Harper's cabinet two step

[Never Compromised]

Real substantive changes leading to new priorities and policies? Or just window dressing to make it look good for the next election.

Discuss.

Oh, and BTW, once again Harper has welcomed a new member into caucus, someone that has crossed the floor. Where is Harper's demand that that new caucus member resign so that he can face the voters?

 

[TQM]

defection - good news for harper

Of course, it means he's two-faced. And it helps to keep Dion off his game.

On the environment Baird will provide the appropriate blandness that Harper wants that I-don't-like-the-environment-Rona couldn't provide.

Neither Harper nor Baird can claim any long term commitment on environmental issues (without inducing gales of laughter), but Harper is reading the polls and deciding that he needs to cut into the obvious issue for the Liberals.

Last election Harper attacked the Liberals on integrity - this time, it won't be so easy, as Harper has looked rather spotty (soldier burials; Ethics commissioner; Elections Canada Chief and the violation of the Elections Act) and Dion and his team are squeaky clean.

So pretending to care about the environment without alienating Alberta will be Harper's tightrope.

 

[Quest4Less]

Lieberals...

The Liberal party can hardly preach on their record - during their time in office the green house gas output ROSE some say as much as 30%.

 

[slowpoke]

The Liberal party can hardly preach on their record - during their time in office the green house gas output ROSE some say as much as 30%.

And all that time, Harper and his CPOC cronies [Stockwell!!!] were treating global warming like a big joke, undermining Kyoto and calling the Liberals idiots for signing us up. So Harper would obviously have done absolutely nothing about global warming if he'd been the PM at that time. So now he looks a bit two-faced when he criticises the Liberals for accomplishing very little to cut emissions when he would have done even less.

Kyoto was feasible in 2002 when the Liberals signed it but it required the co-operation of the provinces because the environment is mainly under provincial jurisdiction. Once Martin was in a minority, his position was too weak to get the co-operation he needed. Remember, Harper was undermining Martin and Kyoto so most industry groups were just waiting for Martin to lose the election. The feds can't do this all by themselves. At least the Liberals pretended to do something. Harper couldn't even manage that and now he's got a problem with the voters because of his previous stance on Kyoto and global warming. What goes around comes around.

 

[alphauniform]

And all that time, Harper and his CPOC cronies [Stockwell!!!] were treating global warming like a big joke, undermining Kyoto and calling the Liberals idiots for signing us up. So Harper would obviously have done absolutely nothing about global warming if he'd been the PM at that time. So now he looks a bit two-faced when he criticises the Liberals for accomplishing very little to cut emissions when he would have done even less.

Kyoto was feasible in 2002 when the Liberals signed it but it required the co-operation of the provinces because the environment is mainly under provincial jurisdiction. Once Martin was in a minority, his position was too weak to get the co-operation he needed. Remember, Harper was undermining Martin and Kyoto so most industry groups were just waiting for Martin to lose the election. The feds can't do this all by themselves. At least the Liberals pretended to do something. Harper couldn't even manage that and now he's got a problem with the voters because of his previous stance on Kyoto and global warming. What goes around comes around.

Just to remind you.......

Politicians actually do have a modicom of smarts!! Many are really intelligent people!!! They too have the facts at their fingers and make their policies accordinglly!!! I refer you to my earlier post!!!

Kyoto??....Schmyoto!!!!!!
Stated purpose of the Kyoto Accord...........to reduce global temperatures by the year 2100???
OK!!!
The effect of Kyoto would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees celsius in the year 2100.......check it out!!!
And with Russia signing on...........02 degrees celsius by 2050.
IPCC models estimate more, but none exceed .15 degrees celsius.
Even the most vocal and outrageous scientists and activists don't dispute the .08 to .25 degree celsius estimates.

(Check out...."Nature 22....October 23....p395 - 741)
Why make a treaty that won't accomplish anything????....DAMN GOOD QUESTION!!!!
Lets leave the politicians to stir everybody up and put the fear of death into us!!!! Don't get your knickers in a twist!! GO OUT AND GET LAID for Gods sake!!!

So the question becomes......???????

 

[Quest4Less]

And all that time, Harper and his CPOC cronies [Stockwell!!!] were treating global warming like a big joke, undermining Kyoto and calling the Liberals idiots for signing us up. So Harper would obviously have done absolutely nothing about global warming if he'd been the PM at that time. So now he looks a bit two-faced when he criticises the Liberals for accomplishing very little to cut emissions when he would have done even less.

Kyoto was feasible in 2002 when the Liberals signed it but it required the co-operation of the provinces because the environment is mainly under provincial jurisdiction. Once Martin was in a minority, his position was too weak to get the co-operation he needed. Remember, Harper was undermining Martin and Kyoto so most industry groups were just waiting for Martin to lose the election. The feds can't do this all by themselves. At least the Liberals pretended to do something. Harper couldn't even manage that and now he's got a problem with the voters because of his previous stance on Kyoto and global warming. What goes around comes around.

I never said anything about what Harper would or would not do. I simply stated the FACT that the Liberals have NOTHING to boast about when it comes to the environment.

As for Kyoto - it is NOT the answer. The world needs a MUCH better plan.

 

[basketcase]

And when will that plan be developed and agreed on?

 

[onthebottom]

...a very dumb comment when you consider the growth of the oil patch in Alberta. To hamper investment there with restrictive policies on pollution would have limited the ability of the Government to achieve surplus budgets. The wise decision would be to attach pollution control as the industry matures. I think you will find that removing this growth, greenhouses actually fell.

This argument by Conservatives is typical two step - had the Liberals used Greenhouse Gas as a reason to limit Alberta's growth, the Conservatives would have claimed that the TYPICAL Liberals were once again showing Western Canadians that they were not interested in the success of Western Canada. Now that the Liberals showed that they were interested in the welfare of all Canadians - they now claim that Liberals are not environment friendly. Remember that oil was not has high as it is today as it was in the 90s and to place environment friendly policy in place would have dried up US investment in the oil patch

It would have been bad public policy for the Liberals to limited Alberta's growth by attacking new industry with restrictive policies not only for Alberta but the entire country.

We have seen the result of Liberal policy and I ask you - for the long term was it not better to help build up the Oil Patch and then attack the environment issues or should the environment been the primary focus at the expense of investment and growth in Alberta?

Hard question to answer if your left of center but I have to wonder how the Conservatives on the board can rationalize their capitalist views with Liberal policy.


bbk

So, let me see if I understand this. We had to pollute so that we could pump oil that would itself pollute AND enrich us, which also pollutes......

OTB

 

[Quest4Less]

...a very dumb comment

"Dumb" eh? How can you insult the truth?

When did speaking facts become 'bad'??

The Liberal party always goes on and on and on about it's record and all I did was point out a FACT.

 

[Never Compromised]

As Kermit said, "its not easy being green". Baird is seen as a right wing minister, loyal to Harper, willing to leave a Red Tory leader such as John Tory. Will he chose to protect the environment or protect corporate profits?

 

[slowpoke]

I never said anything about what Harper would or would not do. I simply stated the FACT that the Liberals have NOTHING to boast about when it comes to the environment.

As for Kyoto - it is NOT the answer. The world needs a MUCH better plan.

You're quite right...you never said anything about Harper. I just felt like adding an extra level of detail so the picture would be a bit more complete. When it comes to global warming and trying to find solutions, both the Liberals and the CPOC have been demonstrably useless. So I find it amusing when CPOC supporters start dragging up these FACTS about the Liberals doing nothing when the CPOC had absolutely no intention of doing anything either. Let's be fair. Harper has been in power now for more than a year and all he's done is promise to do sweet fuck all about it. Now he's dumped Rona and is trying to rebrand the CPOC as environmentally concerned. After Stockwell and Rona, Harper has his work cut out for him.

As far as Kyoto is concerned, it may not be perfect but it is a good start. We can continue to try to negotiate a better deal with China and India and we can try to get the US on board but the main thing is to start reducing emissions and to start developing cleaner technology. Those who keep harping about how we should hold out for an utterly perfect accord with the US and China and India all singing from the same songbook are dreaming. It'll never happen.

 

[TQM]

The Liberals record on the environment

was actually quite good.

When has Canada had a better proactive government on the environment.
As others pointed out, there is a terrible balance between environmental action and its impact on the economy, but Mr. Harper is clearly showing us that relatively speaking the Liberals were on top of the issue.

And now with a strong pro-environment leader in Dion it's hard to criticize this party.

Let's remember the environment includes many factors - oceans and fishing; forrests; park space; air quality, etc. - all impacted by economic growth - necessary economic growth.

 

[Neverenuff$]

The Liberal party can hardly preach on their record - during their time in office the green house gas output ROSE some say as much as 30%.

yes Stephanie Dion made a great Environment minister didn't he ....

Pro-active.. Yes a plan to pay Koyoto fines.. and budgeting for them in advance.. thats pro-active !!

 

[someone]

was actually quite good.

When has Canada had a better proactive government on the environment.

Mulroney

 

[slowpoke]

was actually quite good.

When has Canada had a better proactive government on the environment.
As others pointed out, there is a terrible balance between environmental action and its impact on the economy, but Mr. Harper is clearly showing us that relatively speaking the Liberals were on top of the issue.

And now with a strong pro-environment leader in Dion it's hard to criticize this party.

Let's remember the environment includes many factors - oceans and fishing; forrests; park space; air quality, etc. - all impacted by economic growth - necessary economic growth.

The Lib's overall performance on the environment has probably been not bad but it is mainly a provincial responsibility so the provinces are the ones regulating pollution for the most part. But Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have gone sky-high lately, with the biggest increase coming from the oil patch and the Liberals were unable to do much about it.

 

[TQM]

Mulroney? that's funny.

On the pollution front there are two huge issues - Alberta and the oil industry; and Toronto. I'll be the first to admit I don't see any easy answers to either. I'd wager that's why the Liberals supported Kyoto amongst other initiatives.

Chretien always said his most proud achievement while Prime Minister was the creation of Canada's newest National Park.

 

[someone]

TQM see

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/20/mulroney060420.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...418/mulroney_rehab_060418/20060418?hub=Canada

 

[clubber]

Looks like some good discussion here. This is my first post. I have watched alot on this. I saw a recent interview with Baird on CBC and after he did much finger pointing at the Liberals, he said Canadians were tired of the blame game, then went on to blame the liberals again and again. He said nothing about the Conservative plans only that he would study it and listen to people. He seemed to be saying trust us, the people who put forth a joke for a plan just a short time ago.

Dion does claim he had a plan but could not get it through the manority government. The liberals tend to do things when they it is best for them politically. Dion won the Liberal leadership because he got hold of THE big thing now. He has put forth a plan, and I am sure for the election it will be even bigger. One must cut what the liberals say they will do in half at least, yet it will be much better than what the Conservatives will offer.

The Conservatives will offer little, just a Trust Us and attack the liberals. The only real way we will get what is needed done is to get more than a few Green Party members elected.

Liberals rule till infighting kills them. Conseratives rule till people realize they are a rotten government.

 

[pussylicker]

Looks like some good discussion here. This is my first post. I have watched alot on this. I saw a recent interview with Baird on CBC and after he did much finger pointing at the Liberals, he said Canadians were tired of the blame game, then went on to blame the liberals again and again. He said nothing about the Conservative plans only that he would study it and listen to people. He seemed to be saying trust us, the people who put forth a joke for a plan just a short time ago.

Dion does claim he had a plan but could not get it through the manority government. The liberals tend to do things when they it is best for them politically. Dion won the Liberal leadership because he got hold of THE big thing now. He has put forth a plan, and I am sure for the election it will be even bigger. One must cut what the liberals say they will do in half at least, yet it will be much better than what the Conservatives will offer.

The Conservatives will offer little, just a Trust Us and attack the liberals. The only real way we will get what is needed done is to get more than a few Green Party members elected.

Liberals rule till infighting kills them. Conseratives rule till people realize they are a rotten government.

Welcome aboard. But for your first post couldn't you have just introduced yourself? Your opinions are welcome, but your comment on the Green Party won't have any traction. They can promise the moon and stars, but won't even be able to deliver a clear sky to see them. I've listened to their leader spin her tires. She can say what she wants, but doesn't have any policy that will win an election. Jack Layton has found out that the only way he(the NDP) can affect parliament is to pull a temper tantrum.

Stephanie Dion's approach "da tree pillars for Canaduh" are hollow promises like McGimpy's broken promises. "I weill make a susstainable eekonomee, I weill put Kyoto pawliceez in place, and sowshall justiss for all Canajiens". He can't deliver.

As far a Baird goes, he just got the position, so he needs time to get up to speed. I'm sure he knows more about what is going on in the Environment Ministry than what he is letting us know, but until he can sit down with the other players, he won't commit to saying anything that will be chiselled in stone for the media to say "you broke your promise".

Harper's "clean air act" touches on other things that affect our health besides just CO2. But the opposition shot it down really quickly. I want to see it implimented. Canada has been polluting the air and water for over a hundred years, and it's funny that only maybe a handfull of people here have mentioned polluted water. Remember that over 90% of your body is made up of water, and the water you drink and food you consume, needs to be protected too.

 

[clubber]

Putting in a few members of the Green Party will send a message. Everytime who ever is in power looks out in Parliment the will be reminded that people put these guys in solely for the enviroment. I think just having Deborah Grey back in the day got the liberals to alter some policies and got the Conservative Party to fly abit straighter. Mind you that woman was a force all of her own. I wish she had of stayed. I tend to think she would of straightened out Harper, or maybe just killed him. One does not need to hold power to force policy. I think the Reform Party proved that. How many ideas have the liberals borrowed, or even flat out stold from other parties. To keep power a government must follow the trends. The liberals have been pretty good at this, and if the trend is the environment they will move that way. If the Conservatives cannot deliver here and we kill them on it, if there is a growing move to the green party the liberals will flop that way.

The Harper Clean Air Act was a joke. We do not have to the year 2050 to start. We need to start years ago say 1980, or even the the 50's when the idea of global warming was first purposed. The Green Party could not possibly govern yet. The NDP Party well um ah, let us pretend they don't exist. The Conservative Party have done nothing yet but point fingers and blame. The liberals will give us something. I am sure it will not be enough, but it will be better than the Conservatives. 2050 is far to late to get started.