Thursday, October 29, 2009

TD BANK In For Some Serious Backlash!

I wonder why the TD Bank would get into the climate change issue with a report that was guaranteed to incite Western Canadians into a frenzy, and frenzy it will be. Do they not understand that Albertan's still remember NEP, that's why they will not vote Liberal. For a bank to get political, which is what they have done by paying for this report, is unCanadian. And Donald Drummond is responsible for this report. He requested it, the TD paid for it.

Mr. Drummond was curious about the regional economic impact of the Conservative government's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, and commissioned a study to investigate. So far, so good.

His mistake was to ask two environmental groups, the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute, to author the report.


Oh, and this is hysterical:

"For anyone to insinuate retribution against a guy as neutral as Don Drummond...it's thuggery," said David McGuinty, the Liberal environment critic.

Mr. Drummond said that TD does not endorse the findings but neither does he think the results of the study were distorted. "We have an obligation to analyze economic matters that will affect our own business and that of our clients. We have always done this," he said.


Thuggery, HA! Hey McGuinty you Liberal crybaby, try this for neutral:

Drummond was once a senior economic adviser to former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin and is someone the current Liberal leader, Stéphane Dion, likes to cite in his speeches in favour of taking action against global warming.

Political hardball? No question. But as Drummond told CBC News, "it's all in the timeframe." If you accept the government's contention that to meet the Kyoto deadline of 2012, big cuts — equivalent to almost 30 per cent of our current greenhouse gas emissions — have to begin in 2008, and the only vehicle for those is a tax.

"This would not be the approach I would recommend," Drummond said. But other techniques would take time to implement, "and that's why I grudgingly accepted that if you are going to have that type of timeframe, which is incredibly tight, you are going to have to go with a very blunt [instrument], such as a huge increase in the carbon tax."

That is why he is not in favour of proceeding with the clean air bill as currently amended either, Drummond added. "I do want to see something done with the environment. [But] I think the economic impact would be so dire that environmental policy would be abandoned."


Yikes that is from CBC, the mouthpiece of the Liberal party, so it must be true!

The TD Bank financed Calgary-based Pembina Institute and Vancouver's David Suzuki Foundation to produce the comprehensive report. The group contracted with respected economic consultants, M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc., to model the impacts of climate policies; Jaccard has done similar work for the Canadian government.

TD's chief economist, Don Drummond, said the bank has not endorsed any targets, though it has supported a policy of a national emissions cap. He said the bank's interest was to shed light on an area where there has been little informed debate: the likely cost of imposing regulations.


So, Drummond, a Liberal, who supported Dion's carbon tax, gets the TD to pay for this joke of a report by two of the most far left econut organizations in Canada, and the TD doesn't think that it will impact their business with oil companies, and us, the little people? Our money can walk right over to the nearest Alberta Treasury Branch or our Credit Unions. We had already transferred our mortgage to a Credit Union but now it's time for us little people to talk with our money.

This report stinks worse than a dog sprayed by a skunk. Try to get that smelly oil out of the dogs fur, it's very hard to do, but it's very easy for the skunk to spray that oil. That is what the econuts have done. They have fear mongered for over 20 years, and the oil is sticking to politicians, who think that we want our industry stopped because of CO2. What our politicians fail to understand is that we want REAL pollution eliminated not some airy fairy the sky is falling CO2 wealth transfer to third world despots who keep their people in poverty on purpose.

We just happen to have the NDP environment critic in Edmonton, Linda Duncan, she of the university minded, save our earth crowd, willing to kill thousands of jobs in Alberta, because she has a pension from the university already, and will get another one if she is elected again, a double dipping dipper. Wonder how the students studying the environment will feel about having NO prospects for jobs in Alberta, because we demand government funding of these eco-terrorists get cut off if the PC want to get elected again.

David Suzuki was probably kidding when he said Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach should be jailed.

No one is sure whether the UN was kidding when it recently named Tinker Bell -- yeah, Tinker Bell, you think I could make this @##% up? -- as an "Honorary Ambassador of Green" for children. But that's only because it's the UN.

Anyway, if you're wondering about the performance of the Kyoto accord, it's been a total disaster because it requires nothing of the vast majority of the world's nations when it comes to cutting their GHG emissions, including the world's number one emitter, China, and the number two emitter, the U.S.

The U.S., unlike Canada and Jean Chretien, was never stupid enough to ratify Kyoto, going back to the Bill Clinton-Al Gore administration. Yep -- Gore.

But, hey, don't think about any of that.


I urge you to call these hypocrites out, because they have a pair of deuces and we have a royal flush. We pay the taxes and they suck off of the goodness of delusional people who think CO2 is a pollutant.

How are all the econuts getting to Copenhagen? Canadian econuts should canoe to Copenhagen if they want any credibility. That is the problem, they have lost credibility and are now a laughing stock. I sense a funeral approaching, rest in peace global warming.

Oh, and TD Canada Trust, don't think we westerners haven't taken measure of you, and you should expect some reduction of deposits in the near future in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Just giving you a heads up.

6 comments:

CanadianSense said...

Is it possible those promised taxpayer subsidies for the smart grids, windmills, solar industries need extra help?

If we think the Big 3 Bailout was crazy, wait for the "bill" to fund those Green technology McJobs.

Anonymous said...

To be fair, Drummond is not publicly a "Liberal". His advisory role to Paul Martin was as a senior bureaucrat at the Department of Finance in Ottawa.

That said, the decision to release this report was not entirely Drummond's. It was certainly approved at the highest echelons of the TD Bank. I can only think that this was a strategic move, playing off the customers of western Canada against those of the east, particularly Quebec where the Bank is making a push to increase market share.

I should remind TD that not all of us who live in Toronto are environmental "progressives". I will be reviewing my dealings with the bank with a view to taking my business elsewhere.

liberal supporter said...

I will be reviewing my dealings with the bank with a view to taking my business elsewhere.

Maybe there is a Fox Bank!

Southern Quebec said...

Greenshit: TD Bank does not care what little people think. They do research like this for their corporate clients. You moving your overdraft to a credit union, won't matter to them...

Anonymous said...

If Special Ed wanted some free advice, I'd suggest he show he's got a pair by condemning Suzuki and the TD bank. He should then go on to offer a free toaster to anyone opening a savings account at an Alberta Tresury Branch with a chance to win one of 10 new Hummers.

liberal supporter said...

I'm not understanding all the outrage here. TD commissions a study into the impact of the Harper government's plan to reduce emissions by 2020. It says it will result in lower economic growth than if we do nothing (and presume nothing happens to the climate that affects the economy).

What is the problem? Do you believe that such reductions can be made with no effect on the economy? Do you think the economic effects would be worse than predicted in the report?

Why would you decline to debate the findings, either to say that it would be worse, or not worse? Instead you want to silence the debate? Sounds like your worst stereotypes of econuts shouting down skeptics. Perhaps that stereotype was actually projection of your own ways of stifling debate.