• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

fp - letters on kent's op ed: canada leaving kyoto, big deal

Help Support Ranchers.net:


Well-known member
Dec 11, 2009
Reaction score

Canada is leaving the Kyoto! Big deal

I have been following this nonsense from the beginning. Today, I am amazed that it is still the agenda of the worlds governments.

Mr Chretien, with dictatorial power, signed for Canada in 2002. Mr. Maurice Strong got the UN to establish the IPCC in 1988. It was the goal of M. Strong to destroy the economies of the western civilized countries. The UN saw the opportunity to gain world control. The basis for all this was to get the general public in all of the western world to believe that we had global warming caused by CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuel. The biggest scientific scam of the century.

The best way to destroy the economies of the countries was to destroy the energy sectors. The UN and the national governments have spent billions of taxpayers dollars on junk science. The students at collage and universities are being brainwashed to believe in the “new science”.

How to destroy the energy sectors. Well promote all the useless GREEN energies, ROR, windmill and solar power and ban all dirty coal and natural gas fired power plants. Well, the technology for building clean burning coal and gas fired plants has been with us for more than 30 years.

Yes, it seems to have worked extremely well in Europe and the USA. Canada is a little late to be counted. For sure, the industrial world is in a man-made recession.

How could it come this far? Well, our governments have accepted to be directed by the corrupt UN/IPCC and the NGO environmental organizations, or should we say ECO-Terrorists, have bin working hand in hand with the UN/IPCC. Yes, there has been absolutely no leadership shown by our elected officials. However our PM as well as his minister for environment both know that it is all based on the hoax of the century.

In addition, the propaganda machinery of the UN, the MSM including the CBC and most other news outlet have been willing to spread the propaganda. It is funny to watch the CBC weekly or by-weekly showing pictures from the Arctic of melting ice. Well it is summer pictures with nice sunshine. In the wintertime it is all dark. I guess, the general public does not know.

I get the impression from your article that we are not going to see any changes. Our government will continue to base their politic on junk science instead of sound science.

The only way this can be changed it to ensure that the general public is informed about the HOAX. Then the politicians will change. That is way we need the media to tell the truth. That may be difficult. I once confronted a journalist who had written an article about an energy matter. I pointed out to him that it was not true what he was stating. He told me that he did not want to upset his clients.

I have been a consulting engineer for more than 40 years. Several years ago, I pointed out to my professional organization that any engineer or scientist who was deliberately misleading the public was a simple criminal. The ethics commissioner in general agreed with me but he said he could not do anything. So much about professional ethics.

Jorgen V. Jensen.


I agree with Peter Kent’s comments Re: Canada’s Post- Kyoto Plan as well as Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. This is the best Energy related news I’ve heard in years.

J. McAllister, Gatineau.


Yes, I absolutely agree with Peter Kent regarding Canada’s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto plan. We finally have a government which is attempting to act in Canada’s best interests as opposed to being driven by the left wing, foreign foundation financed environmental sector.

I think it is vital that we adhere to strict environmental standards, which I believe the government is working towards, but we cannot allow out country’s economy to be harmed be the likes of the Tides Foundation et. al.

I am really pleased to read the National Post’s coverage of the funding of these environmental groups. Why does no one ask what their agenda is?

Marguerite Paulsen, Calgary


Yes, we agree with the Minister of Environment. We have been in China & Guatemala, we don’t , see why Canada has to pay all that money to help these countries…

Micheline Lemmieux


I wholeheartedly support Kent’s and the Canadian Govt.’ stated position and rationale for exiting the Kyoto Protocol. The reasoning is solid…. no point restating. I don’t know any fellow citizens who disagree.

I found it interesting though that only GHG’s are mentioned and not the dreaded CO2. From this I would conclude that worse culprits like methane, other hydrocarbons and water vapour (which is supposedly one of the worst) are included. I don’t have an issue with this, but measurements may get tricky.

Anyway, and of more importance now that the first step (turfing Kyoto) has happened, I do find it bothersome that his rhetoric and the govt. line still very much supports the whole man-made climate change hypothesis, which is coming more and more under attack by reputable sources. It’s time for a Mr. Kent etal to state the “science is not settled”.

No doubt more than you asked for, but couldn’t help it.

Don Rathgeber, Red Deer, AB


I completely agree with Peter Kent. It is just too expensive to reduce CO2 and you get nothing for it.

Should we spend a billion dollars for 1/10,000 of a degree?

I did some number crunching on this issue since in Alberta, Canada, they still want to spend about a billion dollars on one carbon capture project. At the present time, humans emit about 90 million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every DAY. I DO NOT believe this to be the case, however let us assume there will be the IPCC average number of 3.000 degrees C increase in temperature due to our emissions if we do nothing. So if a billion dollars is spent to capture 1 million tons a YEAR, this amounts to a fraction of 1 in 32,850. So if nothing is done, let us assume the temperature will presumably go up 3.0000 degrees C, but if a billion dollars is spent, the temperature would go up by 2.9999 degrees. Or to put in another way, if we take the temperature of 10,000 cities now and then again in 100 years from now, 9,999 cities will have the same temperature and one city will be 1 degree C colder if a billion dollars is spent.

Werner Brozek, Alberta


After reading a few paragraphs of Peter Kent’s post-Kyoto plan it became evident that no real plan exists. Rather, what does exist is nothing more than criticism of the past and motherhood for the future. There is no evidence of a plan of any sort nor is there any evidence that there is any knowledge of what even constitutes a plan.

Mr. Kent claims that a post-Kyoto plan is “simple” and when a politician claims something is simple what follows is usually political rhetoric and/or motherhood rather than anything factual. In this regard, Mr. Kent’s simple plan is devoid of substance and clearly represents a massive lack of understanding in terms of the complexities of national and global issues relating to climate change. If this was simple, there would have been a world environmental protection plan years ago.

The first part of Mr. Kent’s post-Kyoto plan is stated criticism of what occurred in the past. “Feel-good” symbolism of the past will be replaced by “real action” in the future. Real action consists of a commitment to a “realistic and comprehensive plan to reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by 17% below 2005 levels…” and that as a country we have already achieved 25% of this goal. This sounds good except that spewing numbers relative to a goal does nothing to explain what the “plan” is. In other words, we “plan” to reduce GHG emissions we are just not telling you how we are going to achieve the final 75%, nor when.

Partial achievement of a goal does not represent a plan especially one that has been described as realistic and comprehensive and containing real action. A plan not only states goals, it also clearly outlines how these goals are to be achieved, milestones, time frames, etc. Clearly, Mr. Kent does not understand this since none of it is evident.

Mr. Kent proceeds to explain why Canada withdrew from Kyoto and provides some detail through the provision of statistics which reveal nothing new. Why we withdrew from Kyoto does not represent a plan for the future but why we need a plan. Yet, Mr. Kent is supposedly outlining his plan!

Next, in Mr. Kent’s plan Canada will undertake a sector by sector approach to the reduction of GHG emissions and has commenced with draft regulations for transportation and electricity. Although this does contain vestiges of a plan, read this to mean that by the time this all gets agreed upon and approved by both industry and government it could be years. Whether one would describe this as “real action” and “realistic and comprehensive” is debatable since none of it focuses on how the regulations would be implemented nor how they would be enforced in a realistic and comprehensive manner, if ever agreed upon and approved.

Further, a sector by sector approach does not represent anything new or different. Perhaps if there was some seriousness to this approach Mr. Kent would have singled out energy as the single most important sector needing focus and direction at this time. However, that would have been much too controversial so why not deflect and commence with what has already been discussed extensively; i.e. phasing out of dirty coal and transportation issues that have been previously discussed in countless forums. Old news to say the least!

Canada will undertake to “harmonize and align, where appropriate, our approaches with our neighbour(USA)…in the transportation sector.” Where appropriate? Sounds pretty much like a cop-out. We tried to harmonize and align with the US and/or asked the US to harmonize and align, we couldn’t and/or they refused, oh well, we tried. Not much of a plan here! However, it is simplistic!

Canada will work to develop a new global climate-change agreement with legally binding commitments for all emitters. Well, good luck on that one! How does that really relate to a plan for Canada? And, doesn’t this sound somewhat like Kyoto only a different iteration? Perhaps Mr. Kent would care to elucidate the type of legally binding commitments to which he refers and how Canada would enforce these with Canadian emitters and actually do it, and then present this information in a world forum. Now, that might be a plan!

Finally, the bottom line. Mr. Kent states that we must ensure we make pragmatic and realistic choices and ensure a balanced approach to the solution. In its entirety this represents Mr. Kent’s post-Kyoto plan and was most likely blessed by the Prime Minister’s Office since nothing press related gets released without its permission. Read this to mean that the PM also believes in simplicity. He also seems to believe that talking about a plan, constitutes a plan. A sort of ‘let’s plan to talk about making a plan and call it a plan’ approach; the public won’t know the difference!

Years ago I abandoned all political affiliation on the premise that politicians are only interested in getting elected and the power associated with it. This diatribe from Mr. Kent is an insult to all Canadians who believe in this country and who work tirelessly to make it succeed. And although Mr. Kent wishes to appear to be one of these people, he is nothing more than a politician.

Lorne Werbenuk, Ottawa


What exactly has the conservative government done since 2006 to reduce greenhouse gases? Nothing! All we’ve had from Ottawa, and Copenhagen and Durban is hot air! Nothing concrete! Nothing sustainable or proven to reduce greenhouse gases. Carbon capture and storage is not a solution. Biofuels are not a solution. Anyone who says nuclear power produces no carbon dioxide is dreaming. What about the mining, the milling of uranium, the construction of fuel rods, reactors, and all the transportation involved? What about decades of keeping spent fuel rods cool? The centuries of storage? If Peter Kent and company really believed in climate change, they would actually do something and do it quickly and not just talk about it!

Cecily Mills


I agree that Canada did the right thing in getting out of the Kyoto Protocol. I generally agree with the reasons Mr Kent mentioned. The achievements claimed so far and in the future should/must be confirmed by a third independent group. Also, why, with so much coal being available, is research dollars not being made available to clean up the use of coal and natural gas for hydro generation.

Doug Harvey


Federal natural resources minister Joe Oliver revealed Canada’s post-Kyoto plan in his “open letter” on the first day of NEB hearings on the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline.

The policy is business-as-usual. What might this mean?

The 525,000 barrels of syncrude that may be pumped through this pipeline daily will be burned to spew 82-million tonnes of greenhouse gases annually.

This huge quantity represents an increase of eleven percent on Canada’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. [Of course, these emissions will be made in China.]

Scientists warn that if the global average greenhouse gas level exceeds 400 parts per million then the global average temperature may rise beyond two Celsius degrees above the re-industrial level. This temperature increase has a high probability of taking the global climate into the range of irreversible, runaway and catastrophic change.

Currently the average level of greenhouse gases in the global atmosphere is 390 ppm. It has been increasing by about 1.5 ppm annually. So we have about six years to stabilize GHG emissions.

The Harper Government’s reckless obstruction of a quick and effective new international agreement is reprehensible.

Derek Wilson


This is further to an article in the Financial Post on January 20th entitled “Canada’s post-Kyoto plan” attributed to the Minister of the Environment. The question was asked if the reader of the article agreed with the Minister.

It is difficult to agree or disagree with the Minister’s position as he used very general statements. For example he notes that his Government has a Plan to reduce GHG emissions and further that the Government is making good progress. However, he does not go into details of the Plan other than a few generalities such the Government is working to address climate change in a way that is fair, effective and comprehensive …. He goes on to note that the plan is designed to reduce GHG emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and that together with the provinces they are already a quarter of the way to reaching this goal. The only hint of the Plan is that the approach is focused on a sector by sector starting with transportation and electricity. Where is the so-called plan and to what extent is the consumer involved in the plan.

I do agree with the Minister’s view that the Kyoto Protocol is inefficient. And in this regard there is a pressing need to shift gears. I also agree with the Minister that the global challenge of climate change requires a global solution where all global emitters are involved. I do not agree with his pronouncement that emissions in developed countries are coming down, indeed the projections strongly suggest that the opposite is the likely outcome. I do agree, however, with the Minister that emissions in developing countries will be increasing dramatically in the years to come. I agree with the Minister that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work in this case. These are generalities but where is the beef!

Louis A Langlois, Ottawa


It is with some sense of unease and humor that I have followed reports and articles dealing with global warming. It seems that each blames the opposing party of a lack of scientific honesty. One claims the other is funded by the oil industry and the other points to a flawed peer review system in which only global warming enthusiasts can get government R&D grants. It is my hope that professional integrity combined with genuine truth will eventually resolve the raging and costly controversy.

I agree with the Hon. Peter Kent. Our present Canadian position in withdrawing from the Kyoto agreement is legal and more honest than our past position in which we signed the agreement for political reasons but did nothing to implement it.

However, to protect our current Canadian position, there is an urgent need for a sound scientific study to consider all the options and find out the pros and cons of alternate energy sources to replace hydrocarbon fuels. Massive funds have been expended on carbon capture research and alternate energy options when there still is no unbiased proof positive that human consumption of hydrocarbons has increased the average earth temperature. When the local fluctuations of the earth crust elevation with time are taken into account, I still have to be presented with evidence that the average sea level has increased.

When a thousand ducks drown in an oil sand tailings pond it becomes international news and results in major fines but we totally ignore the larger number of ducks we shoot every year in the US and Canada and the many birds that are killed by tall buildings or the blades of wind turbines.

Very little has been written about the economic potential of solar heating in a cold country like Canada, and how many acres of sunlight capture it would require to supply the required energy of a city the size of Edmonton or Ottawa, or how many wind turbines it would take; how costly it would be and how damaging to the environment.

Many promoters have benefitted financially from the current controversy while funds devoted to counter global warming could have been spent on more humanitarian purposes or in reducing government deficits.

I am a scientist who was granted many patents and has published many research papers, not in any way related to global warming. I do not have the time to involve myself in such studies. However, I think the time has come in which the scientific community should be asked to make a thorough and unbiased evaluation of the validity of human induced global warming. Both sides should be given due consideration and clearly those taking part in such a study should provide literary proof that initially they are not biased in either direction.

Mr. Jan Kruyer, Alberta


I agree 100 % with the Minister of the Environment.

D & J. Guite


The article by Minister of Environment Peter Kent on Jan 20 is intended to deliberately mis-inform and mislead Canadians. This is the only conclusion that can be reached by reviewing the facts.

The Kyoto Accord has been signed and ratified by all countries except the U.S., including those countries the Minister says are not covered. In its First Commitment Period, from 2008 – 2012, there were no emissions targets for developing nations. But the whole point of Kyoto is that they would be added under future commitment periods as the treaty continued. If Harper’s Conservative government really wanted to have these countries commit to emissions reductions, the most effective way to do so is precisely through negotiation of the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to which they are already signatories.

And the argument that Kyoto will cost Canada $14 billion is nonsense. There are no penalties for not meeting our obligations under Kyoto. It would not cost us a dime to report that we failed to meet our commitment. Other countries have also failed to meet theirs. No other country has suggested they will renounce the treaty and turn their backs on international legal commitments.

The Minister of Environment is parroting the spin from the PMO, trying to hoodwink the public by smear and slander. The only reason to withdraw from Kyoto is to attempt to undermine ANY international climate deal. The question that the media should be asking the Minister is: who would want to undermine all climate action? That might shed some light on who Stephen Harper represents.

Stephen Tyler, Victoria B.C.


I agree with Minister Kent’s decision to pull the plug on Canada’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol, but not for the reasons that he cites. The fundamental assumption that climate change is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases is simply wrong. The Kyoto time that has passed since 1995 has provided the evidence that global temperature, monitored on the ground or by satellite, does not depend on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It makes no sense to assume that recently observed climate change depends on either increased emissions from burning fossil fuels or global temperature.

Where I sit here in Central Alberta there used to be 2 kilometres of glacial ice overhead at the end of the last ice age. That gigantic block of ice didn’t disappear because a few early Canadians and other primitive intercontinental contemporaries were burning fossil fuels to stay warm.

Minister Kent only has to consult the expert testimony of four eminent Canadian academics recently presented to the Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources to learn that the Kyoto Protocol’s global warming assumptions have failed even since the agreement was signed by member countries of the United Nations seventeen years ago. Those presentations are conveniently posted for public viewing on YouTube, that renowned repository of the scientific record. So there is no excuse for Minister Kent and his policy-making team for not knowing the basics. For example, see the video clips in this series here:

Admittedly it is difficult for any national government to admit that it has been misled by the UN’s diplomats and climate bureaucracy. It is even harder for dedicated scientists to find that their research on climate has been compiled and distorted by the IPCC to support the UN’s political goals of transferring wealth from economically successful nations to the world’s opportunistic bottom-feeders. Only the Socialist International’s spear carriers and policy promoters can be proud of that achievement.

Minister Kent advises us that future plans will still include attempts to constrain the consumption of fossil fuels so as to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Achievement of improved energy efficiency is a worthy goal. However, if that does not work out then Canada’s economy will deteriorate. It has to. GDP, government tax revenues and energy consumption are too closely correlated. An effective cap on fossil fuel consumption will eventually put a limit on all those health, education and social programs that help to define Canada as we know it.

In that regard, the consequence of rejecting the Kyoto Protocol while still accepting the validity of the failed climate change-GHG connection goes far beyond saving a few billion dollars of environmental fines imposed by the terms of an ill-considered UN agreement.

Graeme Strathdee, Sylvan Lake, Alberta


I totally agree with with both the minister and our present government. At long last sensible and strong positions on GHG are being taken.Thank you Mr. Prime Minister and Environment minister. Canada is no longer wishy,washy and is prepared to take a firm stand on an issue.Thank you again.

John Horne


Yes, I agree with our Minister of the Environment. I see his point clearly. The Liberal policy of appeasement on Kyoto would have put “broken” Canada fiscally. It was stupid to try to appear to be a “leader” when we damn well couldn’t have afforded it -and let India, the U.S. & China get away from their responsibilities!! $14 billion: Yikes! That’s a lot of F-35′s…….

Stan Lenko, North Vancouver, B.C.


I’m ashamed of my country for not taking a leading role in reducing our CO2 emissions and complying with the Kyoto Treaty, which Canada signed. Mr. Kent’s tirade against the previous Liberal Government is, to say the least, most unhelpful in solving this global problem. I believe that global warming/climate change is a very real threat. Canada is a rich country. Canada should be at the forefront in leading and showing the world how to wean ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels, while having a stable, sustainable, steady state economy.

All growth is the enemy, especially growth in the use of fossil fuels. All consumption, world wide has to come to terms with the earth’s ability to produce renewable resources sustainably for the sake of future generations.

Mr. Kent’s call for continued economic growth is simply not sustainable.

Allan S. Taylor, Regina, SK.


Mr Kent’s article is headed “Canada’s post-Kyoto plan”. He accuses the Opposition — still, after several years — of having put Canada into an impossible position, but not a word of his adds up to a ‘plan’. His piece is all wind and political claptrap, and without an iota of substance. But I must say he is a loyal Conservative and predictable politician — i.e. avoiding anything like a firm policy on controversial issues, and spewing hot air elsewhere.

Jack Dixon, Victoria


Yes I do agree with Peter Kent.

The article was very clear. I am glad Harper and Kent stood up to the Environmental Bullies who really are only interested in seeing how much money they can get from the wealthier countries. In this case it was 14 Billion Dollars from Canada alone.

Prime Minister Chretien was very irresponsible when he agreed to Kyoto in the first place.

Almost every article I read starts with the basic assumption that Carbon Dioxide is a “toxic or bad” gas and then come to the conclusion that this part of the argument is finished. The IPCC report has been found to be full of errors and no one in authority has ever questioned this basic premise. If this basic assumption is wrong, and I personally think it is, at least in part, then that is where Mr. Kent should start.

I would be very interested in seeing the Canadian Governments answer to this basic first question before agreeing to spend billions solving a problem that might not be a problem.

Mel Martin


I could not agree more with Mr. Kent’s analysis. As he explained, the present government, unlike the one that signed on to Kyoto, has a real PLAN plan to reduce GHG. If there’s one thing I learned in school, it’s that numbers don t lie.

To predict that Kyoto would reduce lower global greenhouse-gas emissions was nothing but another, Liberal vote buying, scheme.

The truth of the matter is that The Kyoto Protocol is ineffective, the amount of greenhouse-gas emissions are going up, not down.

It is being dishonest to all Canadians, for the Liberal party, to support such a fantasy and un-attainable program.

Good riddance. The next, Liberal waste of money propaganda (gun control) is also near death. Good riddance.

Gérard Coté


It is not a question of agreeing with Peter Kent, Minister of Environment.

It’s more a question of believing the minister and trusting him. The fine print of what he had to say was “Politics as Usual.” Blame the other party and point the finger to other countries that are not doing their share.

Mr. Kent is in my opinion a puppet of the Prime Minister, the latter favouring the oil interests in Alberta. Minister Kent talks about “dirty coal” but doesn’t mention “dirty oil” from the tar sands.

I don’t see any real integrity in Minister Kent or an ounce of true leadership. He and the rest of the Conservative Party are a disappointment to Canadians and I am sure the world who had looked to Canada for leadership and honesty and in this case crucial to our Environment.

Robert Winkenhower, Victoria, B.C.


I found this article very informative and with a good deal of common sense and I applaud Minister Kent on his position on GHG.If only we had more support from the environmentalists on this.They seem to have a different agenda.

Walter Martin


Do I agree with the Minister?

Answer- NO! I don’t agree with Dr. Gibbons, either.

First, the GHG emissions – bad terminology for non-luminous radiative gases (my profession’s description)

- “greenhouse” implies solid coverage, not fish nets – the reality

- emissions reductions plan – Why? Carbon dioxide cannot absorb any significant quantity of heat, and cannot recycle any part of what it absorbs. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, so it tends to stay close to the ground. Whatever little heat it absorbs, it radiates to space.

Second, the term “dirty coal”- All coal is dirty, but this terminology refers to carbon dioxide, which is clean. Clean up the mercury and whatever else burning coal emits, but keep on using it. It is a cheap source of energy which should be exploited.

Selling the idea that carbon dioxide will destroy the planet as we know it is a scam. Don’t feed it with more money. Remember that carbon dioxide is the source of all life on our planet. Have schools stopped teaching our kids the carbon cycle?

Bill Middagh


Ten years ago one of Canada’s foremost climatologists* said of the Kyoto Protocol: “The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem, without scientific justification”.

There is little disagreement about the fact that “Kyoto” has not worked in it presumed goal of “stopping Global Warming”.

Therefore, the demise of Kyoto and Canada’s withdrawal from this corrupt money sinkhole can only be celebrated. But it is only half the story.

The alleged justification was the supposed consequence of the increase of Greenhouse Gases, particularly the trace gas carbon dioxide (at 0.04% of the atmosphere) which has been increasing since the start of the industrial revolution. At the same time a persistent atmospheric warming of less than a degree per century was taking place, as the earth resumed its natural recovery from the glacial period, and more specifically from the Little Ice Age. How much of this slow warming is due to natural forces (cyclic variations in solar radiation) and how much to human-generated Greenhouse Gases has never been determined. In fact the whole “human-caused Global Warming” rationale is replete with assumptions, unreliable data, uncertainties and scary computer scenarios.

In science, “correlation is not causation”. It is not to say that there is no human impact on climate: Changes in land use over the centuries have affected the interchange between the surface and the atmosphere in several ways. The explosion of the size of concrete and asphalt-dominated metropolitan areas has introduced a marked Urban Heat Island effect, but the warming effect of CO2 pales in comparison to these and the natural causes of modest global warming.

Therefore Minister Kent’s comments are disingenuous. He should re-read the statements of his Prime Minister made around 2002 when Stephen Harper was in opposition. CO2 as the cause of global warming is a red herring. The political motives lay elsewhere and were recognised by a Liberal predecessor in Peter Kent’s job. Said Environment Minister Christine Stewart: “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits… Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” In fact there is evidence that wealth distribution and world government were among the main aims of the United Nations’ founders.

Drawing on history, H. L. Mencken said: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The question remains: When is a majority Conservative Government going to “come clean” on the whole issue?

Albert Jacobs, Calgary

Add your comments below or email [email protected]

Latest posts