Canada sends more people to Paris than Australia, UK and USA combined

[kelownabomberfan]

Michael Smyth: Canada’s massive Paris contingent almost outnumbers France

 

 

The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded.

 

The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.

Don’t nitpick over the newly bloated number, as it’s understandable some jet-setting bureaucrats may have been initially overlooked during such a busy travel period.

If you’ve ever seen the classic Christmas film “Home Alone” you’ll know how easy it is to get the head count wrong during a mad dash to Paris.

“Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases.

Canada has sent more people to Paris than Australia (46), the U.K. (96), the U.S. (148), Russia (313) and almost as many as host-country France (396).

 

Not a bad turnout for a country that emits just 1.6 per cent of the planet’s greenhouse gases, eh?

Or maybe it’s not something to admire when you consider how much polluting fossil fuel was burned to fly so many hundreds of people across the ocean to talk about burning less.

Looking down the list of Canada’s participants in Paris, it’s hard not to conclude we’re vastly over-represented.

Did we really need to send the deputy environment minister for the Northwest Territories? Theclimate-change youth ambassador for the Yukon? The leader of the New Brunswick Green Party? The interim leader of the Bloc Quebecois and his press secretary? The “security co-ordinator” for Hydro-Quebec?

 

Many of these fine folks are so marginal to the climate-change file that calling them “bit players” would be a stretch.

Premier Christy Clark is there, of course, though critics says she’s just taking credit for someone else’s work. (Former premier Gordon Campbell brought in B.C.’s groundbreaking carbon tax, which Clark promptly froze in 2012).

But while Clark has been called a laggard on the climate-change issue, she’s no slouch when it comes toclimate-change photo-ops.

Clark’s entourage includes her “official photographer” and her “events co-ordinator.” Hey, who could save the planet without them?

Back home, meanwhile, Clark’s “Climate Leadership Team” just reported that the government will fail to meet its own greenhouse-gas reduction targets and called on Clark to double the carbon taxwithin five years.

 

The government said it won’t do that unless “emission-intensive, trade-exposed” industries are“fully protected” from any tax hikes.

That’s clearly meant as a reassuring signal to the big oil-and-gas companies Clark wants to lure to B.C. to build her promised liquefied natural-gas industry.

But that’s all down the road. For now, it’s time for another climate-change photo-op in Paris.

Mon Dieu, I shudder to think what it’s all costing taxpayers.

 

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-smyth-canadas-massive-paris-contingent-almost-outnumbers-france&pubdate=2015-12-03

[The Unknown Poster]

What a joke. Climate change. Good grief.

[kelownabomberfan]

Even Green MLA, Andrew Weaver, is calling this a big waste of tax payer's money. Not only that, but we have 800 tonnes of carbon dioxide produced, which is equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from 153 cars, almost 2 million miles driven, and 260 tons of garbage sent to the dump.

[The Unknown Poster]

Is this actually true?? They can't be advocating making it illegal for so called denier groups to express their positions can they?

TORONTO — Six leading Canadians are calling on the Commissioner of Competition to investigate false and misleading representations made by climate change denier groups, such as Friends of Science.

Ecojustice lawyer Charles Hatt filed the complaint today on behalf of Stephen Lewis, Tzeporah Berman, Dr. David Schindler, Dr. Thomas Duck, Dr. Danny Harvey, and Devon Page.

“Canada needs to have an honest conversation about climate change and how we are going to accelerate our transition to clean, low-carbon energy sources,” Hatt said. “Our ability to do that is undermined when denier groups pollute the public square with falsehoods and junk science.”

- See more at: http://www.ecojustic...h.iEHTIRET.dpuf

[kelownabomberfan]

Conrad Black weighs in on the Paris Man-Made Climate Change fairy-tale conference:

 

Conrad Black: The great climate conference charade playing out in Paris
December 5, 2015

The opening of the Paris conference on climate change will be the occasion for the customary lamentations about the imminent demise of life on Earth if we do not pull up our socks as a species and reduce carbon emission levels, and thus avoid the toasting of the world. The adduced scientific evidence does not justify any such state of alarm. Every sane and informed person in the world is concerned about pollution and demands vigilance about any clear trends of climate change and any convincing evidence that human behaviour influences the climate.

Because the Copenhagen climate Conference of 2009 had promised agreement on imposition of dramatic measures to reduce fossil fuel use and resulting carbon emissions, thus avoiding apprehended rises in world temperature, and broke up in acrimonious farce and recrimination, the Paris conference has been more carefully and less ambitiously prepared.
Smyth: Canada sent 383 people to the UN climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. together

The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded.

The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.

Don’t nitpick over the newly bloated number, as it’s understandable some jet-setting bureaucrats may have been initially overlooked during such a busy travel period.

If you’ve ever seen the classic Christmas film “Home Alone” you’ll know how easy it is to get the head count wrong during a mad dash to Paris.

“Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases.

At Copenhagen, the demand arose from developing countries that the economically advanced countries had permanently impaired the under-developed countries and that the $100 billion compensation fund that Obama had promised to raise for the less-advanced countries was completely inadequate, mere reparations instead of a serious response to a moral debt that could only be quantified in trillions of dollars. (Obama had no takers, including his own Congress, when his Democrats controlled it, for one cent of such payments.) Obama was unable even to get an interview with the Chinese prime minister, a historic first in lack of access for a U.S. president, as the Chinese, by far the greatest carbon emitter and polluter of all countries, cheekily set themselves at the head of the G-77 countries who with cupped hands and in stentorian voice, demanded immense monetary compensation for the sins of the carbon emitters, also led by themselves.

The world’s temperature has risen approximately one half of a centigrade degree, or almost one fahrenheit degree, in 35 years. There has been minimal global warming for 18 years, though carbon emissions in the world have steadily increased throughout that period. It is indisputable that the world has been warmer several times in its history than it is now, so whatever impact man may have on it, the world’s temperature is evidently subject to fluctuations for other reasons. There is also legitimate disagreement about the consequences of such warming as might occur. Recent research at the University of Sussex, widely recognized for its expertise in this field, indicates that warming up to 3.5 centigrade degrees from where we are now would have no appreciable impact on anything, except a positive impact where increased volumes of carbon dioxide increase arable area and make crops more drought-resistant. There has also been a good deal of reciprocally corroborating research in different countries by recognized experts that uniformly demonstrates that the world’s temperature is much less sensitive than had long been feared to increased carbon use. Antarctic polar ice is thickening and world water levels are not rising. Apocalyptic statements of imminent consequences of not reducing carbon use have been fairly thoroughly debunked.

Not only is the evidence of the effects of increased carbon use unclear, but the economic consequences of discouragement of carbon use are very clear and very harmful to the most vulnerable countries. China and India, the two most populous countries and the first and third carbon emitters, are eagerly pursuing economic growth, which is the only method for pulling the many hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in those countries upwards out of poverty, and they are not going to change policy to accommodate the militant ecologists of the West. They don’t attach the slightest credence to the alarmist comments of the more strident ecologists, other than as an excuse for demanding monetary compensation for how the economically leading countries have disadvantaged them. The International Energy Agency estimates that the underdeveloped countries as a group, will emit 70 per cent of the carbon output of the world in the next 15 years, and will be responsible for all of the increase in carbon use over that time.

President Obama has called the Paris conference a “historic turning point,” but it isn’t, and claimed (in February) that climate change was a greater problem than terrorism. He and John Kerry (secretary of state), have several times called it the world’s greatest problem. This is bunk. The pope stated that we are “at the edge of suicide.” If so, it is not for climatic reasons. (The Holy See has placated the greens, but emphasized that “The Church cannot take the place of scientists and politicians.”) Many in those groups are more impetuous in their assertions. And everyone seriously involved with the Paris conference knows that it is not really going to accomplish much. As Lord Ridley pointed out in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 28, the NGO spokespeople attending at Paris will scream like banshees of imminent disaster, for fear of having their budgets cut, despite contrary evidence and although it is now clear that decarbonization is much more harmful to the world than increased carbon emissions.

Alternate sources of energy, such as wind and solar, are hideously more expensive and much less productive, a luxury no country can really afford, and certainly not the poorer countries. But the conference will be hamstrung. Countries will volunteer their own individual targets for reduction of carbon emissions, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDC’s. The INDC of China only predicts that such emissions will meet their peak by 2030, while, for all his militancy, President Obama’s U.S. INDC will be a reduction of 26-28 per cent in 10 years, yet the outline of hoped-for gains, which the Congress will not endorse, and for years Obama will only see as a private citizen, only calls for half the volume reduction of emissions necessary to meet his pledge. The American INDC is a scam.

Even the Obama administration is demanding an involuntary international verification mechanism (much more rigorous than what it settled for in the rather more urgent matter of Iranian nuclear military development), and the elimination of the so-called “firewall” of separate arrangements for the developed and under-developed (or developing) countries. The developing countries, led by China and India, refuse, unless they are solemnly promised a $100 billion a year climate fund, as Obama imprudently pledged at Copenhagen. This remains completely out of the question and furnished the justification in advance for the developing countries to fall short of their INDC targets, which will provide the cover for the developed countries to do the same. Everyone will solemnly announce ambitious INDCs, but there will be no verification, ample excuse for non-compliance for everyone and this charade will continue to the next portentous and verbose conference. Meanwhile, the many thousands of non-paying delegates will enjoy the delights of Paris.

Whatever Canada does is irrelevant to the world, as it is not a serious offender and only provides about 2.3 per cent of the world’s economic activity and less than one per cent of anticipated increases in carbon emissions over the next 15 years, in a total that there is no evidence will have any negative repercussions anyway. The new government has a very capable environment minister in Catherine McKenna, and doubtless she and Justin Trudeau will acquit themselves well, as long as they don’t really imagine that much will result from the Paris meeting.

What seems to have happened is that the international far left, having been decisively routed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international communism, has attached itself to the environmental movement, usurped the leading positions in it from the bird-watching, butterfly-collecting, and conservation organizations, and is carrying on its anti-capitalist and anarchist crusade behind the cover of eco-Armageddonism. While this has been rather skilfully executed, many office-holders and aspirants, including Obama, have used dire environmental scenarios to distract their electorates from their own policy failures, much as Arab powers have long diluted anger at despotic misgovernment by harping on the red herring of Israel.

On the subject of such things, Stephen Donziger, the much enriched champion of the Ecuadorian claimants against Chevron, whose antics I described here last week, has replied to me on his website entirely with a reference to my status as a person convicted of felonies. As readers know, I am proud to have been sent to prison for three years in the United States for crimes I would never have dreamed of committing, all of the charges of which were abandoned, rejected by jurors, or unanimously vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in respect of which I received by far the largest libel settlement in Canadian history from the original sponsors of the charges. Two charges were self-servingly retrieved by a lower court panel which the high court had excoriated but remanded the vacated counts to, for ”assessment of the gravity of its errors.” This spurious resurrection does not disguise the fraudulence of the prosecution, and the last words to me from the trial judge were “The court wishes you well, Mr. Black.” This is a considerable contrast with the assertion by federal judge Lewis Kaplan of Donziger, that he had committed a vast range of grievous crimes, including racketeering, money-laundering, perjury, obstruction of justice and practically unlimited corrupt acts in pursuit of “an egregious fraud” in Ecuador. To be described as I was by such an accuser is a distinct honour.

National Post

[kelownabomberfan]

Thanks to brainless energy policy and rush into horribly expensive wind and solar power by the Liberals in Ontario, Ontarians have paid $37 billion more for electricity then they needed to in the past eight years.  Just unbelievable, the waste and gross negligence of the government of Ontario in implementing these terrible policies.  Shame!

 

http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2015/12/02/ontario-consumers-likely-paying-billions-extra-for-hydro-one-decisions-auditor-general.html

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

 

Conrad Black weighs in on the Paris Man-Made Climate Change fairy-tale conference:

 

Conrad Black: The great climate conference charade playing out in Paris

December 5, 2015

The opening of the Paris conference on climate change will be the occasion for the customary lamentations about the imminent demise of life on Earth if we do not pull up our socks as a species and reduce carbon emission levels, and thus avoid the toasting of the world. The adduced scientific evidence does not justify any such state of alarm. Every sane and informed person in the world is concerned about pollution and demands vigilance about any clear trends of climate change and any convincing evidence that human behaviour influences the climate.

Because the Copenhagen climate Conference of 2009 had promised agreement on imposition of dramatic measures to reduce fossil fuel use and resulting carbon emissions, thus avoiding apprehended rises in world temperature, and broke up in acrimonious farce and recrimination, the Paris conference has been more carefully and less ambitiously prepared.

Smyth: Canada sent 383 people to the UN climate conference, more than Australia, the U.K. and U.S. together

The massive Canadian contingent at the UN climate-change conference in Paris was originally estimated at 350 people, but it appears the trans-Atlantic road trip has expanded.

The “provisional list of participants” just released by the UN has an amazing 383 names from Canada, ranking us among the largest entourages in the entire confab.

Don’t nitpick over the newly bloated number, as it’s understandable some jet-setting bureaucrats may have been initially overlooked during such a busy travel period.

If you’ve ever seen the classic Christmas film “Home Alone” you’ll know how easy it is to get the head count wrong during a mad dash to Paris.

“Canada is back, my good friends,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the conference, and he wasn’t just blowing greenhouse gases.

At Copenhagen, the demand arose from developing countries that the economically advanced countries had permanently impaired the under-developed countries and that the $100 billion compensation fund that Obama had promised to raise for the less-advanced countries was completely inadequate, mere reparations instead of a serious response to a moral debt that could only be quantified in trillions of dollars. (Obama had no takers, including his own Congress, when his Democrats controlled it, for one cent of such payments.) Obama was unable even to get an interview with the Chinese prime minister, a historic first in lack of access for a U.S. president, as the Chinese, by far the greatest carbon emitter and polluter of all countries, cheekily set themselves at the head of the G-77 countries who with cupped hands and in stentorian voice, demanded immense monetary compensation for the sins of the carbon emitters, also led by themselves.

The world’s temperature has risen approximately one half of a centigrade degree, or almost one fahrenheit degree, in 35 years. There has been minimal global warming for 18 years, though carbon emissions in the world have steadily increased throughout that period. It is indisputable that the world has been warmer several times in its history than it is now, so whatever impact man may have on it, the world’s temperature is evidently subject to fluctuations for other reasons. There is also legitimate disagreement about the consequences of such warming as might occur. Recent research at the University of Sussex, widely recognized for its expertise in this field, indicates that warming up to 3.5 centigrade degrees from where we are now would have no appreciable impact on anything, except a positive impact where increased volumes of carbon dioxide increase arable area and make crops more drought-resistant. There has also been a good deal of reciprocally corroborating research in different countries by recognized experts that uniformly demonstrates that the world’s temperature is much less sensitive than had long been feared to increased carbon use. Antarctic polar ice is thickening and world water levels are not rising. Apocalyptic statements of imminent consequences of not reducing carbon use have been fairly thoroughly debunked.

Not only is the evidence of the effects of increased carbon use unclear, but the economic consequences of discouragement of carbon use are very clear and very harmful to the most vulnerable countries. China and India, the two most populous countries and the first and third carbon emitters, are eagerly pursuing economic growth, which is the only method for pulling the many hundreds of millions of desperately poor people in those countries upwards out of poverty, and they are not going to change policy to accommodate the militant ecologists of the West. They don’t attach the slightest credence to the alarmist comments of the more strident ecologists, other than as an excuse for demanding monetary compensation for how the economically leading countries have disadvantaged them. The International Energy Agency estimates that the underdeveloped countries as a group, will emit 70 per cent of the carbon output of the world in the next 15 years, and will be responsible for all of the increase in carbon use over that time.

President Obama has called the Paris conference a “historic turning point,” but it isn’t, and claimed (in February) that climate change was a greater problem than terrorism. He and John Kerry (secretary of state), have several times called it the world’s greatest problem. This is bunk. The pope stated that we are “at the edge of suicide.” If so, it is not for climatic reasons. (The Holy See has placated the greens, but emphasized that “The Church cannot take the place of scientists and politicians.”) Many in those groups are more impetuous in their assertions. And everyone seriously involved with the Paris conference knows that it is not really going to accomplish much. As Lord Ridley pointed out in The Wall Street Journal on Nov. 28, the NGO spokespeople attending at Paris will scream like banshees of imminent disaster, for fear of having their budgets cut, despite contrary evidence and although it is now clear that decarbonization is much more harmful to the world than increased carbon emissions.

Alternate sources of energy, such as wind and solar, are hideously more expensive and much less productive, a luxury no country can really afford, and certainly not the poorer countries. But the conference will be hamstrung. Countries will volunteer their own individual targets for reduction of carbon emissions, called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, or INDC’s. The INDC of China only predicts that such emissions will meet their peak by 2030, while, for all his militancy, President Obama’s U.S. INDC will be a reduction of 26-28 per cent in 10 years, yet the outline of hoped-for gains, which the Congress will not endorse, and for years Obama will only see as a private citizen, only calls for half the volume reduction of emissions necessary to meet his pledge. The American INDC is a scam.

Even the Obama administration is demanding an involuntary international verification mechanism (much more rigorous than what it settled for in the rather more urgent matter of Iranian nuclear military development), and the elimination of the so-called “firewall” of separate arrangements for the developed and under-developed (or developing) countries. The developing countries, led by China and India, refuse, unless they are solemnly promised a $100 billion a year climate fund, as Obama imprudently pledged at Copenhagen. This remains completely out of the question and furnished the justification in advance for the developing countries to fall short of their INDC targets, which will provide the cover for the developed countries to do the same. Everyone will solemnly announce ambitious INDCs, but there will be no verification, ample excuse for non-compliance for everyone and this charade will continue to the next portentous and verbose conference. Meanwhile, the many thousands of non-paying delegates will enjoy the delights of Paris.

Whatever Canada does is irrelevant to the world, as it is not a serious offender and only provides about 2.3 per cent of the world’s economic activity and less than one per cent of anticipated increases in carbon emissions over the next 15 years, in a total that there is no evidence will have any negative repercussions anyway. The new government has a very capable environment minister in Catherine McKenna, and doubtless she and Justin Trudeau will acquit themselves well, as long as they don’t really imagine that much will result from the Paris meeting.

What seems to have happened is that the international far left, having been decisively routed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international communism, has attached itself to the environmental movement, usurped the leading positions in it from the bird-watching, butterfly-collecting, and conservation organizations, and is carrying on its anti-capitalist and anarchist crusade behind the cover of eco-Armageddonism. While this has been rather skilfully executed, many office-holders and aspirants, including Obama, have used dire environmental scenarios to distract their electorates from their own policy failures, much as Arab powers have long diluted anger at despotic misgovernment by harping on the red herring of Israel.

On the subject of such things, Stephen Donziger, the much enriched champion of the Ecuadorian claimants against Chevron, whose antics I described here last week, has replied to me on his website entirely with a reference to my status as a person convicted of felonies. As readers know, I am proud to have been sent to prison for three years in the United States for crimes I would never have dreamed of committing, all of the charges of which were abandoned, rejected by jurors, or unanimously vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, and in respect of which I received by far the largest libel settlement in Canadian history from the original sponsors of the charges. Two charges were self-servingly retrieved by a lower court panel which the high court had excoriated but remanded the vacated counts to, for ”assessment of the gravity of its errors.” This spurious resurrection does not disguise the fraudulence of the prosecution, and the last words to me from the trial judge were “The court wishes you well, Mr. Black.” This is a considerable contrast with the assertion by federal judge Lewis Kaplan of Donziger, that he had committed a vast range of grievous crimes, including racketeering, money-laundering, perjury, obstruction of justice and practically unlimited corrupt acts in pursuit of “an egregious fraud” in Ecuador. To be described as I was by such an accuser is a distinct honour.

National Post

 

 

Isn't he an ex-con? and not in the "oh, my political leanings have shifted left" ex-con... but in a "was convicted of fraud" ex-con? 

[kelownabomberfan]

Isn't he an ex-con? and not in the "oh, my political leanings have shifted left" ex-con... but in a "was convicted of fraud" ex-con?

LOL - every forum I posted this article on, there was always a guy that played this card, and always a leftist AGW fraud proponent. What is it with you guys? You can't handle what he is saying, so you just attack the guy instead? Shame.

[sweep the leg]

 

Isn't he an ex-con? and not in the "oh, my political leanings have shifted left" ex-con... but in a "was convicted of fraud" ex-con?

LOL - every forum I posted this article on, there was always a guy that played this card, and always a leftist AGW fraud proponent. What is it with you guys? You can't handle what he is saying, so you just attack the guy instead? Shame.

 

So is that a yes?

[johnzo]

world water levels are not rising.

The Global Mean Sea Level is 4" - 8" higher today than it was a century ago, and the rate of growth is accelerating.

Someone is wrong about this. Who is it? Conrad Black, or the scientists who measure the GMSL?

Whatever Canada does is irrelevant to the world,

Solutions innovated in Canada can be exported worldwide. Who cares if Canada isn't culpable for this problem? Canada could help lead the world out of it.

What seems to have happened is that the international far left, having been decisively routed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and of international communism

Ah, yes, here's the dog-whistle. People who sign onto the climate consensus are just the heirs to Stalin. Ad hominem much, Conrad?

[johnzo]

Also, Conrad Black is an ex-con, and for someone who is asserting Canada's irrelevancy, he sure was intent on re-attaining his Canadian citizenship a few years ago.

I remember reading Barbara Amiel in Maclean's as a kid. I remember asking my mom, "mom, why are the rich people so scared?"

[The Unknown Poster]

The sea level will rise regardless of human intervention. We all accept that is true don't we?

[johnzo]

When?

[The Unknown Poster]

When?

Eventually. It's happened before. It will happen again.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

The sea level will rise regardless of human intervention. We all accept that is true don't we?

The sun will explode, regardless of human intervention. We all accept this is true don't we?

Seriously, what's your ******* point?

[kelownabomberfan]

The sea level will rise regardless of human intervention. We all accept that is true don't we?

The sun will explode, regardless of human intervention. We all accept this is true don't we?

Seriously, what's your ******* point?

I think it's pretty obvious what his point is. We know the sun is going to explode, but Al Gore isn't printing billions of dollars selling people "sun explosion credits", and Canada isn't blowing millions of dollars sending 380 Liberal cronies to big parties in Paris to celebrate sun explosions. That's the point.

[kelownabomberfan]

Ah, yes, here's the dog-whistle. People who sign onto the climate consensus are just the heirs to Stalin. Ad hominem much, Conrad?

Johnzo, that's a great comment on Conrad's piece and I want to tell you how much I appreciate it in that it shows that you actually read it and have an intelligent response that I respect, instead of just taking the easy way out and making some snide remark about his past. Thank you, I appreciate it immensely.

[The Unknown Poster]

Gee fanboy, no need for expletives. Point was obvious. As KBF stated more eloquently than I would have. Sheesh.

[kelownabomberfan]

Kathleen Wynne, one of Trudeau's biggest cronies, sure enjoyed jetting back and forth between Paris and Toronto for the big party over there...

Wynne jets back and forth to Paris
No need for Ontario to be at COP21 conference

TORONTO - Anytime a politician jets off to Paris, it raises journalistic eyebrows.

When a gaggle of politicians and a horde of hangers-on head to a city that’s under a state of emergency following a series of terrorist attacks, it sets off alarm bells.

It’s no secret Premier Kathleen Wynne, Climate Change Minister Glen Murray and 22 other staff, bureaucrats and advisers went to Paris recently for the COP21 Conference on Climate Change.

But did you know Wynne went not once — but twice?

Yep, the premier left for France for the first time Nov. 28 and returned Dec. 1. She hitched a ride home with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the federal government’s Challenger jet.

Then she went back to the City of Lights Dec. 6, returning Dec. 9.

Murray has been there the whole time. He arrived Nov. 29 and will return Dec. 12 — a full two weeks in Paris.

It’s a tough job, but someone has to do it.

You’d have thought with the city on emergency footing they’d have scaled down the provincial presence. Apparently not.

A spokesman for Wynne said the reason she needed two trips was because the premier had to be here for some votes in the legislature.

“As you know, our legislature is still sitting and the auditor general tabled her annual report last week,” Jennifer Beaudry said.

“It was important for the premier to be present for question period and the eight votes that took place during that period.

“In saying that, the premier had committed to be with the prime minister to show a united Canadian front on national day, and be there for sub-national day where Ontario is playing a leadership role with Quebec and other provinces,” she said.

The sub-national meetings were about a week after the time Wynne spent with Trudeau. Four members of the delegation returned to Paris with the premier.

“Ontario was not the only province to make the trip twice,” said Beaudry. The government has purchased carbon-offsets for the trip.

Look, this is nonsense. Ontario is not a national government. There was no need for Wynne and Murray to be at the conference with Trudeau.

As for returning for the auditor’s report, Wynne didn’t even have a news conference to respond to it. Meanwhile, they were live-streaming announcements from Paris. We can lay off nurses, claw back doctors’ fees — yet we’ve got money to make announcements from Paris?

This is the modern-day version of that well-known Parisian expression, “Let them eat cake.”

Let them livestream from Paris.

I asked for details of how much this cost taxpayers. I wanted to know which hotels they stayed at and whether they flew first, business or economy class. I don’t expect a premier to fly economy, I do expect her to show restraint. There was no response.

The auditor, meanwhile, reported on the dire state of this province’s finances. We’re in a massive, $300-billion black hole of debt. Yet our provincial government is acting like a national one, and spending like Marie-Antoinette.

In future, all climate conferences should be held in Detroit.

That should keep the numbers down.

 

 

[Fatty Liver]

 

Kathleen Wynne, one of Trudeau's biggest cronies, sure enjoyed jetting back and forth between Paris and Toronto for the big party over there...

Wynne jets back and forth to Paris

No need for Ontario to be at COP21 conference

TORONTO - Anytime a politician jets off to Paris, it raises journalistic eyebrows.

When a gaggle of politicians and a horde of hangers-on head to a city that’s under a state of emergency following a series of terrorist attacks, it sets off alarm bells.

It’s no secret Premier Kathleen Wynne, Climate Change Minister Glen Murray and 22 other staff, bureaucrats and advisers went to Paris recently for the COP21 Conference on Climate Change.

But did you know Wynne went not once — but twice?

Yep, the premier left for France for the first time Nov. 28 and returned Dec. 1. She hitched a ride home with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the federal government’s Challenger jet.

Then she went back to the City of Lights Dec. 6, returning Dec. 9.

Murray has been there the whole time. He arrived Nov. 29 and will return Dec. 12 — a full two weeks in Paris.

It’s a tough job, but someone has to do it.

You’d have thought with the city on emergency footing they’d have scaled down the provincial presence. Apparently not.

A spokesman for Wynne said the reason she needed two trips was because the premier had to be here for some votes in the legislature.

“As you know, our legislature is still sitting and the auditor general tabled her annual report last week,” Jennifer Beaudry said.

“It was important for the premier to be present for question period and the eight votes that took place during that period.

“In saying that, the premier had committed to be with the prime minister to show a united Canadian front on national day, and be there for sub-national day where Ontario is playing a leadership role with Quebec and other provinces,” she said.

The sub-national meetings were about a week after the time Wynne spent with Trudeau. Four members of the delegation returned to Paris with the premier.

“Ontario was not the only province to make the trip twice,” said Beaudry. The government has purchased carbon-offsets for the trip.

Look, this is nonsense. Ontario is not a national government. There was no need for Wynne and Murray to be at the conference with Trudeau.

As for returning for the auditor’s report, Wynne didn’t even have a news conference to respond to it. Meanwhile, they were live-streaming announcements from Paris. We can lay off nurses, claw back doctors’ fees — yet we’ve got money to make announcements from Paris?

This is the modern-day version of that well-known Parisian expression, “Let them eat cake.”

Let them livestream from Paris.

I asked for details of how much this cost taxpayers. I wanted to know which hotels they stayed at and whether they flew first, business or economy class. I don’t expect a premier to fly economy, I do expect her to show restraint. There was no response.

The auditor, meanwhile, reported on the dire state of this province’s finances. We’re in a massive, $300-billion black hole of debt. Yet our provincial government is acting like a national one, and spending like Marie-Antoinette.

In future, all climate conferences should be held in Detroit.

That should keep the numbers down.

 

 

 

Flying back and forth across the ocean 4 times within 10 days does not sound like fun to me.

[The Unknown Poster]

Also doesn't sound like a very climate friendly thing to do.