The Toronto Sun has published two columns by Lorrie Goldstein on the YouTube videos “Home Invasion David Suzuki Style” and “Green Energy Act Paradox”. The old-fashioned references are “Suzuki Silliness” (Thursday June 25, 2009) and “Beware ‘cosy relationships'” (Sunday June 28, 2009). These columns appeared in many papers across Canada.
Here is one paragraph from “Suzuki Silliness”:
“Yesterday, a spokesman for the (David Suzuki) foundation told me it didn’t focus on this aspect of the law because it knew early on McGuinty wasn’t going to go through with these ‘Big Brother’ provisions.”
So far, this statement appears to be the only reaction to the videos from the David Suzuki Foundation. Please post any other responses people are aware of from Suzuki.
The only way to accept the comments of the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) to Lorrie Goldstein at face value, is if DSF knew the details of McGuinty’s legislative strategy when DSF issued this on the day the legislation was released:
If so, why was McGuinty issuing a bill with provisions he intended to remove? Why would McGuinty not have issued the bill he wanted? Is it possible that DSF and the others formed their opinions of the GEA based on briefings they got from the government but didn’t read the bill before extolling it in public?
If so, why was McGuinty issuing a bill with provisions he intended to remove?
It is not unusual for governments to include something controversial in a bill to draw attention away from other controversial elements of the bill. However, in this case, I suspect they also included it to see if they could get away with it.
with the Tories focusing on a leadership campaign at the time, the libs probably just tried to push it through. People have this odd perception that anything that Suzuki would endorse must be good for everything.
The reason Mcguinty removed the search and seizure clause, was because it could be a potential Charter of rights challenge on the basis of unlawful search and seizure. It’s not the first time something has been stopped or altered by that basis, just look at what the federal government is trying to push through the house now. a search provision that allows police to search your e-mails and a list of your activities online without a warrant, which was stopped many times before by a potential charter challenge anyways, and probably will again.
the right to privacy and the right to unlawful search. Read up on your charter, because I have a feeling there are going to be more violations coming in the name of being green.
The “reverse onus” clause is the real kicker for me.
Section 142.1 (2) states: â€œA person mentioned in subsection (1) may, by written notice served upon the Director and the Tribunal within 15 days of a day prescribed by the regulations, require a hearing by the Tribunal with respect to a decision of the Director under section 139 in relation to a renewable energy approval.â€
Section 142.1 (3) states: â€œA person mentioned in subsection (1) may require a hearing under subsection (2) only on the grounds that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment.â€
Section 145.2.1 (3) states: â€œThe person who required the hearing has the onus of proving that engaging in the renewable energy project in accordance with the renewable energy approval will cause serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life, human health or safety or the natural environment.â€
Frankly it would not surprise me to hear that they did have prior knowledge and that Suzuki is in with these politicians, but that being said it may not be a bad thing…but it could be.
Pingback: Proposed Ontario Energy Information Service | Tom Adams Energy - ideas for a smarter grid