I will mention that I've said that the issue the government is likely to fall on is the environment.
...The fact that the NDP and Bloc Quebecois supported the Liberal motion could spell trouble for the government down the road.
That's because the Liberals plan to introduce a bill with similar wording that would be binding if passed.
Because whatvever issue it is it has to have wedge quality for the opposition parties to bring the government down over it.
Comments (5)
I don’t understand what kind of “binding bill” the article refers to. It would bind Parliament to what? Bit of a vague reference, if you ask me.
As for today’s motion, it’s all pure politics. I still think the NDP will compromise on strict Kyoto compliance, although Kyoto time lines will be mentioned in the Clean Air Act. Layton will support its passing as well as the budget. He’ll get creamed in an election that’s about the Tory management of the environment. The Greens would be the biggest winner hands down in that scenario. Jack doesn’t want to see that happen, despite all the binding or non-binding resolutions in the world.
Posted by Dennis (Second Thoughts) | February 5, 2007 8:06 PM
Posted on February 5, 2007 20:06
Dennis, it will bind the government to meet its Kyoto targets.
Posted by Greg | February 6, 2007 6:49 AM
Posted on February 6, 2007 06:49
If we could just get Layton, Dion and Suzuki to all shutup for about 6 months, we’d surpass the Kyoto targets through a reduction in hot air.
Socialist Greg, are you referring to Pablo Rodriguez’s Private Member’s Bill? It has to go through 2nd and third reading, committee and the Senate. Private member’s bills die at the end of a parliamentary session. Think this one will make it through before an election?
Kyoto is dead. Why do you people keep poking at the corpse?
The only way to meet Kyoto targets is to dump money on thirld world dictatorships for clean energy projects. A lot of money. A lot of money that will be spent on palaces and guns. Palaces and guns have little effect on GHG emissions.
Let’s move on.
Posted by Alan | February 6, 2007 8:59 AM
Posted on February 6, 2007 08:59
I don’t think the government can be “bound to meet Kyoto targets”. If that were true, why not just pass a bill binding the government to eliminate child poverty, or maybe just injustice? Now, a bill with specific measures, say a $2/litre gas tax, or a commitment to spend up to $10billion for emission credits, or to close down the oilsands, could pass. Care to bet on the chances?
Posted by MarkCh | February 6, 2007 9:08 AM
Posted on February 6, 2007 09:08
Socialist Greg, are you referring to Pablo Rodriguez’s Private Member’s Bill? It has to go through 2nd and third reading
Yes, I think that is the “binding bill” Dennis mentioned.
Posted by Greg | February 6, 2007 12:39 PM
Posted on February 6, 2007 12:39