Greenhouse gas and Atlantic accord

[kimmy]

The federal Liberals bundled the budget bill together with an environmental proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as well as funding for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia's offshore deals.

Yahoo article

What is the purpose of bundling these two issues together?

Kyoto implementation and a deal on equalization don't appear to be related issues to me. I'm not sure why they would be part of the same vote in Commons. Cynics like me would suspect that the Liberals' intention is to put the Conservatives in a situation of voting against one of their own issues-- either "no" to the Atlantic accord, or "yes" to a Kyoto plan that apparently declares carbon dioxide to be toxic. (CO2 toxic? WTF? Did anybody in the Environment Ministry take grade 10 science??)

However, Liberal House Leader Tony Valeri says that's not it at all, and that there's a big picture that cynics like me just aren't seeing.

Valeri denied that the Liberals are trying to "box in" the Conservatives by forcing them to choose between supporting the Kyoto measures and the Atlantic Accord in the budget vote. He said he plans to meet with opposition House leaders in the next week or so to explain the Liberals' environmental approach and "make sure that cooler heads prevail."

Toronto Star article

As far as I can determine, the Liberals' approach seems to be more of the same-old same-old. This is another kick in the groin for democracy.

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

What is the purpose of bundling these two issues together?

An attempt to force an election, I suspect.

(CO2 toxic?  WTF? Did anybody in the Environment Ministry take grade 10 science??)

Even oxygen can be toxic in certain situations. Bet that wasn't in your grade 10 science textbook, either.

This is another kick in the groin for democracy.

Huh? Elections are a "kick in the groin" to democracy?

More and more I'm getting the impression that anything the Liberals do will be attacked as a threat to democracy. They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

[kimmy]

What is the purpose of bundling these two issues together?

An attempt to force an election, I suspect.

hmm? What the blazes are you talking about? The Liberals don't need to "attempt to force an election". They can have an election any time they want. If they want an election, Paul Martin can just go down to Rideau Hall and call an election.

This is another kick in the groin for democracy.

Huh? Elections are a "kick in the groin" to democracy?

I didn't say elections were a kick in the groin for democracy.

I said the Liberals' strategy of bundling unrelated issues into an "omnibus bill" to put their opponents in the position of having to vote against their conscience on one of the issues is a kick in the groin to democracy. I thought I was fairly clear about that. But explaining it again can't hurt.

I don't even want to know how you made the leap in logic from "omnibus bill" to "elections". That just totally smacks of trying too hard.

The two issues should be voted on on their own merits, not on the basis of other issues to which they've been attached.

More and more I'm getting the impression that anything the Liberals do will be attacked as a threat to democracy. They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

If the Liberals democratized the senate and the judiciary, I'll go buy a LPC membership myself. But something tells me I won't have to part with that $10 any time soon. They just wouldn't be the Liberals if they did that.

They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

They could declare martial law, and their apologists would find a way to spin it as "defending Canadian values."

They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

They could start shitting gold bricks, and some people would criticize it as an inflationary measure. That's about as likely to happen as them democratizing the senate or the judiciary.

They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

If Harper went around downtown Ottawa curing lepers through the power of prayer, it would be criticized by the left as "too Christian". And again, yeah that's about as likely as the gold bricks or the democratizing.

They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

By the way, how did we get from discussing the "omnibus bill" to discussing what if the Liberals democratized the senate? I mean, don't you think it's quite a leap to assume that because I'm blasting them for this omnibus bill, that I'd also blast them for democratizing the senate?

They could fully democratize the senate and the judiciary and somehow the right would find a way to call it a "blow to democracy."

If Canada was Seinfeld, do you think that Paul Martin would be Jerry, George, or Kramer?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, I would oppose any omnibus Bill for other than housekeeping purposes. I will wait until nextr week, however after Valeri has met with the Party leaders before making a judgement on this.

IMT may be correct in that this may be an attempt to force an election. There are issues that favour the Liberals now that may not be there later. Kyoto is one.

As for democratizing the Senate and judiciary, have you really thought about that one?

[kimmy]

Kimmy, I would oppose any omnibus Bill for other than housekeeping purposes.

At least we can agree on something.

I will wait until nextr week, however after Valeri has met with the Party leaders before making a judgement on this.

(translation: "I can't think of a positive spin at the moment; I'm hoping the party spokesmen can get their heads together and come up with something that sounds plausible." )

IMT may be correct in that this may be an attempt to force an election. There are issues that favour the Liberals now that may not be there later. Kyoto is one.

Horse-pucky. The Liberals know that Kyoto implementation is not an issue that can win them an election on its own; it was there for the taking last election and got nary a whisper during the campaign.

The Liberals don't want an election right now-- they would still be pummelled in Quebec and still come up short of a majority. If you won't take Jean Lapierre's word for it, I'm sure you can find some public opinion polls to prove the point.

As for democratizing the Senate and judiciary, have you really thought about that one?

Have I really thought about it? Well, more or less in the same way I've thought about whether Spiderman or Batman would win in a fight. It's an interesting question, but it's not like it'll ever happen, so why spend a lot of energy thinking about it?

I know you've debated the judiciary issue ad-nauseum with other members of the forum, and I don't see much point in reopening it. My own opinion is that I don't see why it would hurt for an all-party committee to have a chance to have *meaningful* input into the process. Last time, of course, Minister Cotler put on some sort of dog-and-pony show for an all-party committee, as I'm sure He Misses Trudeau will point out, but the truth is that the event was for appearances only and had nothing to do with meaningful input.

As for the Senate... my understanding is that in reality their role is almost entirely committee work and legal paperwork regarding pending legislation. I'm sure that elected senators could do those jobs equally well.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

I don't think anyone wants an election right now. I am sure, though, that the Liberals would rather have it now than in the fall after the Gomery report comes out. And Kyoto will play heavily. It, together with the BMD decision, sits well in Quebec, particularly, and takes some of the teeth out of a Bloc campaign.

The Senate does more than committee and paper work. It has important roles in the passage of legislation - witness its refusal to pass the Bill on aboriginal compensation and justice - where it is wrong. However, it has those functions with respect to most legislation and this is an important part of the democratic process: checks and balances as some like to call it.

An All-Party Committee involvement could only politicize a process that has never been tainted with politics - never in Canadian history. It would be a watered down version of the American confirmation process that does not stop the courts there from being political instruments.

[caesar]

The federal Liberals bundled the budget bill together with an environmental proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions as well as funding for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia's offshore deals.

How is this considered bundling? They are two important issues that will cost money and must be addressed in the budget.

[I Miss Trudeau]

The Liberals don't want an election right now-- they would still be pummelled in Quebec and still come up short of a majority. If you won't take Jean Lapierre's word for it, I'm sure you can find some public opinion polls to prove the point.

The Liberals are likely at the best point they will be for the next two or three years. They don't have to "want" an election now, they just need to want an election now more than they want one in a year.

My own opinion is that I don't see why it would hurt for an all-party committee to have a chance to have *meaningful* input into the process.

How on earth can a small party be permitted

"meaningful" input into the process without making it fundamentally undemocratic?

Minister Cotler put on some sort of dog-and-pony show for an all-party committee, as I'm sure He Misses Trudeau will point out, but the truth is that the event was for appearances only and had nothing to do with meaningful input.

Well, how could it possibly be otherwise? Giving small parties power equal to the majority would be pretty damn undemocratic, wouldn't it? It would be tantamount to ignoring the political will of the populace whose votes gave those parties their respective seats in the first place.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Cynics like me would suspect that the Liberals' intention is to put the Conservatives in a situation of voting against one of their own issues-- either "no" to the Atlantic accord, or "yes" to a Kyoto plan that apparently declares carbon dioxide to be toxic. (CO2 toxic? WTF? Did anybody in the Environment Ministry take grade 10 science??)

By way of clarification, the proposed legislation would likely not declare carbon dioxide toxic (though it can be, and is), but rather remove the requirement of toxicity for controlling emissions.

from the National Post

Now, however, Ottawa wants to control harmless carbon dioxide emissions. But CEPA doesn't give Ottawa power to control harmless substances, only substances that are toxic or could be seen to be toxic or that the minister can declare to pose toxic-like risks. In theory, the government could declare carbon dioxide to be toxic and ram through regulations and billion-dollar spending initiatives to control something that is as natural as breathing. That would look downright Godzillian, which is what it is. Rather than declare CO2 to be toxic, Ottawa is trying to detoxify CEPA and make it possible to regulate CO2 without declaring it to be toxic.

"There is no global warming! Everything is as it should be. Repeat: There is no global warming! Now go buy an SUV, citizen."

[caesar]

what's with the carbon dioxide debate; cars emit carbon monoxide which is very toxic. Any emissions toxic or not may deplete the ozone layer.

The budget is suppose to outline government spending. What do you expect; that they should drop the kyoto accord they have signed on to to give Atlantic Canada it freebies as promised???

[kimmy]

The Liberals don't want an election right now-- they would still be pummelled in Quebec and still come up short of a majority. If you won't take Jean Lapierre's word for it, I'm sure you can find some public opinion polls to prove the point.

The Liberals are likely at the best point they will be for the next two or three years. They don't have to "want" an election now, they just need to want an election now more than they want one in a year.

If it's that important to them, they can certainly call one any time they want. Again, there's no reason to assume they could form a majority, as their numbers in Quebec are still too low. Having an election before Gomery reports is only advantageous to the Liberals if they can form a majority. And there's just no reason to think they'd get a different result than last time.

My own opinion is that I don't see why it would hurt for an all-party committee to have a chance to have *meaningful* input into the process.

How on earth can a small party be permitted

"meaningful" input into the process without making it fundamentally undemocratic?

You obviously have very little imagination or creativity if you can't think of any possibilities. I'll suggest one later on.

Well, how could it possibly be otherwise? Giving small parties power equal

Who said equal? Are you running around making assumptions again?

to the majority

(do you live in some kind of parallel universe where Canada has a majority government? or where a majority of Canadians voted for the Liberals? Or support them currently? By what possible definition can the Liberals be considered "the majority" in 2005?)

would be pretty damn undemocratic, wouldn't it? It would be tantamount to ignoring the political will of the populace whose votes gave those parties their respective seats in the first place.

Well, how about a committee proportional to the parties' strength in Commons? There are roughly 300 MPs, with roughly 130 Liberals, 100 Conservatives, 50 BQ, and 20 NDP. So, how about a committee of 6 members... that'd break down as 2 Conservatives, 1 BQ, 2.6 Liberals... (2 MPs plus Elinor Caplan's mouth), and 0.4 NDP (perhaps Jack Layton's pornstache would be on the committee).

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

If it's that important to them, they can certainly call one any time they want.

It is politically advantageous to have the opposition force another costly election.

Again, there's no reason to assume they could form a majority, as their numbers in Quebec are still too low.

Ok, once more. It doesn't matter if they form a majority or not. As long as they do better now than they would 6 months to a year from now, it is worthwhile for them to have an election now. Thats seems pretty likely. Clear now?

And there's just no reason to think they'd get a different result than last time.

Its hard to predict what effect the opposition forcing a costly new election now would have on the electorate. Either way, its not likely to hurt the Liberals more than waiting until after Gomery completes his collection of sound bites would.

You obviously have very little imagination or creativity if you can't think of any possibilities. I'll suggest one later on.

Fair enough. I'll suggest later why you failed to provide one.

(do you live in some kind of parallel universe where Canada has a majority government? or where a majority of Canadians voted for the Liberals? Or support them currently? By what possible definition can the Liberals be considered "the majority" in 2005?)

Sloppy wording on my part, and an expectedly juvenile response on yours. My point was that parties given more support by the voters should have a similar level of power in any such process.

Well, how about a committee proportional to the parties' strength in Commons? There are roughly 300 MPs, with roughly 130 Liberals, 100 Conservatives, 50 BQ, and 20 NDP. So, how about a committee of 6 members... that'd break down as 2 Conservatives, 1 BQ, 2.6 Liberals... (2 MPs plus Elinor Caplan's mouth), and 0.4 NDP (perhaps Jack Layton's pornstache would be on the committee).

So we'd cut Jack Layton off just below the waist and send him in? How are you going to round fractions up or down on a small committee without doing violence to the actual percentage of seats?

Your sytem would end up giving equal voice to the Liberals and Conservatives, even though the Liberals hold far more seats.

[kimmy]

If it's that important to them, they can certainly call one any time they want.

It is politically advantageous to have the opposition force another costly election.

Well, at least you're in agreement that the omnibus bill was about gaining political advantage. Hopefully this sort of candor is the start of a trend.

Again, there's no reason to assume they could form a majority, as their numbers in Quebec are still too low.

Ok, once more. It doesn't matter if they form a majority or not. As long as they do better now than they would 6 months to a year from now, it is worthwhile for them to have an election now. Thats seems pretty likely. Clear now?

What you're saying is clear. However, what you're saying is wrong. If they go to the polls now, they could STILL wind up having to go back to the polls in 6 months unless they win a majority.

Why are the Liberals so worried about their election chances after Gomery's report? After all, they don't have to call an election for 4 more years!

Oh yeah, it's because since they don't have a majority, their government could be brought down if they lose a confidence vote.

So if they go to the polls before Gomery's report comes out, fail to secure a majority, how are they better off? They would still be in a minority government that could brought down if they lose a confidence vote.

Think about it. Unless they think they can get a majority, going to the polls before Gomery's report doesn't make a shred of sense.

Sloppy wording on my part, and an expectedly juvenile response on yours. My point was that parties given more support by the voters should have a similar level of power in any such process.

So, given that sentiment, you must be pretty cheesed with the current process that gives a party with 40% of the popular support and 43% of the seats in Parliament a 100% say in the appointment process?

So we'd cut Jack Layton off just below the waist and send him in? How are you going to round fractions up or down on a small committee without doing violence to the actual percentage of seats?

Your sytem would end up giving equal voice to the Liberals and Conservatives, even though the Liberals hold far more seats.

I assumed that everyone except for 4 year olds and the mentally retarded would assume I was not seriously advocating that Jack Layton's pornstache and Elinor Caplin's ass could be committee members. Are you 4? Being obtuse on purpose? Obtuse because you just can't help it?

The point of my suggestion was that a committee could reflect the proportions in the HOC. If you don't share my sense of whimsy, or find the notion of fractional politicians to be amusing, perhaps there is some sort of exotic solution to this complicated dilemna. What if we replaced the fractional politicians with whole politicians (3 Liberals instead of 2.6, 1 ND instead of 0.4). Or, what if we doubled the # of committee members from my original suggestion. (5 Liberals, 4 Conservatives, 2 BQ, 1 ND.) I realize that those are probably pretty radical ideas that might not have occured to somebody like yourself.

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Well, at least you're in agreement that the omnibus bill was about gaining political advantage. Hopefully this sort of candor is the start of a trend.

I thought it was obvious to all that everything a political party does, regardless of the party, is just that.

So if they go to the polls before Gomery's report comes out, fail to secure a majority, how are they better off? They would still be in a minority government that could brought down if they lose a confidence vote.

If the opposition forced two elections in a row, that party would be soundly defeated on the third, Gomery inquiry or not.

Or, what if we doubled the # of committee members from my original suggestion. (5 Liberals, 4 Conservatives, 2 BQ, 1 ND.) I realize that those are probably pretty radical ideas that might not have occured to somebody like yourself.

Then you have the Liberals and NDP able to decide without consulting the Conservatives or Bloc, something that their seats in the house do not allow. Such an arrangement would have both the Bloc and the NeoCons up in arms over not being fairly reperesented. Thats really the entire platform of both of those parties to begin with.

Also, you need to develop a system that would work regardless of how the exact numbers worked out in any given election. I suppose you could have a 308 member committee, but I'm pretty sure that would be a disaster.

So, given that sentiment, you must be pretty cheesed with the current process that gives a party with 40% of the popular support and 43% of the seats in Parliament a 100% say in the appointment process?

Its imperfect. Its also the best option yet on the table.

[kimmy]

Well, at least you're in agreement that the omnibus bill was about gaining political advantage. Hopefully this sort of candor is the start of a trend.

I thought it was obvious to all that everything a political party does, regardless of the party, is just that.

Well, if you agree that the principles of democracy dictate that the Atlantic accord and the Greenhouse Gas changes be debated and voted on on their own merits, not as an a package deal... and you agree that slapping them together into an omnibus bill was just political machination by the Liberals... then I don't see why you're so upset that I've characterized it as undemocratic.

So if they go to the polls before Gomery's report comes out, fail to secure a majority, how are they better off? They would still be in a minority government that could brought down if they lose a confidence vote.

If the opposition forced two elections in a row, that party would be soundly defeated on the third, Gomery inquiry or not.

That relies on the assumption that most people will be too dumb to figure out that the Liberals engineered their own non-confidence.

It also makes the assumption that most voters will be madder about elections than about the results of the Gomery report. That notion is highly debatable, particularly in Quebec, where the Gomery inquiry trumps everything, and in places that didn't support the Liberals in the first place.

Then you have the Liberals and NDP able to decide without consulting the Conservatives or Bloc, something that their seats in the house do not allow. Such an arrangement would have both the Bloc and the NeoCons up in arms over not being fairly reperesented. Thats really the entire platform of both of those parties to begin with.

I don't think there was ever any doubt as to the PM having the final say in the matter. I don't think that precludes a more cooperative process.

Also, you need to develop a system that would work regardless of how the exact numbers worked out in any given election. I suppose you could have a 308 member committee, but I'm pretty sure that would be a disaster.

How about 1 committee member for each 25 seats in parliament (rounded to nearest 25)? That's not overly complicated.

So, given that sentiment, you must be pretty cheesed with the current process that gives a party with 40% of the popular support and 43% of the seats in Parliament a 100% say in the appointment process?

Its imperfect. Its also the best option yet on the table.

Well, Eureka agrees with you, but he believes any sort of multi-party committee process will taint the process with politics. I suspect that Paul Martin kind of agrees but (unlike Eureka) lacks the courage to state that opinion explicitly, relying instead on shenanigans like Minister Cotler's dog-and-pony show for the sake of misleading gullible-people as to his true feelings.

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Or, what if we doubled the # of committee members from my original suggestion. (5 Liberals, 4 Conservatives, 2 BQ, 1 ND.)

In this situation, The Liberals, Cons and BQ all effectively have the same voice on that committee, with the NDP having slightly less. Which, again, ignores the fact that the Liberals hold far more seats than any other party.

[kimmy]

Or, what if we doubled the # of committee members from my original suggestion. (5 Liberals, 4 Conservatives, 2 BQ, 1 ND.)

In this situation, The Liberals, Cons and BQ all effectively have the same voice on that committee, with the NDP having slightly less. Which, again, ignores the fact that the Liberals hold far more seats than any other party.

Well, I disagree that they'd have effectively the same voice in the committee. And it doesn't ignore the # of seats; it's actually a good approximation of the number of seats in Commons.

However, since you're quibbling over mathematic details from an idea I had 2 posts ago, I gather you have no complaints about anything I wrote in my last message?

-kimmy

[kimmy]

The Hill Times

Recently, the governing Liberals seemed to bungle the omnibus budget implementation bill, and to misread the Conservatives' brinkmanship.

The Conservatives didn't back down and turned the tables on the Liberals in a game of bravado.

One Liberal source said the Libs had initially wanted to create the situation to be defeated, but got caught because the Conservatives will now be able to make a "pretty strong case" that the Kyoto amendment is not a budget item and that "it's a deliberate attempt to do through the back door what they didn't want to or couldn't do through the front door."

-kimmy

[kimmy]

The Liberals have backed down on this.

Government House Leader Tony Valeri said the government would not object if the opposition parties removed a controversial Kyoto amendment from the budget implementation bill.

"If the committee amends that aspect of the bill and removes that provision … .we would not bring it back at report stage and we would accept what the committee has decided," said Government House Leader Tony Valeri after question period on Tuesday.

Politics Watch article

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Well, I disagree that they'd have effectively the same voice in the committee.

Do explain.

And it doesn't ignore the # of seats; it's actually a good approximation of the number of seats in Commons.

But can we at least agree that it results in a very different dynamic than the number of seats?

However, since you're quibbling over mathematic details from an idea I had 2 posts ago, I gather you have no complaints about anything I wrote in my last message?

I try to only respond to meaningful posts. No need to feed trolls. But, alas, here goes.

I don't see how bundling several items into one bill could be "undemocratic." Sneaky and underhanded, yes. But "undemocratic?" I know you on the right like to throw around that charge whenever it suits your purpose, but come on. "Undemocratic?!"

[kimmy]

Well, I disagree that they'd have effectively the same voice in the committee.

Do explain.

Well, I believe the Liberals' larger representation on the committee would give them a larger voice. There you go.

Now it's your turn. Why do you disagree?

And it doesn't ignore the # of seats; it's actually a good approximation of the number of seats in Commons.

But can we at least agree that it results in a very different dynamic than the number of seats?

Why?

I try to only respond to meaningful posts. No need to feed trolls. But, alas, here goes.

I think all my messages in this thread have been graced with my usual trademark eloquence and succinctness. If you feel anything I've posted in this thread is "trolling", please explain. I might even apologize, unless I think you're talking out of your ass...

I don't see how bundling several items into one bill could be "undemocratic." Sneaky and underhanded, yes. But "undemocratic?" I know you on the right like to throw around that charge whenever it suits your purpose, but come on. "Undemocratic?!"

I think "undemocratic" was a straightforward argument. To repeat:

Well, if you agree that the principles of democracy dictate that the Atlantic accord and the Greenhouse Gas changes be debated and voted on on their own merits, not as an a package deal... and you agree that slapping them together into an omnibus bill was just political machination by the Liberals... then I don't see why you're so upset that I've characterized it as undemocratic.

I think that's pretty logical. If there's some reason why you feel it's not, then please provide more than just "aw, come on!"

-kimmy

[I Miss Trudeau]

Well, I believe the Liberals' larger representation on the committee would give them a larger voice. There you go.

Look back at the numbers; my point is pretty obvious when you think about what would happen when the voting begins. But let me try to explain, even though I suspect you're intentionally trying to not grasp my point.

The Liberals require another party in order to gain enough votes to win the vote. As do the conservatives. They would both need to convince one of the smaller parties to also support the candidate. But heres the problem. Why would the NDP or Bloc support the Conservative or Liberal candidate? Suppose the liberals decide to try to pass the vote with the help of the NDP. The NDP want a candidate that relfects their ideology, so they go out and find someone palatable to both parties. Notice, though, that the NDP have as much input into the process as a party with over SEVEN TIMES as many seats.

The same holds true if they try to gain the support of the Bloc, though in that case the difference in seats is "only" a factor of 2.5.

To be fair, if by "the Liberals' larger representation on the committee would give them a larger voice" you simply meant that 6 people can yell louder than 2, I suppose you're right.

But can we at least agree that it results in a very different dynamic than the number of seats?

Why?

Well, it was already spelled out in a previous post. But here it is again.

The Liberals and the NDP, in the system you suggested, would control 60% of the votes - a majority. But if you look at the the number of seats, they don't even break 50% combined.

Is that not a "very different dynamic"?

I think that's pretty logical. If there's some reason why you feel it's not, then please provide more than just "aw, come on!"

Because you don't seem to understand what democratic means. If they combined the two bills together, and then passed the omnibus bill without a vote, you'd have a valid complaint. But putting together a bill with elements that the opposition both likes and dislikes could in no way, shape or form be considered "undemocratic."

For example, the CPC bundled social and economic conservatim into their platform for the last election. By doing so, they caused a dilemna for socially liberal but fiscally conservative people, as well as for socially conservative but fiscally liberal people (yes, such people do exist). Was the CPC platform "undemocratic?"