Rick Salutin pointed out today the striking difference between the Cons' treatment of issues they're actually concerned about, and their consistent weasel language and refusal to act on the environment. But the difference is equally clear in the Cons' policy priorities as in their use of language.
After all, the Cons are refusing to suggest that income splitting is off the table, despite its costing up to $5 billion annually to primarily benefit wealthy, one-worker couples. But when the Cons are asked about the possibility of spending the same annual amount on emission credits to enable Canada to meet its Kyoto targets (to benefit both Canada and the world by helping to get greenhouse gas emissions under control), the answer is a flat "no".
No comments:
Post a Comment