincial jurisdictions.
This is about core values and conceptions of federalism. Harper has always been very comfortable supporting the constitutional division powers in Sections 91 (federal powers) and 92 (provincial jurisdictions) of the Constitution Act. Like every Conservative leader from Macdonald to Mulroney, he is a BNA prime minister. It’s the vision the founding fathers gave us in the British North America Act, and it has worked pretty well.
The Liberals are the party of the federal spending power, from Pearson to Martin. They are the party of “national standards” in the current debate over EI reform. The Libs would be very uncomfortable and divided in their caucus as between Quebec and the rest of Canada…
If I were a Star headline writer, I might say this – Poll puts Liberals and Tories in virtual tie.
On the other hand, I could say this:
Latest Harris-Decima Poll shows Liberals closing in on their Coalition partners in Quebec – Bloc at 39%, Liberals at 32%.
And yet we have to wonder if Don MacPherson’s predictions might come true:
In Quebec politics, particular value is attached to the signature of even a politician. Duceppe’s party and his own political career originated in the anger at English Canadian premiers for renouncing their signatures (actually, those of their predecessors) on the Meech Lake constitutional accord granting a form of special status to Quebec….
Who’s going to win? This one will be great fun to watch from the sidelines. Grab your popcorn & beer.
