Accountability is the forgotten promise of Conservatives applying secrecy and control with such audacious ingenuity that Liberals are torn between anger and envy.
James Travers
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Coal to Wood, a good idea?
What follows is some extract from an article in The Globe & Mail
On Dec. 1, 2006, Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (PSNH) replaced a coal-fired plant with a wood-fired plant in the Atlantic seacoast city of Portsmouth. The first such conversion in North America, this plant generates 50 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 50,000 homes……..
Designated formally as Northern Wood Power at Schiller Station, the wood-fired plant gets its fuel from its own heavily forested neighbourhood. Most of the loggers who supply the plant with low-grade wood are family operations - and most of the 400,000 tons of wood chips they produce each year come from stumps, brush, small branches and tops of trees that would otherwise be discarded. The company has documented an impressive environmental record. The wood chips replace 130,000 tons of coal a year - or 400,000 tons since the plant went into operation. It has eliminated 6,500 tons of sulphur dioxide emissions and one million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. PSNH says the use of wood releases 70 per cent less nitrogen oxide than coal, 90 per cent less mercury, 95 per cent less sulphur dioxide and, further, produces only insignificant amounts of particulate matter……………….
The environmental superiority of wood-fired electricity, by the way, was confirmed for Ontario last week when a team of eight scientists associated with a University of Toronto research program reported its findings: Using wood pellets instead of natural gas , they calculated, reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 78 per cent. Using wood pellets instead of coal reduces GHG emissions by 91 per cent.……………..
"In contrast to many other renewable generation options," they said, "biomass firing does not have the drawback of being intermittent and is applicable in areas without significant wind, solar or hydropower resources ... [It] requires low capital expenditures ... [It can be used] with virtually all types of coal boilers ... There are no major technological obstacles." Oh, yes. Ontario could revive its forest industry at the same time, essentially for free - transforming the money it now uses to import coal (and to fund "stimulus programs") into reliable, productive incomes for loggers and pellet makers.
The documentary proof is in New Hampshire. "We are producing the same amount of power [with wood as with coal]," Northern Wood Power Plant manager Dick Despins said in celebration of his company's wood-fired one billion kwh. "We are using a local, renewable fuel source. Our emissions are lower. The dollars we spend stay close to home."
More at Coal to wood: A powerful plan for Ontario - The Globe and Mail
For a more technical overview go to http://www.power-technology.com/projects/wood-schiller/
On Dec. 1, 2006, Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (PSNH) replaced a coal-fired plant with a wood-fired plant in the Atlantic seacoast city of Portsmouth. The first such conversion in North America, this plant generates 50 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 50,000 homes……..
Designated formally as Northern Wood Power at Schiller Station, the wood-fired plant gets its fuel from its own heavily forested neighbourhood. Most of the loggers who supply the plant with low-grade wood are family operations - and most of the 400,000 tons of wood chips they produce each year come from stumps, brush, small branches and tops of trees that would otherwise be discarded. The company has documented an impressive environmental record. The wood chips replace 130,000 tons of coal a year - or 400,000 tons since the plant went into operation. It has eliminated 6,500 tons of sulphur dioxide emissions and one million tons of carbon dioxide emissions. PSNH says the use of wood releases 70 per cent less nitrogen oxide than coal, 90 per cent less mercury, 95 per cent less sulphur dioxide and, further, produces only insignificant amounts of particulate matter……………….
The environmental superiority of wood-fired electricity, by the way, was confirmed for Ontario last week when a team of eight scientists associated with a University of Toronto research program reported its findings: Using wood pellets instead of natural gas , they calculated, reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 78 per cent. Using wood pellets instead of coal reduces GHG emissions by 91 per cent.……………..
"In contrast to many other renewable generation options," they said, "biomass firing does not have the drawback of being intermittent and is applicable in areas without significant wind, solar or hydropower resources ... [It] requires low capital expenditures ... [It can be used] with virtually all types of coal boilers ... There are no major technological obstacles." Oh, yes. Ontario could revive its forest industry at the same time, essentially for free - transforming the money it now uses to import coal (and to fund "stimulus programs") into reliable, productive incomes for loggers and pellet makers.
The documentary proof is in New Hampshire. "We are producing the same amount of power [with wood as with coal]," Northern Wood Power Plant manager Dick Despins said in celebration of his company's wood-fired one billion kwh. "We are using a local, renewable fuel source. Our emissions are lower. The dollars we spend stay close to home."
More at Coal to wood: A powerful plan for Ontario - The Globe and Mail
For a more technical overview go to http://www.power-technology.com/projects/wood-schiller/
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Not a Good Start
Like all Canadians I was saddened to hear of the death of an athlete at the 2001 games just before the opening ceremonies but one wonders if that is why the Canadian National Anthem was sung more like a funeral dirge that a celebratory salute to our country. Not the singers fault we are told as that is how she was instructed to sing it!
That the start of the ceremonies consisted of four giant condoms being inflated above those representing our native peoples did little to make me feel patriotic. It did get better - at times – some skillful lighting effects made up for even more of the less than uplifting musical background to the “cultural” portion of the presentation. The fiddlers and tap dancers finally woke me up enough to take notice, at which point it being waay past my bed time I switched off figuring I would leave on a high note. Not being a hockey fan the fact that I missed Greskey lighting the flame is no big deal, like everything else in our world today its all over-hyped in my opinion.
I really hope that our athletes do a better job than those responsible for the opening ceremonies, if the money spent on the stage show was available to the athletes they probably would have a much better chance! Probably having some snow would help also, but we cant blame that on the organizers…. or can we? Historically the warmest place in Canada during the winter, one wonders what the committee was thinking when choosing Vancouver!
Good luck Guys, with both the weather and the results..
That the start of the ceremonies consisted of four giant condoms being inflated above those representing our native peoples did little to make me feel patriotic. It did get better - at times – some skillful lighting effects made up for even more of the less than uplifting musical background to the “cultural” portion of the presentation. The fiddlers and tap dancers finally woke me up enough to take notice, at which point it being waay past my bed time I switched off figuring I would leave on a high note. Not being a hockey fan the fact that I missed Greskey lighting the flame is no big deal, like everything else in our world today its all over-hyped in my opinion.
I really hope that our athletes do a better job than those responsible for the opening ceremonies, if the money spent on the stage show was available to the athletes they probably would have a much better chance! Probably having some snow would help also, but we cant blame that on the organizers…. or can we? Historically the warmest place in Canada during the winter, one wonders what the committee was thinking when choosing Vancouver!
Good luck Guys, with both the weather and the results..
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Senator Corrects Harpers Spin
David Akin reproduces a letter from Liberal Senator Jim Cowan to Harper Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. Nothing more needs to be said, I have however highlighted some of the more relevant sections.
February 4, 2010The Hon. Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P.Minister of Justice
Dear Minister Nicholson,I am writing concerning several statements made by you on Friday, January 29 when defending Prime Minister Harper’s appointment of an additional five Conservative Senators. In the past 12 months, Prime Minister Harper has made an unprecedented 32 appointments to the Senate – the most Senate appointments made by any Canadian Prime Minister in a 12-month period since Confederation.
I was puzzled to read press reports in which you defended the latest Senate appointments as necessary to allow your Government “to move forward on [y]our tackling-crime agenda.” You accused the Liberal opposition of having “obstructed that agenda in the Senate.” According to a transcript of your press conference, you said:"The Ignatieff Liberals have abused their majority in the Senate by obstructing law and order bills that are urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians.”
I can only assume that you have been misinformed as to the progress of anti-crime legislation. In fact, as I am sure your Cabinet colleague, Senator Marjory LeBreton, would tell you, the overwhelming majority of your Government’s anti-crime bills had not even reached the Senate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, an honest examination of the record compels one to acknowledge that the greatest delays to implementation of your justice agenda have resulted from your own Government’s actions – sitting on bills and not bringing them forward for debate, delaying bringing legislation into force, and ultimately, of course, proroguing Parliament. That action alone caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.As a Canadian Press report described, “Indeed, [Prime Minister] Harper himself has done far more to delay his own crime legislation, by proroguing Parliament and other stalling tactics, than Liberal senators have ever done.”
Your Government introduced 19 justice-related bills in the House of Commons. Of these, 14 were still in the House of Commons at prorogation. Of the five justice bills that passed the House of Commons and came to the Senate:two passed the Senate without amendment;one (the so-called Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime bill) was tabled by your Government in November in the Senate but not brought forward for further action after that;one was passed with four amendments and returned to the House of Commons which did not deal with it before Parliament was prorogued; andone was being studied in committee when Parliament was prorogued and all committee work shut down.
There were a further two justice bills that your Government chose to initiate in the Senate. One was passed by the Senate after 14 days, sent to the House of Commons, passed and given Royal Assent. The other was tabled in the Senate on April 1, but has not been brought forward by your Government for any further action since then.In terms of the status of the 14 law-and-order bills in the House of Commons, that had not yet reached the Senate when Parliament was prorogued:Four of these bills have been sitting in the House of Commons at first reading, three in that state since October, and one since November – your Government chose not to bring any of these bills forward for second reading debate. Another bill, Bill C-19, was tabled in the House of Commons by your Government in March, 2009, brought forward for two days of second reading debate in June, and not brought forward for any further action since then.Similarly, Bill C-35 was tabled in June, brought forward for one day of second reading debate in October, and no further action taken since then.
Seven justice-related bills were being studied in Committee in the House of Commons as of prorogation. That work, of course, was required to stop immediately upon prorogation.One bill – Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders bill – got as far as to be reported back from the House of Commons Committee on December 7, before dying on the Order Paper with the Government’s prorogation of Parliament.
I fail to understand how this factual record could lead you to say, as you did in your press conference that, “the record also shows that the Liberals are soft on crime” or that the Liberals in the Senate “obstructed” law and order bills. In fact, as I am sure you will now recognize, it is your Government that has failed to move forward a number of your own anti-crime bills. And, of course, by choosing to prorogue Parliament, Prime Minister Harper chose to let 18 of his Government’s 21 “tough-on-crime” bills die on the Order Paper. Comparing the numbers, Canadians would have to conclude that it is the Harper Conservatives who have chosen to obstruct law and order bills – while shamelessly trying to smear the Liberals and the Senate with the blame.
It is difficult to take a law-and-order agenda seriously when it is argued with so little respect for facts. Justice above all depends upon truth. As our country’s Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. How can Canadians have any confidence in their justice system, if the person responsible for that system – the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada – is prepared to play fast and loose with the truth?
In your press conference, you pointed to three bills as evidence of Liberal Senators’ supposed “obstruction” of your Government’s agenda: Bills C-15, C-25 and C-26.Bill C-15 was passed by the Senate with four amendments. These amendments represented our advice to the House of Commons, reflecting what we heard and concluded after listening to testimony from Canadians about the bill. That is our job as members of the second legislative House of Canada’s Parliament. We fully expected to hear back from the House of Commons with that House’s considered response to our advice. Unfortunately, that was not to be: instead, Prime Minister Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. The Senate’s work – done in the best tradition of Canadian parliamentary democracy – was lost.
While we may disagree as to whether the Senate’s amendments improved the bill (as I would say) or weakened it (as you would say) what cannot be truthfully said is that the Senate either delayed or obstructed the passage of the bill.What “killed” the bill in the end, was not the Senate but the Prime Minister in shutting down Parliament before the House of Commons had a chance to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate.
I was particularly surprised that you referred to Bill C-25 during your press conference. That bill, which dealt with limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, passed the Senate without any amendments on October 21, 2009, yet as of this writing, according to the Library of Parliament and the Privy Council Office, the bill has still not been brought into force by your Government – more than three months later. One is left to wonder whether you simply forgot to bring it into force? Or was the bill more about the appearance of being “tough on crime” than actually taking action? Certainly we now know that bill was not as urgent a priority for the Harper Government as was initially represented.
Finally, Bill C-26 was being studied by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when Parliament prorogued. As of prorogation, that bill had been in the Senate for 38 days. By comparison, the bill spent 42 days in the House of Commons. Committee study of proposed legislation is what many observers say is among the best work of the Senate. I am sure you want Canada’s criminal legislation to be the best and most effective it can be, and would agree that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code regarding auto theft require careful study consistent with our parliamentary system. Unfortunately, that work had to cease because of prorogation.
As Minister of Justice, and as a personal proponent of a strong law-and-order agenda, you have a duty, which I am sure you recognize, to uphold the truth and not mislead Canadians.
Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and agree that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact “obstructed” your Government’s anti-crime agenda. To the contrary, the greatest delays to the implementation of your agenda have been due to your own Government’s actions in failing to bring bills forward for debate, dragging your feet in bringing legislation into force, and most significantly, proroguing Parliament.
I look forward to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.
Yours very truly, James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate
t/h to Harperbizarro for this
February 4, 2010The Hon. Rob Nicholson, P.C., M.P.Minister of Justice
Dear Minister Nicholson,I am writing concerning several statements made by you on Friday, January 29 when defending Prime Minister Harper’s appointment of an additional five Conservative Senators. In the past 12 months, Prime Minister Harper has made an unprecedented 32 appointments to the Senate – the most Senate appointments made by any Canadian Prime Minister in a 12-month period since Confederation.
I was puzzled to read press reports in which you defended the latest Senate appointments as necessary to allow your Government “to move forward on [y]our tackling-crime agenda.” You accused the Liberal opposition of having “obstructed that agenda in the Senate.” According to a transcript of your press conference, you said:"The Ignatieff Liberals have abused their majority in the Senate by obstructing law and order bills that are urgently needed and strongly supported by Canadians.”
I can only assume that you have been misinformed as to the progress of anti-crime legislation. In fact, as I am sure your Cabinet colleague, Senator Marjory LeBreton, would tell you, the overwhelming majority of your Government’s anti-crime bills had not even reached the Senate when Prime Minister Stephen Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, an honest examination of the record compels one to acknowledge that the greatest delays to implementation of your justice agenda have resulted from your own Government’s actions – sitting on bills and not bringing them forward for debate, delaying bringing legislation into force, and ultimately, of course, proroguing Parliament. That action alone caused some 18 of your justice-related bills to die on the Order Paper.As a Canadian Press report described, “Indeed, [Prime Minister] Harper himself has done far more to delay his own crime legislation, by proroguing Parliament and other stalling tactics, than Liberal senators have ever done.”
Your Government introduced 19 justice-related bills in the House of Commons. Of these, 14 were still in the House of Commons at prorogation. Of the five justice bills that passed the House of Commons and came to the Senate:two passed the Senate without amendment;one (the so-called Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime bill) was tabled by your Government in November in the Senate but not brought forward for further action after that;one was passed with four amendments and returned to the House of Commons which did not deal with it before Parliament was prorogued; andone was being studied in committee when Parliament was prorogued and all committee work shut down.
There were a further two justice bills that your Government chose to initiate in the Senate. One was passed by the Senate after 14 days, sent to the House of Commons, passed and given Royal Assent. The other was tabled in the Senate on April 1, but has not been brought forward by your Government for any further action since then.In terms of the status of the 14 law-and-order bills in the House of Commons, that had not yet reached the Senate when Parliament was prorogued:Four of these bills have been sitting in the House of Commons at first reading, three in that state since October, and one since November – your Government chose not to bring any of these bills forward for second reading debate. Another bill, Bill C-19, was tabled in the House of Commons by your Government in March, 2009, brought forward for two days of second reading debate in June, and not brought forward for any further action since then.Similarly, Bill C-35 was tabled in June, brought forward for one day of second reading debate in October, and no further action taken since then.
Seven justice-related bills were being studied in Committee in the House of Commons as of prorogation. That work, of course, was required to stop immediately upon prorogation.One bill – Bill C-34, the Protecting Victims from Sex Offenders bill – got as far as to be reported back from the House of Commons Committee on December 7, before dying on the Order Paper with the Government’s prorogation of Parliament.
I fail to understand how this factual record could lead you to say, as you did in your press conference that, “the record also shows that the Liberals are soft on crime” or that the Liberals in the Senate “obstructed” law and order bills. In fact, as I am sure you will now recognize, it is your Government that has failed to move forward a number of your own anti-crime bills. And, of course, by choosing to prorogue Parliament, Prime Minister Harper chose to let 18 of his Government’s 21 “tough-on-crime” bills die on the Order Paper. Comparing the numbers, Canadians would have to conclude that it is the Harper Conservatives who have chosen to obstruct law and order bills – while shamelessly trying to smear the Liberals and the Senate with the blame.
It is difficult to take a law-and-order agenda seriously when it is argued with so little respect for facts. Justice above all depends upon truth. As our country’s Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada, your first allegiance must always be to the truth, far beyond any political or partisan gamesmanship. Our system of justice depends upon it. How can Canadians have any confidence in their justice system, if the person responsible for that system – the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada – is prepared to play fast and loose with the truth?
In your press conference, you pointed to three bills as evidence of Liberal Senators’ supposed “obstruction” of your Government’s agenda: Bills C-15, C-25 and C-26.Bill C-15 was passed by the Senate with four amendments. These amendments represented our advice to the House of Commons, reflecting what we heard and concluded after listening to testimony from Canadians about the bill. That is our job as members of the second legislative House of Canada’s Parliament. We fully expected to hear back from the House of Commons with that House’s considered response to our advice. Unfortunately, that was not to be: instead, Prime Minister Harper chose to prorogue Parliament. The Senate’s work – done in the best tradition of Canadian parliamentary democracy – was lost.
While we may disagree as to whether the Senate’s amendments improved the bill (as I would say) or weakened it (as you would say) what cannot be truthfully said is that the Senate either delayed or obstructed the passage of the bill.What “killed” the bill in the end, was not the Senate but the Prime Minister in shutting down Parliament before the House of Commons had a chance to consider the amendments proposed by the Senate.
I was particularly surprised that you referred to Bill C-25 during your press conference. That bill, which dealt with limiting credit for time spent in pre-sentencing custody, passed the Senate without any amendments on October 21, 2009, yet as of this writing, according to the Library of Parliament and the Privy Council Office, the bill has still not been brought into force by your Government – more than three months later. One is left to wonder whether you simply forgot to bring it into force? Or was the bill more about the appearance of being “tough on crime” than actually taking action? Certainly we now know that bill was not as urgent a priority for the Harper Government as was initially represented.
Finally, Bill C-26 was being studied by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee when Parliament prorogued. As of prorogation, that bill had been in the Senate for 38 days. By comparison, the bill spent 42 days in the House of Commons. Committee study of proposed legislation is what many observers say is among the best work of the Senate. I am sure you want Canada’s criminal legislation to be the best and most effective it can be, and would agree that the proposed changes to the Criminal Code regarding auto theft require careful study consistent with our parliamentary system. Unfortunately, that work had to cease because of prorogation.
As Minister of Justice, and as a personal proponent of a strong law-and-order agenda, you have a duty, which I am sure you recognize, to uphold the truth and not mislead Canadians.
Accordingly, I am confident that you will wish to quickly correct the record, and agree that the Liberal opposition in the Senate has not in fact “obstructed” your Government’s anti-crime agenda. To the contrary, the greatest delays to the implementation of your agenda have been due to your own Government’s actions in failing to bring bills forward for debate, dragging your feet in bringing legislation into force, and most significantly, proroguing Parliament.
I look forward to your clarification of these issues for Canadians.
Yours very truly, James S. Cowan
Cc: The Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Cc: The Honourable Marjory LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate
t/h to Harperbizarro for this
Friday, February 5, 2010
Harper & Hockey
From CP
TORONTO — Stephen Harper a hockey fan, you say? And then some, it turns out.
In an interview with Sports Illustrated, the prime minister holds court in detail on both the history of the game and its role in shaping Canadian society……….
Harper says the tough, aggressive, fast-paced aspects of hockey are as much a part of the Canadian character as being "peace-loving and fair-minded and pleasant."
Harper also concedes that the chance to live out his boyhood fantasy of playing in the National Hockey League would outweigh the powerful pleasures of life as PM…………..
Quick someone give him a place on the team in exchange for him leaving the Peace-loving and Fair-minded Canadians alone and quitting as PM. Please, please, please!
TORONTO — Stephen Harper a hockey fan, you say? And then some, it turns out.
In an interview with Sports Illustrated, the prime minister holds court in detail on both the history of the game and its role in shaping Canadian society……….
Harper says the tough, aggressive, fast-paced aspects of hockey are as much a part of the Canadian character as being "peace-loving and fair-minded and pleasant."
Harper also concedes that the chance to live out his boyhood fantasy of playing in the National Hockey League would outweigh the powerful pleasures of life as PM…………..
Quick someone give him a place on the team in exchange for him leaving the Peace-loving and Fair-minded Canadians alone and quitting as PM. Please, please, please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
