Government Rejects Kyoto Bill

[old_bold&cold]

What we have going on here is a lot of hyperbola on the side of the environmentalists and even more voodoo science getting in the news, so it has the public's attention. There really is no scientific proof of most of it, but it has momentum. The environmentalist's do not want to lose that momentum, so they keep spewing reports that can not be shown by hard science, but then say you can see its is true by the weather we are having. Now those with cooler heads are now questioning the science about these claims, and it is not looking good for the environmentalists side of things. The public is all worked up about what the world will be like in 2050, then they are about what is happening in 2007. It does not take much thinking to say that something is totally wrong in all of this. The truth is buried some where in the pile, but no can honestly find it.

What bothers me is why is it so imperative to jump in over our heads and hurt ourselves financially, just to do it quicker, then to move ahead more slowly but in the end have the same goal and numbers reached. It all does not make sense to me, and the more rushed it is, the more I feel that it is all based on bad science, so the only reason to rush is to do so before time shows us just how wrong all of this really is. Suzuki has out and out lied about much of the claims he has made and can not reproduce them scientifically to show his peers what he says is true. That is why I just stop listening to him as he has shown to my own thinking that he only wants to promote the envirnmental views and he is bein g well paid to do so. He has sold his sould and all his credibility. Maybe he should stick to kiddy science shows from now on. Yes man has an affect on the climate, but you need to think in fractions of a percent to accurately show just how much so. We are forgetting to look to the past, so we can see the future. There have been so many occurances of global warming by degrees even greater then today, and the world did not come to an end. Why do people think this will be any different then it was in the past. Mans use of technology and science has probably sped up some of the worlds systems to small degrees, but we are way more in danger of poisoning our environment then over heating it. One large meteor passing between the earth and the sun could pull enough solar flares to destroy the earths electronic communications for years, and raise global temperatures by 20-30 degrees. This would kill much of the life we now see on earth, but man would survive, and we would have a much different planet to work with. There proably is a greater chance of this happening then what the environmentalists are askiing us to swallow today. If you want to give me proof of what you say, then give me reproducible scientific facts, or theory based on proven facts but also show the actual probability along with the numbers, so I can see what the chances are.

The government was right to kill Kyoto, because it was not based on proper sience and had way too much fear mongering in it. I appaud them for taking a stance where the same results can be achieved over the same time frame, just not so top loaded. Since the hue and cry is about 2050, lets then make that the target for achieving the numbers.

[B. Max]

No one, including the most zealous of scientists, has yet been able to show, with any degree of credibility, that global warming has anything to do with carbon emissions.

A very revealing call from Tom Harris. Jones, from the Mann and Jones hockey stick fiasco refuses to release data information. I think governments like Harper's are setting them selves up for huge damage lawsuits with policy based on the fraud of man made global warming. I think such lawsuits should be directed at individuals such as Harper, Dion, Layton and the like for not doing due diligence in the face of overwhelming evidence of fraud.

http://www.nrsp.com/NRSP-Media/Audio_Wave/....08.20-cfra.wav

[jdobbin]

The government was right to kill Kyoto, because it was not based on proper sience and had way too much fear mongering in it. I appaud them for taking a stance where the same results can be achieved over the same time frame, just not so top loaded. Since the hue and cry is about 2050, lets then make that the target for achieving the numbers.

If the government did not wish Kyoto legislation to pass, they probably should have called an election. Now, they have to live with the results. They can dismiss it if they want but they will find the court forces them to comply with Parliamentary legislation.

As I said, they can argue against Kyoto all they want in an election. I think the public would welcome how they honestly feel about it and can vote accordingly based on those policies.

[geoffrey]

How can you comply with something that is impossible?

No court would force the government to obey legislation demanding that the sky be coloured lime green. Dion said it's impossible to do what the bill asks. The courts will likely agree with the Liberal leader's position, but it seems like his out of control train wreck keeps pushing legislation without him.

Either that, or Dion has more faith in Baird's ability than his own. If he admits that, then I'm sure the CPC be ok with complying with Kyoto. But not sooner.

[jdobbin]

How can you comply with something that is impossible?

No court would force the government to obey legislation demanding that the sky be coloured lime green. Dion said it's impossible to do what the bill asks. The courts will likely agree with the Liberal leader's position, but it seems like his out of control train wreck keeps pushing legislation without him.

Either that, or Dion has more faith in Baird's ability than his own. If he admits that, then I'm sure the CPC be ok with complying with Kyoto. But not sooner.

If they can't comply, they probably should have made it a bill of confidence. The Conservatives didn't because they needed Opposition support to pass legislation they did want. They thought they could ignore the Kyoto bill once it was passed. The problem is that once the legislation is in place, the government is subject to court challenges if they make no attempt to implement it.

The Conservatives can call an election on the issue or face the courts. It's their pick but after what happened with the Wheat Board, it isn't a battle that has a huge promise of success.

Edited August 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

If they can't comply, they probably should have made it a bill of confidence. The Conservatives didn't because they needed Opposition support to pass legislation they did want. They thought they could ignore the Kyoto bill once it was passed. The problem is that once the legislation is in place, the government is subject to court challenges if they make no attempt to implement it.

The Conservatives can call an election on the issue or face the courts. It's their pick but after what happened with the Wheat Board, it isn't a battle that has a huge promise of success.

Do explain how the Government could have made the Kyoto bill a confidence matter in this case?

By allowing the bill to pass the House would be showing it doesn't have confidence in the Government?

I have never seen a bill presented to the House in this manner. I'm sure because it can't be done.

Edited to add: Since I'm sure dobbin wouldn't do the work and will be too obstinate to admit he is wrong in this case I researched the answer. Here is a link from the Parliament of Canada Web site. Indeed the Government would not be able to have attached confidence to a Private Member's Bill it opposed. What are the odds dobbin will admit his mistake on this one? No don't tell me.

Edited August 23, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

The NDP and Bloq are threatening to bring down the government over rejection of Kyoto legislation.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

Mr. Layton is angry at the decision to ignore the law, and he is frustrated that the Conservatives have signalled they will prorogue Parliament this fall to return with a Throne Speech. That would kill the Conservatives' own Clean Air Act, which has been modified by the opposition to require the government to meet Kyoto targets. But it could also prompt an election.

Passage of the Throne Speech would require a confidence motion that could cause the government to fall - and Mr. Layton suggests the lack of action on climate change would force his party to vote against the Conservatives.

If Parliament is prorogued, even the Tory Clean Air Act is dead.

And as I mentioned earlier, third parties can sue for the government not obeying legislation of Parliament.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...4d7&k=63430

Canada's biggest environmental groups are contemplating legal action against the Harper government because they believe it has violated a new law designed to ensure it complies with Canada's international climate change obligations.

The reaction comes after Environment Minister John Baird released a report Tuesday which reiterated the government's position that it could not honour Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol without provoking a major recession at home or shipping massive amounts of money overseas with no guarantees of positive results.

"We don't have accesses to cops with batons and pepper spray to enforce the way the government does but we do have access to the courts as long as it's still a democracy," said veteran environmentalist John Bennett, a spokesperson for ClimateforChange.ca.

"It's just not acceptable in a democracy that the government can ignore laws, whether they like the law or not."

The Tories might have bypassed this by simply saying that voting for the private members bill was a matter of confidence. Any vote, any vote at all, can be used as a measure of confidence and trigger an election. They chose to let this one slide to get support for their budget. Now, they think they can ignore the legislation altogether. They can't.

Edited August 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[old_bold&cold]

Ther can ignore it and then let the courts try to do their things and of course appeal after appeal, and maybe in 12-15 years you might see something done. But by then there will have been 3-4 elections and if majorites ever won then the whole court route would just be a penned away at the whim of the government. So why is it you keep saying that this cannot be ignored. It most certainly can be and most likely will be, and as I pointed out it would be a fruitless task for anyone trying to push the issue. But since the Liberals will most likely be sitting on their butts for decades to come, I guess they could try to use this as something to keep their minds busy.

[jdobbin]

Ther can ignore it and then let the courts try to do their things and of course appeal after appeal, and maybe in 12-15 years you might see something done. But by then there will have been 3-4 elections and if majorites ever won then the whole court route would just be a penned away at the whim of the government. So why is it you keep saying that this cannot be ignored. It most certainly can be and most likely will be, and as I pointed out it would be a fruitless task for anyone trying to push the issue. But since the Liberals will most likely be sitting on their butts for decades to come, I guess they could try to use this as something to keep their minds busy.

It didn't take 15 years for the court to decide the Canadian Wheat Board. All done inside of one year with the Tories losing their battle to act unilaterally on the Wheat Board.

Moreover, if Harper's plan is to prorogue Parliament, it kills his own Clear Air Act. If he wants to get an environmental bill through, he has to remember he is in a minority position. He can't ignore the private member's bill because the Opposition can keep hounding the government on it and actually go to court for an expedited decision.

The decision to ignore the bill by proroguing Parliament faces its challenges as well. A confidence motion can be made by the Opposition upon the throne speech itself as detailed in today's National Post.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

Constitutional experts, however, have said the government must respect laws passed by Parliament.

University of Ottawa legal expert Errol Mendes said the bill contains "specific obligations" in certain sections which could lead to "serious legal consequences" if the government chooses to ignore it.

For example, Mendes said the opposition could launch a court challenge demanding the government fulfill obligations outlined in the bill's section 5 -- which requires from the government a detailed climate change plan after 60 days of the bill passing Senate and becoming law.

"There is another section, section 7, which requires an even more extensive system to be put in place by the cabinet," Mendes told Mike Duffy Live. "So this is a very serious bill."

Another examination of the constitutional aspect of this.

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/Cur...l-Challenge.php

If the Implementation Act gains Senate approval, it will officially become Canadian law, but the Conservatives have hinted that they will ignore the Act. Opposition leaders warn that the government must respect the long standing principle of parliamentary democracy enshrined in the Constitution of Canada, or risk a constitutional challenge through the courts. The opposition would likely frame such a challenge using the preambles to the two Canadian Constitution Acts (1867 and 1982), which legally bind the government to uphold the unwritten principles of federalism, the rule of law, and parliamentary democracy. As such, many experts agree that the Conservative government will have no choice but to respect the will of the Parliament, and adopt the Implementation Act.

Obviously, this type of challenge to the Constitution cannot and will not wait for 12-15 years of wrangling. It is the very type of thing that pushes its way to the top of the court's agenda.

Edited August 23, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

The Conservatives had the option of going to the electorate on the issue when the other three parties voted on the Kyoto bill. The could have made it a confidence motion.

No comment on how the Conservatives couldn't have made their opposition to the Kyoto bill a confidence motion?

[geoffrey]

The Conservatives can call an election on the issue or face the courts. It's their pick but after what happened with the Wheat Board, it isn't a battle that has a huge promise of success.

I'd certainly call an election on it. Dion has allowed his party to endorse the abilities of Mr. Baird over his own. That's pretty bad. And good luck having Dion defend himself on a lingustic technicality battle in English Canada.

Bottom line, he said he couldn't, but is saying Baird can. That's a vote of confidence in the CPC. Good for Dion. Maybe he'll vote for his CPC candidate and endorse their superiority over his ability.

The CPC can run with this. Call an election today.

[jdobbin]

I'd certainly call an election on it. Dion has allowed his party to endorse the abilities of Mr. Baird over his own. That's pretty bad. And good luck having Dion defend himself on a lingustic technicality battle in English Canada.

Bottom line, he said he couldn't, but is saying Baird can. That's a vote of confidence in the CPC. Good for Dion. Maybe he'll vote for his CPC candidate and endorse their superiority over his ability.

The CPC can run with this. Call an election today.

I don't see Baird getting anything done since he doesn't even support his own bill C-30 anymore.

In any event, you are not voting Tory this election anyways so what does it really matter?

Edited August 24, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

I don't see Baird getting anything done since he doesn't even support his own bill C-30 anymore.

Oh, I don't see him doing anything either, don't get me wrong. But Dion is still claiming he's more capable. So perhaps we should respect Dion's judgement and believe him on that.

In any event, you are not voting Tory this election anyways so what does it really matter?

Well, if Dion were to win a sizeable government, I'd quite quickly be finding somewhere else to live. Harper is a waste of time, incompetent and lacks any real direction or desire for change, but he's tolerable. I don't want to be around for Dion. He would be poised to make Trudeau look like a hard lined neocon.

[jdobbin]

Oh, I don't see him doing anything either, don't get me wrong. But Dion is still claiming he's more capable. So perhaps we should respect Dion's judgement and believe him on that.

Well, if Dion were to win a sizeable government, I'd quite quickly be finding somewhere else to live. Harper is a waste of time, incompetent and lacks any real direction or desire for change, but he's tolerable. I don't want to be around for Dion. He would be poised to make Trudeau look like a hard lined neocon.

The Tories had the option of making Senate approval of the private member's bill a matter of confidence in the government. There are real constitutional issues here if the law can be ignored. You might think the government has a good reason to ignore the law but if they can do it for this, they can do it for any bill.

Baird's own people disagreed with the doomsday scenarios he was bandying about.

I have stated quite clearly in dozens of posts here that the Liberal environmental policy was awful. I don't think much of the Conservative policy either. It would have been a lot easier if we had started when Europe and Japan started on emissions standards. Having said that, Baird's nightmare scenario is not supported by people in his own department.

One thing is clear: the law is the law. An election might not be about the Tories and their environmental policies but about how they try to bypass Parliament on issues like the Wheat Board and the environment.

[geoffrey]

There are real constitutional issues here if the law can be ignored. You might think the government has a good reason to ignore the law but if they can do it for this, they can do it for any bill.

I tend to agree with you here, we need to go to an election.

Though the CPC has upheld the letter of the law, if not the intention. They introduced a plan. So there we go.

Baird's own people disagreed with the doomsday scenarios he was bandying about.

They did, but I agree with him to some extent. I don't think we'll have the economic outcomes he predicts because Canadians would revolt before allowing that to happen. We'll never reach the targets because we don't want to. That's the bottom line. Canadians are all lip service to the green agenda. No one is willing to pay a cent for it. So ya, I don't fear economic collapse because Canadians will never comply to that point.

One thing is clear: the law is the law. An election might not be about the Tories and their environmental policies but about how they try to bypass Parliament on issues like the Wheat Board and the environment.

The way I see it, the government has followed the law. They responded by issuing their plan. It's as good as any other proposed.

[jdobbin]

I tend to agree with you here, we need to go to an election.

Though the CPC has upheld the letter of the law, if not the intention. They introduced a plan. So there we go.

They did, but I agree with him to some extent. I don't think we'll have the economic outcomes he predicts because Canadians would revolt before allowing that to happen. We'll never reach the targets because we don't want to. That's the bottom line. Canadians are all lip service to the green agenda. No one is willing to pay a cent for it. So ya, I don't fear economic collapse because Canadians will never comply to that point.

The way I see it, the government has followed the law. They responded by issuing their plan. It's as good as any other proposed.

I'm not a lawyer so I do not know if their response follows the letter of the law. I still think it will face a formal legal challenge if the government thinks what they did is final.

[Michael Bluth]

I tend to agree with you here, we need to go to an election.

Though the CPC has upheld the letter of the law, if not the intention. They introduced a plan. So there we go.

Forcing an election is the only reasonable recourse available to the opposition. If they feel one is necessary.

A court challenge is ridiculous and pointless. The Conservatives followed the letter of the law.

Do we want the people to decide something like this via an election or our unelected court system?

[Argus]

If the Tories want to make the argument that there is no global warming or that it has not been accelerated by emissions, they are free to make their case in an election. However, they cannot ignore legislation passed by Parliament. This has been proven by the federal court knocking them back on changes they wished to make to the Wheat Board that bypassed Parliament.

The Opposition already has the legislation they want. They have no need to go to the polls. They simply have to go the court where the government will be ordered to comply.

Comply with what? The government will say there is no plan there to comply with. The good part would be if the court then decided to make up the plan, and it cost thirty billion dollars, and the idiots who support Kyoto because they have no clue about what meeting it will mean suddenly see a huge tax increase courtesy of the Liberals, NDP and BQ.

Bet that'll go over real well in an election.

[Argus]

I have stated quite clearly in dozens of posts here that the Liberal environmental policy was awful

And yet they have not changed that policy one iota. And you are slavishly devoted to them as a party and to Dion, a lying hypocrite on environmental issues, as a leader. You continue to attack the Tories for not peforming a miracle, while worshipinbg a party which has NO environmental policy other than to spew out as much hot air and clouds as possible so no one sees clearly enough to ask for details.

Electorate: "What is the Liberal policy on meeting the Kyoto goals?"

Dion "Kyoto being very important and must be met!"

Elecrorate: "Yes, but what are the policies of your party to meet those goals?"

Dion: "I have da doggy he call Kyoto! I have very much loving of environment!"

Electorate: "That's very nice, but what laws or guidelines would you impliment to let us meet our kyoto goals?"

Dion: "Kyoto being beaucoup important for da saving of da environment! Is most important to all Canadians!"

Electorate: "Yes, but how? Would you buy carbon credits from the Russians and Chinese?"

Dion: "I love Canada! I have beaucoup hope of saving Canada from terrible floods that killing of many people!"

Electorate: "Would this cost a lot of money?"

Dion: "Observing kyoto would make us billions of dollars. All Canadians would be filthy rich if we meet our Kyoto goals!"

Electorate: "It wouldn't cost any jobs?"

Dion: "Meeting our kyoto goal would creat billions and billions of jobs! Would be wonderful thing!"

Elecrtorate: "But how do we do this?"

Dion: "I have da dog called Kyoto! I love Kyoto! Is good thing for us meeting of our Kyoto goals!"

[Michael Bluth]

And yet they have not changed that policy one iota. And you are slavishly devoted to them as a party and to Dion, a lying hypocrite on environmental issues, as a leader. You continue to attack the Tories for not peforming a miracle, while worshipinbg a party which has NO environmental policy other than to spew out as much hot air and clouds as possible so no one sees clearly enough to ask for details.

Stephane Dion didn't get it done as Minister of the Environment.

I still don't see how people think he would get it done now.

[Argus]

I tend to agree with you here, we need to go to an election.

The problem with that is that despite being overwhelmingly ignorant about almost every aspect of Kyoto, its costs, goals and complexities, most Canadians fully support it. The Liberals, NDP and BQ know this and are playing it for all it's worth. In an election, you can expect the opposition to harp on Kyoto as a motherhood issue, as saving the environment, expect them to downplay any costs, and to speak in vague terms about how Kyoto could be met or what they would do to meet Kyoto. Nor would you see any member of the national press gallery confronting any of them, particularly Dion, and asking for specifics - or, for that matter, why, if Kyoto was so important, the previous Liberal government completely ignored it, and why its present leader spoke out against it as a job killer when in cabinet.

[Michael Bluth]

The problem with that is that despite being overwhelmingly ignorant about almost every aspect of Kyoto, its costs, goals and complexities, most Canadians fully support it. The Liberals, NDP and BQ know this and are playing it for all it's worth. In an election, you can expect the opposition to harp on Kyoto as a motherhood issue, as saving the environment, expect them to downplay any costs, and to speak in vague terms about how Kyoto could be met or what they would do to meet Kyoto. Nor would you see any member of the national press gallery confronting any of them, particularly Dion, and asking for specifics - or, for that matter, why, if Kyoto was so important, the previous Liberal government completely ignored it, and why its present leader spoke out against it as a job killer when in cabinet.

Kyoto might actually be a very good issue to go to the electorate with.

Four of the five parties will be fighting on the same side of the issue.

Baird is an effective spokesman and could present the Government's agenda forcefully.

The NDP and Greens will definitely be calling the Liberals on their abysmal environmental record.

[jdobbin]

Comply with what? The government will say there is no plan there to comply with. The good part would be if the court then decided to make up the plan, and it cost thirty billion dollars, and the idiots who support Kyoto because they have no clue about what meeting it will mean suddenly see a huge tax increase courtesy of the Liberals, NDP and BQ.

Bet that'll go over real well in an election.

The legislation was on meeting Kyoto. The court will likely say that the Tories cannot ignore the law because they don't like it.

They will face a constitutional challenge on it if they do and will be forced to comply just as they were on the Wheat Board.

[Michael Bluth]

I'm not a lawyer so I do not know if their response follows the letter of the law. I still think it will face a formal legal challenge if the government thinks what they did is final.

From your writing it is clear that you aren't a lawyer.

So I guess that tells us what the following opinion is worth.

The legislation was on meeting Kyoto. The court will likely say that the Tories cannot ignore the law because they don't like it.

They will face a constitutional challenge on it if they do and will be forced to comply just as they were on the Wheat Board.

[jdobbin]

And yet they have not changed that policy one iota. And you are slavishly devoted to them as a party and to Dion, a lying hypocrite on environmental issues, as a leader. You continue to attack the Tories for not peforming a miracle, while worshipinbg a party which has NO environmental policy other than to spew out as much hot air and clouds as possible so no one sees clearly enough to ask for details.

I don't believe the Tories really even believe in global warming so I find their recent jump on the bandwagon unconvincing. If anyone should be unhappy with the Conservatives, it should be you since you have said you doubt global warming exists.

I am dubious about the doomsday scenarios they bandy about, especially when Baird's own people disagreed with them.

I was never happy about the Liberal policy on Kyoto as it started late, was unfocused and lacked real targets. Having said that though, the Conservative policy on Kyoto going into the election was to reject it. And now their legislation is about to be prorogued in Parliament because they really don't believe in it.