American-style administration stone-walling?
Aug 21
Doesn’t it seem incorrect that the current minority government is refusing to implement laws passed by the majority of Parliament?
Tuesday marks deadline for new Kyoto law
“At the time of the bill’s passage, Environment Minister John Baird called it a “toothless tiger” with no consequences or penalties if the conditions of the bill aren’t followed.
The government has hinted strongly that it could simply ignore the law, and would be prepared to face any resulting lawsuits or even a non-confidence motion that could trigger an election.”
I’m no political historian, but I don’t ever remember anything quite like this happening before (but if someone has examples I’d really like to hear them). What Harper is doing is flagrantly un-democratic. A majority of the democratically elected Parliament passed a law, and a minority of Parliament deems themselves wise enough to ignore it.
Also, this next article shows 2 things: a) we could, with heavy investment, meet the Kyoto targets without the massive loss of jobs Harper and Baird claim, and b) Baird cares infinitely more about politics than the environment, for which he is the minister.
Analysis questions Baird’s warnings of Kyoto disaster
Quoting Baird: “We’ve got to get countries like the United States, like China, like India on board [with] efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in a meaningful way,” he said. “Seventy per cent of the world’s emitters were excluded by the Liberals in the previous round. They weren’t successful in getting them on board and that’s a failure.”
Notice that Baird points out a problem, does not suggest any way to solve the problem, instead proceeds to spend the rest of his time blaming the Liberals.
You know what, John? An elected government has to do much more than point out problems and blame the previous government. You have done zero to further environmental causes, rather have cozied up ever closer to the polluters. I hope this is the issue that unseats your government in the next election.
RSS
Aug 21, 2007 @ 21:38:23
Well, Harper tried out the Bush-style protest manual. So of course his admin will copy the rest, part and parcel. http://thegallopingbeaver.blogspot.com/2007/08/george-w-bushs-presidential-advance.html
After all, they both follow the same philosophy of Leo Strauss and the neocons that it’s “good to lie to the little people”. http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/11/29/HarperBush/
Aug 26, 2007 @ 06:34:26
This is precisely why, in Westminster-style governments, the executive (Cabinet) customarily governs at the pleasure of the House of Commons. Absolutely, the Legislature’s job is to create laws, and in the case of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the opposition majority did. However, as I said, the Conservative government is standing with the tacit approval of the House of Commons. If the House don’t like it, they can table a no-confidence motion at any time. They haven’t, so I’ll have to assume that the majority of the House is pleased with how the Conservative government is governing.
Also, John Baird and the rest of the Ministry of the Environment (of whom a good friend of mine is a policy advisor), actually do have a plan, and if you looked it wouldn’t have been difficult to find it. See the Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Air Pollution here – http://www.ecoaction.gc.ca/turning-virage/index-eng.cfm.
Aug 26, 2007 @ 07:17:22
Steve,
I know Baird has released a “plan” but my point is that it’s not a “good plan.” Under Bairds plan Canada will still be increasing it’s total emissions. He proposes setting per-unit emissions targets rather than hard targets. This is a cop-out. When we start seeing even more intense effects of climate change in the coming decades, no one is going to think “Well, it may be 55 degrees outside, but remember that we did reduce our per-unit emissions several years ago!”
Aug 26, 2007 @ 08:05:13
Okay, so what we’re left with is a Conservative plan that differs from the Kyoto protocol. I think reasonable people can disagree on whether or not Kyoto is better for the long-term economy and the environment than the Conservative plan.
I think we can all agree that requiring Canada’s industries to take any steps towards reducing greenhouse emissions will cause, at least, some short-term economic woes – after all, reducing CO2 emissions isn’t *free*. Canada has a Liberal opposition that paid all kinds of lip service to the Kyoto Protocol while in government, and did took precisely zero steps towards implementing it. Is this perhaps because the Liberals didn’t want to be responsible for any short-term damage to the economy that occurred on their watch? After all, if you can make Canadians believe that you actually care about the environment, without actually having to bear any of the negative consequences associated with, you know, actually doing anything about it, isn’t that the best of both worlds?
Aug 26, 2007 @ 19:41:45
Steve,
Reasonable people can disagree on whether Kyoto is better for the economy, but not for the environment. The Conservatives are the ones saying the targets in Kyoto are tougher to meet, therefore will cost more.
Also, on the economic front, note the second article in my original post. The federal government doesn’t believe meeting the Kyoto targets would destroy the economy as Harper and Baird suggest.
Next, note this poll: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070129.wclimatepoll29/BNStory/ClimateChange Canadians are willing to give up economic growth to meet environmental goals.
Lastly, while it is perhaps relevant for other purposes to point out what the Liberals did or didn’t do while in power, it has no bearing on the current discussion. It makes Harper and Baird sound like whiners. Whining is not leadership. Do you think Canadians care about exactly why the Conservatives can’t set tough emission targets? We want action, not excuses.