Bill C-288 Passes, Now What?
Now that Bill C-288 has passed the real question is can the goal of the bill, which is to reach Canada's Kyoto targets be met. Certainly we must do everything in our ability to get there and throwing our hands up and doing nothing is not acceptable, but we must be realistic that it is too late in the game to reach our Kyoto targets. Had we started earlier we could have met them, but we waited too long, which was a mistake. But now that the bill has passed, we need to figure out how we are going to follow through on this bill should we form government. When the bill was crafted 10 months ago, many people felt the Liberals were going to be in opposition for a long stint (I wasn't one of them though) so why not embarass the government and make them sit and up take action. Off course rather than offering some plan simliar to BC's which falls short of the Kyoto targets in the time frame, but is still ambitious, the government decided to do nothing. Only by passing legislation could we force them to do something. The problem is if we are asking them to do the impossible, what good does it do us? In addition since this will involve money to achieve this goals, the government has every right to make it a confidence motion, which would have been the responsible path if the government didn't want to follow through on it.
If they refuse to follow the bill, some say we should take them to court. The problem here is by the time the case makes it through court the next election will already be done, so we would be better to introduce a non-confidence motion if they ignore the bill. Likewise if they introduce a plan that is ambitious as BC's but falls short of Kyoto targets, we would be best to withdraw it, however if they introduce a lacklustre one, then force them to comply. The issue here is not trying to meet Kyoto targets, which we likely can't at this stage, but rather getting as close as possible and in the second phase making up for our poor performance in the first phase. In addition who knows how taking them to court would play out in public opinion. There are enough environmentalist groups with plenty of money (Yes there are many rich people who are environmentalists, try living in Kitsilano in Vancouver which is a wealthy neighbourhood and full of environmentalists) that one of them would probably take it to court and force them to comply.
So my advice to the Liberal Party would be to hit the government over the head hard on this issue, but don't make promises that are unrealistic that we won't be able to keep if we form government.
If they refuse to follow the bill, some say we should take them to court. The problem here is by the time the case makes it through court the next election will already be done, so we would be better to introduce a non-confidence motion if they ignore the bill. Likewise if they introduce a plan that is ambitious as BC's but falls short of Kyoto targets, we would be best to withdraw it, however if they introduce a lacklustre one, then force them to comply. The issue here is not trying to meet Kyoto targets, which we likely can't at this stage, but rather getting as close as possible and in the second phase making up for our poor performance in the first phase. In addition who knows how taking them to court would play out in public opinion. There are enough environmentalist groups with plenty of money (Yes there are many rich people who are environmentalists, try living in Kitsilano in Vancouver which is a wealthy neighbourhood and full of environmentalists) that one of them would probably take it to court and force them to comply.
So my advice to the Liberal Party would be to hit the government over the head hard on this issue, but don't make promises that are unrealistic that we won't be able to keep if we form government.
posted by Monkey Loves to Fight at 3:30 PM
20 Comments:
don't make promises that are unrealistic that we won't be able to keep if we form government.
That's exactly what your side is doing right now.
Brandon - I realize the promises are unrealistic and thats why I said if the Tories come up with something similiar to Campbell they should withdraw it. The point is we should at least try to get closer to Kyoto targets even if we cannot make them, rather than do nothing.
If you want to see a good example of a good environmental plan, check out Gordon Campbell's one who pretty much almost all environmentalist are praising.
I should add, Brandon, I was watching MPtv interview with John Godfrey and he claimed the bill mandated the government to set out a plan to try and meet Kyoto and won't be monitored on an annual basis. Otherwise it didn't say we had to meet Kyoto, but we had to make an effort.
He also said if we missed our targets, we would have to take on more aggressive targets in the second round, which is my position. Still it will be interesting to see what legal implications this could have as I am not a lawyer.
My view is we need to get to work on climate change and make progress. We won't meet our Kyoto targets, but we must get a lot closer than we are now.
''The problem is if we are asking them to do the impossible, what good does it do us?''
Miles, don't rack your brain over this. Doesn't matter that you cheerleaded the move, the elected fools voted for it.
Nothing you can do but wait for the sound of the starting pistol, now.
Or, pass the budget. Get the Clean Air Act finalized before the 60 day deadline, which, with money attached should nullify the stupid bill.
Dion could have gotten out of it by claiming Libs would work thru the Clean Air Act and get the Cons to agree to as aggressive a plan as possible.
But he chose to grandstand.
The ads are right.
Hopefully the Senate will amend 2012 to 2020. Something unattainable was passed yesterday. Now it has to be changed to be realistic. The Conservatives will provide a plan similiar to the one by the B.C. Liberals (that can be done by 2020) and the environment issue will be neutralized.
If the Senate does not amend it. Conservative majority before the summer. And Pablo and Iggy succeeded in getting another run for leader.
Wilson61 - I should note that the bill was introduced 10 months ago by Pablo Rodriguez, so it was actually a private members bill rather than a party bill. Now true if the Tories showed a willingness to change, I would say agree to the changes, but I have yet to see it.
Mississaugapeter - Certainly the BC plan will put a lot of pressure on the feds to follow suit with a similiar plan and I hope they do. British Columbia has often been the leader in many areas and I think one way or another the rest of Canada will follow, although it may end up coming through each province passing similiar initiatives. Still I'll wait and see what plans they have before passing judgement. To date they have shown no action on the environment.
As for a Conservative majority, that is out of the picture since they need to win urban Canada or the majority of seats in Quebec to do this. The only place the Tories can realistically gain seats is the 905 belt and perhaps a couple in Atlantic Canada and this would still put them well short of a minority government.
The reality is a minority government is pretty much guaranteed after the next election. The real question is which will it be.
Get the Clean Air Act finalized before the 60 day deadline, which, with money attached should nullify the stupid bill.
Dion could have gotten out of it by claiming Libs would work thru the Clean Air Act and get the Cons to agree to as aggressive a plan as possible.
But he chose to grandstand.
The ads are right.
Exactly. If the Liberals were serious about this they'd stop playing games and work to get the Clean Air Act amended and passed.
But of course, that won't happen. Because they are more interested in getting nothing done so they can take this issue into the campaign with them.
The Conservatives will provide a plan similiar to the one by the B.C. Liberals (that can be done by 2020) and the environment issue will be neutralized.
Just watch the Liberals do everything in their power to keep that from happening. Because it's become rather apparent that Dion's election hopes are riding on Harper getting nothing done on this issue.
If Harper does get a plan like that through before an election, the Libs will be in serious trouble.
Certainly the BC plan will put a lot of pressure on the feds to follow suit with a similiar plan and I hope they do.
Sure, but let's be realistic. Most of our electricity in BC comes from hydro, which as far as I understand does not produce greenhouse gases. So needless to say it will be much easier for BC to meet those targets than the the country as a whole.
I'm just curious if the budget will pass
I'm just curious if the budget will pass
At this rate I think it will. Rumour has it that Charest is about to call an election in Quebec, meaning there would be no interest on the part of the Bloc for a federal election at least until that's over.
And their lousy poll numbers of late are another huge disincentive.
Brandon - I am not trying to defend what the Liberals are doing here, but it is not as though the Tories didn't play games when in opposition. And besides this was a private members bill introduced 10 months ago before Dion was even chosen as leader. In fact the bill sponsor Pablo Rodriguez was an Ignatieff supporter.
I personally believe there will be a May election as the Liberals will definitely vote against the budget, the NDP will have a tough time voting for a budget loaded with tax cuts and the Bloc Quebecois is really the only question although after propping the government up twice, if they do it a third time it could hurt them more.
I also think the Conservatives want an election in May right after the Quebec election and right after the budget as that is when they have the best chance at winning.
Hello all, New to this blog but would like to post anyway, I don't think there will be an election till after the NDP and CPC push thru the Clean Air Act, I think the NDP will prop up the CPC till it gets passed because if not they have nothing to go to the people with, just a lot of empty wasted time and Jack wouldn't be able to argue anything. As for the Libs, I don't know how they could make a bigger mess, passing a bill that cant be enacted without money, reversing on their own terror laws, is starting to think a whole lot of CPC members bought Lib memberships and voted for Dion at the convention.
the Bloc Quebecois is really the only question although after propping the government up twice, if they do it a third time it could hurt them more.
Their poll numbers are bad enough as it is, but if Charest wins the wind will probably be completely out of their sails.
I just can't see them wanting to risk an election anytime soon.
Their poll numbers are bad enough as it is, but if Charest wins the wind will probably be completely out of their sails.
I just can't see them wanting to risk an election anytime soon.
Their poll numbers are certainly not good. The Liberals almost never get below 30% so with the sponsorship scandal gone, you are seeing them return to near 30%. Likewise the ADQ consistently polls around 20% so it is probably fair to say around 20% of Quebecers have conservative leanings and despite the troubles they had in the summer they've made a strong rebound although not complete.
However, the problem for the Bloc Quebecois is each time they prop up the government it weakens them in the long-run. In addition the Tories could choose not to follow C-288 and then dare the opposition to introduce a non-confidence motion and any party that backed down would look really bad.
I still believe we will have a spring election. I also think the Tories figure their chances are better then, than later, so I think Harper will try to engineer his own defeat. Just as Martin and Chretien both called early elections to catch Day and Harper off guard before they could define themselves, why wouldn't Harper want to do the same to Dion. The less known Dion is, the easier it is to define him negatively.
Miles:
You will note that the Liberal Leader in the Senate said the Senate will not be fast-tracking this bill so the Conservatives will have more time to come up with a plan.
I also noted David Suzuki stating the obvious. Canada is bound by international law to meet its Kyoto commitments. So Canada can either make the effort or they can officially walk away from their commitments. I really wonder if Canadians will agree to that considering we do consider ourselves to be good global citizens.
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the Kyoto Protocol is all we have. None of its opponents have come up with any viable alternatives. Instead they just state that we cannot meet the targets so we should not bother trying. That sounds like just another excuse to not take any action at all.
Indeed, I believe that is the strategy. They have officially lost the argument as to whether climate change is happening and its cause so they have changed gears and are using our alleged inability to achieve our Kyoto targets as an excuse for further inaction. Of course in the next round when Canada is saddled with even tougher targets they will claim that Canada is being treated unfairly and use that as a further excuse for inaction.
Kyoto is not perfect but it is all we have so we should be striving to meet our agreed upon targets. If we fail sobeit at least we will be heading in the right direction.
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is the Kyoto Protocol is all we have. None of its opponents have come up with any viable alternatives.
Nonsense. The Clean Air Act did and will contain alternatives and as Miles himself mentioned, Gordon Campbell's plan is an alternative as well.
But go ahead, keep clinging to the fantasy that we can meet the Kyoto targets. You'll see just how fast Dion will have to back away from them should he unfortunately win the next election.
Ottlib - I generally concur. I don't think we can meet our Kyoto targets, but we have to get as close as possible and then make up for however much we miss them by in the second phase.
Brandon - I agree Campbell's plan is an acceptable alternative and in fact if his targets had been implemented when we ratified Kyoto, we would have met our targets. The point is that we must try to get as close to our Kyoto targets as feasible, even if we cannot make them. Not trying at all is unacceptable and the Tories seem to be very reluctant to even try.
The Clean Air Act a viable alternative to the Kyoto Protocol.
Now that's comedy. Thanks for the laugh Brandon. Who said Conservatives cannot be funny?
Ottlib - A completely re-written Clean Air Act might be a viable alternative, but the original one certainly isn't.
The BC plan calls for 33% reductions by 2020, while the Clean Air Act calls for no reductions until 2025. I think the BC plan should be used as a base for those wanting an alternative plan.
Miles:
I would generally agree except for the fact that the Kyoto Protocol has the force of international law. So to adopt the BC targets or any other is to formally walk away from an international commitment and it is non-compliance with international law. A mega-superpower like the US can get away with that but a middle power like Canada cannot. There would be consequences.
It is better to make the attempt to meet our commitments. If we do not succeed sobeit. That would better serve the medium and long term interests of Canada.
Ottlib - I agree breaking our international commitments is never good, but when they become unrealistic, you are better to do something that is realistic and still sticks within the spirit. And lets remember the BC targets had they been implemented in 2002 when we ratified Kyoto, meant we would have reached our targets.
Now we can still reach our targets by buying overseas emission credits, but we cannot meet them without doing this.
Post a Comment
<< Home