Whitby Shores Community Forums

With the provincial election over, I was really eager to see what our Federal Government had in mind for Canadians with the Throne Speech.

I have to say, I was very very disappointed. Then I was waiting for the Liberals to do something about the lack of issues being addressed by the Conservatives but, alas, they are saying Canadians don't want an eleciton right now.

I am a Canadian and I want an election if our Government is not willing to make compromises and work together.

What does everyone else think about all that is happening in our Federal world of Government?

What issues are you talking about?

The biggest issue I have is the total lack of interest in the environment and working towards meeting Kyoto rather than laying blame on the Liberals and just giving up?

Another one is the total lack of mention that our child poverty rate has been on the rise.

I also really dislike that the Conservatives attitude is that all the other parties can fall in line or force an election. That is not working together for a better Canada, it is just drawing a line in the sand.

The problem I am having is that the Conservatives are not willing to compromise and as a minority governement, you need to. There is no open discussion in parliment and they are treating their 34% of the popular vote as a strong mandate to govern.

I am not saying that Kyoto is the best plan out there either but it is a commitment. The Conservative's plan was a joke; fifty years is not a proactive way to protect our world for anyone's children. We need to act sooner rather than later.

I am interested to know how would we go into a recession by scaling back and finding more environmental alternatives? We wouldn't be using fossil fuels so there is an industry that would suffer but many other industrial companies are finding environmental solutions that are saving them money so they are not cutting jobs. That is a really big and scary statement that Kyoto would cause a recession when there really hasn't been any tangible proof of that.

Let's not forget that when the Conservatives tabled their environmental plan last session, it went to committee of mostly opposition members who reworked it only to have it completely ignored by the envirnmental minister because he didn't like it and threw it out. This is an example of the Conservatives not working in the government. They are simply trying to ram as many of their own interest policies and ideas at Canadians and when other parties are asked to give imput it is ignored. As a group that only holds 34% of the popular vote, and only 125 seats in parliment they are being a disgraceful minority.

As for the Liberals, I am extremely disappointed that they are protecting their own hides by not forcing an election at this time and letting us decide. Either way, our government is not in good shape due to lack of backbone and of cooperation.

We can all agree that something needs to be done about emissions, absolutely. We're not going to meet Kyoto either, and I think that that reflects very poorly on our country.

But what was good about the Kyoto plan was that it was a target, a real, tangible goal. A country either made it or it didn't. The Conservatives do not seem interested in actually measuring the success or failure of their environment bill. They refuse to consider any plan that targets a net reduction in emissions based on even our current emissions output. Stephen Harper has promised a plan that would achieve real and specific targets but this has yet to be seen.

When Bill C-30 came back from committee last session, it was a bill that established such goals. Yes, the word "Kyoto" was in there, and we probably weren't going to make it to those goals but at least we were measuring something. It's not emotion, it's action. Instead, we still have no plan.

In order for there to be real change, we (the entire world) can't keep increasing emissions, not even for a "mere" five or ten years. The logic that we can reduce our GHG emissions now without having an economic impact is a fallacy. There will be economic impact. Some people will lose their jobs. No one guarantees that your business model will last forever.

We need to turn this ship around now, not in 30 or 40 years.

Getting developing countries on board is going to be tough. Many of them look at the huge increase of wealth in the western world and feel entitled to grow and prosper at that same rate. Now we are starting to realize that this extremely high rate of industrial growth over the last two hundred years has major consequences. It is going to be up to the industrialized nations to move forward on climate change first, and swiftly, so we can convince the rest of the world that they can reach their goals without polluting like we have been.

I do thing that having well-organized government progams for funding environmental R&D would be an excellent way for us to help in this regard.

I'm interested to know if anyone thought that the Conservatives' original environment bill was enough?

As for the lack of meaningful discourse in the House... it's turning this session into a joke. It looks like it's going to be one big game of chicken, with Harper heading straight for Dion with bill after bill chock full of Conservative platform just daring Dion to collide with him and bring the house down.

Sure, the Conservatives have every right to bring their policies to the table, but their "put up or shut up" attitude coupled with the Liberal caucus scared out of their minds at the possibility of an election now means that there's virtually no opposition in the house, which is simply not how our government is intended to run.

So do we need an election then? Somewhere along the way the question I was asking seemed to get bogged down in the debate about Kyoto and how a minority government should work.

In my opinion, any governmental body should be working to better their country. That isn't happening from the Conservatives or the Liberals.

I wouldn't mind another election. At least it would give us (the masses of Canadians) an opportunity to send a message as to whether or not we are happy with the way things have been going since the Conservatives took control or if it is time for another shuffle in our Countries direction.

I would love if you could provide any links to your statement about "most EU" not meeting their targets. Any official statements and quotes would be approciated. My understanding is based on the following Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

On 10 January 2007, the European Commission announced plans for a European Union energy policy that included a unilateral 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020.
The EU has consistently been one of the major nominal supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating hard to get wavering countries on board.
In December 2002, the EU created an emissions trading system in an effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and paper/cardboard. There are also fines for member nations that fail to meet their obligations, starting at €40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008. Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels.

By the way, how are we, as the country doing against our 1990 levels?

1) The 15 countries of the "old EU" overall reduced their emissions from their 1990 levels. It is below the targets but it is light years ahead of where Canada is. Did we observe any drop in their standard of living as predicted by Harper a few years ago (some nonsense about "job killing, tax raising program")?

2) How come UK was able to reduce their emissions by 14%? The UK economy has been doing rather well? Again, did they have to significantly raise taxes to achieve that? Did they become a poorer nation because of it?

3) I would not like to put Canada in the company of China and India. Those countries have a host of many practices/regulations I don't want to see replicated here. Obviously some very rich/industrialized nations are capable of significant efforts (even if they fall below the targets). Canada should join them and lead by example. Both Liberal and Conservative governmnets failed the Canadian public in not only doing nothing but actualy making a bad situation even worse.

Wikipedia is not somewhere that has reliable information. It is an editable site. I wouldn't take anything I read there too seriously.

Kitty,

The information is from the wikipedia site, however it is referenced to the UN document (reference # 87):

http://unfccc.int/files/essential_backgr...ble_06.pdf