Leafless Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 A historic meeting of the Quebec and Ontario cabinets got off to a spectacular start yesterday when federal Environment Minister John Baird blasted the two provinces for deciding to go ahead without the federal government with their own scheme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b1-e272d3d87466 So, Ontario bilingually raised Premier Dalton Mc.Guinty has joined forces with Quebec Premier John Charest relating to a European inspired /Quebec plan to reduce greenhouse emissions. It is easy to understand how subsidized 'in everything' Quebec can dream up such a scheme but not so easy to understand Mc.Guinty agreeing to such a hair brained scheme when manufacturing in Ontario is in the dumpsters. He must obviously think anything to come out of Quebec is great. This should be a wake up call to the feds and how it subsidizes Quebec to bring them in line to the realities of the 'real world fears' relating to harmful greenhouse incentives that could or will cause economic hardship in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted June 2, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 (edited) It is interesting to note, up to now, no member sees this action as an aggressive, unwarranted attack on the leadership of the Harper Conservative government. Edited June 2, 2008 by Leafless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 So, Ontario bilingually raised Premier Dalton ... Relevance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oreodontist Posted June 2, 2008 Report Share Posted June 2, 2008 Curioser and curioser. On one hand give incentives for the manufacturing of V8 gas guzzlers and on the other hand.... This 'care' about the environment is a bogus as Bush claiming to have a brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hayward Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Relevance? The relevance is that Leafless hates anything bilingual, from the Government of Canada to Dalton McGuinty. Note the anti-Quebec undertone of the initial post in this thread as well. The Europeans are also mentioned unfavourably. The second paragraph is particularly funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted June 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Relevance? How about a biased premier, bent on culture, running the province. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well, at least somebody has the guts to start the ball rolling. Harper-Baird environmental policy seems to be based upon mystery and enchantment: say it (environment is our top priority) a few hundred times and that'll make it happen, somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted June 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 The relevance is that Leafless hates anything bilingual, from the Government of Canada to Dalton McGuinty. Note the anti-Quebec undertone of the initial post in this thread as well. The Europeans are also mentioned unfavourably. The second paragraph is particularly funny. I fail to understand how the premier of the largest majority English speaking province in the country can take the side of a minority French nationalistic separatist province over the leadership of the federal government of Canada relating to environmental issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Well, at least somebody has the guts to start the ball rolling. Harper-Baird environmental policy seems to be based upon mystery and enchantment: say it (environment is our top priority) a few hundred times and that'll make it happen, somehow. Ball rolling on what? Not wasting money on something that could not possibly make a lick of difference is good government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 I fail to understand how the premier of the largest majority English speaking province in the country can take the side of a minority French nationalistic separatist province over the leadership of the federal government of Canada relating to environmental issues. Leafless, Leaving aside the incorrect context you place over this agreement, it's important to remember we're talking about our environment here. Although it's impossible to leave politics out of the equation with these issues, it would be extremely counter-productive to place the importance on them that you have done. This is an issue that confronts citizens of Ontario and Quebec and if the provinces have the power to act, then they can act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 I'd like to see some of the carbon tax come back to the citizens of the provinces and help out with the high price of gas and food. As far as the auto sector I think the V-8's are going to be the thing of the past. V-6's and 4' are going to the future. In Ontario the biggest polluters are the oil and gas companies and the coal-burning hydro plant which can be replaced if the Feds would help out. Ontario does always has the pollution that comes across the border in the summer time. What harm can it do to at least try. All Baird does it talk and talk what they are going to do and the Cons weren't even doing that before Baird took over, talk about a 360 turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 (edited) All that's been accomplished is to produce a press release. The Cap & Trade system is simple in concept but horrendous in execution - just ask the Europeans where it's been a nightmare. Quebec can afford to be magnanimous on the Environment - the vast majority of their economy runs off clean Hydro Electricity. If this Cap & Trade system ever gets off the ground, Ontario will be buying credits from Quebec. Let's see how Ontario voters react to shovelling more of their hard-earned money out the door to Quebec. What goes largely unsaid in a Cap & Trade approach is that if you don't set aggressive caps - you just end up buying a license to pollute. The media has criticized the Conservatives for not setting aggressive enough targets - but they do have them - and they will be regulated - an absolute reduction of 20% by 2020. A Cap & Trade system means squat if the Caps do not force absolute reductions in emissions - you just keep buying your credits and pass the cost to the consumer. McGuinty and Charest have not disclosed any details on Caps, Penalties, Cost of Permits, Enforcement, etc. Why? Because they don't have a clue. They say they are aiming for "as early as 2010". Don't hold your breath. Edited June 3, 2008 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leafless Posted June 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Leafless,Leaving aside the incorrect context you place over this agreement, it's important to remember we're talking about our environment here. Environmental issues are already in the hands of federal government and if you are unhappy with that is to bad. A Provincial assault on the federal government is NOT in the best interest of Canadians. Maybe we should have a referendum on this issue rather than have Mc.Guinty selling the interest of Ontarians to Quebec. Although it's impossible to leave politics out of the equation with these issues, it would be extremely counter-productive to place the importance on them that you have done. This is an issue that confronts citizens of Ontario and Quebec and if the provinces have the power to act, then they can act. That might be your opinion but it is not mine. In fact I don't want the premier of Ontario dealing with a separatist province, hung up on culture period. Furthermore Mc.Guinty is not only dealing on enviromental issues with Quebec but also a Quebec city to Windsor Ontario high speed rail system (which will guarantee more fracophones stealing jobs in Ontario under the guise of official bilingualism). Also Mc.Guinty is dealing on a 1,250 megawatt link to Quebec's generating grid rather than produce the power here in Ontario where it should be produced. Michael, wake up and realize what is happening here. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/s...b6-3609e771f663 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Ball rolling on what? Not wasting money on something that could not possibly make a lick of difference is good government. Sorry, not quite following. Do you mean, everybody should just relax and wait till China (or maybe, US?) cut their emissions by half (that would make a lot of difference... if it's within the realm of possible, is another question. Really; let's imagine those Chinese taking in Mr Environment's preachings as to why they should urgently start cutting their emissions to save the planet, while much more prosperous you and I, who are also much heavier per capita emitters, would continue to guz our SUVs and water our lawns; such a wonderful dream it would be). Or the cap and trading system? It has been implemented and tested and functioning? Now there may be valid concerns as to how the caps are set; depending on which of course, the actual effect could range from actual significant reductions to a PR exercise (if caps are set at current, or higher, levels). But how can you tell now that it won't make difference? Do you have a crystal ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisSelf Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 The provinces have all gone their own way and the feds have basically lost control of the issue. Hard to see how anything productive is going to come out of this on the climate change front. Just as a side comment, though. It's hard to see how Harper could expect sympathy from Ontario, given the hijinks Flaherty was up to only a month or so ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Yeah there's definitely a plan behind this - a smaller (federal) government. Ideally, the one that does nothing, but worth a lot. Maybe, given the Bernier fiasko, Ontario and Quebec should think about running their own Foreign ministry too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Sorry, not quite following. Do you mean, everybody should just relax and wait till China (or maybe, US?) cut their emissions by half (that would make a lot of difference... if it's within the realm of possible, is another question. Really; let's imagine those Chinese taking in Mr Environment's preachings as to why they should urgently start cutting their emissions to save the planet, while much more prosperous you and I, who are also much heavier per capita emitters, would continue to guz our SUVs and water our lawns; such a wonderful dream it would be).Or the cap and trading system? It has been implemented and tested and functioning? Now there may be valid concerns as to how the caps are set; depending on which of course, the actual effect could range from actual significant reductions to a PR exercise (if caps are set at current, or higher, levels). But how can you tell now that it won't make difference? Do you have a crystal ball? Who needs a crystal ball? If you see that someone has put square tires on his car you don't need to be psychic to know it won't travel very fast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seabee Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 I submit that the 1867 BNA act was not well designed for the 21st century, was not always respected by the federal government, at least not in its spirit, and was not significantly improved by the 1982 amendemnent. Perhaps it is time for all levels of government to sit down and have a long debate over it, and draw up a new Constitution, this time a real one, accepted by referendum by the population. However, considering that the various regions of the federal Dominion have grown further and further from each other over time, and that the constitutional amendment clauses make it nearly impossible to change the the constitutional acts, it is doubtfull this project would bring any concrete result. We are then in an impass. Time to think outside the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myata Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Who needs a crystal ball? If you see that someone has put square tires on his car you don't need to be psychic to know it won't travel very fast! Wow, you sure know it all; which number'll win 6/49, wait I'll write it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted June 3, 2008 Report Share Posted June 3, 2008 Wow, you sure know it all; which number'll win 6/49, wait I'll write it down. It's not a question of knowing it all. It's a question of whether or not a proposed plan of action makes sense! It's very expensive to just try anything, even if it obviously couldn't work! If China and India are putting out so much in emissions that ours amount to less than a fraction of a percent even grade school math shows that anything we do is pointless. The planet doesn't care about symbolic gestures, or if we "all work together and sing the Coca-Cola song!". Burn hydrogen in oxygen and you'll get water. Add one and one and you'll get two. A volt will shove an ampere through an ohm. That's why I can't respect carbon trading. Everybody can feel good making trades and spending money that will be passed on in the form of increased prices to us ordinary folks. How about actually reducing emissions? Or has Dion forgotten all about that? I've read the Kyoto Accord from top to bottom. They didn't seem to care about actually DOING it at all! All the emphasis was on richer countries getting rid of their guilt by buying carbon credits from poorer ones. At least Harper wants to make it law to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020. I'll take a 20% decrease instead of just trading around carbon credits any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Sorry, not quite following. Do you mean, everybody should just relax and wait till China (or maybe, US?) cut their emissions by half (that would make a lot of difference... if it's within the realm of possible, is another question. Really; let's imagine those Chinese taking in Mr Environment's preachings as to why they should urgently start cutting their emissions to save the planet, while much more prosperous you and I, who are also much heavier per capita emitters, would continue to guz our SUVs and water our lawns; such a wonderful dream it would be).Or the cap and trading system? It has been implemented and tested and functioning? Now there may be valid concerns as to how the caps are set; depending on which of course, the actual effect could range from actual significant reductions to a PR exercise (if caps are set at current, or higher, levels). But how can you tell now that it won't make difference? Do you have a crystal ball? China doesn't need to cut their emissions, and neither do we. The whole thing is left wing political BS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hayward Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 (edited) I fail to understand how the premier of the largest majority English speaking province in the country can take the side of a minority French nationalistic separatist province over the leadership of the federal government of Canada relating to environmental issues. They're not taking the side of Quebec. McGuinty has made this decision based on Ontario's environmental policy, and the best way to carry it out. The issue is the environment, not language, not seperation. The inaction of the federal government (due to the opposition parties in Parliament) puts the responsibility on the provincial governments to move forward with their own programs, as environmental policy is not exclusively federal or provincial jurisdiction, it is a shared jurisdiction. Edited June 4, 2008 by Sean Hayward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 The whole thing is left wing political BS. Just like that smoking thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 Just like that smoking thing. "that smoking thing" was at least partly backed up by the facts. The "CO2 is bad" thing is pure fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted June 4, 2008 Report Share Posted June 4, 2008 "that smoking thing" was at least partly backed up by the facts. The "CO2 is bad" thing is pure fiction. Some people still question those facts. Those same people seem to be the ones who also question global warming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.