The former prime minister who signed Canada onto the Kyoto accord is dismissing claims from the current government that its goals are unattainable.
Jean Chretien said Monday that Canada can still reach the environmental targets he committed to before leaving office in 2003. Chretien urged the new Conservative government to keep working toward Kyoto's target of a six-per-cent reduction in greenhouse gas levels from 1990...
" I don't think Canada will want to turn its back on Kyoto," he said.
"There are very big consequences on that. It's tough to achieve, but it's achievable."
It's nice to hear Chretien championing Kyoto, although critics could justifably argue that his government did little to actually implement the Accord's requirements. Signing it was easy, but the Liberals failed to take the tough stances necessary and this hurt their credibility on the environment. Chretien may see Kyoto as part of his legacy, hence the rebuke to the Conservatives. The lack of practical application by the governing Liberals left the door open for Harper and company to use the "unattainable" angle, as a result of wasted years. I think it strange that Chretien would choose this talking point, given the legacy, although I agree with the sentiment.
3 comments:
Brian is Back, as well!
We noticed during the campaign that Harper was in almost daily contact with Brian Mulroney, and many of us suspected that Mulroney was behind Harper’s promise to Quebec to gut the federal government by transferring taxation powers from the centre to the provinces. All that for a mess of porridge in the form of less than a dozen Quebec seats. What a small number of silver shekels that deal resulted in ...
Now we see the suspicions confirmed in the article by Robin V. Sears in the March 2006 issue of Policy Options, if Spears is right. He writes:
“Meticulously tutored by Mulroney, the master of Quebec coalition politics, Harper has been sending many of the right signals to restless Quebec federalists: an appropriate role in international organizations, an acknowledgement that Ottawa takes too large a tax bite from all of the provinces, including Quebec, and recognition that excess revenue has fed a federal appetite to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.”
Just a minute, Mr. Spears! Mulroney was a master of Quebec coalition politics?? He is the Prime Minister who just about wrecked the country with his kowtowing to separatists in his desperate bid to gain and retain power for his party.
Some master!
Canadians should watch very carefully what Harper does in Quebec, given the nature of his mentor’s proven track record in sowing dissension in the country.
Harper might also ponder whether he should listen too carefully to a man who, after his leaving, saw his party melt down in the most spectacular implosion in Canadian political history. The puppet should beware the puppet master....
Chrétien was also the one who (with the willing help of his finance minister)cut funding to health, the environment, housing (etc.): to the extent that he not only made privatization of health care (having destroyed it) more appealing to a larger number of Canadians but also thus removed the main lever of power (funding) for the federal government.
I loathed Mulroney and was against his deals with the provinces, however, he did understand a basic aspect of Québec politics (one which annoys me immensely): it's all too easy to burble on about collaborating with separatists. Mulroney didn't play on dissension - he expertly seduced the (soft) nationalists.
Why have a federation if it doesn't stand for certain values? This is where Harper is truly a danger: here in Québec we can be fairly complacent because of our cultural cohesion and the route to separation that always becomes appealing when necessary... what happens when Harper effectively makes 'Canada' meaningless?
lept
I would love to hear your opinion on the proper federalist approach, to appease Quebec's unique circumstance, without making the federation useless.
Post a Comment