ATA defeated

I am very pleased to see the ATA defeated. As a strong supporter of civil liberties and individual rights, such provisions were simply too draconian for me to support. I want to see terrorism combatted, but I will never agree to surrender some of my freedom for greater security. Such thing would only be giving victory to the terrorists. I am also sick and tired of the Conservatives referring to opponents of the ATA as left wing extremists. They should remember this is Canada, not the United States on tough on terrorism laws are not nearly as popular here as in the US so this type of talk likely won't work. In addition I consider myself a moderate libertarian who believes in individual freedom. I support the right of farmers to not go through the Wheat Board, I support allowing individuals to watch channels not approve by the CRTC, I support the right for someone to choose to get health care where they want including private clinics (provided they fall within the law) and I also support legalized marijuana, euthanasia, and gay marriage. Simply speaking, I am support the view that the best society is where one is given as much freedom as possible and freedom is only restricted when one's actions harm another. No party to my disappointment shares my libertarian views, but at least the Liberals on most non-economic matters share my views. In fact I don't see how anyone who calls themselves a Libertarian could in good conscience support these provisions, so it is just a left wing idea, it is also a libertarian idea as well.

I do though think the Liberals should have allowed individual MPs to vote with the government if they wanted to. Considering all those who spoke out against Dion's position abstained or were absent, I am pretty sure it still would have passed. If anything Harper's comments about Bains probably did more to unite the party than divide it as he was hoping. Anyways I wish the government would stop assuming that the language the Republicans use works in Canada since as I've said before, the border between Canada and the United States is not just a line on the map as many Conservatives think, it is a divide of cultures and two peoples who have a different set of values. That doesn't mean Americans are bad, it simply means they are different and what is popular there won't necessarily be here. It would be equally wrong for the United States to try and implement policies such as our gun laws, single-payer health care and our foreign policy which is popular here, but out of touch with mainstream American values.

Harper needs to apologize for comment about Bains

As someone who has watched Question period before, I am use to pretty nasty rhetoric and gutter rhetoric, but even as nasty as Question period can get, I still think there are limits. What Harper said clearly stepped over the line. To say the Liberals are refusing to renew two of the anti-terrorism provisions because it might affect Bains' father in law is clearly stepping over the line. Attacks on one's ideas are fair game, but on a person is pushing the limits, and on a family member is clearly crossing the line. Harper needs to apologize immediately. People may in the heat of the moment say dumb things they shouldn't say, but the fact Harper, not just on this smear but others too, refuses to apologize clearly sends the signal this is a person who is willing to destroy his opponents no matter what the cost. Even some Liberals in the past have apologized when they made stupid statements, and Harper should do the same. I know he has a strong hatred against the Liberals, but he needs to remember that even if they have a different vision for Canada they are generally good people who want a better country, just have a different vision. This type of smearing clearly turns people off and it needs to stop from both parties. Harsh attacks on the other party's ideas are fair game, but personal smears need to stop. No wonder so many people don't bother to go into politics. In fact this is part of the reason I have no intention on going into politics, despite my interest.

Quebec Election March 26th

As we all expected, Jean Charest has dropped the writ for a March 26th election. Most are predicting Charest will be re-elected and there is certainly a good chance he will, however considering the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ) tends to pile up huge majorities on the westside of Montreal, Charest needs about a five point lead to guarantee a win. Still the fact he has a good chance of winning is remarkable when considering he was 30 points behind a couple years ago and everybody assumed he would be a one-term premier. Part of that is because Andre Boisclair has been a disaster as PQ leader, but also Quebec has been use to a socialist type government with high taxes, elaborate welfare state, and big government and Charest tried to change that even if only modestly. Those changes were definitely necessary if Quebec was to remain strong in an increasingly globalized economy, but unpopular. I therefore fully endorse Jean Charest and would without question vote for him if I lived in Quebec. While I don't have any serious problems with Mario Dumont as he is mostly right wing on economic policies (like myself) as opposed to social policies, he has little chance at forming government and is untested, whereas we know what a Charest government is like.

Some Liberals may not care for him since he is a former Progressive Conservative and the fact him and Harper have a good relation. But lets remember in Quebec, we are a facing a separtist threat and only when federalists of all political stripes unite can this be defeated, therefore this is a case where I believe federal Tories, Liberals, and Dippers should put aside their differences and focus on what is best for Quebec and Canada. The threat of separation has only made Quebec less attractive for investment and hurts Canada's economy whenever it is brought up. Two referendums have been held on this issue and both times Quebecers said no, so it is time to move on and stop beating the dead horse. Separtist are also kidding themselves if they think Quebec will be better off by separating. Quebec could, contrary to what some say, survive without Ottawa's help, but it would need to change its model of governance to a more pro-free enterprise one, which the separtist seem most adamant about doing. More importantly I find incredibly hypocritical that the PQ and BQ who want Quebec to separate, complain whenever they don't get more funding from Ottawa. I am sorry guys, but you cannot have it both ways. If you want money from Ottawa, you have to be part of Canada. Hopefully after this election Charest will win and another referendum will be off the table for another 4 years. If the PQ wins a minority government, I think for the sake of Canadian unity, the ADQ, PLQ should form a federalist coalition. Considering both Charest and Dumont are centre-right in their beliefs, it probably could work even though Dumont is a bit further to the right than Charest, but not so far right their differences are irreconceivable.

BC Budget

On the whole I think it was a very well rounded and balanced budget. It offered tax cuts to those making under $108,000 a year while at the same time made significant investments including into social housing. I was quite pleased with the efforts put into more social housing and helping the poor who unfortunately in many cases were left behind as BC had to graple with its terrible financial situation. Thankfully today we are no longer debating how much we need to raise taxes and how much we need to cut spending and how big the deficit will be. Gordon Campbell made some very difficult decisions, which I know many understandably opposed, yet he stuck to it and we are now seeing the benefits. While the Conservatives and Liberals debate federally over who is a leader or not, BC has one and that is Gordon Campbell.

I was also pleased with the PST cut towards buying hybrid cars. We need to use the tax system to encourage people and firms to adopt greener strategies. I was though disappointed there wasn't more money for tacking climate change, but I understand you cannot do everything at once and I do believe Campbell will keep his word and put this in the next budget.

Although I no longer live in BC, I still maintain contacts with many BC Liberal members and still continue to support the party.

Coalition of the Willing falling apart

With Britain now announcing its intention to withdraw its troops from Iraq over the next year, the question is how many allies in Iraq does the United States still have? This just adds to a long string of several other countries who have withdraw from Iraq. Lets remember in 2003 that most NATO and developed countries, contrary to popular opinion, did support the war (or at least their governments did). While Canada was onside with global public opinion and the majority of countries in the world, we were offside with most of the West. What is even more remarkable is unlike Germany and France who are less dependent on the US for trade, and larger countries, we had the most to lose by saying no to the United States on Iraq, yet we made the right decision and said No. Now it appears even one of its staunchest allies is questioning the value of the close alliance. With ally by ally bailing out of Iraq, it may be time for the United States to consider withdrawing. The Democrats should jump all over this and use this as a reason to oppose a troop surge and if Bush still insists, consider cutting off funds. If Britain says the region is stabilized, but the US says they need more troops, who should we believe, or could it be that the war is unwinneable and Britain wants to leave in honour rather than disgrace.

I don't know the exact reason why Britain, is making the decision it is, although I suspect it might have something to do with the fact Blair's successor probably doesn't want to deal with Iraq and Labour Party is falling in the polls, so Tony Blair probably wants to get the issue off the table before the next election, probably in 2009. Regardless of the reason, it is the right decision. Iraq will not stabilized as long as it is occupied by foreign powers. While I worry it would plunge into civil war if all foreign troops pulled out, I also think the violence will continue if they stay, so I figure it is better to pull out and let the Iraqis resolve their own problems. In addition, I do think those who were involved the invasion should pay reparations to all damage they caused to Iraq.

Some have suggested Canada follow suit on Afghanistan and I agree we should, however lets not try and mix the two missions up as they are totally different. I oppose the Afghanistan mission since I don't believe you can bring democracy at the end of a gun barrel, but the two are still totally separate.

Anti-Terrorism Provisions

Now the anti-Terrorism act is coming up for renewal, Stephane Dion has decided he will not support renewing it. This has created some problems as some Liberals including Bob Rae, Anne McLellan, and John Manley have argued the Liberals should support renewing it and some members are even openly talking about breaking party ranks. On this issue I support Dion's stance, but I believe he should allow those who wish to break party ranks to do so and then live with whatever the outcome is. As we approach an election, we cannot have a divided party and people upset with the leadership so by letting them vote their conscious, at least they will stay loyal to the party. In addition having divisions in the party is not totally a bad thing. As a centrist party, there are very few issues that are party will be 100% united on and we should use that to our advantage arguing we are a big tent party rather than an ideological one.

As for my view on the anti-terrorist act, I believe it was an overreaction to 9/11 and not necessary. And before any Tory bloggers come on and accuse me of being soft on terrorism, I would like to say I fully oppose terrorism, but I am a strong believer in civil liberties and don't believe a government should ever use national security to restrict civil liberties. This has been abused way too many times in the past and that is why as a matter of principle I don't support it. In addition this would be a victory for the terrorist. The best way to stand up to the terrorists is to continue living our lives as normal since this will send a message that they cannot create fear and terror, which is their exact goal. I also am quite upset Harper is calling opponents of this soft on terrorism. I believe one can share the same goals, but believe in different means of achieving it and I wish Stephen Harper would step away from his black vs. white/either-or mentality. I know there is a strong rationale for this in the sense that when a middle ground alternative exists, people tend to choose it, while if there is a choice between two extremes, this will naturally favour the Conservatives as you will have four parties fighting over the left wing choice, while the Conservatives clearly staking out the right wing choice. But while it may be political advantageous, it is still the wrong way to govern. In closing I draw a quote of Benjamin Franklin who once said Those who are willing to give up a little liberty for more security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Bill C-288 Passes, Now What?

Now that Bill C-288 has passed the real question is can the goal of the bill, which is to reach Canada's Kyoto targets be met. Certainly we must do everything in our ability to get there and throwing our hands up and doing nothing is not acceptable, but we must be realistic that it is too late in the game to reach our Kyoto targets. Had we started earlier we could have met them, but we waited too long, which was a mistake. But now that the bill has passed, we need to figure out how we are going to follow through on this bill should we form government. When the bill was crafted 10 months ago, many people felt the Liberals were going to be in opposition for a long stint (I wasn't one of them though) so why not embarass the government and make them sit and up take action. Off course rather than offering some plan simliar to BC's which falls short of the Kyoto targets in the time frame, but is still ambitious, the government decided to do nothing. Only by passing legislation could we force them to do something. The problem is if we are asking them to do the impossible, what good does it do us? In addition since this will involve money to achieve this goals, the government has every right to make it a confidence motion, which would have been the responsible path if the government didn't want to follow through on it.

If they refuse to follow the bill, some say we should take them to court. The problem here is by the time the case makes it through court the next election will already be done, so we would be better to introduce a non-confidence motion if they ignore the bill. Likewise if they introduce a plan that is ambitious as BC's but falls short of Kyoto targets, we would be best to withdraw it, however if they introduce a lacklustre one, then force them to comply. The issue here is not trying to meet Kyoto targets, which we likely can't at this stage, but rather getting as close as possible and in the second phase making up for our poor performance in the first phase. In addition who knows how taking them to court would play out in public opinion. There are enough environmentalist groups with plenty of money (Yes there are many rich people who are environmentalists, try living in Kitsilano in Vancouver which is a wealthy neighbourhood and full of environmentalists) that one of them would probably take it to court and force them to comply.

So my advice to the Liberal Party would be to hit the government over the head hard on this issue, but don't make promises that are unrealistic that we won't be able to keep if we form government.

Campbell's Green agenda, Harper's hidden agenda, and Quebec Attack ads

Yesterday I had a bad cold so I really couldn't blog on the issues, but now that I am better, here is my update. I should note we just got pummeled with a large snow storm here in Toronto, although I still managed to get work.

Campbell's throne speech proposed reducing GHGs by 33% by 2020. This is no doubt an ambitious agenda, but one I wholeheartedly support and I sincerely hope other provinces follow suit with similiar ones. Campbell has often by good at getting anything done he says he will no matter how difficult, so I have no doubt we in BC can achieve this. I also hope the federal government realizes this is not a left-right issue or an economy vs. the environment issue, but one of building a prosperous but sustainable future.

It is now apparent that Harper has been stacking the judicial advisory committee to give it a more conservative bent and in today's question period, he actually admits he wants more conservative judges. Here is the story .

This is absolutely outrageous. Even if he is only doing it because he wants criminals to get tougher sentences, this sets a very dangerous precedent. The judiciary is part of our checks and balances and this could serious undermine it. In addition we have even more reason to fear he wants to impose a socially conservative agenda. Besides even for those on the right who feel judges are too activist, as John Ibbitson points out, once one government does this, it is pretty much a guarantee future governments will do it to, i.e. meaning more liberal judges when the Liberals return to office. The judiciary should be made up of the best qualified people in the legal field regardless of their political beliefs.

The Tories have released a series of attack ads in Quebec. I must say I like these ones better than the English ones. Unlike the English ones that have a somewhat nasty tone, these ones are actually humourous, although I've heard Quebecers respond better to humourous ones that ones with a nasty tone. As for whether they will work or not, my guess is they won't. The last ones do appeared to have been effective in Ontario, but not elsewhere, which is very similiar to 2004 when the Liberal attack ads worked in Ontario but not in the other provinces. Although I guess when you consider Ontario is the largest province, that is maybe good enough.

By-elections and Polls

Yesterday, there were six by-elections for provincial houses, three in Newfoundland & Labrador and three in Ontario. In Newfoundland & Labrador, the Progressive Conservatives won all three, which is definitely a good sign for Danny Williams. He is someone you don't want to pick a fight with, look what happened to Martin. I am also impressed by the fact he is willing to stand up for his province no matter who is in power federally. In fact he promised to campaign against Harper if Newfoundland & Labrador was hurt by equalization and when Harper axed the Court Challenges Program he slammed the move as separating "right wing Conservatives" from Progressive Conservatives. I would certainly vote for him with no difficulty if I lived in Newfoundland & Labrador.

Here in Ontario, each of three parties won one by-election. The NDP win in York South-Weston which has normally been a safe Liberal seat was a big shocker. Still I suspect it was more a protest against not raising the minimum wage to $10/hour and it will flip back to the Liberals next provincial election. I personally don't support raising the minimum wage to $10/hour. I understand the plight of the working poor, but a large raise in such a short time would be difficult for businesses to adjust to and I should note it is the small businesses, not the large corporations who would have the greatest difficulty adjusting. A better solution would be to find methods to reduce the number of working poor. This can be done by investing more in skills and training as well as education so the working poor have more opportunities to move beyond poverty. Also we should spend more on social housing as rent is often the largest component of expenses for the working poor.

Markham went Liberal, which was no surprise, but what was a surprise was the margin. The fact the Liberals won by an even larger margin than 2003 says the Tories have their work cut out for them. Up until 2003, this was a safe PC riding, but has been becoming increasingly Liberal. Burlington stayed PC as most expected and it was won by a larger margin, although not nearly as large as the margins Mike Harris won the riding by in the 90s. I am glad to see John Tory gaining some votes, but I do worry Harper's unpopularity could hamper his ability to win, which is unfortunate as I feel John Tory is far closer to Stephane Dion than Stephen Harper ideologically. Likewise one poll said 46% of people in Ontario saw him as the same as Mike Harris while 34% saw him as different. He needs to counter this by pointing out that like Mike Harris he will do what he said (which was the thing people like most about Mike Harris), but his policies will be more centrist and will not involve any cuts to social programs. The Common sense revolution made sense in 1995, but doesn't now and Tory needs to emphasize how conditions today are much different than 1995. 1995 was when governments of all stripes were downsizing due to runaway deficits, whereas today most governments are posting healthy surpluses and investing in important programs.

Two polls came out today with the more reliable one from SES showing the Tories and Liberals tied, while Leger marketing showing the Tories seven points ahead. I tend to believe the SES more not because the results are more favourable, but simply because they were the closest to the actual results in both 2004 and 2006. That being said both polls showed two interesting things happening. In Quebec, both the Liberals and Tories are rising while the Bloc Quebecois is falling and I am very happy with this. Every separtist we defeat is a good thing in my view even if they lose to a Conservative. Also it showed in Ontario that the 15 point gap between the parties has largely disappeared and they are close to a statistical tie. I am not sure what caused this rapid change. The only thing I can think of for now is Ontarioans after the surprise election of the NDP in 1990 and the disaster it caused tend to be quite cautious and only vote for change when they are positive it will be for the better. At this point they are still taking time to judge Stephane Dion. However, as always I have said the polls are only a snapshot of where things are now, they do not predict the outcome of the next election.

An interesting article by http://http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/179800 Chantal Hebert on Garth Turner's past is making me have second thoughts whether we should have taken him or not. In the 1993, she points out that he had the most right wing platform of all five PC leadership candidates and it was more in line with that of the Reform Party than Liberals. He advocated privatizing CBC and Canada Post and introducing user fees for health care. Now I understand people's opinions change, since I have supported those policies in the past and still lean towards supporting them, but one has to wonder whether he will stick to the Liberal party's platform or instead run on his own views even if they contradict party policy. Unlike Turner, I am not running for office and have no intention of doing so. I plan to stay an active party member, but my career will remain in the private sector. I understand the need for some independence, but since people generally vote for the party over person, I do think it is preferable MPs fight from inside the caucus to change things than from the outside. Now I realize that Stephane Dion at least allows debate in caucus whereas Harper doesn't. Still if I were Dion, I would keep a close eye on him to ensure he doesn't post anything the opposition could use as ammunition against us. I should note though as John Ibbitson pointed out in a recent Globe and Mail article is much of the Liberal success has to do with the fact Canadians may be right wing on some issues, but left wing on others, so they choose the Liberals as a compromise. This certainly represents me as I am quite right wing on some issues and quite left wing on others, so I choose the Liberals since I find their policies they most tolerable and I have at least found the Liberals I've met respectful of my opinions and willing to have an honest debate, rather than engage in smearing and insults as I've seen quite commonly from the neo-cons at Blogging Tories.

Another issue is the Tories say they plan to ignore C-288 if it passes the House and Senate. This for those who do not know is a bill that would oblige Canada to meet its Kyoto targets. Now I realize that meeting them may be difficult and this could cause problems, but if the Tories were smart, they could amend it to obligate the government to introduce a plan within 60 days that would attempt to meet Canada's Kyoto targets and would set annual targets for reductions. Instead the Tories have said they won't follow the bill. Besides being illegal, this is highly undemocratic. The government is compose of all MPs in the House, not just the party in power and if the majority of MPs vote in favour of a bill, the government of the day is obliged to follow it regardless of how they voted. If they do not, it can be taken to court and have the courts force the government to follow or possibly face punishments for breaking the law. But regardless of legalities, this smacks in the face of representative democracy. As long as the Tories have a minority they have an obligation to listen to the opposition and accept all bills they pass regardless of how they feel. If they cannot support the bill and won't implement it, make it a confidence vote and if it passes, call an election. That is the only way out here.

News Items

Garth Turner goes to his first caucus meeting and slams Harper. What a surprise considering he has been slamming him for over a year. I guess my only criticism of him is what it took him so long to realize what many other ex Progressive Conservatives like myself have known for quite some time. Whenever I apply for a job, I always do some research on the company before firing off my resume and accepting an offer if I receive one, so if he had done a more an indepth search into Harper's background, it would have been pretty obvious where his political leanings are. I will though give him credit for leaving all his earlier blogs up including the ones slamming the Liberals and praising the Conservatives. Not that I hold this against him, but at least it shows he is willing to face up to his past views, rather than pretend they don't exist. Unlike Stephen Harper who had ever single news item on the National Citizens' Coalition website removed after he became Alliance leader.

Ontario has three by-elections tomorrow. I suspect the Liberals should hold York South-Weston without too much trouble. Despite all the protestations on the minimum wage, this is a very safe Liberal riding. Burlington will likely stay PC as it has in every election since 1943, although it would be a major coup if the Liberals did pick it up. Markham is totally unpredictable considering the Tories won it by 30 points in 1999 while the Liberals won by 12 points in 2003. This suggests each party has a shallow base, with a large poll of swing voters ripe for picking up.

It looks like Quebec is inching for an upcoming election. While the poll numbers are looking good for Charest, lets remember he does have a tendency to pile up huge majorities in West Montreal so in reality he really needs at least a 5 point lead to guarantee a win. Despite his friendly relations with Harper, I fully support him and I would hope all Liberals would stand behind the only federalist leader in Quebec. On the issue of national unity, this is an area where Conservatives and Liberals should stand together and leave their fights for other issues. Some issues are too important for petty politics.

A number of ministers have been caught wasting taxpayer's money on expensive travels. All I can say here is this is politics as usual so if you are someone who is ideologically liberal but voted Tory because you thought they were more ethical, I hope you realize I was right last year when I said one should vote based on their political philosophy not the party's talk on ethics. Opposition parties always claim to be more ethical than the current government, but once in power continue the same old habits. I expect this to continue forever so I really don't get too upset over this.

The Tories are pumping a bunch of money into Diane Finley's riding to help the Tobacco producers. Regardless of what one thinks on this, if the Tories are actually worried about losing Haldimand-Norfolk, then they are in deep trouble in Ontario as this is amongst the 20 safest Tory seats in Ontario, so if they cannot win here, they can kiss being re-elected goodbye. Off course maybe they are targeting neighbouring Brant which they lost by 500 votes, although this seems like a rather dumb strategy.

Back in BC, Bill Bennett (member for East Kootenay and minister of state for mines) had to resign for an insulting comment. This is unfortunate, although the fact this is the only political news out there shows how much Campbell has turned things around. 4 years ago, the government was under a microscope and always being attacked for its controversial changes. It looks like the changes as controversial as they were, were the right ones. Although Campbell is more a conservative Liberal than any federal Liberal leader, I have always been a strong supporter of him since he is a leader who puts the long-term interest of the province ahead of short-term political gain. It is too bad we couldn't have someone like him federally since I would support him as leader in either party.

Stephen Owen is apparently not planning to run again in Vancouver-Quadra. This is unfortunate as he always seemed like an MP with a lot of integrity. I've heard rumours Joyce Murray might be the Liberal candidate. Having worked with her both provincially and federally, I think she would be a great candidate. She argued in favour of making the environment a central plank of the party long before others did. In addition this is a safe Liberal seat so this would put us closer to meeting our 1/3 female candidates target. I've also heard rumours about Christy Clark and Gary Farrell Collins running federally for the Liberals while Lorne Mayencourt for the Tories. The first two would be great additions federally while I think Lorne would be making a dumb choice to run as a Tory federally since he has zero chance of winning as Tory in that riding as since the governing party almost never wins by-elections there is a good chance the BC NDP would pick up Vancouver-Burrard since despite the fact it is no longer a safe NDP riding, usually voter turnout is very low in by-elections and mostly those angry at the government show up while supporters tend to stay home. If I were Campbell, I would urge him to wait until at least the Fall of 2008 before entering federal politics so as to avoid a by-election here. As my former provincial riding, I would hate to see it go NDP.

Garth Turner's Defection to the Liberals

I would like to welcome Garth Turner's decision to switch to the Liberals. He much like myself joins a long list of former Progressive Conservatives who have quit the party to switch to the Liberals. Ironically I asked him this question on a Globe and Mail Q & A and he did seem too enthusiastic about the idea then, although in fairness this was before Stephane Dion was chosen as leader and I somehow suspect had Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff won, he would have stayed an independent. For those accusing me of hypocricy, I would like to state unequovically I support the right of MPs to switch parties if they no longer feel welcome in them. I defended Wajid Khan's decision to defect even though I was disappointed. I only went after Emerson since his was opportunism at the worse since it was two weeks after an election and he went straight into cabinet. Some will argue Garth Turner is being a hypocrit for not resigning in running in a by-election, and while this is true, I ultimately believe the decision is up to the people of Halton to decide in the next election. If re-elected he will be vindicated, if defeated he will be repudiated.

In terms of the balance of power, this does not change anything is the NDP+Conservatives still have enough seats to pass the budget even if all other parties and independents vote against it. In terms of our chances of winning the riding, I would say they are quite good, although ironically they are much less than had Turner ran as an independent. Had Turner ran as an independent he would have split the right wing vote therefore ensuring a Liberal victory. Now I would say it is a toss up as the riding up until 1993 and still provincially has generally gone Conservative, but as the party has swung to the right and the GTA has expanded, the Liberals have become increasingly strong in this riding. In addition this is a centre-right, not ideological right riding so with the median voter lying to the right of the Liberals, but to the left of the Conservatives, it could really go either way just depending on the issue of the day as well as who his opponent is. If they choose a so-con like Charles McVety, he should win easily, but if they are somehow able to get Provincial MPP Ted Chuleigh to jump to federal politics or can get a former mayor of either Milton, Burlington, or Oakville, it might be a struggle. At least his chances of being re-elected are far better than David Emerson who has absolutely no chance and Wajid Khan whose has only a very small chance of being re-elected (I would say around 10%, whereas Turner is about 60%).

In other news, Gerard Kennedy has confirmed he will run in Parkdale-High Park, which is great news as he is very popular there and he is pretty much the only candidate that can ensure we re-take this riding. I plan to work on his campaign in whatever time I have since although he was not my first choice, I was very impressed with his emphasis on renewal and believe it is absolutely essential whether we win or lose the next election, he is in the House of Commons.

Kyoto Motion Passes Tories vote against it

Today the motion to re-affirm Canada's commitment to the Kyoto accord passed the House of Commons but was voted down by the Tories. Certainly this will make people question how genuine the Tories new found enthusiasm for the environment really is. At the same time I am enough of a realist to know the chances of meeting our targets are very low. We certainly could have met them, but we waited too late. It reminds me of when in school, I was aiming for 80%, but going into the final worth 50% of my grade and only having 60% average up to that point. That meant I had to get 100% on the exam, which is not very realistic. That being said, we should still continue to remain committed to Kyoto accord even if we won't meet our targets since we should get as close as possible. In addition if Harper were smart on this, he would promise that however far off our targets we are, we will agree to reductions that are that much greater in the second round. That means if we are 10% off, we agree to reductions that are 10% larger than others. Off course I fear that Harper is amongst the more ideological elements of conservatives who think doing anything on the environment will destroy our economy and that we should therefore do nothing. Thankfully not all right of centre politicians buy this argument. Arnold Schwartznegger, British Conservative leader David Cameron, Brian Mulroney and surprisingly even Preston Manning have argued we need to get serious on the environment. Off course I suspect Harper is more interested in listening to people such as Bush, Cheney, Ezra Levant, John Howard, and the more reactionary elements at the Fraser Institute who want us to do nothing.

There has also been a lot of criticism of those who deny the science behind global warming. I think their arguments are weak and I don't agree with it, but since science has been wrong before, I still think they have the right to make their case. I just hope that politicians don't use them as an excuse to do nothing. We cannot be 100% certain of the future, but with the evidence saying it is 90% certain humans are at least playing a role if not the main cause of global warming, we would be silly to do nothing. In fact the short-term cost of doing something is far less than the long-term cost of doing nothing. I would rather we do something and later find out it wasn't necessary, then do nothing and suffer the severe consequences. So even if you don't believe the science or are uncertain, I would argue that unless you are positive global warming isn't occurring (which I don't know how anybody can be) you have no basis for arguing for doing nothing. Even if there was only a 10% chance of it happening, I would still want the government to take action.

That being said I must say here in Toronto it has been downright cold the last week and we could probably use a little global warming here. It has been -15 without the windchill and -30 with it. Off course people were out on the golf course on New Years Day here, so even though global warming won't mean the end of frigid cold temperatures on some winter days, it will mean more above seasonal days, weeks, months, and years than below seasonal. Perhaps maybe it would be best if temperatures just stayed close to seasonal norms instead of going all over the map as they appear to be now.