Lest you think we are all marching in lockstep up here.
I think Stephen Harper has done a remarkable job so far. He has been far more politically astute than I anticipated (and more than Ontario Liberals and Quebec Bloc anticipated, too, I suspect). It is extremely refreshing for western Canadians to feel like they have a voice in parliament. I also think Harper’s astuteness prevented him from loading his Cabinet with ministers from western Canada, which, frankly, would have been sweet.
I don’t think the Bloc should be allowed to have any standing as an official opposition, or any standing in the House at all - I think they are disgraceful and delusional. You lost - get over it.
Merci! Desolé, je ne peux pas comprendre beaucoup de Français, mais je veux apprendre plu… And I probably messed that French up too.
Thanks! In my opinion, “greenness” and “right or leftness” are independent of each other.
To me, greenness has to do with how we humans relate to the world (whether we, for example, adapt ourselves to the ecosystems and the flows of renewable resources available, or whether we base society upon one-time extractions (which is not necessarily bad as long as we plan for the end of the resource!)), while “left or rightness” has to do with how we relate to ourselves (libertarian individuality or collective decisions or rule by the market or equal sharing or whatever, and there have been a lot of threads exploring that here on the Dope).
Political Greens arose out of the Leftish protest forty years ago, true, but they don’t have to be; the recent federal Green Party was a right-wing green party.
Harper hasn’t really been in power long enough to be viewed as an exceptionally good or bad Prime Minister. So far, his government has been competent, hasn’t done anything really disastrous, and hasn’t been caught in any really significant scandals, even the Bernier thing. All the usual bullshit predicitons about a Conservative government - that they would make abortion punihsable by death, order martial law, eliminate all social programs, blah blah blah - didn’t happen, as of course they were never going to. On the other hand, Harper hasn’t particularly distinguished himself with any brilliant policy moves or even much alacrity in implementing his less exciting policies.
Were another election to be held, assuming nobody made any horrible gaffes, it is virtually a certainty that the result would be more or less the same as the last one. But the quality of the campaign would be the determining factor, and that heavily favours the Conservatives, who ran an absolutely excellent campaign in 2006, as opposed to the Liberals, who might run a good campaign but might not; it’s impossible to tell, since they would have a new team at the helm, not the ones who did so horribly last time.
Dion’s leadership has been, to my honest surprise, weak. I’ve always admired his moxie and tenacity in dealing with separatists, but that combativeness has not translated well to being a party leader. I appreciate his dedication to the the concept of protecting the environment, but his carbon tax idea is widely scorned even by environmentalists, is economically completely impossible for us to do, and will simply not play with the voters in a general election. It’s getting positive press out of the gate, but will weaken as the idea gets banged around; nobody in Canada stands to gain much from it, and people will be (justifiably) skeptical of any government promise of raising one tax while keeping a lid on another.
Warren Kinsella - a Liberal, of course - pretty much hit the nail on the head with his 2006 metaphor about the Tories speaking to Tim Horton’s customers while the Liberals speak to Starbucks customers. There’s a lot more folks at Tim Horton’s.
Actually, this seems to happen less often in British-style parliamentary democracies than in other parliamentary democracies. The British system evolved from bipartism, and even when more than two parties are present in parliament, usually the two largest still end up being the government and the official opposition. Sometimes you will see two or more parties forming long-term coalitions, as in the Australian long-standing Liberal/National arrangement (and similar coalitions in Canadian history), but rarely will parties decide to work together formally after the election, in order to form a government together. What you may see is an opposition party deciding to prop up the government for some time, but without formally being part of it (e.g. Ontario from 1985 to 1987).
On the other hand, non British inspired parliamentary democracies will more often lead to coalition governments of two or more parties, even if those parties were running against each other during the election. The reason may be that these democracies are built around the concept of multipartism, often encouraging the presence of many parties in parliament with proportional electoral systems.
Note that by “British-style”, I mostly meant Britain, Canada and Australia. New Zealand now uses a mixed member proportional system, and may be more of a multiparty, coalition government system now, and with its large ethnic and linguistic variety, India may be the same as well, not that I know much about the politics of these countries. There are of course many other former British colonies that are today parliamentary democracies, but as I don’t know anything about them I won’t try to speculate.
Well, the Bloc isn’t the official opposition, seeing how they have something like 50 seats to the Liberals’ 100. Or are you saying that they shouldn’t even be considered a parliamentary caucus in the Commons? If so, and even though we’re just in MPSIMS, I’d like to see you try to defend this idea with arguments. I’d also like to know if you’d do the same to an eventual “Western Alienated” party.
I’m curious - those of you who hate Harper with a passion… why? Aside from the current bill C-61, which I also think sucks badly, what has Harper done that makes you hate him so much?
As for pushing bills of non-confidence to force the Liberals to back off, why is that so horrible? He’s basically telling them that he’s got the support of the people behind him, and if they don’t agree fine, they should call an election.
The truth is, the Liberals don’t want a vote because the people are not with them and they know it. Dion has been a terrible leader, and the Liberals are still looked on with suspicion because of all the corruption that occured on their watch. They’re doing their time in the woodshed because of it, and this is what it feels like.
If you are confident that the Canadian people by and large would rather have a Liberal government, then just wait a bit. If you think Harper is that evil, he’ll do something to piss off Canadians, his support will drop, and you’ll have your chance. Until then, welcome to what it’s felt like to be a conservative for the last 15 years.
I’m not a Conservative, I’m closest to being a left-Liberal. That being said, I have a grudging respect for Joe Clark, and I have always thought that history has been extremely unkind to Robert Stanfield. I’ve always held the belief that what is good for society will be good for business, but what business wants is not necessarily good for society. So that’s where I’m coming from.
Off the top of my head - I have disagreed with Harper’s repudiation of the Kelowna accord, his stance on gay marriage, his stance on the Kyoto accord, his stance on the gun registry, his stance on universal day care, well, just about everything his government has done. He does not reflect my values nor the values that I think of as ‘core Canadian values’.
It’s a democracy, and he didn’t get elected by magic, so I have to suck it up and support what I believe, protest what I disagree with.
My passionate dislike of Stephen Harper comes from his habit of stifling debate. He claims a unanimity of opinion that doesn’t exist, and that is my biggest beef with him. I believe the person that says they’ve got the only answer didn’t fully understand the question.
The Bloc is not the official Opposition, but they have been. I think any party whose stated aim is breaking confederation should not be allowed any federal status, whether that party is from Quebec, the west, the maritimes, or any other region. That type of party has nothing to do with governing a country; its platform is completely self-interested. I think parties of this type should remain regional, and if elected by the people of that region, then they can come deal with a federal government; they shouldn’t be attempting to BE a federal government, and for the good of the country, the rules need to get changed enough so that they CAN’T be a federal party. It just underlines the joke that rep by pop is in Canada that this type of party has gotten as much federal status as it has.
I’m going to have to apologize for this, especially in light of the long post I’ve been composing for this thread. I believe that featherlou is being hypocritical on this issue but that’s no excuse for lifting quotes out of context like that and I apologize for doing so.
His first act upon becoming Prime Minister was to repeat a tax cut on the lowest tax brackets. His justification for this was that the GST cut would make up for it, which was total bullshit because people with low incomes get a tax credit to offset the GST.
The GST cut itself was terrible policy. Encouraging consumption at a time where Canadian savings is at an all-time low was the worst move he could make. An income tax cut was the correct way to reduce taxes. Instead, Harper proved himself to be a right-wing demagogue who cares more about his ideology than sound economic practices.
Harper overturned a long-standing policy of allowing the press to decide among themselves who would get to ask the Prime Minister questions during scrums and whatnot. He has, IIRC, his own Parliamentary Secretary choosing the order, allowing him to dodge inconvenient questions from journalists who aren’t willing to toe the party line. This is ridiculously undemocratic and reason enough on its own to turf Harper.
Appointing an unelected Senator to the federal cabinet was an appalling move from the party that vowed to end the democratic deficit.
The hypocrisy of allowing Emerson into cabinet after loudly decrying Stronarch’s defection. Typical Harper, really: Do as I say, not as I do.
Despite RickJay’s defence above, the Berinier affair absolutely is a big deal. The Minister for Foreign Affairs left classified briefing materials from a NATO summit at his girlfriend’s apartment. Having a top-tier cabinet minister who is so careless with critical material is a great way to ensure that our allies do not share sensitive information with us.
He has repeatedly attempted to squelch dissent from independent officers of Parliament(like the fucking Nuclear Safety regulator!) and heads of Crown Corporations. His government drafted policy that IIRC, would require independent officers such as the Auditor General to clear all press contacts with the PMO. Absolutely unacceptable behaviour.
The attack ads he unleashed on Dion – the “Do you know how hard it is to make priorities?” ads – were dirty. He clipped a quote out of context and used it to smear the opposition. Lifting quotes out of context is something I cannot stand(again, I must humbly seek featherlou’s pardon for the inexplicable hypocrisy I just displayed).
C-61 was practically drafted by lobbyists. The degree to which the Harper government has gotten into bed with industry groups like the RIAA is despicable. We’re talking about a piece of legislation that would make it illegal for me to watch a DVD on my Linux PC using freely available software from the web. I support strong copyright protections, but that has to be balanced against consumer rights, too.
His reaction to the idea of a carbon tax is the kicker for me. About a year ago a group of leading Canadian economists put out the idea. Harper’s reaction? “Sounds like a typical Liberal idea, just tax it!”. Setting aside the gratuitous smear of his opposition, that is not “A typical Liberal idea”, that is an economically efficient answer to the problem of pollution. This isn’t even a contentious solution among economists: the efficiency of a pollution tax can be mathematically derived from the fundamental assumptions behind the field of economics. This is pretty basic stuff. And yet, there is Stephen Harper, putative economist, flatly denying that the idea could possibly have any merit. And that gets at the heart of why I despise Harper and his ilk. He pays lip service to the ideas of economics. He blathers on about the free market and whatnot. But at his core, Harper is an ideologue, and one of the key tenets of his ideology is that Taxes are Bad. Anything – anything at all – that contradicts that must be false in Mr. Harper’s worldview. And so, when a group of leading economists opine that a Carbon Tax would be an economically efficient way to deal with the problem, he reflexively attacks. But in doing so, he reveals that he truly has no regard for the principles of economics, despite his degree, despite his words to the contrary. And if there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s dishonesty. At least hard-core left-wingers are honest about what they think about economics – they’re wrong, but at least we know where they stand. Right wingers like Harper have done more damage to the cause of economics than any number of left-wing demagogues. By successfully convincing the world that their ideology is supported by economics, they have ensured that many on the left will never trust it. I saw a poster in GD state that economics was worthless because it did not value things like the environment, which is wrong. But, because the right wing puts so little value on the environment, and the right wing has convinced everyone that they are imparting economic truths, many people believe things like “economics does not value the environment”. This is enormously frustrating to me as someone on the centre-left who truly believes in the principles of economics, because not only is this a huge barrier I have to overcome in trying to convince other people on the left of the value of economics, it basically means that there is no party out there that represents my views.
That is why I despise Harper. Because ultimately, the man is a charlatan on economic matters, and the Conservatives are the one party who I should be able to trust on the economy
I think she’s wrong about trying to deny the Bloc the ordinary roles that accrue to a party with its number of seats, but her point here was just that the Bloc had seats all out of proportion to their percentage of the national popular vote - that part of her stance isn’t anti-democratic in the least. I’m not seeing the hypocrisy.
I also think it’s not entirely unreasonable to be unhappy with people whose stated goal is to destroy the country having such a prominent hand in governing it. Trying to prevent this would be anti-democratic, and is where I disagree with featherlou, but it’s not it’s not like it’s hard to see where she’s coming from.
This is exactly how I feel about him. It seems like the reason most people seem to think he’s been a good PM is because he hasn’t been caught up in anything really bad during his tenure. The relative lack of scandal and bad decision making as compared to the last few PMs is making him look good by comparison, but on his own merits he hasn’t really done anything that truly shines, either. C-61 may be the worst thing he’s attached his name to, and because of a prior lack of scandal and the current proximity to an election, this may end up being his defining issue, should anything significant come of it. He won a minority government in the last election, and he probably got that much partly as a result of the federal sponsorship scandal, which spoke to his lack of ability to stand out even in an election where the other guys looked bad by comparison.
But again, between Bill C-61 and refusing to make any serious attempts to bring Canada closer to adhering to the Kyoto accord, accusing the carbon tax idea of being typically liberal, could come back to bite him in the ass. Hard.
As you said, come election time, I think the best the conservatives can hope for is more of the same.
At the risk of sounding like the anti-Harper, C-10 is a typically conservative notion. Sex and violence? On my TV? We’ll just see about that. Honestly though I don’t think anything will come of C-10 either. This is a bill that leans hard to the right and is a step back into the 80s of pretty strict censorship on the media – though this sidesteps the actual censorship part and simply threatens to yank federal tax credits from projects that contain whatever arbitrary amount of sex and violence the cons think is excessive. It’s kind of silly, actually, and I can’t imagine parliament ratifying it. C-61 has a better chance of passing – and as crappy as I think that bill is, I don’t think it will ultimately pass, either; it feels more like a weak, hastily scrawled attempt to appease the RIAA/CRIA/MPAA that will ultimately fail so they can turn around, shrug, and say, “Oh well. We tried.”
That’s my problem. I have no idea who to vote for. I have no confidence in Dion as a leader at all, and C-61 has automatically polarized me against Harper. I normally lean significantly to the left, but … Dion. Just … no. But then, Harper … no. Feh!
No, this isn’t even about the artists anymore. It’s all about the RIAA/CRIA’s control of the consumer, how they consume, and what can be done about them if they don’t consume the way they want them to. It’s a pure, unadulterated power grab for big media.
Rae is definitely not well-liked here in Ontario. His tenure as premiere soured the entire province on his very existence. Ignatieff … no, but I’d take him over Rae. Only just.
Just so I just don’t completely repeat what Rysto said (in a much less eloquent fashion), let me summarize by saying C-10 and C-61 are absolute disasters.
I’m probably voting Green as a protest in the next election. As long as my current MP keeps running, it will prevent from voting Liberal. He’s awful. And the NDP riding association is non-existent. I know a girl who worked for the NDP during the last election and she was so burnt out and disillusioned by the end that she swore she’d never do it again.
But the Bloc works entirely within the framework of federal politics. They haven’t done anything that could justify denying their MPs the right to represent their constituents (and disenfranchise their voters), other than hold political views you disagree with. So if you want to change the system (for the “good of the country”, which I guess you should be the judge of), you’ll have to admit that what you’re doing is clearly antidemocratic. Doesn’t make it necessarily wrong (although I would clearly oppose it), but it does make it antidemocratic.
I’m not a big fan of the Bloc, although I have voted for them last time and will probably do so the next time as well – the alternative is the Conservatives, and I don’t think I trust them enough to vote for them. I’d rather see them let go the emphasis on Quebec independence (become mostly “agnostic” on the question, so to speak), encourage the formation of other similar regionalist or provincialist parties in other parts of Canada, and be willing to actually form a government some day instead of being a perpetual opposition. Seeing how many other Canadians are tired of the federal government who they perceive as being under the control of other regions, they could actually see partners appear in the rest of the country, but they’d still be decried as “separatist”. So it’s a gamble, but it could be worth it.
Many countries, and even federal countries, have parties whose goal is to represent the interests of constituent regions in the country, or ethnic groups, or even interest groups. Why should Canada be different? I feel like we’re being told that we should all share a “Canadian” culture (eh?) and “Canadian” values, and that the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP should be enough to represent our political ideas. (Oh, the Greens too.)
Well, I’m still not sure why the goal of the Bloc québécois (which I guess would be the independence of Quebec) can be equated with “destroy[ing] the country”. I’m sure if you ask a Bloc MP, they’d tell you that it would improve both Quebec and Canada. I don’t agree with this (at least, when we get to actual full independence for parts of the country) but I can see the arguments.
Now Harper. One of the things that strikes me about him is how weakly he seems to hold to his positions. As much as people are saying he’s a right-wing ideologue, what I notice in him is how much of a politician he is, rather than an ideologue. Just a few years ago he was a strong conservative, and Western Alienation was his political message. Even in the weeks leading up to the election people were saying he would make same-sex marriage and abortion illegal, as well as probably send troops to Iraq and basically let George Bush govern Canada. Now, it’s true that he has made some conservative reforms, but it’s been quite moderate, and he’s reached out to other regions of Canada than Alberta (or the West in general). First, as featherlou says, he didn’t fill up with Albertan ministers. He was somehow able to satisfy his social conservative base with his bait-and-switch scheme with same-sex marriage. He even passed a motion recognizing Quebec (or something else, depending on the language) as a nation inside Canada. Of course this motion does absolutely nothing, it was merely a political weapon he used against the Bloc and the Liberals, but for a man whom, say, ten years ago I would have expected to say that Quebec is a scourge on Canada and that True Canadians would be better if it simply disappeared, it was quite unexpected. His Senate reform (a rather important issue to Westerners, I am given to understand) won’t lead to anything, and he doesn’t care, since he’ll be able to say he tried.
That’s the main reason why I mildly dislike Stephen Harper. To me he doesn’t seem to stand for anything. I won’t vote for people who hold strong ideas different from mine, but in a sense they are better than people who will compromise their ideas to get my vote. Add to this his control tendencies Rysto reminded me of. He has control over his ministers to a degree even the Canadian prime minister shouldn’t. But really, there is no alternative I like.
This makes no sense, even from a left-wing perspective. The left in other countries oppose a consumption tax because they point out that the poor spend all their income on consumption because they have to, so it winds up being a regressive income tax. The rich spend relatively less of their income on consumption, and more on investments, foreign travel, and other things that are not taxed with the GST. So this is, if anything, a progressive tax cut.
And the left’s line on the poor not saving is that they can’t save because all their paychecks go towards consumption. So a cut in a consumption tax should, all things being equal, allow them to save at least the amount of the tax cut, no?
In the States, Barack Obama is pushing for a big middle-class tax cut and an increase in taxes on the rich, to the hearty support of the left. That’s exactly what the GST cut is - a tax cut for the middle class and the poor. But if a Conservative proposes it, suddenly it’s bad?
Conservatives have the same problem Republicans have in the States - they wind up having to react to the incredible bias the media shows towards them. Liberals could expect fair-to-fawning softball questions from the press, until public opinion forced the press to get tough. Conservatives have to put up with constant attacks on the most trivial of issues. So they are forced to be more defensive with the media. I’m not saying I think it’s right, but it’s certainly understandable.
But I’ll bet you the zillion ways in which Chretien or Martin would be hypocritical or contradict themselves didn’t invoke the kind of outrage you feel against Harper when he does it. I don’t remember Liberals going bananas when Chretien campaigned on removing the GST and then refused to do it once in power. For that matter, when Chretien proposed removing the GST, it was hailed as a progressive move by the left. But when the Conservatives actually reduce it, it’s seen as a despicable sop to the rich. How do you reconcile that?
Yet when Sandy Berger, former Clinton official in the States, stuffed classified documents in his pants and intentionally removed them from a secure facility, the left responded with a yawn and, “hey, everyone makes mistakes”. Bernier was an idiot for the way he handled those documents, but the willingness with which you are willing to turn this into an indictment of the entire Harper government speaks more to your biases than to a cold reading of the facts.
This is politics 101. They all do it. See: Barack Obama repeatedly claiming that John McCain wants ‘100 years of war’. The last election was full of such out-of-context smearing by every political party in Canada. Again, if a Liberal or NDP government did this, I suspect you’d see nothing wrong with it.
C-61 indeed needs work. As drafted, it’s a horrible piece of legislation. But you think this is new? The Martin government tried to do the same thing. The fact is, the entertainment lobby is huge, spends large numbers of dollars, and has tremendous influence over governments everywhere.
I’m in favor of a carbon tax myself, in theory. But here’s the problem you have when applying it to Canada - different regions of the country would be affected by a flat carbon tax in a big way. Alberta would be hammered by it, as would Saskatchewan. The East would benefit from it, if the tax cuts were applied equally across the country to offset the carbon tax. So it would amount to a wealth transfer from west to east, making it a complete non-starter in Western Canada.
You could always tweak it so that it’s evenly balanced, by offsetting equalization payments from Alberta and Saskatchewan, for example. But that would never fly down east.
So yes, from a pure economics standpoint, a carbon tax is the most efficient way to reduce demand for carbon-producing goods. But from a practical implementation standpoint, it probably wouldn’t work in Canada.
See, I think this is your bias speaking again. The carbon tax as proposed by Dion isn’t a tax hike, because he plans offsetting taxes to make it revenue neutral. So this isn’t just a rant against ‘taxes’. But if you dig into the details of the plan, what you see is that, although it’s revenue neutral, it’s not socially neutral. It’s not designed to just make everyone across the board pay for their carbon and return the money to everyone across the board. Like most Liberal programs, it’s intended to take money from the rich and give it to the poor and middle class. Plus he wants to use some of the tax to give money to women’s shelters and other non-profit organizations, for ‘additional help for the poor’, and he wants to put tariffs on high-carbon imports as well. Part of the ‘revenue neutral’ aspect is to give $350 tax credits for every child you have. What that has to do with reducing carbon emissions is beyond me.
In addition, because Alberta’s incomes are generally higher than those down east, this would be an additional wealth transfer from west to east. This is a far cry from a pure carbon tax.
BTW, what kind of carbon tax does not include a tax on gasoline? Answer: A tax that is aimed at not damaging the eastern auto industry. The tax also exempts aviation fuel and diesel, which also buffers the impact to the east’s heavy industry. But it goes straight at the production of oil and gas, which damages the west.
If Dion wanted to honestly support a pure carbon tax; one which punished carbon while having as little effect on the overall economy as possible (which is why economists like carbon taxes), he might suggest that the amount of money collected from each province would be tracked and returned to the various provinces. The provinces in turn could then cut their provincial sales taxes or lower their provincial income taxes. This would have the effect of punishing carbon, without all the distortionary wealth transfers. If he had worked hard to make the tax a pure carbon tax, it would have been harder for Harper to attack it as ‘the new NEP’. But in fact, it IS the new NEP, wrapped in carbon tax language. Harper is smart enough to see that.
You mean like offering a ‘carbon tax’ which is wrapped in ‘revenue neutral’ language, but which in fact is just another way to tax the rich and give to the poor? And then complaining that you’re ‘anti-economics’ if you oppose it?
You’ve got to be kidding. You’re blaming the distrust of the market on Conservatives? And not the leftists who continually complain about it and accuse it for being responsible for every ill society faces? That’s quite a stretch.
You can’t convince people on the left that the market is a good thing, and you blame this on the right? Myself, I blame the left, because they’re the ones who are, you know, wrong.
This is nothing new, and no reason to despise a politician unless you despise all of them. Politics is the art of the compromise. Pure ideologues of any stripe who manage to get into power either learn to moderate their positions, or they crash and burn and have a very short lifespan in government. That’s just the reality of it. If you expect purity from your leaders, prepare for a life of disappointment.
On balance, what I expect from a Conservative government is:
Lower taxes generally than what I’d get from the Liberals or NDP
A little more balance towards western interests
More support for the military
Fewer regulations than I’d get if the Liberals or NDP are in power.
So far, the Harper government has delivered reasonably well on those things. Bill C-61 is a bad bill, but if the overriding electronic locks clause is removed it’s not bad, and has more protections for fair use than Marton’s old plans had. It’s the DMCA-like prohibition against removing technological locks that makes it a horrible bill. If this goverment passes that bill with the current wording, and espcially if it does it without a reasonable period of consultation with Canadians, I’ll be the first in line to decry their behaviour. Until they do that, I’ll wait and see what comes out in the end.
What I worry about from a Conservative government is:
More social engineering crap pushed from the religious right. So far, Harper has resisted a lot of that.
Too much ‘farmer friendly’ legislation - especially subsidies and tariffs. So far, Harper hasn’t really done that.
Too much acceptance of some pretty bad existing law pushed through and supported by previous liberal governments. Harper’s refusal to say anything against the out-of-control human rights commissions validates my fears.
He’s not a saint, and this government isn’t perfect. But so far, it’s a hell of a lot better from my standpoint than the old Chretien and Martin governments.
This thread is making me think I got out of the country just in time (I didn’t want Harper in power, didn’t vote for him, and was glad he only got a minority government.)
Given the state of the fishing industry the last few years, I’d hate to see what kind of effect a gasoline tax would have. It, and industries that rely on it, are already in bad shape. If it goes under, it could serve to kill a lot of communities on the east coast. I suspect a gas tax would, if not kill it, at least further the damage. The rising price of gasoline is already hurting them quite bad, I’m given to understand.
First of all, I never said that it was a sop to the rich, I said that it was poor economic policy. Second of all, I’d thank you not to not to ascribe positions to me that I’ve never held. I was 8 years old in 1993, for cripes’ sake! And in case the fact that I’m arguing from an economic perspective here didn’t clue you in, I’m hardly your typical left-winger. Stop trying to pigeonhole me.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I’ve never even heard of Berger.
I never mentioned Dion’s plan. I am talking about Stephen Harper’s reaction to a proposal made some months ago by a number of Canadian economists that a carbon tax be instituted. I misremembered, it was John Baird, Harper’s environment minister, who made the comment:
