Talk:John Baird (Canadian politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Good article John Baird (Canadian politician) has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Removed POV since no specific examples of POV are given. Please feel free to add any positive things observers have said about him. I'll see what I can add. Homey 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought that the picture before wasn't the best one.

You may be right but we can't just copy an image from Baird's website without permission. Homey 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Honourable

Okay, so what's the problem with The Honourable? Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada are entitled to the prefix, unlike regular MPs. Why remove it? Digging.holes 06:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, I just read the relevant part of the Style Manual. I personally feel it is a stupid policy ; nevertheless, I will abide by it until such time as it is changed or I stop caring. Whichever comes first. Digging.holes 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section of the style book on honorifics. Thanks.Homey 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't Mr. Baird have a website? How are his constituants supposed to contact him? Doesn't seem very organized..

Re: See http://www.johnbaird.com/--JForget 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lengthy article

This article is very long and may need some serious pruning. Thoughts? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • It may not come as a complete surprise that I disagree (although I have been meaning to revise this article for a while). CJCurrie 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • So most of the partisan attack from columnists is on the delete list. GoldDragon 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This a long article and could probably use some trimming. I think many of the political bios are getting off-track with too much criticism of minor things. The "OPSEU member" incident jumps out as an example. And some of the things like Hydrozilla, etc. could probably go too. --JGGardiner 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Got to note that everyting that Baird done in his provincial career is negatively criticized here, particularly by the Toronto Star. The Harris gov't policies were controversial, no doubt, but one would get the impression that it was all bad, which is misleading as Harris wanted to cut the deficit. GoldDragon 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree that everyt'ing (there is an apostrophe when you pronounce in the Carribean way, mon) is criticized. There is some balance, but not enough. All in all, it does look like someone has made a concerted effort to find criticism for most of the things he did, although I don't think we need shy away from listing his gaffes, of which there were many. I will try to take a look at this soon and suggest ways of making it less POV here on the talk page and see what otehrs think before making changes. Ground Zero | t 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with calling him a "vegetarian". Vegetarians, being one myself, do not eat ANY type of animal, including fish and other seafood. Some vegetarians eat eggs and dairy (lacto-ovo vegetarians). If he eats seafood then he's still an omnivore, plain and simple. I suggest re-working that sentence in the "Trivia" section.

[edit] Provincial politics section: first round of suggested changes

Here are my suggestions for improving the balance of the “Provincial politics” section of the article. If we can get consensus on these changes, I’ll make them, and then we can review the revised article to see if more changes are needed. Please place your comments in each sub-section. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (revised 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Resolved issues

[edit] #1

“During a televised debate in early 1996, Baird acknowledged that his government's privatization policies would likely result in lower wages for workers, but argued this would be balanced out by lower prices for consumers. REF Thomas Walkom, "Tories would trade good jobs for bad", Toronto Star, 29 February 1996, A25./REF”

– This pops up out of nowhere and with no context. I do not think that this one remarks merits inclusion in the article. A Wikipedia article about a person should not document everything he/she ever said. I recommend that this be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this call. I wrote this sentence as the conclusion to a much longer paragraph, the rest of which has now been deleted. It doesn't have any particularly great significance on its own, and I had planned to remove it myself. I suspect we can probably just go ahead and delete it now. CJCurrie 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So we can move forward on this. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #2

“REF Jane Coutts, "15,000 fell off welfare in July, Tories say ", Globe and Mail, 17 August 1999, A7 and Caroline Mallan, "Workfare stats elude minister", Toronto Star, 17 August 1999, p. 1. Both articles were extremely critical of Baird's ability to handle difficult questions./REF”

– I think that his words speak for themselves. We do not need the opinions of a couple of reporters here about his ability to handle questions. I recommend that “Both articles… difficult questions.” be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain where I stand on this one. Baird's first press conference was given extremely poor reviews from both the Star and G&M reporters. When I expanded the article in January 2006, I thought this was significant enough to mention. If others disagree now, I won't object to the sentence's removal. CJCurrie 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So it will go then. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The proposal was not to delete the reference, only to delete the descriptive sentence that followed it: "Both articles were extremely critical...." I'll restore the reference. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #4

“Baird opposed the Harris government's plan to amalgamate the city of Ottawa with neighbouring municipalities, but was unable to prevent it from passing the legislature in 1999 REF Dan Nolan, "Tory MPPs talk merger with caucus", Hamilton Spectator, 30 November 1999, A01./REF”

– Individual members of legislative assemblies are very rarely able to prevent passage of legislation. This is an unreasonable standard to set through mention here. I recommend that this be revised as follows:

“Baird opposed the Harris government's plan to amalgamate the city of Ottawa with neighbouring municipalities, which was approved by the Legislature in 1999.” Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Basically a benign change, and not particularly controversial. CJCurrie 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No dispite there. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #6

“When campaigning for federal office five years later, Baird acknowledged that the syringe event demonstrated "immature judgement" on his part.REF"Baird is the clear choice", Ottawa Citizen, 17 January 2006, B4./REF”

– Are we just ragging the puck here? We’ve already shown what a stupid move this was with Keith Norton’s comments, do we need contrition from Baird here? I think this is not needed and should be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When I expanded this article in early 2006, I had some concerns that my personal views about Baird were clouding my editorial judgement. (It will probably occasion very little surprise that my opinion towards Baird is mostly unfavourable, although not entirely so. I doubt readers will have much difficulty determining the limited areas where Baird's views coincide with my own.)
I decided to review my changes around the time of the last election, in order to ensure that I was providing a fair account of Baird's statements and positions. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently thorough with this process, but that's an argument for another day.
In any event ... when I included the line, "Baird acknowledged that the syringe event demonstrated "immature judgement" on his part", my intent was to demonstrate that he was making a serious effort to move beyond the accusations of juvenile behaviour that dogged his early life as a cabinet minister. In other words, I was attempting to mitigate past criticism instead of amplifying it. Perhaps this didn't work quite as I intended.
If other readers believe that the line only serves to makes Baird look worse, I won't object to its deletion. CJCurrie 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] #7

In the "Opposition member" section:

"Baird and New Democrat Peter Kormos were vocal critics of Speaker Alvin Curling for allegedly favouring his Liberal colleagues, saying that he sanctioned Conservative and NDP members for behaviour he would allow from Liberals. Kormos announced plans to introduce a resolution calling on Curling to resign from the post, and it was rumoured that Baird was considering a similar move. At one stage, Baird described Curling's job performance as an "absolute disgrace". REF Rob Ferguson, "New premium won't be listed separately on pay", Toronto Star, 19 May 2004, A09; "'Dysfunctional' legislature shocks Tory", CanWest News Service, 17 December 2004, A11./REF"

I don’t think old rumours belong in a Wikipedia article. I propose to delete “Kormos announced plans to introduce a resolution calling on Curling to resign from the post, and it was rumoured that Baird was considering a similar move” --- the remainder of the paragraph makes the relationship between the two clear enough. (This is the last change that I am suggesting to the "Provincial politics" section at this time.) Ground Zero | t 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did go a bit overboard there on the content when I added it. I agree that that section can be cut. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this should go. CJCurrie 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unresolved issues

[edit] #3

“A number of media reports subsequently criticized both the principle and the implementation of workfare in Ontario. REF One political columnist, Ian Urquhart, described the program as "largely a fraud". See Ian Urquhart, "Workfare program a fraud", Toronto Star, 18 August 1999, p. 1./REF”

And I am sure that there were media reports endorsing workfare and its implementation. I do not think that these media reports merit mention in this article, which is a biography of Baird, not an article on workfare. I recommend that this be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that this particular reference should be retained. Baird's debut performance as a cabinet minister was the specific impetus for much of the criticism of the workfare program, including Urquhart's piece in the Star. (I'll see if I can find proof of this.) CJCurrie 04:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
He's a selection from Urquhart's article:
WORKFARE IS the Tories' dirty little secret. The truth is that the much-ballyhooed program is mostly a fraud.
That became evident on Monday as John Baird, the rookie minister of community and social services, held an ill-advised press conference to trumpet the latest drop in the welfare caseload.
"Another 15,638 people left welfare in July," Baird boasted. "That brings the total since our government was first elected in 1995 to more than 412,000."
The press conference would have been a non-event if Baird had stopped there. But he went on to attribute the government's success largely to its "mandatory work for welfare" program, and that opened the door to reporters' questions.
Just how many welfare recipients are actually working for their cheques? Baird couldn't, or wouldn't, respond. When the questions kept coming, an aide abruptly ended the press conference and a red-faced Baird scurried out of the room. CJCurrie 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Was this criticism echoed across the political spectrum, as this column appeared to be singled out as it was particularly critical? Also as pointed out earlier, We do not need the opinions of a couple of reporters here about his ability to handle questions. I support its deletion. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's another article from the same period:
Mike Harris came to office in 1995 on a wave of parsimony garbed in tough love. Workfare was the hot-button word that went straight to the suit pocket nearest the heart.
"The best social assistance program ever created is a real job, and this plan will generate hundreds of thousands of those," the Common Sense Revolution declared in 1995. Who could argue?
Four years later, the claims are more circumspect.
The Tories' 1999 platform said "we're proud to have helped close to 400,000 get off welfare and put their lives back on track since 1995."
Note that the claim is that their lives are "on track." The "real jobs" have disappeared from the rhetoric.
There is good reason for this. The evidence is becoming overwhelming that workfare is little more than a veneer giving dubious respectability to the reality that people in need are being denied support.
As of July, only 6,000 people were actually on workfare assignments. These jobs last six months, then someone else gets a turn.
This represents little more than 2 per cent of the welfare caseload. Last year's annual total was less than 5 per cent.
It is interesting to even have a number, however.
The previous minister of community and social services, Janet Ecker, managed to float through her entire time in the portfolio without any workfare number ever sticking to her for long.
We can thank her successor, John Baird, for letting the parsimony shine through. Harris himself underlined this yesterday. We shouldn't be focussing on how few got workfare jobs, he said, but how many lost their welfare cheques. So much for the best social assistance program ever created.
(Toronto Star, 18 August 1999) CJCurrie 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the left-leaning Toronto Star criticized the program, in two opinion columns. Also, what about the rest of the news sources across the political spectrum? And there must have been benefits to the workfare program too... GoldDragon 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the G&M ran some critical pieces about workfare-in-practice around the same time. CJCurrie 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There must have been supportive articles in the media too... GoldDragon 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This article contains next to no personal information, like marital status, upbringing, parents, etc. A paragraph or two of personal information would be helpful.

[edit] #5

“Later in the year, Baird announced that his department would spend $26 million on shelters and other funding for the homeless. This decision was praised as a positive step, although opposition members criticized the plan for not providing funds for investment in affordable housing.REF James Stevenson, "Ontario to spend $26 million on shelters and programs for homeless", Canadian Press, 21 December 2000, 17:59 report. /REF”

– This reminds me of a pointless article headline I say in the Kingston Whig-Standard many years ago on the day after a federal election: “Local residents' views on election result: some like it, some don’t”. After the first sentence, the paragraph pretty much says, “Some supported the move, others didn’t.” I think this would be more concise without losing meaning if the paragraph stopped after the first sentence, i.e., that the second sentence be deleted. And Baird ran a ministry, not a department. He runs a department now. (I've made this change.) Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain this analogy really works. The Whig-Standard headline was indeed pointless, conveying nothing more profound than the fact that different people held different views about the same thing. With the "$26 million" sentence, I was trying to indicate why opposition members criticized Baird's spending decision: none objected to new money for shelters, but many thought that the government was pursuing a flawed strategy by not including funds for affordable housing under the same (metaphorical) umbrella.
I wonder if it might be better to rewrite this line instead of deleting it ... perhaps "Baird later announced that his department would spend $26 million on shelters and other funding for the homeless. Opposition members welcomed the new spending, but criticized the absence of funds for affordable housing", or something along those lines, would be acceptable.
And I apologize for the ministry/department error. CJCurrie 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Still prefer its exclusion entirely, as the opposition always points out what was not done. This would only be significant if the gov't reversed or fell short on a promise. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this edit premature? I believe Point 5 is still under discussion as well. CJCurrie 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is still under discussion. The question for is whether is directly relevant to bring up affordable housing in discussing Baird's announcement on a homeless strategy. I agree with the criticism that it is does not make sense to have a homeless strategy without addressing affordable housing, but I recognize that that is my opinion, and that others can argue that you can separate the two issues. Because there will not be agreement, I would leave the reference to affordable housing out. Ground Zero | t 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
The opposition parties drew a connection between the issues, which may be sufficient grounds for us to mention their reaction in this context. I can understand the objection, though, and I realize that the wording may appear leading to some readers.
By way of another compromise, could I suggest that we include a reference to the opposition parties' criticism (re: affordable housing) in a separate sentence, without a direct link to the homelessness strategy? CJCurrie 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental Edits

Not overly concerned with the first few points.GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(i)

My edit removes the following sentence: Baird met with NDP leader Jack Layton in Vancouver shortly after his appointment. The NDP has identified climate change and the environment as key priorities to be addressed by parliament. Layton has said that the Conservatives will need to address environmental concerns in their 2007 budget to receive support from the NDP.

Reason: Layton's comments are no longer relevant, given that the NDP have decided not to support the budget. Baird's meeting with Layton is not, in and of itself, of encyclopedic importance.

(ii)

My edit substitutes GoldDragon's text -- Sources say that Conservative plan offers tax credits instead of direct subsidies.[1] -- with the following: Critics argued that the new Conservative measures were similar to measures introduced by the Liberals in their 2005 budget.[2]

Reason: The cited article does not indicate that the Conservative plan offers tax credits rather than direct subsidies, and does indicate that critics drew attention to similar measures in the 2005 Liberal budget.

GoldDragon's assertion may well be accurate, but he should provide an accurate citation if he wants it included.

(iii)

My edit adjusts this paragraph:

Shortly after his return from Paris, the Liberal opposition brought forward a non-binding motion for Canada to renew its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. All Conservative MPs who were present in the House, including Baird, voted against the motion, which passed with the support of the three opposition parties.[3] Baird is a vocal opponent of the Protocol, which he argues would bring about an "economic collapse".[4] Recently, the Conservatives' position has been backed by five independent economists, including Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond. Drummond, who has been consulted by political parties of all stripes, said that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s", agreeing with the results of a study compiled by the environment department. Drummond dismissed the opposition measure as unworkable.[1][2] Representatives of other parties have claimed that these are scare tactics and Liberal environmental critic David McGuinty said that the study was flawed.[5] Baird is a vocal opponent of the Protocol, which he argues would bring about an "economic collapse".[6]

And adds the following paragraph later in the section:

In April 2007, Baird produced a federal study supported by five independent economists, including Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond, to defend his position that adherence to the Kyoto Protocol would result in a severe economic downtown. In a private letter that was leaked to the media in the same period, Drummond wrote to Baird that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s".[7] Opposition parliamentarians dismissed the report as a scare tactic, while Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty argued that the study was misleading, as it did not properly factor international emission trading and ignored jobs to be created through the "green economy".[8]

Reasons: I don't think anyone would dispute that the federal study cited by Baird is worthy of mention in this article. GoldDragon's edit, however, seems to use the study to validate the Conservative government's position on Kyoto, while also adding unnecessary information about Don Drummond's credentials.

I could add that (i) the sentence, "Drummond dismissed the opposition measure as unworkable", makes little sense in isolation, (ii) the context of Drummond's statement to Baird is surely worth mentioning, (iii) David McGuinty's specific criticisms of the federal study are rather significant, particularly given that Baird's views on the international carbon market are referenced elsewhere in the section.

It might be possible to restructure the "Environment Minister" section, so as to have all of the Kyoto material in a single sequence of paragraphs. GoldDragon's wording, however, is not suitable for inclusion one way or the other.

Drummond's credentials are important to show that he is not being partisan. Second, the study is not being misused in any sense. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(iv)

My edit includes the following paragraph:

In mid-February 2007, Baird defended his government's environmental record by quoting former United States Vice-President Al Gore as saying that Canada was "showing moral authority to the rest of the world" in its policies on climate change. Gore responded that his comments were made to encourage the Harper government to participate in the Kyoto process, and said that Baird had "mischaracterized" his words by presenting them out of context.[9] Baird has said that his comments were not misrepresentation.[10]

Reason: I would tend to think that a public dispute between Canada's Environment Minister and the most famous environmental celebrity in North America is worthy of inclusion (especially given their subsequent tiff over the Conservative environmental proposal).

That is getting into POV there since "the most environmental celebrity" is your opinion. Ending up, it results in a "he said she said" incident. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(v)

My edit changes this paragraph:

Baird released his government's targets for greenhouse gas emissions in late April 2007. The plan calls for Canada to begin cutting its existing rate of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and for cuts to reach 20% by 2020. Under this plan, Canada will reach its Kyoto targets between 2020 and 2025. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the government plan does not set hard caps on emissions.

To this:

Baird released his government's targets for greenhouse gas emissions in late April 2007. The plan calls for Canada to begin cutting its existing rate of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and for cuts to reach 20% by 2020. Under this plan, Canada will reach its Kyoto targets between 2020 and 2025, eight to thirteen years behind schedule. Unlike the Kyoto Protocal, the government plan does not set hard caps on emissions.[11]

Reasons: The fact that the federal government plans to reach its Kyoto commitments several years behind schedule is a point of some significance. Leaving out this information could confuse some readers into believing that the government is still pursuing its Kyoto targets.

The leaked fax was a significant news story, and merits a passing reference in the footage section.

No point in having to mention the fax...I don't think its significant. Second, "behind schedule" is POV because there was no previous legislation that adhered to any schedule. I've implemented an alternative wording. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(vi)

My edit changes the following two paragraphs:

Baird's proposal has been met with approval from Canada's oilpatch executives, who described them as the toughest emission regulations in the world, and who feared that more stringent standards would stiffle oil sands exploration.[12][13] Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been considerably less critical than his brother, having earlier written to Prime Minister Harper on the environmental policy saying "I would like to stress how important it is to adopt a policy that takes into account the North American market in its entirety. The fact is, when it comes to cars and trucks, we live in a continental market – not a national market, and certainly not a provincial market." McGuinty said the Conservatives' environmental plan could have gone further but described the auto emissions part of the plan as "very sensible".[3]

Members of opposition parties have criticized the government's abandonment of Kyoto goals, while David Suzuki described the proposal as a "sham" with "weak targets".[14] Former US vice president Al Gore said Baird's plan was "designed to mislead the Canadian people".[15] Baird responded by defending his plan, and by criticizing Gore's environmental record, noting that no similarly stringent measures were passed during Gore's tenure in office and that the Kyoto Treaty was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification.[16]

To this:

Baird's proposal has been met with approval from Canada's oilpatch executives, who described them as the toughest emission regulations in the world and who feared that more stringent standards would stiffle oil sands exploration.[17] Members of opposition parties have criticized the government's abandonment of Kyoto goals, while David Suzuki described the proposal as a "sham" with "weak targets".[18] Some of the harshest criticism has come from Al Gore, who described Baird's proposal as a "complete and total fraud" that was "designed to mislead the Canadian people".[19] Baird responded by defending his plan, and by criticizing Gore's environmental record while in office.[20]

Reasons: Dalton McGuinty's comments (as cited in GoldDragon's edit) have primarily to do with a separate matter. I would not object to some reference to Premier McGuinty's response, but the wording should be improved.

Dalton McGuinty's comments are relevant, since the auto emissions is part of the whole Conservative plan, and that is where Dalton did influence the federal Tories. Furthermore, I'm prepared to expand that section since the columnist makes a point between opposition critics and governing, using David and Dalton as a contrast. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore's accusation of fraud was the most widely reported aspect of his criticism, and merits inclusion accordingly. I would be prepared to include Baird's specific criticisms of Gore's record.

Problem is that Suzuki and Gore are saying exactly the same thing, with more detail from Suzuki, so having both of their responses in full doesn't add any salient information. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've made an effort to create a workable compromise. Let's see if it's acceptable. CJCurrie 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An offer to mediate

If both parties are interested, I will try to mediate the remaining issues over the next few days to try to put an end to the edit war. I don't have much time at the moment, but I will try. Ground Zero | t 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are my comments on the major issues. There were some other changes that I have no addressed that seem more minor to me.


GD's version CJC's version GZ's comments
Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond has described the opposition measures as "unworkable".[21] - This is vague, and therefore of little value. Drummond’s objections are better addressed in the following paragraph. I say delete it per CJC.


GD's version CJC's version GZ's comments
Recently, the Conservatives' position has been backed by five independent economists, including TD's Drummond. Drummond, who has been consulted by political parties of all stripes, added that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s", agreeing with the results of a study compiled by the environment department. [22] [4] Representatives of other parties have claimed that these are scare tactics and Liberal environmental critic David McGuinty said that the study was flawed.[23] In April 2007, Baird produced a federal study supported by five independent economists to support his approach to the Kyoto Protocol. Among the five economists was Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond, who also wrote a private letter to Baird arguing that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s".[24] Opposition parliamentarians dismissed the report as a scare tactic, while Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty argued that the study was misleading, saying that it did not properly examine international emission trading and ignored jobs to be created through the "green economy".[25] I prefer CJC’s version here because it explains what David McG’s criticism actually is, instead of providing a vague “it was flawed”. Also, the link to TD Bank follows WP:MOS in CJC’s version, but not in GD’s. As far as “who has been consulted by political parties of all stripes” goes, this seems to be an attempt to provide an endorsement to Drummond. I don’t think it is necessary – his reputation is well-known. David Suzuki has been consulted by political parties of all stripes, too. It doesn’t mean that the politicians have listened to either of them.


GD's version CJC's version GZ's comments
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been considerably less critical than his brother, having earlier written to Prime Minister Harper on the environmental policy. The Premier had stressed the importance of a policy that considered the North American market as a whole, due to the automotive industry's importance to his province. McGuinty said the Conservatives' environmental plan could have gone further but described the auto emissions part of the plan as "very sensible". Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said that the plan as a whole "falls short of Canadians' expectations", although he endorsed Baird's strategy for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles Here, I prefer GD’s version because it provides additional detail that is worth keeping. CJC’s version is more vague.

I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept GZ's recommendations. However, I'm also going to suggest what I hope will be a "constructive synthesis" for the Dalton McGuinty paragraph:

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been less critical than his brother. The Premier had previously written to Prime Minister Harper on environmental policy, stressing the importance of considering the North American market as a whole, due to the automotive industry's importance to his province. McGuinty said the Conservatives' overall environmental plan "falls short of Canadians' expectations", but described the auto emissions part of the plan as "very sensible".

Would this be acceptable? CJCurrie 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My main gripe is that why do you prefer stuff like "behind schedule" (in describing Baird's revised plan) and "falls short of expectations" in McGuinty, as I don't exactly see it as constructive synthesis. Again, I used the term "considerably less critical" because David dismissed it out of hand entirely, whereas Dalton said it could have gone further but was satisfied that he was able to influence one piece of the plan. (The editorial explains that David is the shadow cabinet critic, so his job is to be criticial, compared to Dalton who instead has some incentive to work with the federal Tories.) GoldDragon 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this point by point:

(i) I prefer the term "behind schedule" (referring to Baird's emission targets in relation to the Kyoto Protocol) because it's the language used in the Globe and Mail's coverage of the issue.

However, under the Conservative government's new climate-change plan, the goal of reducing Canada's greenhouse-gas output to 6 per cent below 1990 levels – the targets established in the Kyoto accord – would not be reached until 2025. That's 13 years behind schedule.

(Gloria Galloway and Bill Curry, "Green plan's cost pegged at $8-billion a year", Globe and Mail, 27 April 2007, A1.)

More to the point, it's important that we not provide readers with misleading statements. If we simply state that "the Conservative plan will allow Canada to reach its Kyoto targets by 2025", readers who are unfamiliar with the Kyoto schedule might assume that Harper's government has decided to accept the protocol after all. Adding "behind schedule", removes the confusion.

(ii) "Falls short of expectation" is a direct quote from Dalton McGuinty. I can't see why it would be objectionable.

(iii) The McGuinty brothers' divergence toward Baird's proposal is interesting and noteworthy, but not something that should be blown out of proportion (particularly given that Dalton was also critical of the proposal as a whole). "Less critical" gets the point across without the hyperbole of "considerably".

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the McGuinty and Harper governments have very similar views on the role of nuclear power, and that Dion's coal strategy hasn't met with a strong reception at Queen's Park. There are serious divisions between the federal and provincial Liberals on these issues; these, however, are matters for another debate. CJCurrie 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


The Toronto Star reports that McGuinty says it could have gone further. So no reason not to stick with that.

Behind schedule is misleading, as there was no existing planned schedule, so that is why I say "takes x years longer than Kyoto".

Well, "considerably" adequately reflects their views towards it, unless you want to go into detail about how David dismissed it entirely... At the same time, considerable does not mean "extreme" but the differences are nonetheless significant; both brothers are not on the same page. GoldDragon 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat puzzled by these responses. In the first instance, "Falls short of expectations" is a direct quote, while "says it could have gone further" is a paraphrase. Why you'd prefer the latter is not entirely clear.
Second, the journalists cited above have noted that the Harper government's plan will allow Canada to reach its Kyoto targets 8-13 years behind schedule. Editing this to read "the Harper government's plan will allow Canada to reach its Kyoto targets" doesn't seem entirely forthright.
Finally, "considerably" could be read as POV, given that both brothers opposed the accord. CJCurrie 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA class?

Aside for possibly the trivia section, this article looks well written, well sourced, detailed and quite up to date that it should be considered for a GA candidate. Anyone agrees that it should go to GA soon?--JForget 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ACtually, I think it should a get a shot for GA.--JForget 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only caution I'd add at this stage is that the article hasn't been updated for a few months. Once that's taken care of, it might be suitable for GA status. CJCurrie 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I haven't seen very much of articles on CBC since April except one about a UN report that contradicted Baird's claims that Kyoto's plans would hurt significantly the economy. I've added the UN bit plus Baird's rebuttal saying Canada will have its levels of emissions peaked before the UN's target.--JForget 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
There is also this which I think is about the Liberal's private bill forcing Canada to respect the Kyoto Protocol.JForget 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  1. Not that it's a requirement for GA, but have there been any attempts to get a free picture?
  2. Trivia sections are not acceptable for Good Articles — the information contained there should either be incorporated into the body of the article or removed entirely.
  3. External links should be below the footnotes, or at least below the election results tables.
  4. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must adequately summarize all the major points in the article and, for an article of this size, that will require at least two full paragraphs, most likely three. For example, it currently mentions nothing about his early life.
  5. Some statements require citations:
    "He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies from Queen's University in 1992." (Early life and career)
    The first paragraph under "Government backbencher"
    The introduction of "Community and Social Services minister"
    "He was not, but was demoted to the position of Chief Government Whip while remaining associate minister for Francophone Affairs. His replacement in Social Services was Brenda Elliott, who was from the more centrist wing of the Progressive Conservative Party." (Chief Government Whip)
    "Baird was less combative as Energy Minister than he had been in Community and Social Services. The energy policies of the Eves government were controversial, but opposition criticism was often directed at the premier rather than at Baird. Eves took a prominent interest in the Energy portfolio, and sometimes relegated Baird to a secondary role in policy announcements." (Energy Minister)
    "Both Baird and Flaherty left provincial politics in 2005 to campaign for the federal House of Commons." (Opposition member)
    "and was signed into law four days later." (Accountability Act)
    "All three opposition parties have demanded that the environment becomes one of the main points of the government's Trone Speech in the 2007 fall session." (Environmental strategy)
  6. The early life section is somewhat lacking. Who were his parents? What was his childhood like? What influenced him to get into politics? How did his childhood experiences affect his later life? You don't have to answer all of these questions, especially if the information is not available, but these are the types of questions that can get you started on how to expand that section.
  7. Aside from lacking a citation, the sentence "He was re-elected without difficulty in 1999." under "Government backbencher" is somewhat POV and should be backed up with an objective fact. For example, did he gain a large majority of the vote? That could explain "without difficulty." Without a fact, and certainly without a citation, it seems somewhat subjective.
  8. Several paragraphs contain only one or two sentences. These should be merged with surrounding paragraphs or expanded if you feel that they're distinct enough to be on their own.
  9. The are problems with some of the prose and the repetition of words. For example, under "2000," you use the verb "announced" and awful lot.
  10. The "2001-02," "Minister responsible for Children" and "Chief Government Whip" sections should combined — if not all three of them, then at least two of them. Right now, they're too short to all deserve their own headings. Alternatively, they could be expanded.
  11. References #8, #44, #71, #78, #101, #104 and #110 are broken.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Also, please note that this is only my preliminary review and that I still have to look over certain things (such as making sure all the citations work etc.), so there may be more to do after I review it a second time. Cheers, CP 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I forgot to check this for a while, I will extend the hold so that these last minor changes can be made. Cheers, CP 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've expanded the lead to added briefly some of its policies he made such as the social program cuts, and Hydro One sell failure as well as the Federal Accountability Act, and his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol which means it added about 1 kb of text and one paragraph with two more sources including one that includes virtually all the first two lead paragraphs. The broken citations were also replaced and/or resourced. Now the ref numbers are now different since at least two more were added during the changes.--JForget 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, I'm ready to pass it for GA Status now! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks!JForget 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)