ADQ Opposes Minority Government

As does the PQ

They just don't like minorities in Quebec.

ADQ - another damn quack

This election is the closest we have seen in a long time. Well, since New Brunswick voted a few months ago, anyway. Does this surprise anyone given how many quebecois live in Florida?

Commentators spoke about the "plain" and average nature of most ADQ candidates. Some of them were even plumbers. I remember when Mario, the plumber, was the guy who jumped over barrels thrown at him by a Giant Monkey. Like everything else in the world, after his brother Luigi, who can Mario really trust? Including those who claim to be on his side. Honestly, how much different is this guy's party from Presto-1993?

Charest, however, drunkenly blames "Francophones and poor people" (get it?) for his election humiliation. Today, dozens of colunmists speculate he will leave in the short run and run for the tories.

While a slight variation on the theme, I refer you to my previous works

Only in Vegas could the Black Sox have gotten away with it

I watched with disappointment as the University of Nevada, Las Vegas Running Rebels were exited from the NCAA tournament this past weekend. It was the first time since 1992 that I was interested in the outcome of the tournament.

When I was in high school my favourite college basketball team was the UNLV running rebels. They were dominant from the beginning of the 89-90 season, and they routed everyone they faced in the tournament. The start of 90-91 season was no different. The Rebels were undefeated heading into the tournament, and were ranked number 1 the entire year.

In the 1990-91 national semi-final game, playing against Christian Laettner and the Duke Blue Devils, the Rebels stumbled. They got to a point where they hadn't been all season long - a close game. Compared to the rest of the season, their shooting percentage was awful. They were in foul trouble, their defence was brutal - they were playing like a totally different team. With seconds left, the Rebels had two chances to win - and inexplicably, they missed both easy shots with wide open options to pass off to. In the end, Anderson Hunt threw up a hail mary when he had three wide open teammates.

Despite remarkably long odds, Duke won the game, and it was heralded as the greatest upset in NCAA history. The Rebels- true to their name - shrugged it off and didn't seem visibly upset - and why should they be, as they had already won the whole enchilada once before. Duke went on to defeat Kansas in the Final- beginning the Duke Dynasty that is only now sputtering out.

I was stunned. I almost started to cry. But I cheered myself up knowing that UNLV's graduating class would dominate the NBA draft. I was right - with all five starters being selected. Larry Johnson won rookie of the year with Charlotte, Stacie Augmon lifted Atlanta into the playoffs, Greg Anthony had a long career with the Knicks, Anderson Hunt was recruited by Boston and George Ackles began my 15 year obsession with the Miami Heat. Though Hunt and Ackles would never be NBA superstars- The Rebels represented the first team in NCAA history to have four starters drafted into the NBA - a feet later emulated by the Fab-Five Michigan Wolverines (though they did it over three years - not in one draft).

UNLV's coach Jerry Tarkanian was also vindicated for his past sins, being offered the position as head coach of the San Antonio Spurs of the NBA. As a coach, he had been previously suspended by the NCAA (and he litigated it all the way to the Supreme Court) for illegal recruiting practices.

And then out of the blue, barely 20 games into his first season, he was fired from his job as the Spurs' coach. His biography is worth reading on Wiki.

A few weeks later, a picture was published on the front page of a Las Vegas news paper. It had Hunt, Ackles and two other players in a hot-tub with a known mobster and point shaver. This wasn't what started the whispers, but it certainly didn't slow them down.

Six months later, UNLV agreed to a voluntary suspension from tournament play for the next two years. No reason for the suspension was ever given.

There is only one conclusion that could be drawn, and given where they lived their dreams, it made a lot of sense. Here are things that we know -

Not everyone on the Rebels was going to be a millionaire in the NBA.

Everyone on that team (except one freshman - Everett Gray) had already won an NCAA title.

Many NCAA scholarship athletes don't learn much during their degrees and have fairly limited employment prospects outside of their chosen sport.

With 15 years of history to look at, and having watched the game more than once since then, it is understood by most experts that the game never actually happened. The fix was in from the start, and whether everyone on the team was in on it or not is irrelevant. It remains a black mark on the program, but the mark it left on some of the players was another. Larry Johnson played five all star seasons, and then quietly played five seasons for the Knicks before retiring without fanfare. The others, had moments of brilliance, but never really took off.

When it came time to be free agents, most GMs had concerns they could neither prove nor substantiate. You know, that feeling in the back of your mind. After a meandering career in Europe, Anderson Hunt works in a Casino as a cook.

Watching Vegas over the past couple of weeks reminded me of the feeling I had as a teenager. It also reminded me of the greatest team in NCAA history that time has forgotten because of yet unproven allegations. I wonder why it was never more vigorously pursued - I bet it is because it happens a lot more than more NCAA executives are willing to admit.

And, we wouldn't want to tarnish that perfect Blue Devil image, now would we?

Family Politics

Quebec's election has got me to thinkin' - maybe we should look at Canada as a family rather than as a federation.

Ontario is the Daddy. It makes the money and it brings home the bacon. It makes decisions unless everyone else gangs up against it. It works for the neighbour next door who is always flirting with Mommy.

Alberta is the Mommy. It wants to stay, but it has very different priorities than Daddy - especially as he deals with the children. If she left, it would be very painful, very expensive and everyone in the family would be hurt, but both would make it work. If she left Daddy for the neighbour next door, he would screw her as long as she was pretty, but would cast her aside when her looks fail.

Quebec is the bi-polar oldest child. Sometimes it loves Mommy and Daddy. Sometimes it threatens to leave. Voting for Dumont's autonomy is like moving into the basement. It could make it on its own, but it would be living in a studio apartment instead of in the nicest house on the block. If it left the family, it would be a pain for Daddy because there would be no one left to clean out the gutters - but it would get done eventually.

B.C. is the pot smoking uncle that is always trying to deal some weed while flirting with the Asians across the street.

The North, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are the youngest children- they understand that they need mommy and daddy and are learning from them every day. They help out in the kitchen, but often that help makes clean-up harder. They would like a raise in their allowance but aren't sure who to ask for it.

The Maritimes are the retirees who live pretty independently, but still need help from time to time. They are very polite about it, and they are always asking for Mommy, Daddy and the Asians across the street to come for a visit. Because of their hard work a long time ago, mommy and daddy are in a better position to thrive now.

And Newfoundland is the crazy old coot that thinks it can support itself and insists that they have been independent before. They live on dreams of future development and while they have lots of potential - they are completely dependent on Daddy and Mommy (to the point of leaving Newfoundland to go and work there) to survive.

Truth to Power

Some times the hardest thing to do in the world is telling truth to power.

So, we don't do it.

We tell power that "we have some problems with your approach, but are supportive of your overall direction." After the meeting, I tell "power's" policy advisory that his boss is a fucking idiot and that they didn't think very hard before they came up with their cockamamie scheme. The law of unintended consequences is that someone didn't do their homework and as a result, there are toads everywhere.

I have been back-channelling truth to power all week.

I have also been on the phone with just about every reporter who will listen.

St. Flaherty Day

I was watching Jim with his green tie and thought to myself - man, he looks like a short little leprechaun (he is like 5'7'').

Except, he is the only leprechaun I know that gives away his pot 'o gold.

"Budget 2007- Its magically delicious."

A Billion here...

A billion there - pretty soon we are talking about real money.

I am currently sitting in the budget lock-up waiting for the Finance Minister to start speaking, though given my briefing package included his speech to the House, I already know what he is going to say.

The room is filled with everyone who is an expert about every minute slice of the policy world. Most of them are pretty ambivalent about what their "goodies" are. Many of them are shocked at what they thought they were going to get. A select few of them are downright pissed about new taxes being levied against their industry. One of them is crying in the corner - but she represents the CCBA - the Canadian Cry Babies Association.

There are a lot of problems with the budget - but more than anything else, what isn't in it is bothering me:

G.S.T. Cut? Hello? Where is it? Have they met any of their priorities?

There is nothing for the implementation of the Accountability Act. That is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars before they charge anyone.

There is all kinds of money for renewable fuels, but no way to deliver those fuels to consumers so they can buy more expensive technology that allows them to drive cleaner cars. There is no point in offering an incentive to purchase an E-85 ethanol or celluosic fueled car when you can't get the gas at the pump. Well, let me correct myself and say - there is no ENVIRONMENTAL point to doing it.

There are taxes on cars that I can buy without those taxes and free of import duties in the United States.

There is 39 billion dollars to fix the fiscal imbalance - a problem which didn't even exist two years ago. Of course, Quebec politicians are unanimous in their support for it. Shock-ing.

On the news, they will say "this is an election budget." Sorry, but all budgets are election budgets.

Bad for Business?

The other day, with a group of Liberals, I lamented the back-assward way that the Conservative government was approaching a series of environmental initiatives, warning how it would inevitably drive investment out of the country.

One of the people I was speaking to said, tongue half-planted in cheek, "So, are you saying that the Conservatives are bad for business?"

I started to say yes, but then I corrected myself and said "No, not the Conservatives. Governments are bad for business."

There are two reasons for this - the first being that politicians don't have ideas of their own- they get them from government bureaucrats who for the most part keep pushing the same idea they wrote their master's thesis on in 1983. Example - the recent slew of re-announcements by the Tories and their plans to regulate GHGs. There are a bazillion ways they could go about reducing GHGs without hard caps and strict regulations, but the government doesn't use (what I have coined) the tool box approach. Governments only use one tool - the (regulatory) hammer. Even to cut wood and paint. Hammer smash smash, scrape scrape.

The second is that the nature of government is to make it harder to do things. There are lots of examples, but the best and most easily understandable is trying to pay your taxes. Good luck. Governments complicate things in a way that would bankrupt the private sector and one only has to look at the size of your average government department to see why - there are almost as many people working at the DFO then there are fisherman.

It is at this cross-roads that my liberalism and my libertarianism clearly intersect. I have always believed that it was the market that drove change, not the government driving the change. We switched from clean burning whale oil to gasoline because of advents in the market. We drive smaller cars because the price of gas goes up and down. We drink skim milk because it is better for us.

But, the original question remains- why are governments bad for business? It is because they add costs to a business model during an unexpected cycle to meet a non-related social benefit - a social benefit which only they can define and understand. If business knew the costs of all government programs before investing, there would be no problem- mostly because in many cases they would avoid the investment entirely.

The role of the government is to ensure that the health, safety and security of its people remains protected from within or without. I have no problems with strict environmental laws - provided that they make sense in achieving clearly defined environmental goals, they predictable and are integrated into the cost of doing business. I have a HUGE problem with randomly precise regulations and targets that have disproportionately low environmental impact relative to the high cost of implementation and are disjointed from competing provincial or municipal regulations/bylaws.

All of this is to say that my experience is that it doesn't matter who is in power when the people giving them their materials don't think outside of their policy box to look at the bigger picture.

Quebec and Call, redux

If I was Premier Charest, I would just go to Hawaii for the rest of the campaign and not say another word.

Mr. Boisclair has invoked the problems with seeing so many "slanty eyed students" when he studied at Harvard.

Mr. Dumont's silver bullet was neither silver, nor a bullet. The memo he pulled out during the televised debate did not lead to the conclusions he made, and he misrepresented their contents on "national" television. Politicizing that tragedy is going to hurt him hard in Laval- where yesterday he actually had a chance to win two of the five seats there. The attitude will seep out into the rest of the province.

It leads me to the inescapable question - what the fuck is wrong with Quebec politicians?

1) Lucien Bouchard says they need more white babies;
2) Jacques Parizeau blames everything on big money and the ethnic vote;
3) You can't be a federal Liberal in Quebec without a criminal record of some kind;
4) Hundreds of dead people voted for Tom Long in the Quebec region of the Canadian Alliance leadership race; and
5) Prime Minister Chretien was never more popular then when he choked the shit out of a protester.

Quebec Politics is a caricature of itself. Sure this stuff happens in other places, but it just seems to resonate at an exponentially higher level of idiocy there. That is why the federal government panders so openly to Quebec.

Somehow I doubt that when travelling abroad, Quebec voters would say "that's one of mine" in reference to a Quebec Politician. "It's a Bomb- bard, eh?"

Gushing over Gushue

Last night Glen Howard defeated Newfoundland's greatest son at the Brier.

Glen Howard has curled for 35 years and has already won two world championships as a third. His team lost a close one last year, and he has had a great team together for a decade.

Gushue, whose team is extremely talented, had been managed to success by Glen's brother Russ and to be fair, was playing WAY over his head this week.

Yesterday's game proves two things 1) Gushue's team remains extremely talented and 2) They remain completely inexperienced. They lost that game because they were stupid, not because Ontario made better shots. If Russ Howard had been on the ice with them, they would have won in a walk. Like they did at the Olympics.

This is not to say that Gushue is no good and needs Howard to win. Far from it. It is to say that If Russ Howard had been in the rings, NFLD would not have attempted either of the TWO shots that cost them the Brier. In fact, when they turned the camera on Mr. Howard, you could read his lips when he said (to his son) 'what the fuck are they doin?' Russ, of course, when cheering had no choice but to chose family.

There are some things you can't teach - you can only learn. Experience is one of them. Barring another hot shot junior, Gushue will be a factor in every significant tournament for the foreseeable future, and will eventually start winning them on his own. He remains stuck on a heavy take-out game that can often lead to unpredictability and where slight imperfections can lead to big swings. It is nice to have that heavy shot in the bag when it is needed, but you can't always win with it.

Simon says change the rules

The NHL has proclaimed 25 games for Simple Simon. People debate whether it is too hard or too soft - I am just glad that the guy who got the ax-handle across the nose is still alive. I hope that Executive Assistant District Attorney McCoy doesn't go easy on him.

I have always been a sports fan. I have always played a lot of sports. I have always thought there are stupid rules. I give you now a short collection of rule changes I think should be made to make the game fairier.

In all leagues - if you break the rules of the game and injure a player on the other team, in addition to whatever fate the league decides, your suspension should last as long as the player you injured is out of the game. The fact that Todd Bertuzzi is allowed to play hockey while the young player he partially paralyzed is just barely getting around on his own is a crime against humanity. Hatchet jobs and extreme violence have no place in sports. Period. This idea is bascially the application of the Thin Skull Rule to the internal rules of professional sports - meaning that you take your victim as you find him, and regardless of your intent to harm them (I only wanted to cut him, not kill him) you are responsible for the ramifications of your tortious act. But for your stupidity, Mr. Moore would still be in the league today.

Critics will say "But, Mr. Moore is going to sue Bertuzzi for bagillions, isn't this just compounding the punishment." The answer is: YES, stop being a goon. Leagues have all kinds of rules that compliment existing structures - like a strong anti-drug policy - and it is there right to do so. If you want to play hockey, you have to play it our way. Stop trying to hurt people you animal.

In Baseball: We need to get rid of the designated hitter rule. Not because it gives an unfair advantage to the National league in the World Series (NL pitchers hit about 0.190 instead of .185 - insert rolling eyes here) but because it causes injuries to pitchers and often better performances are cut loose for the marginal advantage that substituting a pitch hitter can have in tight situations.

We also need to revisit how we look at the perfect game. An error should not blemish a perfect game. In my view a perfect game should be distuinguished froma no-hitter, and that you can be able to thrown one despite giving up hits. A perfect game, by my definition, is one where you get face 27 batters out you get them all out. It doesn't matter when it happens - as long as they are all out at the end of the game. For example, if the third baseman makes an error allowing for a batsman to get to first, and the next batter hits into a double play - I believe the perfect game should remain intact.

Finally, if a pitcher wants to walk a guy, he should just say "Go to first." As if baseball games aren't long enough already.

In Football: Sudden death overtime is stupid as the majority of games I have seen are won on the first possession. Let them play a full five minutes.

In Hockey: Why is a victory in overtime worth less than a victory in regular time? Every other major sport says a win is a win.

In Basketball: We need to alow zone defence in the NBA. If for no other reason that everyone in the league is already using it, and the refs have to make ridiculous distinctions about what technically constitutes a zone. Limiting defensive options is not going to make play any less spectacular - and it is in the teams' best interests. The players they scout to play the pivot have just spent 20 years of their lives playing zone defence and standing under the basket. Now, with no prior training, they have to play man to man? I don't care who your scout is, there is no one who can effectively judge a guy at a position he has never played.

And finally, and probably the most contentious, we need to do away with the automatic berths for "conference champions" into the NCAA championship tournament. There is no universe where "Jackson State," the Southwestern Athletic Conference champions, deserve a berth in the tournament over a team like Syracuse or Florida State who play top ranked teams week in and week out. These smaller conference winners always push out ten teams that are significantly better. This isn't to say that the smaller conference teams can't compete - far from it as Gonzaga has repeatedly proven - this is to say that they should earn their way in the same way that everyone else does. By being the best in the nation over the course of an entire year- not the best in a small region over the course of a week long tournament.

The delicate balance between God and Evolution

I was watching the CBC last night and apparently, the city of Darwin Australia is under siege.

By toads. The second plague of Egypt has missed by about 11,620 kilometres.

Of course, these toads aren't indigenous to Australia. They were introduced to eat beetles. Didn't these idiots learn anything from their introduction of rabbits into an ecosystem without natural predators?

Except, not only did they not learn from it - they introduced a POISONOUS species into an ecosystem that couldn't handle it. What is next? A shark that shoots laser beams?

The nutty part is that these poisonous frogs are being collected by "toad harvesters" and being turned into fertilizer by freezing them and liquefying them.

The wonder, however, is that predators in the bush are evolving so as to protect themselves from the toads. Snakes are growing smaller heads so they can't bite into these giants toads. Not exactly helpful at getting rid of the toads, but useful for the safety of other poisonous creatures.

I just love that we have seen rapid generational evolution just outside of a town named Darwin. There is no way that is natural selection, that is god proving she has a sense of humour.

My friends have all heard my rant about Australia - God is hiding something really valuable there - protecting it with poisonous snakes, toads, spiders, pestilence, deserts etc - and the entire island is surrounded by Great Hammerhead and Great White Sharks. You have to be completely insane to live there. This just proves it- the toads are advancing on civilization to drive out the humans before they discover God's magic box.

There are, however, no poisonous snakes, toads or spiders in New Zealand, which was at one time part of Australia.

Policy should be trade marked, if not copyrighted

So, the Prime Minister announced a billion in funding for the City of Toronto. They are going to build a new subway stop and improve the commuting system. Hooray. Not Surprisingly, this is almost identical to the money found in (what was then) C-48 and C-66 from the 38th Parliament (implementation acts for the fall 2005 mini-budget). John Godfrey (L - Don't let the door hit you...), the previous Minister for Infrastructure and Cities, made the EXACT same announcement in the fall of 2005. Almost word for freakin' word.

Canada's new government certainly looks an awful like Canada's old one.

Just out of curiosity, doesn't this just cancel out the two billion in funding that the then President of the Treasury Board fucked the city of Ottawa out of for its light rail system? I suppose there should be gridlock on Bronson that matches that which occurs in the House of Commons.

The Prime Minister also announced support for the East/West transmission grid. Guess what- this is a re-announcement of a program that started development in 2001.

When these monkeys come up with an original idea, can someone let me know?

Or maybe the country should just realize that the public service doesn't have any new ideas either. They just keep repackaging old ones. If the private sector worked this way, I would still be using a Vic-20.

The point, of course, is that Stephen Harper was absolutely correct on January 20th, 2006 when he said that electing the Conservatives would not create a "sea-change" in Ottawa because all the bureaucrats and judges would still be "liberal appointees." Not exactly how the public service works, but it certainly says alot regarding how much of a difference the people sitting to the right of the speaker make, doesn't it? And it shows how well Harper understands how Ottawa really works.

The National Primary

Apparently there are going to be two national elections in America next year.

This proposed primary is very different from Super Tuesday because of when it happens. In the past, Super Tuesday has happened in early March. In 2008, there is a proposal afoot to have the five biggest states (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois) and other significant ones (New Jersey, North Carolina) vote on February 5, 2008. The proposal is gaining a lot of supporters, most notably the Secretary of State for California.

This would completely change the way the U.S. Primary system works, and in my opinion, would make New Hampshire and Iowa (and now Nevada) even MORE important, not less. Depending on your type of meltdown, under the current system, you can come back from a loss in New Hampshire. Bill Clinton (1992) and George Bush (2000) being the two most recent and best examples- they lost in New Hampshire but did well enough that they could fundraise and raise their profile in time to win South Carolina, and secure the nomination on Super Tuesday.

But, if you don't have a month to raise money and rebuild momentum you might be in a little trouble. Especially if you are in a tight race.

On the Democrat side, Bill Clinton (D- Article two) has changed the tone all of a sudden. The most popular President ever with African Americans has finally made an appearance on behalf of his wife (D - Opportunism) at a rally in Selma, Alabama celebrating the Voting Rights Act. Walking onto the stage to speak with/for his wife does two huge things:

1) It reminds America that they were a team from 1992-2000. A lot of voters may think that by electing Hillary, they will get four to eight more years of Bill Clinton. I think to a certain extent they would be right, but for the obvious moves she would make to show the world that she isn't just "Clinton 2." I am not so naive as to think that this conclusion is also happening on the very fractured right. This is a very significant knock against Hillary2008 in Democratic circles - very much like Mr. Bush has unsuccessfully claimed to be - Hillary is a "uniter"- she would unite the right to the point of revolutionary insurrection.

2) It shows how very weak/exposed Hillary is. If she can't (pardon the awful and racist pun) whip up African American support for her campaign and needs her husband to do it for her, her campaign is as good as dead. This seems ridiculous to me because of all the declared candidates, the network upon which she is running has already worked...twice. If her husband's supporters don't want to support her already, she is beyond dead because the 50% of Americans who vote are already tiring of her and the Primaries are a year away.

Lamentations about the implications to feminism aside, she remains entirely a product of her husband's career, and is having a really tough time getting that same support. Her attempts to stand alone have not been perfect, and as a Democratic candidate, since 9-11 she has a very difficult voting record to defend. Maybe this is an attempt to remind her husband's supporters that they were a team before, damn the consequences that may carry.

Bill Clinton (D- Article 2) remains my first choice for 2008. Constitutional limitations aside, based on the current slate of declared candidates, I would rather have Hillary in charge with Bill pulling the strings than any other possibility because Hillary remains: a) a moderate and b) learned in the ways of government. The elephant in the atmosphere remains Al Gore (D- An Inconvenient Candidate).

On the republican side, Rudy's (R- President of 911) numbers remain impressive. He is the only Republican candidate who can put California in play- which would deliver a virtual lock on the electoral college. Success in the national primary hurts Rudy because it gives the Social Conservative right an extra month to get their shit together if it looks like he is going to win the Republican nomination. Never would the selection of a socially conservative running mate (like Brownback, Huckabee or - perish the though- a pro-life woman) be more important and timely than to cut off that movement from the outset.

If he can't get over that hurdle, the socon part of the party will either stay home or get a new candidate. There is already talk of an independent Brownback candidacy to push the issues that are most important to Religious Red-Staters. They don't seem willing to listen to reason about the ramifications of splitting the right believing the twice divorced and g-d less Rudy to be as bad as any Democrat. How short their memories are from the last two times the right split in America - It led directly to President Clinton in both 1992 and 1996 - this time the right would split the other way and it would probably lead to another President Clinton.

Carbon Taxes: No different than any other user fee

After reading today's press coverage of Mr. Dion's announcement, I wonder if anyone in the press gallery understands how a carbon tax works. The Minister of the Environment assailed the measure during Question Period yesterday, making me wonder if he understands that the regulation of industry is nothing more than a revenue neutral tax on competitiveness.

Assuming the Government intends to follow the Rule of Law and be bound by C-288 upon Royal Assent, a new carbon tax on oil exports could be the perfect solution. Say what you want about Kyoto and the Clean development mechanisms found within it, but since that debate is now seemingly over, the government will have to come up with a plan - and pronto. Maybe I can help.

For every barrel of oil we export, we should stamp the barrel "Kyoto Compliant" and add a $3.00 levy to its price. Since the overwhelming majority of our oil exports go to the U.S. which remains addicted to oil, the sweet and crude (pun intended) irony is that America would foot Canada's Kyoto costs. Based on current market trends, world oil prices remaining stable (they will likely go up with Asian appetites growing) and the growing preference of Americans to buy oil from non-terrorists - Canada would have enough money to buy its way into compliance by 2010 with no "cost" out of the pockets of Canadian industry or taxpayers. Given the lead taken by many U.S. companies on this issue, I can see the Exxon Mobile commercials already.

Of course, we could just pocket the money and hide it from our supplier. Or we could charge an extra $5.00. Or $10.00. This is why selling drugs leads to shootings.

I would also like to remind everyone that based on the world price of oil, gasoline is VERY inexpensive in Canada and the United States. Adjusting for inflation, the price of gas remains a fraction of the levels it reached during the crisis in the 1970s. During last year's price surge, it was still cheaper in Chicago than it was in Paris (Chicago is the historically the most expensive jurisdiction in North America regularly getting to $3.00 a gallon) The only country where gasoline is cheaper is Nigeria - where they have a very strong government subsidy embedded into the price.

I would have exactly NO problems if the price of gas doubled in North America - income taxes would go drastically down; traffic congestion would diminish; vehicle fleets would become newer, smaller and safer; infrastructure would be improved...Let those who choose to use the service absorb the cost of it.

And someone from Alberta would shoot the Prime Minister. His successor, bathing in tax revenues, wouldn't change a thing (just like the GST).

Of course, my clear preference is to improve the Clean Development Mechanisms within the accord to make current international development funds and EDC investments qualify for accreditation. There is no doubt that the work done by these two organizations does more than any international treaty could possibly imagine for improving the local and global environment. Frankly, I find it insulting that (random country) Algeria can so happily accept tied aid from Canada so that they can have clean drinking water, and subsequently turn around and demand that we pay a penalty for failing to meet Kyoto domestically. I wonder if they would protest if we transferred CIDA's budget directly to Kyoto CDM payments. But I digress...

Rule of Law, Smool of Law. If Canada was really serious about climactic change and having an impact on the world environment, we should be driving our emissions up. Yes, UP. The bottom line is that investment is occurring globally, and for a series of reasons, those investments are happening in developing nations. The most important is burgeoning market proximity, but we still live in an export driven global economy. Those same nations are constantly engaged in a race to the bottom - and are (ahem) lax in the enforceability of their environmental rules. Canada record on enforcement is probably the best in the world.

We allow for the growth (on an intensity basis) knowing that by having this investment here, it would have an impact on the release of anthropogenic gases- but a lower impact than it would have in Bolivia because of the sustainability ethic that exists in Canada. There is such a thing as cleaner pollution, and the pollution is going to occur - so it might as well occur here where we get an effective double hit: Our tough enforcement, and our (relatively) cleaner power generation. Investment in Quebec is the cleanest investment in the world because they have emissions free electricity.

The concept of "Value-Added" is something that is not well understood by decision makers. The Alberta economy is currently based on "extract and export" to a jurisdiction which refines and remolds (a very carbon intensive process). Once the product leaves our borders, we lose control over how its life cycle continues. Sure, it creates high paying jobs, but there is so much more that could be "added" to the value chain at home - with the aforementioned assurances for environmental sustainability.

This is not an endorsement for the Conservative environmental position- far from it - but it is an acknowledgement that the existing public perception of tackling the human sources of global climate change at home is bass-ackward. We can reduce global emissions by ensuring that polluters pollute here- as it relates to C02, the location of the emission is irrelevant to a global problem. While polluting here, they pay for our roads. By discouraging emissions increases (code for investment) we drive that investment away to other locations where the exact same CO2 will be emitted, if not more.