Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cbasu





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 391
Reputation: 131.3
votes: 2

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 4:55 pm    Post subject: Clean Air Act - Dead on Arrival? Reply with quote

The Conservative government released its long awaited - and long publicized - Clean Air Act with the Environment and Health Departments taking the lead role.

There appears to be strong action on air pollutants with firm regulations expected in the next few months. The opposition is suggesting that the same regulations could be incorporated by amending CEPA which is currently under Committee Review.

There is next to nothing on GHGs, and not unexpectedly, the Harper government will meet with co-ordinated opposition on the subject of climate change.

It now appears that the Clean Air Act will be defeated on second reading, and will never make it to Committee.

What a shame! Climate change - and the need to take meaningful actions on reducing GHGs - appear to have captured the attention and imagination of Canadians, and yet, the government's centrepiece legislation is doomed to failure.

I don't get this. Can anyone explain the strategy, for the government and the opposition?
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The opposition is playing politics. When it comes down to it they're saying we'd rather have nothing than have small steps in the right direction.

FYI: hm...a 50% reduction in emissions by 2050....isn't that exactly what some Liberal leadership candidates were proposing a few weeks ago?
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think from the opposition benches, this looks like the hill that they have decided to live or die on. They have their experts lined up to criticize it, some people will undoubtedly believe it. I take the same view as I did with Kyoto. If it means good things for Canada, is achievable, and it will actually be acted upon then bully for the clean air act.

If it means money for carbon credits, lost jobs, and total inaction, then why bother?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool - that was actually a point brought up by Kenney today... and it's true, 2050 was the date set by several of the leadership candidates.

You're right, they are playing politics - and it's ridiculous. I think the CPC can/will jump on them and say for all their talk of protecting the environment, the first time they had a chance to help it they ignored it. Regardless of whether ENOUGH was done or not, to just deny its passage is pretty ridiculous. I almost would have liked to see this be a confidence issue - I doubt we'de be seeing a leaderless liberal party vote it down :) It'd end up with a Liberal-esque election, with an unprepared party fighting the cpc.
anchorlink





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 26
Reputation: 13.3

PostPosted: Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand that the environment is important, but every time I see the word "regulation" in a Tory policy, I wince.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7429
Reputation: 297.2
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I have always said, Canadians seem to always want to hear a pretty lie then a realistic truth, and thats why the Liberals have been so successful to this point.
Buddy Kat





Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 94
Reputation: 24.6Reputation: 24.6
votes: 1
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:
As I have always said, Canadians seem to always want to hear a pretty lie then a realistic truth, and thats why the Liberals have been so successful to this point.


That's so true...and if they ever told you the truth you wouldn't vote for them.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buddy Kat wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
As I have always said, Canadians seem to always want to hear a pretty lie then a realistic truth, and thats why the Liberals have been so successful to this point.


That's so true...and if they ever told you the truth you wouldn't vote for them.


If they told the truth, they'de be conservative ;)
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just looking at Dion's green plan. It talks about targets for 2050.
Bleatmop





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 953
Reputation: 17.5Reputation: 17.5
votes: 10

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie rection wrote:
Buddy Kat wrote:
cosmostein wrote:
As I have always said, Canadians seem to always want to hear a pretty lie then a realistic truth, and thats why the Liberals have been so successful to this point.


That's so true...and if they ever told you the truth you wouldn't vote for them.


If they told the truth, they'de be conservative ;)


Hahaha. Nice one! I was thinking along the same lines.
McGuire





Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 369
Reputation: 20.2Reputation: 20.2
Location: Soviet Pictouwestistan

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This plan is no different that what most of the Liberal leadership cnadidates have been talking about. They're opposed to it b/c they're scared it will succeed. However there does need to be more specific targets
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, my feelings are mixed..

It doesn't act as quickly as I would liked to have seen - I was hoping for a plan that would shut the environmentalists down... but I would like to see a reasonable, collected approach and not wild and crazy regulations on struggling industries. All in all I see it as a step in the right direction - away from words and towards action.

I think it's worth supporting.
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Just looking at Dion's green plan. It talks about targets for 2050.


Ignatieff:

Quote:
And we can build an economy that reduces carbon emissions to 50% of 1990 levels by 2050.
- The Environmental Revolution

http://www.michaelignatieff.ca.....?issue=env


Bob Rae:

Quote:
Commit Canada to the long-term target recommended by the National Roundtable on the Environment of a 60% reduction in emissions by 2050;


http://www.bobrae.ca/en/pressreleases.php#47


I recall reading that Dion had 2050 as a target date but I wasn't able to find anything.

I'm SO pissed off that the media isn't reporting that the Liberals are slamming Harper's plan, when it is almost identical to what their candidates are proposing! :evil:
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen,

This double-standard by the Libs when it comes to this 2050 date would be an exellent issue to cover in your blog since the MSM is letting us down once again! :evil:
Cool Blue





Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 3130
Reputation: 114.9
votes: 10
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2006 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, I see you already did such a blog post!

Great work! Seriously, that is an excellent job.

You're a great asset to the Conservative movement and your country!

(I sincerly mean that)
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 5

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Clean Air Act - Dead on Arrival?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB