Value Clash

This morning I watched PMPM outline what he perceives to be the "fundamental value differences" between himself and Stephen Harper. He rattled off the tired and worn-out counterfactual statement that Harper would have had Canadians in Iraq; this is something which Harper has addressed in this campaign, saying that while he supports the mission, he would not have committed troops. As I said, it's all counterfactual and therefore irrelevant. It should also bear mention that had Paul Martin been the PM at the time, he also would have had Canadians in Iraq. But there's a fundamental value difference there.
Paul Martin also says that Stephen Harper would have Canada revoke its support for Kyoto. Harper apparently believes that the environment is not important to Canadians, and that spending billions of dollars to counter the problem of climate change isn't important. Let's look at Canada's record on Kyoto, shall we? But first, bear this in mind:
Article 3.1 The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.
Since signing Kyoto, Canada's emissions have risen 24% above their 1990 levels. It would thus appear that Canada is either flouting Kyoto's terms, the government isn't doing enough to ensure that Canada lives up to Kyoto's terms, or that the terms spelled out by Kyoto are simply unreachable for Canada. One way or another, this government is responsible for Canada's systemic failure to live up to its international obligations. The choice we have is clear: continue throwing billions of dollars at a problem that cannot be resolved in a futile effort to demonstrate our much-vaunted leadership that will set the standard by which all other countries are judged, or withdraw from the Protocol and develop an alternative, made-in-Canada approach that will provide real results for Canadians.
Martin also discussed how Harper would revoke the tax cuts that were recently implemented, how Harper would make billions of dollars in promises and then expect Canadians to write a cheque to the government to cover the cost. That's a fundamental difference. Given the state of our health care system, an area in which Martin has de facto acknowledged that the health care "fix for a generation" that pumped $41B into the system is insufficient and has thus introduced even more money, perhaps cancelling a cynical tax cut aimed at buying votes is not that bad an idea. Also, see the above statement on Kyoto. We've obviously not pumped enough money into the environment file, seeing as Martin just announced yesterday that he would spend $1B to clean up the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence. Very important ideas, to be sure, but he is doing the exact same thing that he is accusing Harper of doing (slinging money around). This is actually a winning item for Martin, as the mere mention of raising taxes is enough to undo a campaign (viz. "read my lips, no new taxes" from George H. W. Bush in 1992) and hurt the Tories to a considerable degree. There's an argument to be made here that if it weren't for all the Liberal program-slashing in the mid-to-late 1990s to get the fiscal house in order, there wouldn't be the massive surpluses that Canada currently enjoys. The tax issue isn't something that I personally spend considerable time dealing with, so if there's any economists out there, by all means draw up a chart detailing the GST cut, other Harper tax cuts, against the Liberal plans and tell me which saves the most.
So yes, Martin is trying to paint a portrait of value differences. However, given that on the issues he discussed, he either actually agrees with Harper (Iraq and also BMD) or has done things that run counter to what he's preached (Kyoto and the environment), Canadians who actually delve into the record and pay close attention will realize that the "fundamental differences in values" that Martin tries to portray are much blurrier than he would like to admit.