Ignatieff’s ‘Clean Energy’ Proposal Bad Politics and Bad Policy

by John Laforet
posted on October 13th, 2009 at 22:05:19 pm

I am a former federal Liberal Riding President, and have largely distanced myself on matters of federal politics since leaving that position out of respect to those I worked with, but this I felt required comment. I hope it will not require much more action that writing a letter to the Leader of the Liberal Party to correct his facts.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade demonstrated a staggering ignorance on the ‘clean energy’ file. His speech today demonstrated a total lack of understanding of this division of power. What’s more, he incorrectly accused Canada of not being a green energy leader. We are. Hydroelectricity represents 88% of the world’s installed renewable energy source. Canada is second only to China in the production of hydroelectric power, and is forth in the world for use of hydroelectricity as a percentage of supply.

The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. We’re three times greener than Denmark – but more importantly because of energy use, considerably more than that megawatt to megawatt.

Four provinces, and one territory have 75% or more of their power supplied by hydroelectricity. They are Newfoundland (not including Labrador) (73%) and Labrador(100%), Yukon (89%), British Columbia (90%), Manitoba (96%), Quebec (96%). – This is all clean energy.

Ontario’s Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting and therefore would meet the definition of ‘clean energy’ in the context of Ignatieff’s speech, where clean energy was energy that did not contribute to global warming through CO2 emissions.

Michael Ignatieff is right that just 1% of installed power supply in Canada is wind or solar. That doesn’t change the fact that Canada is a clean energy leader through serious investment in reliable, predictable, and affordable renewable technology. A lack of wind and solar in the grid simply means the Provinces aren’t jumping on unreliable, expensive technology that doesn’t work. That’s a good thing.

Denmark and Germany are false idols of clean power. The majority of Denmark’s power comes from coal fired plants, and due to the unreliability of wind power, much of their production is exported to neighbouring countries that rely heavily on hydroelectric, but dial back it’s production to use the unreliable wind power when available. What it means is that Denmark isn’t nearly the clean energy leader that Canada is and that even with 19% of their grid being wind, they aren’t even displacing carbon emissions because they success in using this unreliable power is based on trading a stable source of renewable energy for an unreliable one. Germany is building 26 new coal fired plants to make up for the unreliability of wind power, and isn’t nearly as far along as Canada in carbon free energy either.

If you want to dabble in unreliable power production like wind – you need a smart grid, so you can shut the reliable stuff off when the wind decides to blow (this is seriously how the science behind this works). Smart grids cost billions and the only people who think the provinces should be developing smart grids are wind farm developers. It’s like if Ford or GM thought building more highways were a good idea. With hydroelectricity or any other proven source of power – where there is capacity within the grid you can build more supply into it, no need for the kinds of sophisticated, and otherwise unnecessary enhancements wind barons would have taxpayers paying for so we can buy their electricity at three to five times the cost any other form of power sold into the grid goes for.

As for Michael Ignatieff attacking the federal government because Barack Obama is spending six times more than the Canadian government on renewable energy this year, the United States is ten times the size of Canada, so a six to one ratio wouldn’t actually be that bad, but when you consider that over 85% of US power is produced by carbon emitting sources – the real story is how little the United States is doing. If he is worried about carbon emitting sources of electricty production he should be condemning the United States. Considering this is really a provincial issue in Canada, I don’t see why it would be that out of line for him to propose policy for another country too. After all neither is his jurisdiction. Many provinces did this work in Canada decades ago, and they did it right. It isn’t a fair comparison, and is irresponsible commentary from and political and policy perspective. The others (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and PEI) each have the responsibility to set their own production mixes, but this certainly is not the role for the federal government and never has been.

This is a really bad issue for Michael Ignatieff to seize on. He is misleading the public about the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, the experiences in other countries, and trying to ignore what is a really great Canadian success story – hydroelectricity – so he can score some shots, irresponsibility trying to look green for supporting an unreliable technology that not only doesn’t work but isn’t part of the area of responsibility he is seeking from the public. It also costs a bizarre and indefensible amount of money and is probably the hottest political issue in Ontario with an organized grassroots opposition movement opposing it.

I will be writing Mr. Ignatieff, in my capacity as President of Wind Concerns Ontario to discuss the success story of clean energy in Canada as it relates to hydroelectricity, to share my perception of electricity as a provincial jurisdiction and to strongly advise against trying to use wind and solar as a political wedge, because it is one which such a strong force of opposition working against it, and such a limited merit that it neither makes political sense or public policy sense.

I also intend to engage the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party in defending the good work if many provinces in seeking carbon free electricity and educating Canadians on these successes and not allowing any party leader to mislead the public on the facts, should the Opposition Leader seek to continue this current line on Canada’s reputation as a renewable energy leader.

October 12th, 2009 | Uncategorized

Some months ago I was encouraged to return to federal politics. I succumbed. Big mistake.

Yesterday I corrected that, and am returning my Liberal decoder ring. In fact, it’s fair to say my experiences in politics over the past four years have reminded me why 97% of Canadians do not belong to a party.

My motivation for dallying with MPship again was similar to my desire to maintain this conversation with you. The times are uncertain. Questionable decisions have been made. The consequences will be long-lasting. We should elect people driven to solve problems, not just attracted to power.

To date, no party or leader has treated you honestly to an explanation of what a $56 billion deficit or $600 billion debt mean for your family or your finances. Suggesting there’ll be no tax hikes, spending cuts or mortgage increases is akin to Stephen Harper telling us one year ago Canada was immune to recession and our budget would stay balanced. It’s crap. But apparently crap that people like hearing.

Such talk has surely not endeared me to the new Liberal leader. Can’t say I’m surprised. But neither can I stay.

I’m too old and crusty to cave now.

Statement by Garth Turner

After being recruited to run for MP in the Ontario riding of Dufferin-Caledon, and having my candidacy approved by the Liberal Party last July, today I informed the leader of my resignation.

My hope in returning to Parliament was to help clear the path to a viable economic future. Stephen Harper’s $56 billion deficit and profligate spending are massive threats. But also threatening is a lack of debate about viable options and an honest conversation with voters and citizens on the looming consequences.

Therefore it’s hard to see what the coming election will be about if we’re not prepared to discuss the options in the wake of the Harper fiscal disaster. Economic growth alone won’t wipe out an historic debt load or the need for spending cuts and tax hikes. The looming HST in Ontario and BC is likely but a taste of medicine to come. This is what Canadians need to understand.

A year ago Stephen Harper said there would be no recession and no deficit. That was untrue. Now he says there will be no consequences of our record shortfall. Also untrue.

In my financial books and writings I’ve warned of the need for families to invest wisely, use debt carefully and live within their means in an uncertain world. Rather than tell voters interest rates and taxes won’t rise nor spending fall, leaders should guide us all into realistic choices. Sadly, that doesn’t win elections.

In Dufferin-Caledon I have been the only nominee for MP candidate since August. I’m interpreting the leader’s failure to allow a nomination meeting as a signal my views are unwelcome.

- 30 -

13 comments ↓

#1 Vicguy on 10.12.09 at 5:49 pm

Good for you, Mr. Turner.

Mr. Ignatieff has been a bitter dissappointment. So many Canadians hoped that he would be an effective, strong leader after the hopeless performance of Mr. Dion.

I said in a comment several months back when you asked our opinion — ’should I run again?’. I speculated that Mr. Ignatieff would be like Mr. Harper re communications — if elected, he’d also muzzle his MP’s.

It is so frustrating to see the Liberals implode — if Mr Harper plays his cards right, he likely will end up with his majority, thanks to the ineptness of the current leader.

Besides, did you really want to take such a brutal pay cut?

#2 Tim G on 10.12.09 at 6:01 pm

I’m lost..what did Iggy say or do?

#3 Dr Mike Popovich on 10.12.09 at 6:46 pm

Garth

You have done the right thing as this party has lost it`s sense of direction when Canada needed it`s leadership the most.

Good luck down the road.

Dr Mike

PS — Esther , be well.

#4 S. Roseth on 10.12.09 at 6:54 pm

Politics, intelligence are at odds
Published On Mon Oct 12 2009
Article
Re:Ignatieff needs to change

the channel, Editorial Oct. 10

Your editorial about Michael Ignatieff is quite perspicacious, but Iggy’s trials and tribulations in the Coliseum or Canadian politics is more than blunders and lack of policy. It’s an example of two solitudes: academic versus politician.

Ignatieff is an erudite and thoughtful person; his writings are intelligent and profound. Not so his stammering political pronouncements. Pace his erudition, he is to political mud wrestling as a fish is to dry land – thrashing around trying to find its breath. There is really little difference in style and substance between Ignatieff and his predecessor Stéphane Dion, save the English language.

In today’s political environment, politics and intelligence is an oxymoron, and the politicians bend and sway with the winds of the latest opinion surveys.

Thomas Jefferson said “the government you elect is the government you deserve.” No politician ever went wrong underestimating the average intelligence of the electorate. A good democracy requires both good citizens and good governments. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to have either.

Sigmund Roseth, Mississauga

#5 Barb the proofreader on 10.12.09 at 6:58 pm

Garth,
Besides my disappointment, I was searching for what you meant by “30″. In my search I found Pat G.’s comment last thread #30 said the very things I would say, so I’d like to quote her: “It is such a pity that no one in government can tell the truth without having some hyenas yakking it up and making outrageous claims about the truth-teller. I think this is why Ignatieff backed off his assertion that taxes may have to go up. Did the backroom boys tell him that was a dangerous statement?
At least Garth is telling it as it is and we surely do need some honesty and courage in politics.
It really hurts me that the Cons have actually achieved their goal — to spend so much money that no other party could carry on or bring in more social programs.
This has been, after all, one of the goals of the nucleus of this party. Tom Flanagan crowed that he was so very proud that Harper had accomplished this feat. I seriously fear for our health care system — Harper had another goal as Pres. of the National Citizens’ Coalition and that was to kill the Canada Health Act. Seems he’s killing a lot of birds with one rock.
At this end of my life, it really saddens me that our country has come to this. It could have been so much better. Now there isn’t even any money to deal very strongly with climate change. This is tragic. when will Canadians wake up from their distracted lives?”
………

Pat,
I couldn’t agree with you more. The only job Harper ever held was at N.C.C. as a corporate lobby faking as “citizens” though not one citizen actually belongs, formed with the main goal of making all healthcare fully “for profit” business, which will essentially eliminate our universal healthcare.
Glad you pointed out also that Harper isn’t just any lobbyist, he was president of them. I can see Harper snickering all the way to his bank. He’s turned this particular government into a spinning turnstyle of lobbyists slithering back and forth in and out of government jobs. He’s spent our last dollar on promoting himself, over, and over, and over again.

The end of democracy is when capitalism achieves Harper’s sort of unfettered control over citizens, that people’s rights become just a quaint, long forgotten notion, when rich lobbyists get their way absolutely every time, and citizens can’t afford to fight them, or usually don’t realize what’s going on behind our backs in a cynical and purposefully “sneaky” government like Harper’s.

We had been, in my lifetime, on the cusp of becoming one of the fairest, most admired nations. Harper’s blown it all for good, and when Canadians wake up it will be too late. He’s made sure of that with his checklist of how to forever hamstring core Canadian values.
………

Garth, I guess I can’t blame you for not wanting to duke it out at the top. It doesn’t matter what government we have in the future, Harper has ensured all governing will be a thankless and ugly task from now on. I don’t think Pat G. and I are alone in our mourning of our country. I particularly mourn the loss of a good politician like yourself. Keep up the great advice, I’m sure you have personally saved many people, young and old, from some very grave financial pitfalls, and since Harper’s gross destruction is so predictable, I’m sure those paying attention to you in the future will also be very lucky to have listened to your advice. I’ll stay tuned as your blogs are always such an interesting source of info.

#6 Watch Dog in D.C. on 10.12.09 at 7:04 pm

Garth,

It’s time for the real Liberal’s to stand up and be counted. Mr. Ignatieff has lost the war across Canada.
It’s time for change in the leadership of the Liberal party.
If Liberal’s across Canada thought Mr Dion lost seats.
Mr.Ignatieff will be the one responsible for the end of the Liberal party in Canada.
Wake up Liberal’s write your Liberal M.P. and Sentor’s today.
We want a new leader that will win the next Election.
Act Today

#7 no job-expired benefits-sick of the games on 10.12.09 at 8:17 pm

Garth: I won’t say I’m not disappointed with your withdrawal from candidacy but support you all the way. Iggy does not possess even a fraction of your honesty, courage and conviction.

I wanted to think he was a ‘real deal’ but have been sadly disappointed in his performance to date. People are starving, losing their homes and continue to suffer in ways not seen in decades. Stephen & Michael continue their chest thumping and calling one another names, whilst screwing Canadians.

Thank you for all that you do to educate, inform and advocate on our behalf. I wish you every success.

#8 Herb on 10.12.09 at 8:47 pm

Garth, I’m shocked but not surprised. Have another go at politics when the Liberal Party has gotten it’s act together, or another party offers a real alternative to this government, whichever occurs earlier.

I had a call from Liberal Central last week asking for my “support”. Told the sweet young thing that I would support Garth Turner across riding boundaries, but not the Liberal Party until it had done something I could support. And since they had nominated another party soldier in my riding, the NDP incumbent looked pretty good.

I was so hoping to get away from economics and real estate, but they are going to be the real story anyway.

#9 oppo guy on 10.12.09 at 9:26 pm

I’m confused Garth.

Is this because the Iffy-led Liberal party has come out in favour of the HST in Ontario and BC?

Ignatieff and the kids running the Liberal party don’t get that higher sales taxes are exactly what familes DON’T need.

Only you (on your blog) and Jack Layton’s NDP are against Harper’s HST.

#10 Van on 10.12.09 at 9:26 pm

Sorry to see you give up the fight Garth. Perhaps your conservative roots will draw you back to the Conservative Party once again after Harper has left the stage. Good luck in your future endeavours although I do hope to see you run again but as a Conservative sometime in the future.

#11 Harry G. on 10.12.09 at 9:30 pm

Sorry to see you go Garth. In these times we need people who have expertise in economic matters. Big loss for the Liberal Party and Parliament. I can’t say I blame you though

#12 hollinm on 10.12.09 at 9:51 pm

In your comments you keep talking about Harper’s $56 billion deficit. However, don’t forget it was the opposition parties who demanded stimulus to the economy and are still demanding more. Failure to deliver the requested stimulus Harper would have been defeated in the House by the three left wing parties. Frankly I am glad Harper moved on stimulus and we will work our way out of the deficit over time. Much of the money being spent is one time i.e. EI and auto bailouts. However I would rather put my faith in Harper to attack the deficit using whatever means available before increasing taxes. That’s the difference Liberals will raise taxes first rather than when everything else fails.
Unfortunately for you Mr. Turner you turned out to be in it for yourself and you have made the right decision. Move on. By the way perhaps you could tell us which specific stimulus spending you would not have done. Its easy to criticize without offering effective solutions. Let’s hear from you.

Doesn’t matter whose deficit it is, we all pay the price. Even the gracious ones, like you. — Garth

#13 wellwell on 10.12.09 at 9:55 pm

Garth, if there are backroom shenanigans to block your nomination, then your resignation is, of course, entirely understandable.

But I would add that those who have written off Ignatieff after a bad week or two simply don’t have their eye on the ball. Already, the latest Ipsos poll has the Conservative lead down to 10 points, which means that once the public digests and partially discounts the government’s overblown spin about Ignatieff, who can put together a good speech and will outperform expectations on the campaign trail, we’ll be back at a 7 point gap: the same margin as in 2004 and 2006. All Ignatieff has to do to declare victory is to restore the Liberals to 100 seats or more, which a 30% showing virtually guarantees. Harper cannot win a majority, despite media speculation to the contrary; in fact, he will obtain fewer seats in the next election than in 2008.

I thought there would be trouble when you took your stand against any near-term implementation of the HST, given Ignatieff’s support for it. (What realistic choice does he have, when a previous federal Liberal government invented the idea and provincial Liberal governments in Ontario and B.C. have embraced it?) But I didn’t suspect that the end of your political career would come so quickly — and let’s be honest, this really is the end, barring some spectacular societal meltdown (God forbid!) and the emergence of, and your involvement in, some new party like Social Credit in Alberta during the 1930s.

Your spouse is probably relieved, and perhaps you are too. More than most of us, you’ve done your duty and served your country. There are many other things you can do as a private citizen. Best of luck in those endeavours!

Is It Really Just a Lack of Trust?

I’m no happier with the malaise that has beset the Liberal Party than anyone else. I genuinely hate what’s happening now and what’s been going on for the last several years.

So what happened? It’s not just one leader, we’ve had two who have utterly failed to connect with the Canadian voting public. Worse yet, we’ve allowed a guy with the charisma of wet cardboard to get between the Liberals and those voters. What is going on?

I’m kind of wondering if there hasn’t been a mutual loss of trust between the LPC and ordinary Canadians? The party doesn’t trust them, they don’t trust the party. Then again, why should they?

Just what does the Liberal Party really stand for? Don’t ask me, I don’t have a clue anymore. All I see is a party obsessed with reclaiming power. A party that seems almost indifferent to the public, their welfare and their concerns. A party that has allowed itself to drift out of touch with the very voters who elected this party to government so many times.

It burns my backside when I read and hear Liberals dismiss the public as too dumb to get it, to appreciate the Liberals and their oh so sophisticated leader. That’s the mentality that is killing this party. They’re not too dumb. You’re too goddamned lazy and too goddamned arrogant and too goddamned indifferent to reach them. They were just fine when they were electing Liberal governments but now they’re shits? People who talk like that or write that drivel or even think like that should be slung straight out of this party and that goes from the bottom to the very top. When I read that crap I wonder why anybody would vote for this party.

Look, Stephen Harper isn’t still in power because he’s good. He’s not, he’s bloody awful. Being unable to topple Harper these past 18-months is tantamount to being unable to punch your way out of a paper bag. But he’s come through unscathed, stronger than ever it seems. Our Leader and his brain trust have fumbled and bobbled and botched every opportunity. Harper has turned the tables on them. Time and again Mr. Ignatieff has puffed himself up and made fearsome pronouncements only to see Harper call his bluff. How many times do you think a guy can do that before everyone catches on? What is a politician when he’s flushed his own credibility down the drain?

One moment sticks with me from the Frost/Nixon interviews. Nixon was describing what real political leadership means. He portrayed it as the ability to persuade the public to support something generally unpopular, something they don’t like. It is the ability to gain their confidence to the point they’ll overcome their own reluctance and fears. That’s the public placing their trust in a leader. That trust is so hard to earn and so easily lost.

It was Michael Ignatieff’s job as freshly-minted leader to go out and earn the public’s trust. He didn’t do that. Instead he pursued grandiose blustering that did nothing but undermine his credibility. It certainly did nothing for the country nor did it do anything for the Liberal Party. Mr. Ignatieff is now hip deep in a hole he dug for himself. If it wasn’t for the residual strength of the Liberal brand he might be in up to his neck.

I’m not sure that Michael Ignatieff can ever recover his credibility but it’s best to treat that question as moot. Fixating on that isn’t going to get the Liberal Party anywhere. He’s the leader for now but it is time he started acting like a leader of this party. Everybody’s clamoring for clear Liberal policy, something Ignatieff has been ducking at his and the party’s expense ever since he took over. Enough of that nonsense.

To turn around this fiasco will take clear policy that engages the Canadian public and a leader of the sort described by Nixon. You have to have both. We can formulate all manner of really good policy but it’ll be for naught unless the voting public is willing to place their confidence in Mr. Ignatieff. That’s a huge challenge for the current leader but this Party deserves nothing less and it’s his obligation to deliver.

So Michael, pull your thumb out of your ass and start acting like you’re someone who deserves to be the leader of this party, someone the public can and should trust.

Good advice for a beleaguered Michael Ignatieff

Today’s editorial in The Toronto Star should be must reading for Ignatieff, his advisors, and all Liberal MPs:

“How did it come to this? Over the summer, Ignatieff deemed it impolitic to talk policy lest he make himself a target; he succeeded only in making himself invisible. By blatantly playing politics to trigger an election, the Liberals have only alienated voters. Bereft of policy, he has become an even bigger target for critics.
It’s not that Canadians think Ignatieff is without substance. But they see someone putting style ahead of substance, tactics ahead of policy.

It is time for Ignatieff to change the channel: to be himself, and let the Liberal party be itself.

Ignatieff’s biggest blunder was to put policy on the back burner. He delayed a thinkers’ conference that had originally been promised for this fall. Now, it has been postponed until next year, leaving policy-making on hold and depriving the party of fresh ideas. Remarkably, there are still no firm dates for this event.
Recently, Ignatieff has given a series of speeches, notably on foreign policy and the economy. While welcome, they amount to restatements of past policies and general goals, not a bold vision that will resonate with voters and show the Liberals are serious about governing.

With his support eroding, Ignatieff has nothing to lose – and everything to gain – by going back to basics and rebuilding the party’s platform. For there are major opportunities for the party to reinvent itself…

So far, the Liberals are offering peek-a-boo policy-making on the fly, not the adult conversation Canadians deserve. A thinkers’ conference is no panacea, but it is an opportunity for renewal – and a way of showing Canadians the Liberals are serious about policy-making, not merely politicking.”

And in today’s Globe & Mail Simpson offers some trenchant advice:

“Today’s Liberal Party has forgotten, or is afraid to promote, what it used to stand for: a strong central government, an activist state, an engaged and creative foreign policy and, more recently, balanced budgets and debt reduction.
Unless the party reconnects with what once made it compelling for so many, although repellent to others, it doesn’t much matter who the leader is.”

The Cat wholeheartedly supports both pieces of advice.

See the rise and fall of Michael Ignatieff here.

The Calgary Grit doesn’t like it.

Amateur Hour in OLO

I still support Michael. But I no longer can maintain any support for the people around him. September was bad. October, amazingly, might turn out to actually be worse:

Ignatieff to talk tax hikes, cost-cutting to tame deficit

Ignatieff to talk tax hikes

Ignatieff Denies Talks on Raising Taxes

Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals

Michael, c’mon man, get some new people around you. Let’s win this thing, not give Harper a majority on a silver-platter.

Check out the comments on the linked article.

October 7, 2009

Are we being iffy about tax hikes?

Just before going out for dinner tonight I received this:

OTTAWA – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is gearing up to talk about tax hikes and cost-cutting to slay the country’s ballooning deficit. Senior party sources say it’s part of a politically risky `adult conversation’ he wants to have with Canadians about the painful measures necessary to deal with the debt.

At dinner, a parliamentary friend told me this was deliberate pre-positioning by the OLO. I was thrilled by this sudden – and unexpected – progressive turn from our not-so-progressive leader.

When I returned home from dinner this was waiting for me:

OTTAWA – Michael Ignatieff insisted Wednesday he has no plan to raise taxes, denying a report that he’s about to embark on a politically risky “adult conversation” with Canadians about the painful measures necessary to eliminate the country’s ballooning deficit.

May I politely ask: what the hell is going on and which inmate was running the asylum on Wednesday night? Seriously. Day-by-day we are losing our credibility because of self-inflicted wounds. It’s time to clean house.