Thursday, October 19, 2006

"Today, We Resolve To One Day Act"

I think Stephen Harper may be on to something with his vow to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions by 50% by the year 2050. All too often, politicians paint themselves into corners with promises which they are expected to deliver on during their time in office (or, during their lifetime for that matter). By giving himself until 2050, Harper has in effect given himself a 43 year window where he's immune from criticism.

Just imagine if other politicians were clever enough to adopt this strategy. If Jean Chretien had vowed to scrap the GST by the year 2037, he could proudly say "we're one sevenths of da way dere. Gives me thirty more years!". And it doesn't even matter if the politician follows through on his promise. If George Bush gave himself a 44 year window to get out of Iraq, I'm not fully confident that's a promise which could be kept. But, even then, Dubya will be long gone by the time 2047 rolls around and with midterms around the corner he could proudly proclaim today that they're still on track.

And timelines like this could be golden for all aspects of life. Leaf fans may be demanding of a Stanley Cup but John Ferguson Jr. should patiently explain to them that he's working on a 44 year plan and that they'll win one by 2050 (once again, still a longshot, but at least it's not his concern). At work, insist that your deadlines be mapped out in terms of years rather than days or weeks. If your wife asks you to do the dishes, promise to do the dishes...within the next few decades.

So while the Clean Air Act itself may be a lot of hot air, I for one applaud Harper for his cunning political play.

59 Comments:

  • Ok 50 years is a bit much... but it really isn't all that shocking... weren't all of the parties making 10+ year promises during the last election... guess politicians think we're all stupid.

    By Blogger MERBOY, at 10:36 PM  

  • Oh man, it's so great to read something worthwhile and brilliant on this Clean Air Act - well done, well said. You rocked the house on this one, my man.

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 10:37 PM  

  • Yeah, Libs were criticized heavily for backspending on most of their budget promises. The best example was the bold plan to extend the childcare deal from 5 Billion of 5 years to 11 billion over 10 years.

    I had high hopes for the Tories environmental plan but it doesn't look like much is going to come of it which is too bad.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:39 PM  

  • The Conservative long term strategy for the environment is pretty good in my opinion. Everyone complains about the 50 year targets but several of the Lib leadership candidates during the campaign have also asked for the same type of targets.

    The plan falls short on the immediate and short term targets. For me, this is what the committee should hammer the party on and add feasible and fair short term targets. THAT is what the committee is for.

    Unfortunately, it appears that this bill is SOOOO terrible that all three opposition parties won't allow it to committee.

    My question is, do you agree with this move CG? Do you think its wise for all three opp parties to slam this into the ground without even amending it? There are lots of good things about this plan despite the lack of immediate targets.. is it worth throwing it all away? Isn't SOMETHING better than NOTHING?

    By Blogger Riley Hennessey, at 11:03 PM  

  • CG, I had the same hopes. I always like your ability to rise above partisanship - you do it effortlessly.

    Riley's got an important point - the long term parts aren't unreasonable, really.

    It IS a good step in the right direction. Harper was wrong - very wrong - to tease it out for so many months promising a big splashy "solution" - he should've just kept his mouth shut and then delivered this months ago (since it doesn't exactly have 9 months of thought put into it).

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 11:26 PM  

  • It's all well and good to have long-term objectives as part of a plan... what really bothers me is that they won't even set national objectives for particulates and ground-level ozone (read: smog) for 14 years. We've been waiting for real, substantial movement on smog and on greenhouse gases since Kyoto was signed 14 years ago.

    The fact of the matter is that 50 years - even 14 years - is an eternity in politics, and the only way these sorts of plans can work is if we really start moving now. There have been years of "consultations" with industry. Enough is enough.

    Since Kyoto was signed, the PC Party was decimated, we had another referendum in Quebec, and, of course, 9/11. The lack of concrete - and ambitious - short-term goals is fatal to this plan. Perhaps it could be improved in Commmittee, but I think we'd need a new government first.

    By Blogger Josh Gould, at 11:58 PM  

  • By giving himself until 2050, Harper has in effect given himself a 43 year window where he's immune from criticism.

    Haha. He's brilliant! Just wait and see!

    By Blogger Olaf, at 12:01 AM  

  • but I think we'd need a new government first.

    Right on, I'm for it -- just so long, of course, as it isn't a government run by the Liberals, who, after all, proved time and again for a decade that they had no integrity on or interest in the issue (while their supporters cheered them on throughout).

    Much as I wouldn't care to see a Green Party suddenly take helm -- okay, let's try it. That's what you meant by "new government", right?

    Both our mainstream parties are wrong on this. I think I'm going to vote Green next time - just for the sake of sending a message (which may or may not be heard... le sigh).

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 12:10 AM  

  • I don't hate the Liberals and I quite like Rae and Kennedy and Hall Findlay - I just find that Liberals slagging Harper's enviro act to be a bit rich. (Bart not included) (No idea where Josh stands on party affiliation)

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 12:23 AM  

  • Excuse me, but isn't this pretty much identical to the made in Alberta plan?

    By Blogger Psychols, at 12:25 AM  

  • Jason,

    You're being too lenient.

    I just find that Liberals slagging Harper's enviro act to be a bit rich. (Bart not included)

    I personally blame Bart and his influential blog for the Liberals lack of a comprehensive environmental strategy.

    This may be unfair, but I'm in the business of unfair, and Bart has a lot to answer for, in my opinion.

    By Blogger Olaf, at 12:27 AM  

  • Long term objectives are important but the problem is that environmental change is occuring now. By the time 2050 rolls around Vancouver will be underwater.

    By Blogger Charlie Barnard, at 12:28 AM  

  • Arrrgh.

    It's actually not that dumb of a plan. Alberta, for example, in its Climate Change and Emissions Management Act, also intensity based, sets the 50% of 1990 levels target for 2020. But that section of the Act isn't proclaimed because it's *now* considered a harder target to meet than Kyoto's 6% in 5 years.

    I'm really in no place to disagree with the 2050 figure, other than to note that hard caps will be implemented well before the 50% figure gets reached.

    I would just add that to reach 6% of 1990 levels now means scaling back present emissions by 40%. I can't imagine the sort of growth Canada will have over the next 50 years, but I expect that 50% of 1990 levels at that point in time will have us virtually carbon neutral.

    To give an idea of why Kyoto can't be met, who reading the blog, starting *now*, cold turkey, will stop driving 40% of the times they otherwise would have? Who will uninstall half of their lightbulbs, disconnect the gas during the summer, keep the house at 12 C and wear sweaters at home during the winter? Who will happily pay for $1.40 gas?

    By Blogger matt, at 12:29 AM  

  • Oh, another comment. The made in Alberta plan is the only climate change Act presently in force in Canada. The Clean Air Act will be the second. Alberta has just enacted a NOx and SO2 emissions trading regulation and expects to have a market in place in 2012.

    I'll concede that Dion succeeded in passing the CO2 ammendment to the CEPA regs, but look where that got him.

    My point is this: the Tories have acted. They get climate change. These are smart plans. They aren't as painful as hard core environmentalists - those who embrace economic pain - would like, and probably not as painful as I would like as a petit-bourgeois. But who the hell are Liberals to snipe in the face of concrete, reasonable legislation when all they accomplished in 12 years was defining carbon dioxide as toxic (setting the stage for a great court challenge)?

    By Blogger matt, at 1:05 AM  

  • Oh - they also spent "combatting climate change" dollars on Rick Mercer. My bad.

    By Blogger matt, at 1:07 AM  

  • matt; No, I agree we won't meet our Kyoto targets and the Libs deserve a lot of the blame for that. No arguments here.

    Riley; The long term plan is fine but the long term plan as I see it is mostly "we'll invent new technology to solve the problem". What's really troubling is that nothing happens before 2010.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 1:07 AM  

  • If the environment was not such a serious issue, this would be a clever political move.

    What it does is refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem which continues to escalate.

    Even industry representatives say that 4 years for consultation is excessive.

    In short, things will get worse before they get better.

    Most irresponsible for a national government.

    The opposition parties have to strategize as to how best to prevent this from becoming government policy.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 1:54 AM  

  • Projected climate change is .6 degrees celcius per century, plus or minus .2 degrees. So 2050 isn't an inherently bad goal. I kind of like the idea of setting a national goal - and ultimately a rubric that all governments, including this one, can be judged on. At the end of each term, the question can be asked - are they on target to reduce emissions by 2050? The problem with short-term goals, is that they are generally approached by short-term methods. However, governments can also curb emissions by investing in things like new technology - it won't pay off in the short-term, but it may be more effective, and less damaging to the economy.

    Insofar as Harper is playing politics on this issue, he is doing so because historically electorates have let politicians get away with it. The poor Liberal record didn't really cost them anything, and frankly, its not as if anybody expected much out of the Conservatives anyhow.

    Actually I could have predicted the media reaction - the auto industry and oil patch say "oh no, its too much" and environmentalists will say " oh no, its not enough". I wonder if either group could actually ever be satisfied?

    By Blogger hosertohoosier, at 2:06 AM  

  • Mr Grit, don't you mean that Dion deserves a lot of the blame for the Liberals not meeting the Environmental Targets?? What did Dion do as Minister of the Environment?? I mean, everyone knows what Dryden did, he was a competent Minister. Everyone knows what Lapierre did, he was a great Minister. What did Dion do?? What noticable improvement was there in environmental strategy from the federal government when Dion was at the helm of the ministry?

    Who do you think was a better Minister, Dion or Lapierre?

    By Blogger iloveLaP, at 4:16 AM  

  • Matt, it IS a decent plan, and if you leave GHG's out of it and look only at air quality, it's really decent.

    They ought to have shut up and not cockteased it out for months on end, vowing to make the Statue of Liberty disappear. Instead, they've pulled a large rabbit out of a hat. A good trick, but after an ad campaign like theirs, you expect something more.

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 7:54 AM  

  • Kyoto was a bust from day one -- I do not believe in Kyoto, and I'm actually glad Harper pulled out of it. It's perhaps the best thing Bush did in office, by the way. That and sending Bolton to the mismanaged UN are his good acts (sadly outweighed by stupidity in almost every other decision) (Wait, John Roberts was a good idea, too, but other than those three...)

    Kyoto was never going to work, and it was going to cost us tankers in money to not work.

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 7:58 AM  

  • Big question for this thread...


    is this bill so outrageous that it shouldn't even be brought to committee to be discussed and ammended?

    By Blogger Riley Hennessey, at 8:39 AM  

  • "Who do you think was a better Mini
    ster, Dion or Lapierre? "

    It was easily Dion. Check out the ministries he has served in from the Wikipedia entry and his commitment to federalism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephane_Dion

    He was Minister of the Environment for 18 months from July 2004 until the election.

    He had done the consultation that will now take the CPC four years to complete and was ready to table the recommendations.

    Further, he was prepared to supply the leadership that the auditor-general's report said was lacking.

    http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c20060900ce.html


    Mr. Dion has taken on the toughest portfoliios in his career and he has performed well.

    I am pledged to support another candidate at the convention but I have a lot of respect for Mr. Dion and his record of accomplishment.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 10:02 AM  

  • do you really think it's a good political play, or was that a bit of sarcasm? they're going to get so lambasted over the totally fluff that is this plan, that it actually looks like a self inflicted wound more than anything.

    By Blogger Sean, at 10:14 AM  

  • You guys need to give your heads a shake. Seriously, have you even read any the actual documents the government releases on the subject.

    If you look up Bill C-30, you'll see that the clean air act is really an 'act to amend other acts.' It will amend CEPA, the energy efficiency act, and the motor vehicle fuel consumption standards act. That's it, that's all!

    Also, you should read the notice of intent to regulate that has been published on the CEPA registry website and will likely be Gazetted shortly. That's where the plan is spelled out in detail.

    For anyone who seriously followed Kyoto's attempted implementation will know that the previous government had in place all the means to regulate large emitters. Those agreements were ready to go but the government fell. What the new plans means to me is that government through out all of the past work to start over. It had the means to implement something yesterday that would have taken effect immediately. This is an entirely political decision.

    For all the Kyoto hater's out there, you bought all the hot-air that's been released about it. Kyoto's only major flaw that it was too complicated to be explained simply. All Kyoto did was say how much you you'll reduce and that we don't care how you do it. It allowed for certain means to be developed to help lower emissions and certain accounting practices to be developed. It was not a wealth transfer scheme! There's nuance in it and it's probably the most sophisiticated multilateral agreement we've seen in history. It was aimed at stimulating technology growth, clean energy devleopment, and economic development all while reducing emissions.

    In the end, it's a solid plan that is eerily similar to the Liberal plan. You'll see it once you drop all the political rhetoric. The communications has been re-worked and has done a marvellous job at confusing the issue for the average citizen.

    As I can see it, two things went wrong yesterday. First, over-expectations were created and now they've under-delivered. Secondly, when it comes to environment, you know you've got a good plan when the greenies are crying fowl and when industry is also crying fowl. That's balance. Have you noticed that industry is quiet about this. They know that this will be a cake-walk for them as they will be tough negotiators for the government to handle. In the end, their confident that they won't be forced to go to deep, too fast.

    By Blogger Environmental_Pundit, at 10:32 AM  

  • We're not idiots, thanks - we can grasp history and astronomy and Shakespeare, so I'm sure we can grasp Kyoto. Nothing is "too complex" to be explained simply. If we can grasp the US Constitution, overcoming g-force, and Hamlet, I'm sure there's a way we poor uneducated peons can somehow grasp Kyoto.

    I've asked and asked and asked and asked, no one's been able to explain it me. Somehow, I think Hamlet is more complex...

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 10:41 AM  

  • FYI:

    The Conservative Green plan is nearly identical to those plans that Bob Rae and Stephan Dion have campaigned on for leadership of the liberal party.

    Why no outrage over that?

    By Blogger Joe_Canada, at 1:19 PM  

  • I keep hearing that the Conservative plan is no different than Rae's or Dion's and I don't know why that misinformation keeps appearing.

    Dion's plan includes specific rebates and tax credits for consumers who make enviro friendly choices. For example:

    $3,500 for energy efficient retrofits

    Point of purchase rebates for energy efficient appliances

    House that meet a green certified standard would have mortgage interest tax deductible.

    $2,000 in tax credits for purchasers of energy efficient cars

    Absolute emission caps for industry by 2012

    Mandating a 10% ethanol standard in gasoline and 10% in biodiesel by 2010

    Accelerated Capital Cost allowance for the Oil Sands projects to fund environmental improvements so that there is zero impact on the environment.

    Continued funding support for research and development of new green and renewable energy technologies.

    Achieve Kyoto targets by 2012

    I'm having difficulty seeing the similarities between Dion's proposals and those announced yesterday.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 2:00 PM  

  • I think what most people here aren't thinking about, or perhaps are avoiding due to the implications is future technologies.
    Given the current debate about climate and pollution, how long do you think it will be before companies wise up even futher and start putting money into research.

    If the target reductions for the long term mean using the current technology, then yeah, it's too long to wait. However, I'm sure we'll be seeing some pretty impressive iimprovements in the next 10 or 15 years that will allow us to reach the goals we want to reach even sooner.

    all it will take is one "Eureka" moment, and we will look back on the Kyoto debate for what it is/was.
    A waste of resources better spent here at home. Forget sending "credits" to other nations to allow us to continue polluting as we do now, and focus on research here in Canada. Then, after we have an economical means to reduce pollution, we export the ideas to big polluters like China, India, and the USA. Of course, the Yanks are probably going to come up with some pretty impressive improvements soon anyway, and the Chinese are also very concerned about pollution. I just returned from a 3 month trip in that region, and I can honestly say that the Chinese want clean air and clean water as much as the next human being, the difference is their surge in development which also means a surge in their impact.

    The Liberals spent years spending our money in order to get themselves re-elected by those folks who actually believed the Liberals meant well for Canada. The rest of us realize that Liberals only look out for themselves. I'm willing to see what develops.....and I'm pretty sure the world won't end if we try to clean up the place on our own.

    By Blogger James Halifax, at 3:19 PM  

  • The blogosphere can discuss this ad nauseum but the fact is this plan is DOA. The three opposition parties are going to vote it down. There was no "this bill is deeply flawed and is going to require substantial change."

    It's dead in the water. Toast. Bereft of life.

    The opposition is pretty much stuck letting Conservative mean-spirited money bills through until they're ready for an election, but they're under no obligation to give the rest of their agenda a pass and there's no reason why they should.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 3:33 PM  

  • So therefore the Conservatives should call an election immmediatly, Reality?

    I mean otherwise what is the point of even having a government right now.

    Lets go to the polls!

    By Blogger Joe_Canada, at 4:12 PM  

  • If Stephen Harper wishes to call an election over his (giggle) environmental plan without losing a confidence vote, less than a year after the last one, in the middle of a leadership campaign in the official opposition, all I can say is, bring it on.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 5:35 PM  

  • The UK's white paper on the environment I just googled is actually quite similar to the new Green Plan. Considering the entire country is smaller than Vancouver Island they may have a few easier economies of scale. The UK has set greenhouse gas reductions at 60% by 2050 with a target to be 1/2 way there (30%) by 2020. They, like Canada, are focussing greatly on developing new technologies. They are also adamant that China, India and the larger polluters MUST get their act together to reduce GHG and pollutants for the good of the planet; the oceans, the water. This does not mean "Kyoto" to the UK - this means real reductions by these major polluters in real terms - not some carbon shuffling and transfer of money.
    It is worth a read if you all are interested. The other thing I found interesting - some countries set their Kyoto targets (ours was set by Chretien as a number he pulled out of the air without any science whatsoever at -6% of 1990 levels by 2012). Some set their levels at PLUS 10, 15 even 20% OVER 1990 levels by 2012 after scientific and other detailed analysis on industrial growth and population projections, etc. Australia set a target at PLUS 10%. Our MINUS 6% was bogus to even begin with.
    So ---much food for thought.

    By Blogger HearHere, at 6:55 PM  

  • There is talk of policy coordination with the provinces...Dave Hancock released his more comprehensive and integrated environment policy the same day as the Federal Conservatives. I would encourage people to go to his website and give some feedback on it.

    www.davehancock.ca

    By Blogger Ken Chapman, at 8:40 PM  

  • Sorry to p!ss in your Cheerios, 'grit, but BOTH Iggy and Rae also have environmental plans to cut GHG's by 2050 posted on their websites. Iggy by 50% and Rae by 60%.

    By Blogger Andrew E, at 9:56 PM  

  • "Riley; The long term plan is fine but the long term plan as I see it is mostly "we'll invent new technology to solve the problem". What's really troubling is that nothing happens before 2010."

    You should do your homework.The reason nothing happens till 2010 is because the Liberals made a voluntary agreement for emmissions with the auto industry.I've worked in the automotive sector and the reason is obvious.A car that a manufacter begins making today has been in the works for 2-3 years prior.Changing standards for these vehicles and the plants that produce them would cost companies billions along with thousands of jobs.

    And i thought i heard mention that this bill will bring us up to California emissions standards in the future,which by the way are the toughest standards in North America and i believe Europe,not 100% sure.

    I've read on another blog Jamie Heath supports this bill,and he's a lifelong enviromentalist and dipper.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 10:12 PM  

  • http://www.stevejanke.com/archives/201374.php#more

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 10:21 PM  

  • Please spare us with the copout that everything would have worked out if there wasn't an election,its getting pretty pathetic.Not just about this but all the other failures during their 13 years in power.

    Emissions are up close to 30% under the Liberals when they were supposed to be decreased.They were up BEFORE the election.

    The only mistake Harper did was bring a plan out thats achievable,He should have said i love kyoto and done nothing like the Liberals and hope Canadians suck it up and vote for him.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 10:26 PM  

  • Do we wish to be leaders and an example to others ?

    Or, do we say as a country "We are no worse than anyone else" ?

    We can afford to leaders.

    The Clean Air Act deserves to be defeated.

    Canada can do better !

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 10:31 PM  

  • Paulstuff:

    The Conservative plan for reducing environmental emissions reminds me of Mulroney's plan for debt reduction.

    And look where that got us . . .

    The highest level of debt in Canada's history.

    Conservatives have proven that they can't be trusted.

    It took Liberals a decade to clean up the last Conservative mess.

    We can't afford to take that same gamble with the environment.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 12:43 AM  

  • Guess it took Mulroney's GST and free trade and Joe Clark's gas taxes which gave the Liberals an orgy of spending for ther past 13 years. Al;l three initiatives were ones the Liberals opposed, voted against and defeated the Progressive Conservative government over. If they had kept their word to scrap all three programs where would we be today? Go figure huh.

    By Blogger HearHere, at 1:22 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 1:48 AM  

  • Yes but it was the unprecedented level of spending that had to be curtailed.

    The country passed judgement on Mulroney's legacy.

    The Conservatives were reduced to TWO seats in 1992 (and took a decade to recover)

    It's coming around again.

    It''s human to make mistakes.

    It is a sure sign of stupidity to duplicate them as Conservatives always do.

    Bring on the the next federal election . . . .
    (after giving the Conservatives a chance to table more legislation that doesn't have and won't attract popular support}.

    My guess is that these guys will be history by about June of next year

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 1:57 AM  

  • "The country passed judgement on Mulroney's legacy."

    The country passed judmenent based on their complete hate for the gst,which i admit turned me off the Tories and was the reason i voted Liberal

    "Conservatives have proven that they can't be trusted."

    Well lets see,the Liberals were found by a judge,the auditor general and othersto have stolen millions from us taxpayers.Add to this the billions squandered through hrdc,gun registry,fishing lodge trips,Chretien lying about the BDC in regards to Shawinigate,,the list goes on.

    I've voted Liberal before,but after adscam it will take years before i ever consider them again.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 10:25 AM  

  • Now heres a question i've asked before but no Liberal will dare answer.

    During the Gomery commission Chretien testified under oath he and Paul Martin discussed several times the sposorship fund.24 hours later Martin testified he had never discussed it with him.

    The question is which former Liberal primeminister lied under oath at a federal inquiry.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 10:29 AM  

  • Every time the Conservatives get in office, scandals have resulted.

    The Mulroney government averaged one major scandal a year. Some doozies (other than Airbus).

    Fisheries Minister overrode Food & Health inpsectors and released thousands of cases of rotten tainted tuna for consumption by Canadians.

    Then there was Robert Coates, who stepped down as defence minister in 1985 after it was revealed that he had visited a strip club in West Germany while in that country on official business. Communications Minister Marcel Masse left over an alleged violation of the Canada Elections Act (he was later exonerated), followed closely by John Fraser.

    In 1986, Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion Sinclair Stevens stepped down because of conflict of interest allegations related to a $2.6-million loan to a Stevens family company. André Bissonnette, the minister of state for transport, resigned in 1987 while the RCMP investigated his alleged involvement in land speculation. Roch La Salle, who served Mulroney in the public works, and supply and services portfolios, left cabinet the same year after being charged with demanding a bribe and accepting money from businesses looking for government favours. The charges were later dropped.

    Conflict of interest allegations involving a personal loan felled Supply and Services Minister Michel Coté in 1988. Bernard Valcourt stepped down in 1989 after pleading guilty to an impaired driving offence. In 1990, current Quebec Premier Jean Charest had to leave his two posts as minister for fitness and amateur sport, and minister for youth after trying to talk to a judge about an ongoing case.

    And, finally, in 1991, Housing Minister Alan Redway offered his resignation after being charged over joking about having a gun while boarding a flight at the Ottawa airport. Not a cabinet minister but equally embarrassing to the Conservatives was

    Quebec MP Michel Gravel, who in 1986 was charged with 50 counts of fraud and influence peddling. He later pleaded guilty to 15 charges, paid a $50,000 fine and served four months in jail.


    The Conservative provincial government in Saskatchewan under Grant Devine resulted in cabinet ministers going to jail.

    Ralph Klein government ? Need I say more.

    People's memories are short but clearly the Federal Conservatives under Brian Mulroney had a far worse record.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 11:11 AM  

  • Thats a wonderful rant,and i could list lots of Liberal scandals as well,and i will if you want me too.But i fail to see where you answered the question.Here it is again.And i'll make it simpler.

    A=Chretien lied
    B=Martin lied.

    Pick,A or B.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 11:51 AM  

  • http://anchorpin.redpin.com/?m=200512

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 11:57 AM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 2:21 PM  

  • Chretien was a better Prime Minister (obviously) but he probably lied so I pick A.

    The cause was honourable but some people clearly broke the law. The federalists were desperate at the time due to the referendum and the No side was trailing in the polls.

    On the Conservatives scandals. Not a rant. Just the facts.

    It's all documented.

    My point is that CPC supporters have nothing to gloat about.

    Your list is a joke. Lots of your citings were administrative issues inherited from the Conservatives. Others came to light and were resolved.

    Basically just mudslinging to see what what sticks.

    My citings were actual screw ups by the elected members of the government of the day.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 2:32 PM  

  • "The cause was honourable but some people clearly broke the law."

    What a joke.Adscam was about Liberals,not the referendum.That lame excuse was trotted out long after they were caught red handed.And that list i linked to is mostly issues from 1993 till 2005,not inherited as you claim.How is Lawrence Macauley doing at clearing his name?

    Have the Conservatives had scandals?Absolutely.Have the Liberals?Absolutely.Regardless of the party its wrong.Differance is most Liberals can't accept they did wrong.

    As for my pick i choose b,Martin,To think that the finance minister and head of the quebec wing of the party knew nothing is hard to believe.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 2:48 PM  

  • Chrétien friend bragged about 'a little scheme'
    Gomery witness told ministers' aides sponsorship helped Liberals, book reveals
    TU THANH HA

    MONTREAL -- Three years before the political kickback arrangement behind the sponsorship scandal would become public at the Gomery inquiry, a friend of Jean Chrétien was bragging to aides of two cabinet ministers that the federal program was being used to assist the Liberals in Quebec, a new book reveals.

    The Chrétien friend, the controversial graphic designer Jacques Corriveau, is a pivotal figure in the scandal. He denied at the Gomery inquiry last year that he sought disguised donations for the Liberal Party from suppliers to the sponsorship program.

    However, according to a book to be released next week by Globe and Mail political reporter Daniel Leblanc, Mr. Corriveau met aides for Don Boudria and Paul Cauchon and said he had "a little scheme" that made the program help the party.

    Titled Nom de code: MaChouette and published by Quebecor Media's Libre Expression, the book also says:


    A controversial figure in the scandal, the late Liberal fundraiser Giuseppe (Joseph) Morselli, was being wiretapped by police for an unrelated investigation.

    The police heard Mr. Morselli, a friend of then public works minister Alfonso Gagliano, accepting an offer of $100,000 from ad executive Jean Brault to intervene in the attribution of a federal contract. "It was very explicit," one source says in the book.

    This took place in 2001, a year before the RCMP was called to look at the sponsorship file.

    The RCMP used a paid informant to investigate Mr. Brault, rewarding their source with thousands of dollars in cash.

    A provincial police probe into the dealings of another key player in the scandal, ad executive Jean Lafleur, was referred this year to a Crown attorney, meaning that investigators deemed that some criminal charges could be filed.

    During the sponsorship era, the well-connected Mr. Lafleur clinched more than $65-million in federal contracts and led a lavish lifestyle, wining, dining and entertaining high-ranking Liberals.

    Designed to bolster the visibility of the federal government in Quebec after the 1995 referendum, the sponsorship program funnelled millions of dollars in contracts to a handful of Liberal-friendly advertising and media firms.

    According to the new book, Mr. Corriveau met in 2002 with officials working for Mr. Boudria, then minister of public works, and Mr. Cauchon, then minister for Quebec.

    "He told me that the program had helped the party. He didn't talk about cash in envelopes but he spoke about a little scheme," Alain Pilon, who was Mr. Boudria's chief of staff, is quoted as saying.

    "Jacques Corriveau made a similar confession at Martin Cauchon's office and to other Liberals," the book adds.

    In an interview yesterday, Mr. Boudria said he was never told about Mr. Corriveau's visit. Mr. Cauchon could not be reached for comment.

    The revelation would corroborate the testimony at the Gomery inquiry of Daniel Dezainde, a former director-general of the Liberal Party's Quebec wing.

    Mr. Dezainde, who took over the role in May of 2001, testified that Mr. Corriveau told him over lunch that he set up a system where he got kickbacks for the party from agencies that benefited from the sponsorship program.

    Mr. Leblanc's book also mentions another well-connected businessman, Mr. Morselli. He died of heart problems last March, cutting short a police investigation into his activities, the book says.

    "Morselli's death disappointed a lot of people at the RCMP," one anonymous source says in the book.

    Mr. Morselli was a cagey, enigmatic man who was alleged at the Gomery inquiry to have received envelopes of cash from Mr. Brault to secure federal contracts.

    Mr. Brault eventually pleaded guilty in Quebec Superior Court to five counts of fraud involving federal contracts awarded to his firm, Groupaction Marketing Inc.

    The book says that, in addition to former Groupaction vice-president Jean Lambert, police investigation relied on a paid informant, a former Groupaction employee whose name has never been disclosed.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 2:56 PM  

  • No doubt about it, It's ugly.

    While politically foolish, at least the Liberals called the Gomery Inquiry and shows good faith by allowing themselves to be investigated.

    It's embarrassing what occurred involving Gagliano and to his credit, Paul Martin recalled him as ambassador and kicked him out of the party.

    The Conservatives under Mulroney always were in denial and tried to brazen every scandal out rather than admit error. And their scandals almost always involeved themselves, the supposed elected representatives of the people, not just poorly suprvised underlings.

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 3:32 PM  

  • "The Conservatives under Mulroney always were in denial and tried to brazen every scandal out rather than admit error"
    Agreed.And the Liberals followed in that great tradition.From Shawinigate to Adscam to the HRDC boondoggle to the gun registry to etc. etc. they have followed the mold and denied everything till they could no longer do so.Don't forget the Liberals stood up in the house during question period with the line about all rules were followed with sponsorship,which turned out to be completely false.

    As for Chretien,i thought he did a good job till he got caught in his lie about the BDC loan and then followed that up by trying to absolutely destroy the former head of the BDC because he got caught.

    And i thought Martin was ok till he started basing his opinions on the polls and changing them if the polls did,hence the name Dithers.

    And Joe Clark will go down in history on screwing himself out of power in nine monthsmbut lets not forget Martin's political skills took him from a strong majority to a minority to the opposition in pretty short time.He could have kept power for 18 months with a mojority and tried to get re-elected before Gomery got started,which is what believes me to believe he lied,not Chretien cause he knew what was to be exposed.

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 3:44 PM  

  • Damn spellchecker. LOL

    By Blogger paulsstuff, at 3:45 PM  

  • "I've voted Liberal before,but after adscam it will take years before i ever consider them again."

    OK, so no point in Liberals wasting any effort on convincing you of anything, is there?

    There's a relatively small pool of swing voters in Canada - about 20% of the electorate. From what I can tell, almost none of them post on blogs.

    By Blogger Reality Bites, at 3:55 PM  

  • Some days I am a liberal Conservative,
    other days I am a conservative Liberal.

    Doesn't that count ?

    By Blogger Down & Out in L A, at 5:28 PM  

  • Reality, I like to say I'll never vote Liberal again after their refusal to give Martha a good showing... but since I vote based on local candidates it's really only a matter of time, lol.

    By Blogger Jason Bo Green, at 6:21 PM  

  • By Blogger telaat, at 7:26 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home