Stephen Taylor

Bali conference partisan and ideological?

The media narrative of the Bali climate conference has been the “obstructionism” and “sabotage” of the talks by Canada’s government (note to Stephane Dion: outside of our borders, the “Harper/Conservative government” becomes your government too. Canadians have given the Conservative Party, not you, a mandate to speak for us on the world stage.)

We’ve heard reports that Environment Minister John Baird has been so audacious to even suggest that future climate treaties include caps on developing nations such as China and India, a truly offensive suggestive shared by the unoffensive new Prime Minister of Australia Kevin Rudd. We’ve heard that Baird “ran away” from a meeting of environmental activists, “Canadian youth” and Svend Robinson!

CTV reports:

Baird was supposed to explain Canada’s position at a meeting with non-governmental activists attending the conference. He showed up for the meeting, but quickly left before speaking.

Canadian activists and others waited for the minister to return. But they were later told Baird had to attend negotiations and would not be back.

“The minister who was supposed to address us was AWOL. He ran away,” said Olivier Lavoie of the Canadian Youth in Action.

Lavoie said the minister probably did not want to confront young activists critical of Canada’s stand.

How can Baird turn a blind eye to good people that are non-partisan, non-ideological and simply concerned about the coming worldwide devastation?

Unreported by CTV and undeclared by Lavoie is this “activist” and leader of the “Canadian Youth in Action” was also president of the Liberal campus club at McGill.

So was Baird simply avoiding a meeting with people who see so much green that they see red when they see blue?

Was he avoiding a partisan ambush by a group of NDP and Liberal activists?

When can we get some honest reporting on the merits of Baird’s plan and what interests some have in blocking it?

At its core, Canada and Australia’s vision for a future climate treaty is rooted in environmental concern.

The intent of Baird’s position is that no matter what country in which you emit CO2, you pay the same cost. All worldwide CO2 would be declared equal if Baird and Rudd had their way. However, the intent of “social” environmental activists is to shift the burden on developed nations. If China and India and other “developing” countries get a better deal on their CO2 emissions, economic development and manufacturing of companies headquartered in Canada or the US, for example, will shift to developing countries because of their lower CO2 costs. The effect of this is redistribution of wealth.

If we are concerned about CO2 emissions, then all CO2 should be costed the same. If it is not, the effect will be the creation of CO2 havens. CO2 production will be shifted rather than reduced. Perhaps what Baird is doing is calling on the warming warriors to show their cards. Is all of this noise really about CO2 or is it about the redistribution of wealth and production?

80 minus One

I’ve heard word tonight that those who are seeking to review John Tory’s leadership at the 2008 AGM, are setting the bar for that vote.

80% is the amount of support that that members of the ad hoc “yes” campaign have set for Tory for the vote at the February meeting.

UPDATE: Here is the Press Release

80 Minus One

December 12, 2007 – Windsor, On – Nick Kouvalis, owner of the DraftALeader.com website announced today the launch of a new campaign – 80 Minus One. The upcoming Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Leadership Review represents the will of the party. In order to effectively lead that party for the next four years and ultimately into the next election, John Tory must carry the vast majority of delegates at the convention.

Previous leadership races have set the bar high:

Ralph Klien: 55% – resigned
Joe Clark: 66.9% – leadership race
Dalton McGuinty: 81% – elected Premier
Stephen Harper: 84% – elected Prime Minister

“John Tory was recently quoted in a CBC Windsor story as claiming to command the support of a “vast majority” of the party” said Kouvalis. “We agree. To effectively lead this party forward, a significant majority is required”

“John Tory is in Ottawa today campaigning for votes from Ontario MP’s, who are ex-officio delegates to our convention.” Kouvalis stated “We want to ensure that MPs know the grassroots of this party have a voice and opinion on this issue.”

Visit DraftALeader.com to view or download the “80 Minus One” campaign video.

For more information contact:

Nick Kouvalis, Campaign Chair
DraftALeader.com
519-791-9663
[email protected]

UPDATE: Here’s the video referenced in the press release:

Tory ouster? Capobianco responds

John Tory is in Ottawa tomorrow to meet with members of the Ontario CPC caucus and key federal Conservative strategists. Of course, the PCPO leader comes to the nation’s capital under the cloud of a challenge of a possible leadership review being organized by conservative strategist Nick Kouvlalis, who is leading the charge for a review with his “yes” campaign. The leader of the “no” (to review) campaign is John Capobianco, a long-time conservative organizer in his own right. After interviewing Kouvalis on his efforts last week, I immediately sought to ask Capobianco a set of questions about the possible leadership review and his team’s efforts to shield Tory and promote him as a strong leader for the party membership.

ST.CA: “Mr. Capobianco, in the face of this challenge to John Tory’s leadership of the PCPO, do you recognize this as a significant ‘grassroots’ campaign of the base, or the efforts of a few discontents?”

JC: One should never discount the efforts of party members who are calling for a leadership review. I’ve seen some websites and read reports of a dinner where folks gathered to discuss organizing for a
review vote in February. I don’t think these can be called either a
campaign of the ‘grassroots’ or efforts of a few discontents – however,
I take all constructive criticisms seriously as does John Tory. Given
our loss, I certainly think this is a time of valid discussion for the
entire party, and John Tory has been at the forefront of this
discussion, meeting Tories in their ridings face to face or calling them
on the phone, which is about as ‘grassroots’ and genuine as one can get.
The response John has been getting is good, he is out there, with the
party and real conservatives, every day, face to face, hearing about
their concerns and, more importantly, learning from them.

ST.CA: “In the last campaign, John Tory stated that ‘Leadership Matters’. Some say that the results indicated that Tory failed this standard that he set for himself. Why should Tory stay on now?”

JC: It’s true that John Tory set high standards for himself, and didn’t achieve what he wanted to, he knows and laments this. However within weeks of the election, he was out in the ridings, face to face with the party and working with them to discover what he did wrong, which shows he is indeed a leader.

Tory should stay on because his drive and energy to create a compelling conservative vision for the province is relentless. Out of nowhere he almost became mayor of Toronto, and within three years of winning the leadership of the PC party – at a time, I will add, where we were $10 million in debt and with the lowest morale I’ve seen in years – many thought we were in a position to win the province, despite an economy that appeared strong and huge liberal spending.

When you talk to party members, of course they’re upset at the loss; we as Conservatives have certainly suffered our fair share of losses both provincially and nationally over the years, but we usually determine where we made our mistakes and went about fixing them… we don’t and should not get into the practice of defeating our leaders after one election loss. If we did, we wouldn’t have had Mike Harris as Premier or Stephen Harper as our current Prime Minister, both suffered initial electoral defeat, but come back to win their respective elections the second time.

Tory is currently listening to and working with the party and over the next 4 years will create an incredibly dynamic Progressive Conservative Party.

ST.CA: “The ‘yes’ side of the campaign has made their first move. Will you be responding? What will you be doing to sign up as many delegates as possible to meet the challenge, whatever its degree, from the ‘no’ side?”

JC: Tory will be doing what he has been doing since October, meeting with the party, face to face and in the open, learning and letting progressive conservatives across the province know that they can trust him to be a strong Conservative leader.

Much is being made of Tory’s tour to connect with the membership for feedback and for a post-mortem to the election loss. Critics on both sides of the debate argue about the merits of how these consultations are being held. Tory’s people would seem to claim that these consultations show a grassroots effort to consult the membership, while the “yes” campaign suggests that the consultations are framed by Tory and show little accountability. Capobianco seems to counter the self-proclaimed label of “grassroots” by the “yes” campaign by suggesting that the campaign is being organized by a handful of senior conservatives.