THE Great Idea Whose Time Has Come

Tories pledge to take a stand on global religious freedom

Who says that Canadian political parties don't talk about foreign policy at election time?

Surely, they don't do it nearly enough. But sometimes, it happens. This was the case very recently, as the Conservative Party announced they would create an Office of Religious Freedom within the Department of Foreign Affairs.

"We think there's a need to put a particular focus on this," announced Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Jason Kenney. "This is something the United States did more than a decade ago through the creation of the Office for International Religious Freedom in the State Department."

"You'd be looking at things, in part, from a religious freedom prism," he continued. "As a champion of human rights around the world we should be entirely comfortable with focusing on the rights of vulnerable religious minorities."

For his own part, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae was not convinced, and seemingly not amused. He accused the Tories of naked political opportunism.

"It has much more to do with Canadian domestic politics than it has to do with the necessity of having a coherent strategy for the promotion of democracy and human rights," Rae complained. "It's more a domestic strategy than a foreign affairs strategy."

In his own rush to find something in the policy to criticize, David McGuinty complained about separation of church and state. He also suggested that an office promoting religious freedom abroad is not necessary.

"We have a document in this country that does that, it's called the Charter of Rights," McGuinty mused.

In this, McGuinty has missed the point. In countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, and (yes) Afghanistan there are no such documents. They have no such freedoms. Moreover, the office would also allow Canada to take a stronger stand against the Organization of the Islamic Conference, who annually introduce their anti-blasphemy resolutions at the UN.

Canadians believe religious freedom to be a global good. Canada would be remiss not to promote it abroad.

This is an idea that the Liberal Party should enthusiastically support. If anything, their greatest criticism of the Conservatives should be that they didn't create such an office years ago.

Their lack of enthusiasm about this idea indicates that the Liberal Party has taken a step away from Canadian values. In their assumption that they define Canadian values just by virtue of existing, the Liberal Party has lost touch.

Jason Kenney seems to have little time for those opposing this idea.

"Perhaps there are some rabid secularists out there who don't understand there are a lot of vulnerable religious minorities under attack around the world," Kenney remarked. "To those people who would challenge it because they are uncomfortable with religious faith, I would say, 'Get over it'. We're talking about fundamental rights here."

If this initiative wins more votes from ethnic Canadians, it will be for good reason: because they understand the importance of this issue, and they know that the Conservative Party shares that understanding.

David McGuinty Comes Through... For the Tories

McGuinty plays wedge politics while accusing Tories of wedge politics... brilliant!

One thing about the Liberal party, in its currently-weakened state, is that it has forgotten one of the most basic precepts of day-to-day life:

Look both ways before crossing.

This is something Liberal House Leader David McGuinty almost certainly failed to do when he accused Prime Minister Stephen Harper of using the long-gun registry for wedge politics.

Hilariously enough, while doing this McGuinty invoked the Liberal Party's own favourite wedge: the American Republican Party.

“Mr Harper is having a wedge politics debate," McGuinty insisted. "It’s the worst of right-wing Republican wedge politics.”

"You pick an issue, you sensationalize the issue, you try to remain above the fray ... and you keep everyone else distracted with debates that are divisive,” he continued.

McGuinty clearly didn't bother to check what's actually going on in the United States before he made these comments. President Barack Obama, who came to power with massive majorities in both houses of Congress, is on his way to experiencing the swiftest political turnaround in US history.

The Democrat response to this has been to attempt to utilize wedge issues to divide Americans against the Republican Party, and Republicans against one another; blatant wedge issues like racism, weaponized for petty political gain.

McGuinty also frantically pointed to an equally-frantic CBC report that the National Rifle Association has been active in the debate over the long-gun registry.

Mc Guinty's description of the report is actually misleading. The CBC reports that the NRA has given "logistical and tactical support" to the Canadian Institute for Legislative Action, a group dedicated to abolishing the long-gun registry.

Moreover, members of the CILA have reciprocated that support by appearing in televised messages for the NRA.

The story also features former Ontario Governor General Michael Bryant -- whose "No Gun, No Funeral" campaign arguably violated election law -- raising the alarm about NRA involvement in Canada.

"I got elected in 1999 and I became aware soon after of the NRA's involvement in the debate — not in a huge way, but in a significant way," Bryant explained.

"For a lot of people in Canada, if they knew that the NRA was part of the effort to get rid of the gun registry, they would think more about their views," he said. "And they would think, 'well, wait a minute, I thought this was about, you know, wasting taxpayer dollars. The NRA's involved? Really? That makes me very uncomfortable … '"

The problem for Bryant and other proponents of the long-gun registry is that the NRA's involvement hardly changes the facts about the registry.

Not only is the NRA merely a political wedge the Liberal Party wishes to use to divide Canadians, it's also a distraction tactic they use to give themselves an excuse to ignore the facts.

Facts such as the fact that the long-gun registry has never prevented a single gun crime, or saved a single life. Facts such as the fact that front-line officers denounce the registry as useless to them. Facts such as the fact that the registry itself is an absolute mess.

“We are a sovereign country,” McGuinty concluded. “If the NRA wants to fight its good fight over its views on guns it should do so in the United States. We do not need an expansionist NRA on Canadian soil.”

If the NRA were directly involved in the debate, McGuinty may have a point. But he's mischaracterizing the NRA's involvement.

After all, the NRA is not directly involved in this debate. The CILA is. The CILA asked the NRA for strategic support, and the NRA provided it.

If David McGuinty really objects to wedge politics, one would suggest that he should avoid relying on them himself -- particularly when his would-be wedge is on the right side of the issues, and he himself is so very, very wrong.

Michael Ignatieff's Latest Gift to the Tories

Goodale, McGuinty should remind Canadians what is wrong with Liberal Party

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff must imagine his planned townhall meetings -- dubbed 'Open Mike" townhalls -- is the quickest way for his party to position itself to form government in a forthcoming election.

Unfortunately, what Ignatieff is leaving behind him in Ottawa -- a new house leader and a new deputy leader -- should only remind Canadians why they voted the Liberal party out of office in the first place.

Ralph Goodale will be assuming the role of deputy leader, serving as Liberal leader in Ignatieff's place. Even better for the governing Conservatives is the prospect of David McGuinty as Liberal house leader.

“I’m going to continue getting out there and meeting Canadians all through the fall in our ‘Open mike’ town hall meetings," Ignatieff explained. "That’s why I need Ralph’s steady hand in Ottawa."

For his own part, Goodale looks forward to the challenge.

"It's a key responsibility that I am anxious to deliver well for Mr Ignatieff," Goodale announced. "He needs to have confidence that everything is being managed in the House and on the Parliamentary front so he can do that critical job of gaining face action with Canadian voters. I am very pleased and anxious to tackle the challenge."

Of course, what Canadians shouldn't have forgotten is that it was Goodale's "steady hand" in the Department of Finance that declined to investigate the leak of a decision regarding Income Trust taxation that ultimately led to the ouster of the Paul Martin government when the RCMP intervened to investigate.

To this very day, Goodale decries the timing of the investigation -- announced in the midst of the 2005/06 election. If Goodale had investigated when he had the opportunity, instead of simply refusing, the timing wouldn't have been an issue.

For the Conservatives, the appointment of David McGuinty as House Leader is even better: in the public mind it will push the federal Liberals even closer to the provincial Liberals (led by McGuinty's brother), whose government continues to sink deeper and deeper into scandal.

If that weren't enough, McGuinty will also remind Canadians of the disingenuity of Liberal overtures on climate change: while he was the Liberal environment critic, McGuinty earned a reputation for renting gas-gazzling, carbon-spewing Cadillacs.

Not only will David McGuinty associate the federal Grits even closer with their troubled provincial counterparts, but he will remind Canadians of the Liberal failure on their own climate change policies -- perhaps better described as a complete disregard of their own climate change policies.

Unfortunately, Canadians often have a short memory about such things. It will be up to the Conservatives to remind Canadians about these two individuals and their ugly records, both in and out of government.

Worst... Idea... Ever...

Online voting is, frankly, a boneheaded idea

In the three-year tradition of Martin Rayner saying incredibly fucking stupid things online, he has, of late, offered up another doozy.

In a post criticizing the Conservative government for tabling legislation that would allow Canadians two days to vote in a federal election, as opposed to merely one, Rayner relies on the speculation of Andre Blais and "Flying" David McGuinty, and instead suggests that Canadians should be allowed to vote via internet.

I shit you not.

What mr Rayner has probably declined to consider is the effect that online voting would have on Canada's electoral security -- our ability to assure that our elections are carried out in an equitable, transparent, and legal fashion. Electoral security is integral to the health of any democracy.

Yet, for some of the best reasons why Canada must not embrace internet voting is actually found in our neighbour to the south, and the debacle that transpired after their introduction of the infamous Diebold voting machines into their elections.

It was eventually discovered that the use of these machines allowed for the manipulation of election results. The machines could be hacked at absolutely any point between storage and use. In one particularly ingenious test scenario, an enterprising young hacker snuck a collapsable keyboard into the ballot booth and hooked it up to an unsecured port.

Once one considers expanding the use of automated voting methods beyond these machines and on to the internet, one encounters a plethora of problems. The internet is significantly less secure than the incredibly insecure Diebold platform, for a number of reasons. First off, one need not be in physical proximity to the machines in order to hack them: they can virtually do it from the comfort of their own homes. Secondly, the relative insecurity of the average user's computer helps them do this. Third, the investment in cyberwarfare technologies by countries such as China certainly renders them able to either outright sabotage an election, or manipulate its results in order to empower a government that would be amicable to them.

In regards to the data collection itself (in this case, the voting), we need to be assured that the data is collected in a secure and private matter. Also, data loss, data destruction, unauthorized access to the data, and improper disclosure all become issues.

Once a ballot is cast, an electronic ballot gives any potentially unscrupulous partisan tabulators an opportunity to change the vote – given that they possess the necessary skills (which, it should be noted are becoming more and more common) –- or even record the vote for a candidate other than whom it was cast in favor of. With no permanent, incorruptible physical record of how each ballot was cast, internet voting undermines electoral security.

At least our current balloting system ensures that our vote will be counted as cast, as opposed to however these aforementioned potentially unscrupulous individuals would prefer they be cast.

Underscoring this are numerous studies (“Loch & Carr, 1991; Anderson, 1993; Parker, 1998; Vardi & Wiener, 1996; Neumann, 1999 ”) show that a significant portion of security breaches –- electronic or otherwise –- can be attributed to an organizations’ own personnel.

An online ballot is not merely susceptible to threats internal to the system – it is also subject to external threat. A study of Australian firms (Dinnie, 1999) revealed that 16% of Australian firms involved in e-commerce either had suffered, or believe they had suffered, one or more violations of their network’s electronic security.
Cyptography –- the practice of encrypting information gathered or distributed online –- is the generally-accepted solution to the risk of online security violation. However, these decryptions are only as good as the individuals who design them, and are no better than the hackers who manage to break them.

Last but not least, there would also be no assurance that the individuals voting are the same individuals registered to vote, or even that they are Canadian citizens.

At least the process of having voters show up to cast a physical ballot on election day presents us with the most basic guarantees that our elections are being conducted in a secure fashion.

And while it shouldn't ever be pretended that there is no possibility for electoral fraud under these circumstances -- history has provided us with many examples -- the current process can at least claim to have withstood the test of time.

Internet voting, like other forms of electronic voting, can not and will not.

That being said, it's pretty safe to say we can send Mr Rayner back to the drawing board.

Everything Old is New Again

Liberals believe they may find old news is good news

If there was anything that became immediately clear following the 2006 federal election, it was that the Liberals were very embittered by their defeat.

Often engaging in freakishly protracted conspiracy theories sometimes alleging that, despite the testimony of dozens of implicated figures and the absence of millions of unaccounted taxpayer dollars from government coffers, the Sponsorship Scandal was purely a work of fiction, many Liberals took it upon themselves to pretend that, somehow, the Conservative party's victory was the result of some great "neo-conservative" conspiracy.

It was, if you believe their rantings, all terribly unjust. Even if the sponsorship scandal did happen, it was surely no big deal.

"Right? Right?"

If one believed them then, one may wonder what to believe now, as they renew a 14-year-old witchhunt for a good old fashioned political scandal. Now, as the stench of political incompetence threatens to overwhelm the stink of corruption, they certainly must hope that the smell is at least as strong as that emanating from the stains left on their once-proud standard by the Sponsorship Scandal.

What has emerged has very closely resembled the conspiracy theory Mulroney referred to in a recent speech,complete with Ralph Goodale winking and nudging toward his theory of a nefarious Conservative plot to cover up the truth.

The most recent allegations raised against Mulroney have a good number of people very excited. Unsurprisingly, most of these people are partisan Liberals.

Yet, when one looks closer at the allegations themselves, all one finds is a suggestion that Mulroney discussed business dealings with Karlheinz Schreiber before he left office.

So apparently, the most recent charges against Brian Mulroney are that he discussed business that he planned to engage in after leaving office while he was still Prime Minister.

Considering that the RCMP could uncover no evidence of criminal wrongdoing into the matter of the cash payments themselves, a good many people may find themselves feeling (and looking) very serious when this is treated largely as an open-and-shut case.

As it turns out, however, Schreiber expects people to believe that he, a known fraudster, is actually a victim in this entire affair. "At the special request of Mr. Mulroney, I wrote a letter to [Prime Minister Stephen Harper] on July 20, 2006 suggesting to Mr. Mulroney that the public rhetoric regarding the sale of Airbus planes by Airbus Industries G.I.E. (the `Airbus Affair') and the conspiracy against me personally amounted to the largest political scandal in the history of Canada," Schreiber wrote.

The suggestion that Schreiber would be extradited to Germany to face fraud charges there amounts to a greater scandal than the abuses perpetrated under the Sponsorship Program, the blatant interference in Canadian politics by John F Kennedy, or the Igor Gouzenko affair?

To put it bluntly, surely this man fucking jests.

Likewise, surely Ralph Goodale, "Flying" David McGuinty and Stephane Dion jest if they feel they can somehow tag Mulroney's alleged and unproven misdeeds upon the current government. In fact, 66% of Canadians feel they can't. The 19% that figure the current government is somehow involved? It just might be safe to suggest that the vast majority of them are probably partisan Liberals.

Of course, there is another side of the coin. If Mulroney truly feels victimized by the proceedings as they have unfolded, he certainly hasn't done himself any favours. Acceping cash payments in a hotel room certainly provokes suspicion, even if Karlheinz Schreiber himself has suggested that the cash payments may have been paid for services rendered ranging from legal services, to consultation in a pasta machine business, to help selling Bearhead armoured vehicles to China (selling weapons to China itself being a fairly unsavoury practice).

As for the Liberals themselves, however, they already took it upon themselves to come after Mulroney once, and cost Canadian taxpayers $2.1 million. Whether or not Canadian taxpayers can buy Mulroney off on their account so cheaply again has yet to be seen.

In the meantime, perhaps the best the Liberals should hope for is a short-term boost at the polls, and the hope that perhaps Canadians will remain annoyed enough with Mulroney to not fall asleep amidst the wild gestriculations of their verious spokespersons.

At the end of the day, the Mulroney-Schreiber affair remains as it was: old news.

Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego vol. 5 - Stelmach vs. McGuinty: The Showdown

Stelmach and McGuinty play game of political chicken, both lose

This past week's First Ministers conference became the scene of a political grudgematch, as Alberta Progressive Conservative premier Ed "the Stomper" Stelmach locked up with Ontario Liberal premier Dalton "Flying" McGuinty over the issue of climate change.

The battle pretty much shaped up as such: Stelmach refused to accept any hard caps on industrial emssions, so McGuinty refused to accept California emissions standards for cars produced in Ontario.

"If we were to have in place (cap and trade) by 2020 we will reduce our greenhouse gases by 90 megatonnes," McGuinty insisted. "If all we do is put in place California emissions standards by 2020 we will reduce our ghg's (greenhouse gases ) by eight megatonnes. We can do 10 times more by way of reduction of greenhouse gases if all of us adopt (cap and trade)."

On the other hand, if McGuinty had kept his promise to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants, Ontario would be 70% closer to its share of Canada's Kyoto targets.

One may remember what was said about "he who has no sin..."

In the midst of all this, one may remember that both Dalton and his brother in federal politics, David, have both fallen firmly on the side of the eco-egos, due to their embarrassing exploitation of the climate change issue for political capital. Stelmach, however, has not been evaluated.

To this regard, Stelmach certainly isn't any hero. He also exploits the climate change issue for political capital, to the extent that he can't seem to admit the obvious: that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by Alberta's oil industry do have an effect on climate change, and as such, it is only wise to start eliminating them.

This doesn't necessarily have to entail the industry suffering under a crushing regulatory regime. Stelmach would better serve the citizens of his province by negotiating a reasonable time frame, and perhaps a deal in which the other provinces -- particularly those like Ontario and Quebec who are so concerned about climate change -- help out on the funding end by accepting smaller transfer payments from Alberta.

McGuinty actually says is pretty well when he insists, "this is a national challenge. It requires a national response, not an Ontario response alone."

Then again, McGuinty would better serve the citizens of his province by doing something at all about climate change. Not only has he already racked up a litany of broken climate change-related promises, but he's actually re-made the promises in the leadup to the coming provincial election so he can re-break them if he wins.

Canada will be closer to a national response when the provinces and activists who stress the need for action most actually do something, as opposed to talking, then doing nothing.

McGuinty is a would-be environmental visionary who won't pull his weight. Stelmach, on the other hand, is the premier of an oil-rich province that can afford to invest heavily in the green technologies necessary to supplant fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy. While this would, by necessity, also supplant the oil and gas industry that makes Alberta so prosperous, such investment into renewable energy could make Alberta a global industry leader.

Yet such investment could be interpreted as threatening to the oil and gas industry that employ so many of his constituents. Furthermore, transforming Alberta into a green energy hotbed doesn't guarantee the abundance of work available for unskilled labourers and tradespeople that oil and gas provides.

Transforming Alberta into a renewable energy giant would be risky; Stelmach would very much be risking losing face with his political supporters, both within and outside of the Progressive Conservative party.

Stelmach's reluctance could be viewed as out of obligation to his party -- it's his responsibility to keep the party strong. It could, alternatively, be viewed as out of a desire to not be the man who managed to lose Alberta -- Canada's strongest bastion of Conservative support.

Either way, Stelmach has to be seeded right alongside Dalton McGuinty, with the eco-egos.

Then again, with McGuinty facing an election and clearly emulating Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert by campaigning against a seemingly more vulnerable proxy than their provincial opponent, McGuinty comes off as just plain disengenuous.

Climate change may not be the inevitable catastrophic threat that many of the activists insist it is, and the impact of human activity on it may not be as pronounced. That being said, eliminating the impact of human activity on climate change is only the wise and prudent thing to do.

It's to this end that when the eco-egos refuse to make any meaningful attempt at reaching a compromise, it doesn't really matter which of them wins. In the end, it's the rest of us who stand to lose most.

Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego? Vol. 3 - The Flying McGuinty Brothers

The McGuintys: Avid environmentalists or disingenuine demagogues?

Recently, some of Canada's most outspoken politicians on the environmental portfolio -- particularly the climate change portfolio -- are the Flying McGuinty Brothers, (federal environment critic) David, and (Ontario premier) Dalton.

Recently, Dalton convened a first minister's conference on the topic of climate change. More recently, David categorized Prime Minster Stephen Harper's accurate insistence that Canada is a special case in terms of greenhouse gas reductions -- on the basis of both climate and an inactive prior government -- as "theatre of the absurd."

"I've being doing this for 20 years and I have never heard anything as absurd -- on the international diplomatic level, on this internation environmental issue -- as this," McGuinty insisted. "Ever."

Perhaps mr McGuinty would be surprised then, to be reminded of his brother's Dalton's promise to shut down all of Ontario's coal-fired power plants, a broken promise that, along with Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance described as "a broken-promise hat trick".

"[Other countries] tell us they're paying the price and biting the bullet," David entoned, "working feverishly hard to meet their Kyoto targets. But they're not going out the world and saying, 'we're special! We're soooooo special!"

Unfortunately for David, his brother, as Ontario's premier, hasn't "bit the bullet", or worked "feverishly hard" to keep his promise, one which would have achieved 70% of Ontario's share of Canada's Kyoto commitments. One would wonder whether or not David would argue that Ontario is special.

His brother certainly does. While signing a landmark agreement with California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, McGuinty argued that an international, North America-wide standard should be set for vehicle emissions. Then he insisted that Ontario will stop short of California's standards, claiming they will hurt Ontario's auto industry.

Apparently, Ontario is special. It's sooooooooo special!

Naturally, Dalton is keen on scoring some political capital by being seen arm-in-arm with the man who may well be North America's most effective politician on the environmental portfolio. Given, however, that Dalton himself has one of the unabashedly worst records in North America -- along with his national-party counterpart, Stephane Dion -- it all reeks of an absurd brand of hypocrisy.

His brother, by failing to recongize and criticize the catastrophic and humiliating failures of his brother, shares in this hypocrisy.

The Flying McGuinty brothers are certainly not eco-heroes. In fact, David may well be one of the most obnoxious of the eco-egos. What is really absurd is that either would pretend to hold an ounce of credibility on the environmental portfolio.

Breaking News: David McGuinty Living in Fear of Political Opponent

Flying McGuinty brother apparently afraid of 60-year-old man

David McGuinty may well be a pussy.

Given the gravity of the exchange between David -- one half of the flying McGuinty brothers -- and Royal Galipeau today in the House of Commons, perhaps that isn't the politically correct way to describe him, but it may be accurate.

McGuinty, while addressing a fairly politicized question regarding the Official Languages Act and the repeal of the Court Challenges Program, apparently questioned Galipeau's credibility as a francophone.

According to all accounts, Galipeau stood up and walked across the floor to the opposition benches, and right up to McGuinty.

"The member was clearly out of control," McGuinty complained. "Using unparliamentary language, and in a threatening fashion, [he] grabbed my left shoulder and only left me side when when several of my colleagues urged him to stop and leave, but he wouldn't."

For the record, David McGuinty is 47 years old. Royal Galipeau is 60.

"He was really completely out of control, raising his voice, flailing his arms, gesticulating in a threatening fashion and making wild accusations," McGuinty insisted.

According to an interview he did with David Akins, McGuinty was comparing Galipeau's work on behalf of the Montfort Hospital, Ontario's only Francophone teaching hospital, to the Conservatives repeal of the Court Challenges program, and asked the Speaker of the House to investigate Galipeau's activities.

"I raised it, reminding people that when the member, Mr. Galipeau, was not a Member of Parliament, he ferociously fought for the keeping open of the Montfort Hospital but since becoming a member in this government he has done precious little, if anything, to fight for the program that was cut, les contestations judiciaires, as they say, the whole court challenges program," McGuinty explained.

But what does Montfort Hospital really have to do with the Court Challenges program?
In 2002, Montfort Hospital successfully used the court challenges program to resist restructuring of the Ontario health system that may have threatened Montfort's existence as a francophone hospital.

Yet Galipeau protested the Ernie Eves government -- the Progressive Conservative government's move to threaten Montfort.

It is in this sense that McGuinty may have a point. Perhaps cases such as Montfort Hospital do demonstrate the value of some sort of court challenges program -- but not necessarily the court challenges program that has been repealled. Perhaps a new court challenges program could be started, one that, instead of directly funding court cases, a program could be started that would instead reimburse successful challengers after the case is decided, in order to cut back on the number of frivolous cases being funded on the Canadian taxpayer's dime.

All the same, David McGuinty has no place challenging Royal Galipeau's solid record of defending francophone rights -- especially as a significant portion of that record was accumulated while Galipeau was a Liberal.

"I was surprised that an MP that I’ve always treated with respect should attack me," Galipeau retorted. "I’ve never, since my election, said a single partisan word in that House, not at the Chamber of Commerce, not at the Canadian Legion, not anywhere. So it just took me by surprise that a Member of the House would attack me and on what issue? That I don’t defend francophone rights? I’ve been defending francophone rights longer than he’s been alive!"

For his part, Galipeau admits he blew his cool. Yet, it's Galipeau's closing comments that best reveal the absurdity of McGuinty's complaint. "How can I be threatening to him? He's bigger than I am, he's stronger than I am, he's younger than I am."

Point taken, Royal. Apparently, David McGuinty is just a pussy.

Kyoto Protocol : Hypocrisy Thy Name is Liberal

Liberals all talk on climate change

The truth, as the old adage says, hurts. This being said, the current Kyoto debate in Canada should send the Liberal party scurrying for a helmet.

The Liberals have certainly found Kyoto to be a politically productive issue. Despite their recent branding of a Conservative party election war room as a “fear factory”, the Liberals recently released a new ad clearly aimed at provoking terror amongst Canadians, on the issue of climate change (the terrified-looking baby is a nice – but hypocritical – touch).

Yet, when one looks closer at the Liberal party stance on Kyoto, one finds layers upon layers of hypocrisy, threatening to undermine what was a very tender policy point to begin with.

The Liberals point with pride toward the December 2005 United Nations Climate Change Conference, wherein Stephan Dion brought 182 countries to agreement on further commitments to fight climate change.

For Dion, that’s pretty much where the story ends. Previously, on November 29, 2005, Paul Martin’s Liberal government – in which Stephan Dion served as minister of the environment – lost a confidence vote in the house of commons. Dion’s success at the Montreal conference was little more than an empty triumph of a dying government.

Equally unfortunately for Dion – and the Liberals – that isn’t where the story begins, either.

Under the Liberal government of Jean Chretien, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2002. Canada committed to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 (interestingly, Chretien chose the 6% figure merely to one-up the American commitment of 5%). Yet, by 2004, greenhouse gas emissions had continued to rise until they were 27% above 1990 levels.

Under Stephan Dion, greenhouse gas emissions only continued to rise. This undoubtedly paints a less-than-flattering image of Stephan Dion: the man who could bring 182 countries together to agree to fight climate change, but who himself did nothing to actually do so.

Another revealing point is that posed by Liberal Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty (brother of Liberal party environmental critic David McGuinty).

McGuinty had previously promised to deactivate all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants by 2007. McGuinty has extended this deadline to 2014 – two years after the deadlines laid out in the Kyoto protocol. Had McGuinty lived up to his original promise, Ontario would be 50-80 closer to its Kyoto targets.

This from the premier who accused the federal government of letting the Alberta oil industry “off easy”.

McGuinty – who, just to reiterate, supports Kyoto – has also demanded that Ontario’s car manufacturers be given favorable treatment. “we will not abide is any effort on the part of the national government to unduly impose greenhouse-gas emission reductions on the province of Ontario at the expense of our auto sector," McGuinty said.

McGuinty was, at the time, responding to Conservative musings about imposing emissions standards on Canadian car manufacturers similar to those in effect in California. According to a graph released by Environment Canada in 2004, transportation-related emissions accounted for 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The oil, gas and coal industries accounted for 20%.

In other words, McGuinty – a Kyoto supporter – was in favor of regulating an industry that produces 20% of Canada’s greenhouse gases, but not in favor of regulating cars – producers of 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately for McGuinty, it’s all too similar to Quebec supporting Kyoto while it stands to profit from its hydroelectric resources (GHG free), while less fortunate provinces struggle to meet their share of Canada’s Kyoto targets.

If Canada is to meet its Kyoto targets, Ontarians – who support Kyoto – will have to make sacrifices as surely as Albertans will.

At the end of the day, however, it seems some Liberals have forgotten the purpose of the Kyoto protocol. On CTV’s Canada AM, David McGuinty (just to reiterate, Dalton’s brother), complained, “We as a country signed onto Kyoto and one of the mechanisms in the Kyoto Treaty is to allow our emitters to trade credits internationally between countries to help reduce the cost, per tonne, of greenhouse gases. This government has ruled that out."

Apparently, according to McGuinty, the Kyoto protocol was never about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To McGuinty, Kyoto was about forcing industry to send their money to other countries in order to meet the government’s diplomatic obligations.

The Liberal party stance on Kyoto is nothing short of hypocrticial. While the Conservative government may need to work well outside the Kyoto deadlines in order to meet Canada’s obligations, it is Liberal inaction that has forced them to do so.

Which ultimately leaves Stephan Dion and the flying McGuinty brothers facing an unpleasant revelation: the truth hurts.