Month: February 2007

The right wing of the blogosphere has been positively bursting with indignation since Liberal MP Mark Holland appeared on a talk radio show and said something about Alberta’s oil sands. Bloggers are indignant because a) The Liberals are Proposing To Nationalize the Oil Sands and b) the Mainstream Media are aiding their Liberal friends by ignoring this story! Indeed, many readers of this blog have sent me personal e-mails asking me Just What’s Going On?

Well, I’m afraid I’m unqualifed to answer b) above (and,  besides, would you believe me if I did?) but several reporters did gather around Holland, who is his party’s Natural Resources Critic, outside the House of Commons yesterday to ask him about his plan to Nationalize the Oil Sands. Here are the questions — put to him by several reporters — and here are his responses:

REPORTER:  Your comments made a lot of people out west nervous. Are you willing to say now that you did or did not mean nationalizing the oil industry?

HOLLAND: I absolutely didn't mean that, and that's a complete twist and perversion of what I said. What I said was that everybody has to be part of the solution here. And I'm talking about industry in Ontario, I'm talking about industry in Quebec, I'm talking about industry in Alberta, that we all need to be part of the solution and work collaboratively. And any attempts to mischaracterize that is crass and political.

Holland was asked about this ‘crass and political’ mischaracterization:

HOLLAND: There's been an enormous amount of manipulation of this, including from the Premier of Alberta, and it's verym very political. I mean, what they're trying to do is to get it so that no one can even talk about limiting the oil sands expansion. But look, if we're serious about climate change, then we're going to have to talk about the oil sands, and we're going to have to talk about all large final emitters. And the reality is unfettered growth in the oil sands, unfettered growth of any large industry, is unacceptable. And let's also take a look at what Albertans are saying. They don't have the infrastructure. They have labour shortages. They're concerned about water quality. They're concerned about environmental degradation. And if there's a five-time increase in the oil sands expansion, just imagine where those issues are. So Albertans themselves are concerned about this, and we all have a responsibility to manage and utilize our resources responsibly.

REPORTER:  You want to limit the growth in the oil sands?

HOLLAND:  No, what I think we need to do is to take, as we've said with all large final emitters, that we need to have caps. And the Prime Minister himself has talked about this, and there hasn't been an outrageous reaction to that. That there has to be caps in terms of the degree of emissions that can be pumped into the atmosphere. And that multiplying the oil sands [production]  4.6 times, [as] the Finance Minister said in China, or as Gary Lunn has said, the Minister of Natural Resources, four to five times expansion, by 2015, would blast apart all of our greenhouse gas emissions. And that all large final emitters have a responsibility to ensure that the emissions that they are putting out there do not destroy our ability to reduce emissions.

REPORTER:  Do you want to cap growth in the oil sands?

HOLLAND: No, what we're doing right now is we have the Natural Resources Committee making a series of recommendations on how to deal with the oil sands specifically, and we have C-30 [the Clean Air Act] to deal with the issue more broadly of how to regulate emissions for large final emitters. What I would like to see is for large final emitters, and for the oil sands, recommendations to be brought forward concurrently. But certainly me taking a formal position in advance of that committee having the opportunity to put forward its proposals would be premature. What I am saying is that five times expansion of the oil sands is inappropriate and would blast apart all of our emissions targets…. And what we have to ask is that it's incredibly disingenuous of the Prime Minister, on the one hand, to say that he cares about climate change, and on the other hand to talk about expanding the oil sands by five times when we know if he does that it makes it absolutely impossible, even by 2020, to have any reductions of any kind.

Holland represents an Ontario riding, Ajax-Pickering, right next door to General Motors giant manufacturing plant in Oshawa. He was asked if the auto industry, too, ought to be capped.

HOLLAND: Absolutely. I would say the same thing of the five times expansion of just about any industry, unless they were going to be willing to put technologies in place to control their emissions. Look, every industry in Canada, I don't care where it is or what it's doing, has a responsibility to ensure that their growth is appropriate, it's managed, and that we don't have emissions pouring out from those industries that are going to blast apart our ability to meet our international commitments.

REPORTER:  Do you think that growth in the oil sands is inappropriate?

HOLLAND: I think that growth in the oil sands that would result in greenhouse gas emissions that would negate our ability to meet our international commitments is not acceptable.

REPORTER:  How popular do you think this position will make you in Alberta?

HOLLAND: I think the position will be very popular because I think that Albertans want to make sure that their resource is managed appropriately. I'm hearing from a lot of Albertans who are very concerned about water quality, who are concerned about lack of infrastructure, who are concerned about environmental degradation, and concerned about the rate at which that resource is utilized, wanting to make sure that it's there for a long time. So there's a lot of Albertans who share these concerns, and I think that they're asking the question of why. Why would anybody talk about multiplying this by five times, or 4.6 times? And they recognize as well that all industries, whether or not it's in Ontario in the auto sector, or whether or not it's in Alberta in the oil sands, that every industry has a responsibility to ensure that their greenhouse gas emissions do not obliterate our international commitments on climate change.

The following, from the Canada West Foundation,  popped into my inbox yesterday afternoon:

Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and John Baird, Minister of the Environment, to discuss Clean Air Act and climate change in Calgary

CALGARY, Feb. 7, 2007 — The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Energy Security, and the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, will be available to answer questions on the Clean Air Act and climate change in the Canada West Foundation boardroom at 5 p.m. on Friday, February 9, 2007

All media are invited to attend.

All media! Invited to attend! Excellent! I immediately notified CTV’s Alberta bureau chief Sarah Galashan for I cannot recall when we’ve heard Jim Prentice talk about the environment. He is, after all, the chair of the cabinet committee that looks at environment and energy issues which means anything that Baird wants to do has to make its way out of Prentice’s committee first. Sarah, I hoped, could be my eyes and ears for this important meeting.

Sadly, this e-mail popped into my inbox a few hours after the first one:

CORRECTION regarding an earlier advisory concerning Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and John Baird, Minister of the Environment

CALGARY, Feb. 7, 2007 — The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Chair of the Cabinet Committee on Environment and Energy Security, and the Honourable John Baird, Minister of the Environment, will not be available to the media in Calgary on Friday, February 9, 2007. The advisory was sent out by mistake and the Canada West Foundation apologizes for the error.

You may have read about his intentions on his blog yesterday, but Garth Turner, the newest Liberal MP, called the PM’s bluff minutes ago in Question Period. Turner, on his feet for his first day in the House of Commons as a Liberal, got the last Liberal question of the day. I’ll put up the Hansard later, but here’s what he did:

• He stood up to ask his question and his new caucus mates gave him a loud and prolonged ovation. Then Turner (left) dared the Prime Minister to call a bye-election in his riding of Halton if the PM also called one for Emerson’s riding of Vancouver Kingsway and Wajid Khan’s riding of Mississauga Streetsville.
• The PM did not respond but the Government House Leader, Peter Van Loan, did. He told Turner that it was completely within Turner’s power to resign and a bye-election would be held.
• So Turner rose for a supplementary and said, fine. If the PM promised to call a bye-election in Halton today, he’d quit today and run as a Liberal.
• Van Loan had a confusing answer that seemed to repeat what he said earlier.

Here are the Blues (the unofficial “rush” Hansard) that has the exchange:

Hon. Garth Turner :
….
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister support my request of yesterday to work immediately to have a by-election in my riding of Halton, at the same time as by-elections in Vancouver–Kingsway and Mississauga–Streetsville, so we three members can be accountable?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

*   *   *

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, the member for Halton has not been in the caucus for 24 hours and he has already gotten a standing ovation for the concept of him resigning.

I will assure the member for Halton that if he wishes to see a by-election at Halton, it is fully within his control. He can resign today. I am sure we will comply.

*   *   *

Hon. Garth Turner (Halton, Lib.) :
Mr. Speaker, I would like to try again. If the Prime Minister will call a by-election today so the people of Halton will not be without their member of Parliament for a few weeks, then I will lay my seat on the line today.

Will he do that, yes or no, and will he tell the member for Mississauga–Streetsville to get with the program?

*   *   *

Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC) :
Mr. Speaker, I continue to be impressed but not surprised by the enthusiasm for the Liberal Party for the resignation of the member for Halton, but I think his 15 minutes of fame are over if he wishes to have a by-election that is 100% in his control.

The question is not why he changed his mind or how he explains his change in position, we need to know the answer to that. I do not know why he is asking us why we changed our mind. He is the one who has changed his position on these issues

Here, by the way, is what Turner wrote on his blog very early this morning:

…somehow, people think I won’t run in a by-election, that I’m afraid. Not the case. In announcing my move I challenged PMSH to call by-elections in Halton at the same time as in Vancouver-Kingsway (Emerson), in Mississauga-Streetsville (Wajid Khan) and in Quebec (Michael Fortier), because that’s the principled thing to do. We all need to be accountable to the people.

But I guess those three aren’t up to the challenge, again.

So I’m going it alone.

If I resign immediately, the prime minister can leave my voters held hostage for up to six months without a by-election and without an MP, which could well mean they’re not represented at all until after the next election. Excuse me if I do not trust Stephen Harper, but I don’t.

There is another way, which I have left for Wednesday.

I believe nobody should represent the people without their approval and support. It is the basis of our system, and the one thing that should give us all hope. I support it. I’m going to do it. As promised.

In the last election campaign, Stephen Harper held his first rally of the New Year in the basement of an Ottawa hotel where he unveiled the top five priorities of his government. They were — you probably know them by heart by now :

1. Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act.
2. Cut the GST.
3. Crack down on crime.
4. Universal Child Care Benefit ($100 a month per child under 6)
5. Establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee

How about another five? Ok, then, the Prime Minister just gave a speech on that subject and here they are:

1. Clean up the environment.
2. Cut taxes
3. Crack down on crime.
4. Rebuild the Canadian Forces
5. Strengthen the federation by reforming the Senate and addressing fiscal imbalance.

So before we get into year number two of Canada’s Nearly New Government and the Next Five Priorities, how about a quick review of the Famous Five?

1. Did most of Number 1. The Accountability Act is not exactly as advertised in the last campaign, partly because the opposition monkeyed with it but notably also because the Tories did not do as they promised in some key areas, such as Access to Information.

2. They lived up to their word on number 2, cutting the GST by one percentage point in the Jim Flaherty’s first budget. In Flaherty’s most recent economic update, the Conservatives promised another point off the tax within five years — just as they promised.

3. They looked awful busy on number three but I’m not sure how much they actually got done. When he was Justice Minister, Vic Toews introduced a pile of ‘we’re crackin’ down’ legislation but Harper had to bring former House Leader Rob Nicholson in as Justice Minister in order unplug the legislative backlog.

4. As I am the proud father of a five-year-old daughter and threee-year-old son, I am reminded once every month that the Conservatives made good on promise number 4.

5. But as the son of parents who are at that point in life that Catscans and other hospital procedures are increasingly common, it’s not clear to me that we’ve got any kind of wait times guarantee that the Conservatives can brag about. The Liberals can trot out convincing statistics that, under their watch, wait times were already decreasing for some procedures but the Conservatives have an equally compelling array of stats that show it’s getting worse. 

So I’d say they bagged two out of five in their first year; fiddled around on another two and really didn’t do that much at all on one of them.

I expect you to jump in with your assessment of the Next Five and your assessment of progress on the Famous Five.

Ross Rader’s blog is one of my favourites — often for neat little nuggets like those one.:

If Google Trends had been around when John made his infamous comment about The Beatles being more popular than Jesus, we could have fact-checked his ass.

Because we can't look up 1966 in Google Trends, we'll have to take John's word for it. However, as this graph plainly points out, Jesus is, in fact, more popular than The Beatles today. [Visit Random Bytes for the graph and to read what John Lennon actually said.]

Now I know we’re in a post-politically correct age when these things aren’t supposed to matter but it still looks a little odd to come upon the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, which is, as I type this, debating a motion to make the Commissioner of the Environment a “full and independent agent” of Parliament in Room 209 of the West Block.

Gathered around the committee table are twelve Parliamentarians, none of whom are women or visible minorities. Can’t blame the committee or any one of the twelve,  I suppose, but, dang, that still looks funny …

Boeing has released an ‘artists conception’ of the Boeing C-17 Globemaster — Canada announced last week that it had signed an agreement with Boeing to buy four of the the giant strategic airlift aircraft — which, once it has been received by the Canadian Air Force will apparently be designated at CC-177 and will get the Canadian markings like this:

(Tip of the toque to The Torch)