Just because you're paranoid ...

... doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

It looks like Alberta Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman will be eating crow at her next press conference. Back here, I blogged about her weird attack on Premier Stelmach after he indicated that he would reject any attempt by Canada's other Premiers to impose hard caps on GHG emissions at the then upcoming Council of the Federation meeting. Such a proposal was rumoured to be in the works.

Blakeman went ballistic and accused Stelmach of erecting a smokescreen. She then described Alberta's position as "hubris", or "extreme paranoia". Evidently, Laurie Blakeman was of the view that the other Premiers had no such plan, even though the other provinces could make billions selling meaningless carbon emissions credits to Alberta under a cap and trade system.

From Thursday's National Post:

Canada's 13 premiers and territorial leaders will walk away from a three-day meeting on climate change today exactly as they entered it -- without an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ...

Ontario, British Columbia and Manitoba were pushing an aggressive plan to surpass what they deem inadequate measures introduced by the federal government earlier this year. ...

(Ontario Premier Dalton) McGuinty came to the Moncton meeting touting an inter-provincial carbon trading market, known as a "cap and trade" system, which would set limits for greenhouse gas emissions. The arrangement, backed by Quebec Premier Jean Charest and others, would allow higher polluting companies to purchase credits from those who came under their limits.

Alberta firmly opposes cap and trade.

So, the rumours Premier Stelmach commented on were basically true, and Laurie Blakeman was completely wrong. Ontario and Quebec were pushing for hard caps, and a national cap and trade system. This wealth redistribution plan was strongly backed by British Columbia, Manitoba, and others.

Only Newfoundland and Nova Scotia were prepared to defend Alberta's right to set up its own plan. I like what Premier Danny Williams had to say:

"We don't want to basically slay the goose that lays the golden egg," said Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, who controls significant energy deposits in his province. "I don't think Alberta should be forced into a corner or should be put into a corner. "We don't want to save the world on the back of Alberta."

It's pretty sad that Danny Williams is a better advocate for Alberta's interests than the sycophants in the Alberta Liberal Party.

Maybe one day the Alberta Liberals will wake up and actually attempt to represent the interests of the people they are paid to represent, rather than kowtowing to their Central Canadian masters.

Source (click for full screencap):

Alberta Liberal MLA Laurie Blakeman attacks Alberta

Wow!

But Liberal house leader Laurie Blakeman said Albertans should be wary of the premier's position: for one, she said, it's likely just a smokescreen to divert attention from what Alberta really wants from the conference. Former premier Ralph Klein regularly preceded first ministers meetings by suggesting Alberta would be ganged up on.

"I think it's either hubris on behalf of Alberta, which always thinks it is the most important at these national meetings, or it's an extreme kind of paranoia," she joked.

"They're using it as a smokescreen."

This is the segment of the article that provoked Blakeman's attack:

"The message is very clear: don't mess with Alberta," Stelmach said yesterday, in advance of the Council of the Federation - or first ministers conference, as they used to be known - in Moncton, N.B.

While the premier wouldn't confirm he'd heard rumours that other provincial premiers are going to gang up on him over climate change, Sun Media's Neil Waugh reported in a column yesterday that there are rumblings several provincial leaders - most notably Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty - will be looking for national "hard caps" on carbon emissions.

Stelmach said he was unaware of any such effort but if it does flare up, he'll say that, while other provinces were dithering in 2003 over issues raised by the Kyoto accord, Alberta was implementing guidelines for emissions measurement.

So, Premier Ed Stelmach comments on a reporter's suggestion that Dalton McGuinty and Jean Charest are planning to propose hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions at the Premiers' meeting this coming week (caps which would be inconsistent with Alberta's emissions plan), and Laurie Blakeman rushes in to condemn Stelmach for erecting a smokescreen, then accuses the entire province of "hubris", or "extreme paranoia".

Apparently Laurie Blakeman and the Alberta Liberals know for sure that Ontario and Quebec are not going to propose a national regime that would include hard caps. The rumour must be a figment of Neil Waugh's imagination.

It will be interesting to see what exactly gets said at the meeting, now that Blakeman and the Alberta Liberals have gone on record strongly denouncing the idea that McGuinty and Charest will propose hard caps.

Source (click for screencap):

Dave Rutherford bitchslaps Mark Holland

I'm still catching up on posting audio files that have been sitting on my server for months. Today's clip is from February 2, 2007, and features Liberal MP Mark Holland being interviewed by Dave Rutherford.

I blogged about Mark Holland's nutty NEP II proposal here. Given the huge interventions into the Alberta economy being proposed by Holland, it should come as no surprise that the Alberta media picked up on this rather quickly. In addition to proposing a new NEP, the interview contains many examples of how ill-informed many of the pro-Kyoto people are.

I will fisk the interview at a later date.

Listen here:

Mark Holland's infamous attack on Alberta

Fun, fun, fun.

Today's audio is dated, but memorable. It features an appearance by Liberal MP Mark Holland on the February 1, 2007 Charles Adler Show. During the interview, Holland creates the impression that a Dion government would engage in a massive intrusion into the regulatory jurisdiction of Alberta over the Athabasca oil sands.

Holland was at one time considered an up and comer in the Liberal Party of Canada, and was appearing a lot in the national media. I notice that his appearances have been scaled back considerably since the spring.

Another example of the Peter Principle in action?

Listen here:

Stephane Dion's NEP II will be the story of 2007

Well, it's prediction time.

In my opinion, the biggest news story of 2007 will be the federal government's implementation of the Kyoto Accord, the first phase of which comes into force next year. It is clear that the Conservative plan is a non-starter, so it will likely be fed into the nearest paper shredder whenever the Conservatives leave office, which I predict will happen as early as the spring of 2007. My crystal ball tells me that they will lose the budget vote at that time, although it is certainly possible that the Bloc Quebecois may support the Conservatives if the Bloc's poll numbers are lower than they would like them to be.

If the Conservatives are defeated in the spring of 2007, I predict that we will see a return to Liberal government, and with that, a return to the regional preference and discrimination policies that have been the hallmark of that party's success since confederation.

If the next government is a Liberal minority, it will be especially scary for Albertans. The government will likely seek support from the NDP and/or Bloc, and will have to strike a fairly extreme position on Kyoto implementation in order to keep these partners satisfied. They will insist on billions in spending, billions in new taxes and penalties -disproportionately paid for by Alberta of course - and preferential treatment for Eastern-based industry. The Liberal government of Stephane Dion will be only too happy to accomodate these requests, since votes in Alberta are relatively scarce for the Liberals, and certainly far less valuable to them than the potential billions they believe they can extract without any expense to the people that matter.

Given these predictions, one of my new year's resolutions is to cover the Kyoto implementation issue from an Albertan's perspective, while paying particular attention to chronicling the greed, lies, fear-mongering, and outright duplicity of the Kyoto proponents.

In furtherance of this resolution, I have begun gathering articles and news clippings on the Kyoto issue. Based on the materials that I have reviewed to date, it would appear the first lines of argument that Dion will attempt will be (i) exaggerate the dangers to the environment of the petroleum industry in relation to other emitters, and (ii) repeat the canard that the petroleum industry receives excessive benefits from the public purse - thereby conditioning the public for the upcoming cash grab. These lines of argument become clear when one focusses on the public statements of Dion since he was elected Liberal leader. For example, the day after his election, he held a press conference wherein he promised to "revisit the tax system" as it pertains to the petroleum industry:

"Certainly it will mean revisiting the tax system, but not to put the money out of Alberta - to help Alberta save their water, to save their development, to avoid acid rain, to reconcile agriculture and (the) oil industry." ...

... "In particular, the advantageous tax treatment oil and gas companies receive should be reviewed," his policy states.

"It is no longer clear that this special tax treatment is warranted given the boom in development, massive profits and rising price of all types of fossil fuels."

Source: Calgary Sun

Click for full screencap

Then, from the December 22, 2006 edition of Business Edge:

Dion said he will review existing breaks for the oilsands if he becomes prime minister, and will only allow them for companies that meet high environmental standards. ...

... Dion said he would not impose a tax on gasoline but would use fiscal measures to encourage companies to adopt green technology.

Alberta's oilpatch receives an estimated $1.4 billion in annual tax breaks through a program designed to encourage new construction projects.

Dion said the Accelerated Capital Cost Program, designed a decade ago to help the then-fledgling industry, is outdated and needs to be revamped.

"We will revisit it completely," Dion said.

"Instead of an economy based on waste, we will have an economy based on recycling, on the best environmental technologies available."

Source: Business Edge

Click for full screencap

So, to summarize:

• Dion is basically confirming the Accelerated Capital Cost Program will be cancelled, which will result in an additional $1.4 billion to the Ottawa treasury (almost entirely from Alberta). None of the billions in direct subsidies and tax breaks to the Ontario auto industry, the Quebec aerospace industry, or the industries of Atlantic Canada warranted attention from Dion at his first press conference. Evidently, such things as cars, and Bombardier executive jets - which are the most polluting mode of transportation in the world - are less of a target in the gun sights of Dion.
• The additional money sent to Ottawa will "not be put out of Alberta", but will be reinvested here to save our water, development, and farmland - and to save us from acid rain. Dion does not state the constitutional basis for these new regulatory intrusions into local developments and Alberta's farms. Is this another example of asymmetrical federalism, wherein the federal government exercises powers in Alberta that it doesn't even purport to possess in Quebec? Time will tell.
• There will be unspecified additional fiscal measures directed towards the oilpatch, but there will be no tax on gasoline. However, I'm sure Dion knows that there are already an array of taxes on gasoline. In fact, gasoline is one of the most heavily taxed commodities in the country. We even pay taxes on the taxes on gasoline, so I assume Dion is saying he will impose no additional consumption taxes on gasoline. But what about regional and industry specific taxes? Does Dion have an economic study that would support such taxes? If so, where can I get it? If not, why has he ruled out a broader consumption tax?

Hopefully, during the course of the next year, I'll be able to find the answers to some of these questions.

On the other hand, I already know what the answer will be to the question of how the Alberta Liberals will respond to all this: they will go along with everything their Ottawa masters propose.

After all, you can't expect Kevin Taft to actually defend the people or businesses who pay his salary, and thereby jeopardize his appointment to the Senate, can you?