The federal budget

[FiveParadox]

Re: Defeat of the Budget

I would agree that the protection of our ecosystem, and therefore matters of the environment and the atmosphere, should be of extreme concern to the Government of Canada. However, this is not the case, at the moment. Through this budget, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary—Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, has indicated that he has no regard for the needs of the environment and for the safe, healthy futures of the people of Canada.

Besides, the Bloc Québécois has indicated their support for this budget, which would give the Conservative Party of Canada more than enough to pass this budget motion with a majority of voices. There is nothing that either of the other two opposition parties can do to prevent the passage of this budget.

 

[BitWhys]

You know, not that I'm passionate about the child care thing, but for that $3.945 Billion over two years promising 50,000 spaces out of thin air in that time, Jack would have funded the first two years of HIS plan, created 225,000 spaces and had (1.8+1.8+.25=3.85) $95 million mad money left over.

just a thought.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: The federal budget

bluealberta, I have serious reservations about the termination of the Kyoto Accord at this time. While the termination of the accord may be inevitable, given the current Government of Canada, I would prefer that they come up with their own strategy before they drop the agreement. The Conservative Party of Canada has shown absolutely no vision in relation to the environment, other than the fact that it's apparently not a priority.

Unfortunately, 5P, the previous government talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. The Liberals signed the Kyoto agreement, yet under the Liberals, Canada's emissions went well above both the target and where Canada was when they signed the agreeement. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think Canada's emissions were 6% above its target when the agreement was signed and rose to 24% last year. So, despite all the rhetoric from Martin about Canada Kyoto - and the annoying US-bashing he undertook in Montreal despite America being closer to their target than Canada - the Liberals were selling the country an illusion.

 

[FiveParadox]

Toro, you seem to imply that because the Liberal Party of Canada had failed on the subject of the environment, that this means that the new Government of Canada doesn't have to do anything on that file.

 

[BitWhys]

Environment aside, the real problem being, as I see it, is internationally people care which party did what "over here" as we do about things "over there". In other words, they don't. We shouldn't have to but in the eyes of the world...

we're welching.

There are places on this planet where that's about as low as you can get.

 

[darkbeaver]

At least we'll be safe from the terrorists now that we're working with them.

 

[Toro]

Re: RE: The federal budget

Toro, you seem to imply that because the Liberal Party of Canada had failed on the subject of the environment, that this means that the new Government of Canada doesn't have to do anything on that file.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I should have been clearer.

If the current administration is rescinding Canada's commitment to Kyoto, they are merely doing what the Liberal government would have done anyways.

Most of the 35 or so nations who signed the agreement will not be in compliance when it kicks in next decade. There are something like only 2 right now.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: increasing emissions by reducing programs ...

I think this budget should be defeated on the basis of global warming alone. We need to send stronger messages apparently, and defeating this budget would be a strong message.

Canada backpedals on Kyoto promises:
" Emission control budget cut by 40 percent." -
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewFeature6.cfm?REF=282

This is the main budget item that really sucks.

The Harpocracy of the Conservative Party of Canada claiming environmental concerns is evident when we see them cutting funding for emissions reductions by 40%.

Global Warming is the biggest threat to our way of life, and thats besides the terrible threat to nature's balancing act and increasing species extinction. WE HAVE to reduce the emissions that are causing global warming and climate changes.


Since we don't even manage to reduce the rate that our emissions are increasing, we can expect to face the worst that climate change can throw at us, and that is a lot. We have not yet seen her full power.

Especially bad hit will be our kids and our grandchildren... how can we look them in the eyes and explain that we did nothing when we had the chance?

And how will Harper look his kids in the eyes and explain that HE actually tok away some of the progress we were making?

This is awful, the budget should have been defeated on this matter. Even if it took down the govt., it would be ok to defeat it... that would really send a strong message what our priorities are.

So when we buy these mythical and ethereal credits from Russia, what piece of equipment do we put them in to lessen emissions? I have been very consistent: Lets keep the billions here instead of Russia, and lets use those billions to develop a made in Canada solution, using Canadian technology and know how, and using Canadian workers. Buying credits, which are an intangible, does nothing to reduce any of our emissions. It's a wealth transfer scheme, nothing more, nothing less. Kind of like Canadian transfer payments. Rich provinces transfer money to poorer provinces in order for the poorer provinces to keep their provincial taxes lower instead of raising them to pay for their special programs.

Anyway, I am glad common sense over Kyoto has arrived.

 

[bluealberta]

Several of you have said that because the Harper government has basically trashed Kyoto, he is opposed to any kind of environmental issues.

This is such an overstatement on your part. Of course he cares about the environment, but does not believe in the Kyoto agreement entered into on the whim of Crazy Chretien. A made in Canada solution, solving Canadian problems, using Canadians and Canadian technology is a much better approach.

There are so many reputable scientists on both sides of this issue that there is obviously no consensus, despite claims of a consensus by both sides, and marginalization of the scientists on the other side of the issue. True or not, I have read many reports that suggest if Canada stopped using internal combustion engines, or heating our homes and offices, we would only affect greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by less than 2%. Personally, I am not prepared to totally change our country and its lifestyle for that small of a change, especially when there are other countries who are doing absolutely nothing about their problems, and they are some of the biggest emitters in the entire world.

However, do not underestimate Harper, he knows exactly where he is going and how he is going to get there. So far everyone who has underestimated him has been quite surprised. Give him a chance. All of you on the left kept giving Chretien and Martin chance after chance after chance, and all they did was steal from you. Sassy, maybe you should ask them to give you some of your money back, they took it!!

 

[FiveParadox]

bluealberta, I would agree that a made-in-Canada solution could be the best approach. However, the fact remains that, once the motions of this budget are adopted by the House of Commons, we are going to have nothing more than an Environment Canada with crippled funding, fifteen less climate change programs in place, and no plan.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: The federal budget

bluealberta, I would agree that a made-in-Canada solution could be the best approach. However, the fact remains that, once the motions of this budget are adopted by the House of Commons, we are going to have nothing more than an Environment Canada with crippled funding, fifteen less climate change programs in place, and no plan.

That all or nothing approach of yours sometimes is a bit much. To say they have no plan is another over the top statement. Of course they have a plan, or plans. I think Rona is as smart as she is hot, and if she is, then her plan will be great. Give it time.

How you feeling?

 

[FiveParadox]

I'm feeling... alright. Not great, by any stretch of the term, unfortunately.

In terms of this budget, though, it contains no plan for the environment. It ends the plans implemented (or that were supposed to be implemented) by the previous Government of Canada, but this budget does not express any sort of environment strategy, other than a lack thereof, and other than mentioning something about being "made-in-Canada", the Honourable Rona Ambrose, P.C., M.P., the Member for Edmonton—Spruce Grove and the Minister for the Environment has offered nothing constructive.

 

[elevennevele]

Re: RE: The federal budget

Unfortunately, 5P, the previous government talked the talk but didn't walk the walk. The Liberals signed the Kyoto agreement, yet under the Liberals, Canada's emissions went well above both the target and where Canada was when they signed the agreeement. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think Canada's emissions were 6% above its target when the agreement was signed and rose to 24% last year. So, despite all the rhetoric from Martin about Canada Kyoto - and the annoying US-bashing he undertook in Montreal despite America being closer to their target than Canada - the Liberals were selling the country an illusion.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the missed targets mostly due to the Alberta Oil Sands now in high production due to rising oil costs? Extracting the oil from the sands is a huge pollution/environmental problem and one that is difficult to solve. It's no wonder shell keeps putting out those PR commercials.

The previous government would have been slammed if they hindered the economic windfall and growth surrounding the oil sands but there isn’t really any great way around the environmental damage in order to reap those windfalls.

Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

The thing about Harper is he will blast the record, cut the programs while at the same time not have alternatives in place. The guy doesn’t have a leg to stand making these accusations.

I would like to see some sort of data that shows how we missed those targets. What where the areas/causes responsible for those missed targets. If it was the oil sands, then again Harper again has no leg to stand on with regards to environmental criticisms unless he would have thought the Liberals should have capped production on those sands.

 

[elevennevele]

Re: RE: The federal budget

My concern is that Harper will remove environmental accountability by the energy producers/oil companies much the same way as Bush did in the US. Did any of you hear about how Bush claimed great progress with the environment through wetland creation, but then it turned out that they were classifying golf courses as wetlands. This is why it's important to look at the data in relationship to claims made by politicians. Because in reality the politicians might be actually sidelining the public with bull*Sh.


http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/canenv.html

Canada: Environmental Issues (first three paragraphs)

Introduction
Canada's energy abundance has encouraged the development of a highly energy-intensive economy based on natural resource extraction and processing. Total Canadian oil production, for example, increased from 1.8 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 1984 to an estimated 3.1 million bbl/d in 2003. Canada’s growth in oil output, particularly recently, can be attributed to the development of oil sands in Western Canada, as well as to large oil projects off the coast of Newfoundland. Oil sands projects are large, use considerable amounts of energy, particularly natural gas, and release both gaseous and particulate emissions into the atmosphere. Although the oil sands processes have become more efficient and have reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of production, an increase in output could lead to an increase in total emissions. Other environmental challenges associated with oil sands processing are disposing of tailings, wastewater management, and land reclamation.

Canada is the world’s third largest natural gas producer and second largest natural gas exporter. According to Environment Canada (EC), a branch of the Canadian government, about half of all homes in Canada use natural gas as the main source for heating. Natural gas also is used extensively by the electricity generation, industrial and commercial sectors. Oil and natural gas exploration is impacting coastal communities from the Beaufort Sea region to waters off Cape Breton and Prince Edward Island.

Heavy reliance on energy-intensive industries could make it more difficult for Canada to meet its environmental commitments, particularly on climate change. Despite protests from Canadian industries and provincial governments, the Canadian House of Commons on December 17, 2002, ratified the Kyoto Protocol, committing the country to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 5.2% below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012. The loudest protests came from Alberta’s oil sands producers worried that the protocol would hurt the economics of their operations. In July 2003, former Prime Minister Chrétien attempted to quell their worries by promising safeguards to the Canadian oil industry to limit the economic impact of the Kyoto Protocol. Nonetheless, the protocol remains controversial in Canada. Newly-appointed Prime Minister Paul Martin commented in December 2003 that Canada does not yet have a concrete plan for meeting its Kyoto commitments.

 

[Jersay]

3 % cut in corporate taxes while increasing the taxes on the lower and middle income Canadians. Well you guys voted for them.

They were also poor on childcare, post-secondary education, aboriginal affairs, I guess that is because they don't have support in those areas among other things.

Also to point out the Conservatives have dropped the idea that it will create spaces in Canada under their plan, from watching Cpac asll they say is that it will create choice, which it wouldn't.

Also finally, I think we should have had more money to the military, 1.1 billion isn't enough because it is going to pay for the 23,000 new soldiers.