Conservatives Create HUGE conservation area in the North

[Michael Bluth]

The only way I can interpret this rambling is that it appears to come from a frustrated Liberal or NDP supporter. It is totally off topic and sounds rather desperate. But I do understand the obligatory mention of GWB in negative tones.

Exactly. That appears to be the only way someone could try and make this very positive move by the Government into an attack on the Government.

But it could be a frustrated Green supporter.

Edited November 23, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Oleg Bach]

Exactly. That appears to be the only way someone could try and make this very positive move by the Government into an attack on the Government.

But it could be a frustrated Green supporter.

Conservatives may create great conservation areas and have the influence to do so - which is fine - but it's hypocritial seeing most conservatives gained their power and money raping the natural world - prime example of conservative guilt...

[Michael Bluth]

Conservatives may create great conservation areas and have the influence to do so - which is fine - but it's hypocritial seeing most conservatives gained their power and money raping the natural world - prime example of conservative guilt...

Who in the current Government gained their power and money from 'raping the natural world'?

Platitudes are fine, but evidence is much more likely to actually convince rational voters.

[August1991]

What? This area is protected from logging, from mining, from everything. If the climate is warming, these areas will be protected and allow to grow trees that will take carbon out of the atmosphere.

Have you ever been to Canada's North or seen it? There are no trees. As to mining, no one goes to this place so the question is moot. The day someone goes there, and finds anything, then I'm sure there'll be an exception granted somehow.

John Baird might as well have declared 100,000 hectares on the surface of Mars a "National Reserve". The effect would be about the same.

[White Doors]

Have you ever been to Canada's North or seen it? There are no trees. As to mining, no one goes to this place so the question is moot. The day someone goes there, and finds anything, then I'm sure there'll be an exception granted somehow.

John Baird might as well have declared 100,000 hectares on the surface of Mars a "National Reserve". The effect would be about the same.

There are trees in the north, depending on your definition of North I guess. Slave lake has LOTS of trees... and with global warming the tree line will continue marching north.

Care to re-think this now? And besides, just because some of it is tundra, that does not make it worthless. Not in the least.

They've also set in motion new studies and negotiations for the creation of a national park in the East Arm of Great Slave Lake. Some $3 million has been earmarked for the feasibility study.

The national park would fulfil and expand an initiative first proposed in 1970 when Liberal Pierre Trudeau

Might want to check this out:

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps..._maps/landcover

You are one of my favourite posters August. I expect better from you.

[Carinthia]

The only way I can interpret this rambling is that it appears to come from a frustrated Liberal or NDP supporter. It is totally off topic and sounds rather desperate. But I do understand the obligatory mention of GWB in negative tones.

All is not lost. There will be an election at some point and you can cast your vote, and hope for the best. In the end, isn't that all that we all do?

Sorry for the rant and ramble.

You are right, I do feel frustrated. I can't stop remembering the sinking feeling I had when it was announced that GWB had won the 2000 election. Although I was disappointed that he was appointed President, I had still had no idea then, how bad things would get, just knew it was not going to be a positive next 4 years for America. It has been far worse than I could have imagined.

I have the same gut feeling about Harper. That's all!

[capricorn]

Sorry for the rant and ramble.

You are right, I do feel frustrated. I can't stop remembering the sinking feeling I had when it was announced that GWB had won the 2000 election. Although I was disappointed that he was appointed President, I had still had no idea then, how bad things would get, just knew it was not going to be a positive next 4 years for America. It has been far worse than I could have imagined.

I have the same gut feeling about Harper. That's all!

You're not sorry at all carinthia. I don't believe you had a "sinking feeling" when GWB was proclaimed President in 2000 because at that point he had not committed one single error as President. A further proof of your insincerity is that in your second paragraph you continue your rant against GWB. which still has nothing to do with the creation of a national park by the Canadian Conservative government.

Harper, well that's a different story. Since early 2006 you have observed him as Prime Minister. If you don't like how he governs then don't vote Conservative in the next election.

[Carinthia]

You're not sorry at all carinthia. I don't believe you had a "sinking feeling" when GWB was proclaimed President in 2000 because at that point he had not committed one single error as President. A further proof of your insincerity is that in your second paragraph you continue your rant against GWB. which still has nothing to do with the creation of a national park by the Canadian Conservative government.

Harper, well that's a different story. Since early 2006 you have observed him as Prime Minister. If you don't like how he governs then don't vote Conservative in the next election.

A ranter I may be, a liar I am not! My apology was sincere.

There were many people who were scared of Bush at that time. As he was the past Governer of Texas, many people were well aware of his cockiness and stupidity. Did you live in a cave then? If you didn't, then I can only suppose that you must have had a restricted intellectual capacity during the 2000 election.

Just to keep on topic, I am thrilled that Harper has designated a huge area in the north for conservation. Further, I think he has done well in his leadership to date, but I won't hold my breath for the future.

[capricorn]

A ranter I may be, a liar I am not! My apology was sincere.

I accept that.

There were many people who were scared of Bush at that time. As he was the past Governer of Texas, many people were well aware of his cockiness and stupidity. Did you live in a cave then? If you didn't, then I can only suppose that you must have had a restricted intellectual capacity during the 2000 election.

I am not as fixated on US politics as you and many other people seem to be. Although I am well aware that what happens in the US has repercussions, my world does not totally revolve around what goes on in US politics. I interpret your oblique insinuation of my limited intellectual quotient existent in 2000 as a lashing out at my oblique insinuation that you were untruthful. That evens things out.

Just to keep on topic, I am thrilled that Harper has designated a huge area in the north for conservation. Further, I think he has done well in his leadership to date, but I won't hold my breath for the future.

I’m surprised yet delighted that you are giving Harper his due as a leader. I note your qualifier that you are unsure as to his future successes. Fair enough.

[Visionseeker]

What's disappointing is that this thread, being about a huge conservation area, had to be highjacked into a global warming topic that doesn't have anything to do with the topic being discussed.

The thread title reads: “Conservatives Create HUGE conservation are [sic] in the North,” and then described (or editorialized) as “This is the type of environmentalism we need”. That pretty much opens the door to wider questions about environmentalism. So broadening the scope of discussion was invited at the outset.

The good news, and there is only good news in this story,is that the national park would fulfil and expand an initiative first proposed in 1970 when Liberal Pierre Trudeau was prime minister.

Some 37 years later, after so many governments,especially Liberal governments who have claimed to be environmental and green had an opportunity to do something but only sat on their hands and did nothing.

One stroke of a pen and Harper made it what it should be, a sanctuary.

It is indeed good news. Conservation areas are an important part of wider environmental stewardship aims. The Conservatives deserve credit for bringing the project to its conclusion. But I find the omnipotence you ascribe to Harper’s pen rather nauseating.

The immense area covered by this deal tells us that bringing this to fruition was necessarily an extremely complex undertaking that took years, no, decades to bring to fruition. To have us believe that it all materialized within the 21 or so months that the Conservatives have been in power is not only dishonest, but a disservice to the thousands of men an women in Ottawa the territories and elsewhere who committed years of effort to make this all happen. Efforts that the Conservatives have utterly and completely failed to appropriately recognize.

It brings to mind the idea of a child who, after blowing-out the candles of his birthday cake, tries to claim credit for its baking.

Meanwhile at the Commonwealth summit, we stand with a fledgling Australian administration as the only members to oppose binding commitments to address climate change. While the conservation area is welcome news, it is clear to many that the Conservatives are simply using the development as a “greenwashing” exercise.

[Visionseeker]

Good news? Stroke of a pen?

You gotta be joking. This is PR and nothing but PR. Harper/Baird might as well declare the Dark Side of the Moon as a protected area.

Well put.

[capricorn]

Chretien and Martin have established national parks while in office. What's different here?

[jbg]

What's disappointing is that Baird makes the announcement on the same day as he is blocking the Opposition from going to the conference as per tradition. One good policy doesn't override a bad policy. I see the announcements as being related.

What's disappointing is that whenever the CPC does anything that almost anyone would consider constructive you need to change the topic. Global warming is an incredible fraud and frankly it would have been better if Baird hadn't gone at all.

[Borg]

Have been working outside all day so missed this entirely.

Excellent news.

Borg

[leonardcohen]

What are all the Bush Haters going to do

when he leaves office?

All the free floating hate out there is

going to have to find another target.

Or will it magically dissappear?

Will the same people who complain about Canada

being too closely aligned with United States

complain as much when the next president,

probably a Democrat takes his oath of Office?

I know,I know..there is no guarantee that

it be a Democrat,that is just my guess.

[jbg]

I know,I know..there is no guarantee that

it be a Democrat,that is just my guess.

I doubt strongly that it will be a Democrat. And I don't remember any gushes of pro-American sentiment during the Carter and Clinton administrations. And Pearson and Johnson did not get along at all.

[bush_cheney2004]

I doubt strongly that it will be a Democrat. And I don't remember any gushes of pro-American sentiment during the Carter and Clinton administrations. And Pearson and Johnson did not get along at all.

Still, we can be reasonably certain that it will be an American.

Either way, it's mostly a one-way street. Most Americans do not invest such angst into Canadian government policies or elected leadership. The "relationship" of like minded leaders tends to be smoother, but some Canadians need something Yankee to complain about no matter what, including why Americans don't pay more attention.

Edited December 23, 2007 by bush_cheney2004