July 2008 - Page 2 of 4 - Stephen Taylor

John Tory takes questions from Blogging Tories

and here was mine…

Stephen Taylor: In the context of manufacturing jobs in Ontario – Ontario being the economic engine of Canada – federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has recently proposed this carbon tax that he wants to take across the country to sell to Canadians this summer. We’ve seen measures in BC and in Quebec to start their own sort of carbon taxation. Do you believe that this is the right direction for Ontario in creating new jobs in a new economy or do you think it’s the wrong-headed approach for this province’s direction?

John Tory: Well, I think that a tax is a tax is a tax and when people describe a tax as revenue-neutral that sort of tries to somehow skirt the idea that somebody is still paying it even if you’re giving money back to somebody else but the bottom line is that somebody is still paying the tax. I think Dalton McGuinty had it right the first time when he said – and I almost quoted him – ‘Even the NDP knows that the last thing you do when the economy is struggling is impose new taxes’ and then for whatever reason – and I think you can all speculate and probably already have – what happened within the internal machinations of the Liberal Party he suddenly came forward a couple of weeks ago and said he thought this carbon tax was a good thing and that it was fine. And so, I think it’s the wrong approach. I’ve said that to the extend you need to have a price put on carbon in a cap-and-trade type of arrangement is better because it allows the marketplace to work on doing that sort of thing but I just think that the tax is the wrong approach and I just don’t understand why Mr. McGuinty isn’t far from endorsing it, he should be opposing it as he did before and it’s the wrong thing to hit the Ontario economy with at this point in time.

Stephen Taylor: So would you call upon the Federal Conservative environment minister to implement a cap-and-trade program?

John Tory: One thing I would call upon the Federal environment minister to do and on all of the other governments is they’ve got to do the same thing. The last thing industry needs – and this is the kind of example they tell me about when I’m sitting in these often small boardrooms of small manufacturing companies – they say ‘Look, we don’t know where to start with all the different governments having all of their different programs whether it’s on climate change or a host of other areas’ and I think what they should be doing is making a bigger effort than they have to actually agree on an approach, that is going to be an approach that is consistently adopted across the country. What if you are a manufacturing company that’s doing business in Canada, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta? You’re then confronted by all kinds of different rules – federal, provincial or otherwise – on the subject of carbon and climate change. Alberta, you can go get a grant to deal with carbon sequestration, Ontario it looks like they’ll go along with the taxing thing but also be in a cap-and-trade system, federally it looks like they’re going down the cap-and-trade road, and Quebec might have a tax. I think that’s part of the problem these days, that everyone’s doing their own thing and they think can all do that with impunity and not having to take account. So I would say to John Baird, I know it’s hard for him because these other governments go off and do their own thing, but I think the thing he might be trying to do – and he has been – trying to get some agreement on something we can do as a country – provinces and federal government – and at least have a uniform set of rules people would know about if they’re in business.

We get letters – Green shift satire

I received this a while ago from a friend and it was so absurd it made me laugh so I thought I’d share it with you. It was written in response to Stephane Dion’s Green Shift proposal.

First, and this is important, this posting emits NO greenhouse gases. I have had this verified by leading climate change scientists like Dr David Jacuzzi of the National Environmental Rating Department. I make this point off the top so as to make it clear that I am not subject to any carbon fines that would be levied by Stephane Dion and his heroic band of emission catchers.

So….to be clear….this posting does not violate any laws whether they be laws made by God, by Man or by Stephane Dion. But back to Greenhouse Gases, or as those of us in the scientific community like to call them, GHGs. Now for some scientific facts.

First, these are poisonous gases that will kill you instantly if inhaled, touched, seen, heard or imagined.

Second scientists using powerful microscopes have proven that GHGs cause:

A) the weather
B) the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs while the cavemen cowered in their…umm….caves.
C) Al Gore.

Third, the only way to stop GHGs is to raise your taxes. Yes…the two SEEM unconnected, but that’s because your brain has been addled by GHGs. If you were a leading scientist like Stephane Dion you would understand the scientific formula which proves that giving him a bigger piece of your paycheque to go toward more social programs would mean a permanent end to the scourge of Greenhouse Gases.

Mr Dion’s science based approach is called the Green Bait and Shift. Here’s how it works. You pay thousands of dollars extra in taxes for indulging luxuries like heating your home, fueling up your car, BBQing hotdogs for the kids at the orphanage, or having air conditioning at the seniors centre. Mr Dion then takes the money from fat cats like you, keeps a portion for public servants to spend in a wise and efficient manner, and then gives the remainder of the money to other people who didn’t earn it.

This raises the following question: what’s so green about that? The answer of course is that nothing in this process will cause burrowing owls to be hurt. See….no animals are used for testing in this entire process. So let us now recap for those who aren’t prominent scientists.

The Green Bait and Shift tackles GHGs head on via Canada’s vaunted social safety net, our taxation system, hundreds of thousands of public servants, businesses and charities and millions of families. With everyone working together like this how can anything go wrong?

Its also important that we do this now as fuel prices hit their highest point in history and as our largest trading partner teeters on the edge of recession. But would there really be a recession if this really does patch the very hole in the ozone layer where the GHGs are leaking into our atmosphere? Imagine how our economy will boom when the glaciers return and scrape away all nuclear weapons meaning no more worries about a nuclear winter! And of course, most importantly, the world could say goodbye forever to the threat of Tsunamis.

I for one agree with Mr. Dion when he says that the only thing that can save the world is a really big Shift. I’m Shifting now as I write this, and I hope you will too.

Omar Khadr: try him but not here

The status of Omar Khadr has been an issue that has been hotly debated in Canada and one that has recently seen media attention around the world with the airing of over seven hours of CSIS interrogation video of the boy at Guantanamo Bay.

It has also been one of intellectual conflict for conservative thinkers and hawkish Canadians. As a conservative, I have for the most part found intellectual solace in logic on issue tracks where my bleeding-heart friends usually hug the emotional left rail. The broad-arching free markets help rise more people out of poverty than knee-jerk social and emotional reaction to give hand-outs to sustain a substandard of living is but one example where cold right-wing logic is a better and more constructive end that short-sighted albeit well-meaning emotionalism. I have always believed that right-wingers act upon what they know to be true, whereas left-wingers act upon what they feel to be true.

And on the issue of Omar Khadr, I see a departure of my usually logic-minded friends on the right to irrational emotionalism usually reserved for the left.

There are a few indisputable facts about Omar Khadr that we should realize and consider through a logical lens in order to proceed both in manner true to our cold sense of objectivity and in harmony with our values as but one element of modern Western civilization.

Omar Khadr is alleged to have thrown a grenade that killed an American medic in 2002.
Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen. This is true as a fact and our emotional reaction to his family’s own irrationalism and Khadr’s own alleged actions does not change the truth of this fact. While Khadr spent most of his life in Afghanistan or Pakistan, he remains a legal Canadian citizen. Our government has the responsibility to enunciate our values on Khadr.
Every single person held in custody ought to be afforded the due process of law. There are exceptions that have been made when national security has been at stake yet Khadr has been held since 2003 and cannot be reasonably considered as a valued source of intelligence at this time. To deny Khadr due process is more fundamentally an affront to the basis of our values as modern civilized states in that we value the rule of law as constituent of the foundation that undergirds our society.

While Omar Khadr should not be left to rot at Guantanamo Bay, does this mean that Omar Khadr should be returned to Canada to face Canadian justice?

No.

Omar Khadr ought to face justice against his American accusers and stand trial before an American court. Guantanamo Bay cannot provide the justice that Americans deserve as Gitmo itself robs that society of two of its fundamental values: due process and the rule of law.

This conclusion of course will lead to some uncharacteristic emotional outcry from conservatives and most reaction will not be based upon the cold logical reason that is usually the hallmark of our ideology.

But, let’s go to first principles. Omar Khadr doesn’t himself deserve to be released from jihadi limbo at Gitmo and tried before an American court. However, as individuals who are defending a society based upon key values such as due process, presumption of innocence, and the rule of law, we deserve it. Khadr’s present threat does not manifest itself in his illiberal hatred of our culture, it rests instead in the extent to which we are to make our own values malleable in order rationalize our understandable but illogical emotion.

There is inconsistency on the Liberal side too, of course. Khadr was captured, interrogated and held under approval from the previous Liberal administrations. For them to demand his return, shows intellectual dishonesty and absurd emotionalism.

Khadr should not be returned to Canada, as we do not simply return Canadian citizens to Canada when they run afoul of the law in the United States. However, to complete this logical loop, Khadr must face the law in an American court. With both US Presidential candidates calling for the closure of Guantanamo, Prime Minister Harper would be wise to call for Khadr to face American due process.