John Geddes' Laser Pointer

Over at MacLeans, John Geddes zeros in on one of the only parts of the craptastic throne speech that actually made me sit up and take notice:

3. There’s a promise to support businesses by removing “unnecessary and job-killing regulation and barriers to growth.” The small-business lobby puts cutting red tape right behind reducing taxes as a priority. On the other hand, after the financial meltdown of 2008 was blamed largely on lax regulation, the word no longer carries negative connotations in talk about the economy. So exactly which federal regulations are pointless rather than prudent?

Gutting financial regulation goes down well with those who died before 2008, but to those of us who are still alive, the proof of the the value of regulating the banks is quite clear. I also wondered whether meat inspectors are now considered "red tape", too?

Recommend this Post

Throne Speech Reaction

It was very, very, boring. There was nothing really new in it either. Overall, I would give it a "meh". The only section that got a rise out of me at all was climate change. I agree with Elizabeth May (believe it or not) on this one. The government is probably right that we can't get to our 2012 targets. But, and this is a huge but, the 2012 targets are just the beginning of the process in any case. We should still try to get as close as we can to the targets under Kyoto and take any penalty we get for not reaching the goal. The important thing is the process. Harper is making it clear that not only do we not accept the goals of Kyoto, but also the process.

After hearing the government's position, I think I have a grasp of where they want to take us. Harper agrees that climate change is a problem but will not commit Canada to any hard targets until every last one of China, India and the U.S. also commit. Harper is willing to talk until the end of the world, if necessary, to see this happen (or not). It is the Liberal plan, but on steroids.

Update:When I wrote I agreed with Elizabeth May, I meant her analysis, not her conclusion. Unlike May, I think it is worth bringing the government down over. I think her convoluted logic leading to "no election" over Kyoto comes more from political debts owed to the Liberal Party than anything else.

Recommend this Post