Apolitical Staples

So if the Libs, the Dippers and the Bloc worked to pass a law that the Tories must come up with a plan to make pi=3 they would have to obey that law, too? The only response to this “law” is to present a plan that says “this cannot be done; the law cannot be implemented.” I look forward to legislation that the government must eliminate crime, make every citizen happy, and guarantee good health to all.

Funny how this comes up now, as opposed to when the house passed a motion saying that it had lost confidence in the ability of the liberals to continue governing in the last parliament.

I think the best thing for the government to do is present a plan on the environment, and state in it that it is impossible to meet the targets completely - but show some movement towards them.

This way they would have met the obligation to produce a plan - but also won’t destroy the economy by moving it forward.

It is not a motion. It is a private member’s bill - C288 - that compels the government to implement Kyoto. It does not have implementation guidelines, but has very specific steps that leave little doubt as to the ultimate outcome.

It is not a money bill, and therefore not a confidence vote per se. However, the financial implications - including the threat of lawsuits for those who choose to ignore it - for current and future governments are significant.

Just imagine the wave of negative publicity that will follow once the bill comes into force, and Harper, Baird et al publicly declare their intentions to ignore it.

This could very well turn out to be the first step in a no-confidence resolution (on climate change) introduced either by the Liberals or by the Bloc who would much rather fight an election on the environment than on economics.

“the Liberals or by the Bloc who would much rather fight an election on the environment than on economics.” Two sides of the same coin.

Well - the annual “Climate Change Plan”could simply be to ban the operation of motorized vehicles by residents of ridings held by any Member who voted to approve the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act or the use of any heating equipment within those ridings (we could cut off the gas and power lines, if need be, to enforce compliance). This would give the proponents of this measure the chance to explain to their constituents how important the whole Kyoto thing is, wouldn’t it?

This has got to be the most cynical piece of political manoeuvering I’ve ever seen. The Liberals signed the Kyoto accord. They and their socialist buddies had more than enough power to implement every last detail of the accord. Yet now they threaten to bring down the government because the Conservatives won’t implement the accord? The audacity simply boggles my mind. If the electorate lets them get away with this then we truly have joined the international socialist community.

Wow. The Liberals really don’t care if they destroy Canada in their obsessive persuit of power, do they?

Is a private members bill binding on the government? Did the Liberals put Kyoto to a vote in the House before they signed it? (I know they had a majority, but I was just wondering).

I agree with dcardno - and others. This is a manipulative cynical ploy by the Liberals to topple the gov’t - soon- to try to get back into power before people realize the Disaster That is Dion, and, understand how well Harper is governing.

If the Liberals had been sincere about the environment (which is, as noted, bonded to the economy), their bill would have included the specific tactics to implement Kyoto. It doesn’t. Why not? Because they know that it is economically impossible to reach Kyoto targets in the time frame without destroying Canada and reducing it to a pre-industrial third world economy. Because they themselves did nothing to implement Kyoto and now, it’s too late. Because their agenda is NOT to clean up the env’t but to get back into power.

This is a malicious motion, a malicious ‘law’, and as dcardno points out, if the Trio-of-the-Left put forth a motion that from now on pi=3, or that car theft is a valid economic mode or that from now on, voting would be banned - would our gov’t be obliged to follow these rules? What are we moving into - Animal Farm?

Canadiana, the bill, if a passed, will have the force of law. The only two choices (aside from the fantasy floated that they can ignore it) are to follow it or call an election (and hope for a majority so as to repeal it). Otherwise, when the government fails to comply, someone (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, you name it) can take them to court.

Is a private members bill binding on the government?

Yes. Once C288 passes the Senate - guaranteed with a Liberal majority - and receives Royal Assent, it becomes the law of the land. The machinery of government - PCO, Environment Canada, Finance, etc - will automatically get geared up to implement the new law.

Hence, my earlier point about financial implications. A government cannot just spin its way out of it - cynical ploy, or not, laws must be obeyed.

I would like to see Harper dissolve parliament immediately after the legislation is passed. Turn around and tell the Canadian public that you refuse to implement legislation that will destroy Canada’s economy. Turn the election into a fight about the economy.

Sure, the environment is on the top of everyone’s list. But if the opposition parties tried to force legislation through that would kill the economy, all of a sudden, the economy would be the number one issue.

And ALL THREE opposition parties would be on the record as supporting an issue that would mean the loss of half a million jobs.

I dare say that could lead to a Harper majority. After all, could any of the three opposition parties be trusted with a minority after pulling a stunt like they are trying to?

Either that or we could simply not schedual any debates on private members resolutions until sometime in October.

The Constitution - 54: “It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.”

Further regarding C-288: 6(1)(a.1) within the limits of federal constitutional authority, limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that may be released in each province by applying to each province Article 3, paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 10 to 12, of the Kyoto Protocol, with any modifications that the circumstances require;

and:

6(2) Despite paragraph (1)(a.1), and for greater certainty, each province may take any measure that it considers appropriate to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

IOW’s this is not binding legislation on the part of the Federal gov’t. It is binding on the Provincial gov’ts … except where they have Constitutional jurisdiction (everywhere important) and where they don’t enact their own legislation telling Rodriguez to jump off a cliff.

Cheers, lance

So let Greenpeace or other take Canada to court. After all, will the Liberals, NDP and Bloc want to be viewed as activists in destroying the Canadian economy? That’s what would emerge.

This malicious action is saying that a law that is not grounded in a valid principle, that is not grounded in pragmatic realism, and that is in actuality, a malicious attempt to regain political power rather than aid and assist Canada and Canadians - that this law should be upheld?

Doesn’t our constitution protect us against a malicious majority? No-one has answered dcardno’s question.

Frankly, I think that our constitution DOES protect us against a malicious majority. The Supremacy Clause puts the constitution above the legislature. One of the constitution’s mandates is to provide for ‘peace, order and good government’. A malicious law passed by a majority in the Commons is ‘inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore has no force’.

A malicious law, such as that proposed by the Liberals, would indeed harm our ‘peace, order and good government’. There is no way that Canada could meet the Kyoto requirements without destroying the economy - and thus, ruining our ‘peace, order and good government’. Section 52, 1982 constitution.

So- a malicious law has no constitutional force.

Unbelievable. Almost as unbelievable as the thought that the Liberal-dominated “house of sober second thought” would do their job and scrap it.

Yikes.

So- a malicious law has no constitutional force.

Well, you would have to have the SC give its ok to that line of thinking. Harper et al. can’t just proclaim it because they don’t like the law.

..that or we could simply not schedu[le] any debates on private members ..

Debate on C-288 is over. It is scheduled for a vote on Feb 14 in the Commons, after which it will head to the Senate where the Liberal majority is almost guaranteed to fast-track approval. It would be reasonable to expect C-288 to receive Royal Assent by Feb 23.

Private members bills are automatically scheduled once the House starts sitting. You cannot “not schedule” them, which is why the Tories tried so hard to block C-288 in Committee.

Right, greg, the supreme court has to define a malicious law as harmful to ‘peace, order and good government’. I would suggest that a citizen’s group or other, could take the gov’t, both houses, to the supreme court on this ‘law’.

The fact remains, we must have some form of protection against malicious laws - ie, laws put forward by a majority for a purpose that will harm our constitutional rights.

And, as has been pointed out, since natural resources are the domain of the provinces (92a), and 92(13) gives provinces exclusive rights over property and civil rights, - which includes dealing with professional trades and labour relations, and 92(10) gives provinces rights over internal transportation, then, I think the federal gov’t has very little capacity on the ground to enforce Kyoto.

Again, no-one has answered dcardno’s question. What protection do we have against a legislature that, by a majority, invokes a malicious law that will harm our ‘peace, order and good government’? If a gov’t invokes a law that says that pi=3, is it then the law?

I just don’t see how this would be to the advantage of the Liberals if the government falls because of this. They would be constantly on the defensive. They would have to defend the fact that they did nothing when they had the power to do so, they would have to defend Dion’s statements that Canada can not meet the Kyoto targets, and they would have to defend their plans for implementing the accord. And Dion will get creamed in the debates. Bizarre.

I think the answer is to announce the ‘climate change plan’ in advance, and make sure it targets Liberal or Bloc sacred cows rather than a willy-nilly focus on energy used for oil sands extraction - for example:

-Impose a 30% tax on motor vehicle sales (with a minimum $10,000 per vehicle) if the estimated mileage is less than 40 mpg to ensure that fossil fuel consumption for transport drops over time;

-Export tax of 15% (min $10/MWh) on electrical energy exports, since if we were retaining that energy for domestic use it would displace fossil fuel use;

-Impose a $25/GWh tax on coal-fired electrical energy since it imposes such a high GHG cost;

-Gasoline surtax of $0.25/litre, to “encourage” decisions that will reduce fossil fuel use.

Respectively, these would hammer the automotive industry, Quebec-, Manitoba-, and BC Hydro, and Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan electrical consumers (sorry - some collateral damage), the auto industry (again) and everybody (again, sorry about the collateral damage). The only way to deal with this atempt to decouple the environment and the economy is to force the two together and let the Gang of Three answer for what they are trying to do.

Dean, that would do it. :) CPC majority in no time.

Cheers, lance

Further regarding C-288: 6(1)(a.1) …

That subsection does not appear in Bill C-288, the text of which can be accessed at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2493088&file=4.

Can someone explain the penalty for breaking this law. If the government says we cannot meet the target what is the remedy in the bill? financial penalty - jail time for cabinate what????

Chris, there are no penalties in the bill. Any penalties are to be set by the Governor in Council (GG Jean) as stated in the Act.

Further, the GG is Constitutionally bound to take advice from the Privy Council. The President of the Privy Council … none other than … Rona Ambrose.

Cheers, lance

Lance, Dean - have the Gang of Three set up the rules. After all, they proposed the bill; they voted for it; they should outline its policies. Once the House sees what exactly it would entail - they’d never pass it.

Look again anon. You’re wrong.

My mistake anon. The link you provided was correct.

The link I was looking at was: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2586669&file=4

An earlier reading.

Cheers, lance

I stand corrected. Section 6.1(a.1) does appear in C-288.

The most recent version of Bill C-288 can be accessed at http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2586669&file=4.

Apologies.

Whoops, my link is the final bill, with 6(1)(a.1) and 6(2). Anon, your link is first reading.

Cheers, lance

Lance: You were correct. I was wrong. I had originally quoted from the First Reading version.

You had quoted from the marked-up version that left Committee (see http://www.parl.gc.ca/legisinfo/index.asp?Language=E&Chamber=N&StartList=A&EndList=Z&Session=14&Type=0&Scope=I&query=4741&List=toc-1).

My guess is that the changes were designed to take into account Bloc sensitivities on provincial jursidiction.

The Committee version actually makes the Bill tougher i.e. worse for Harper.

Anon, how does it make it tougher for Harper? From my reading all it commits the gov’t to is a “climate change report”. Everything else is off-loaded to the Provinces via their constitutional jurisdiction. What isn’t constitutional can be eliminated via Provincial legislation.

This is a gift to Harper in that he can vote for it, and at the same time it forces the provinces to deal with it. That’s what I meant when I said that it is binding on the Provinces and not the feds.

Cheers,
lance

To further my previous point:

The CPC played just the right amount of blockage to this bill. After this weekend everyone who watches politics knows that the CPC voted against it every step of the way.

Once enacted, the Provinces have to deal with the political fallout. For instance, what is Ontario’s gov’t going to do when the auto sector starts thinking about this and publicizing the ramifications? Are they going to enact Kyoto? or are they going to enact exceptions?

This isn’t bad for the CPC. They can do what Dean suggests and go scorched earth, or just play the game and when the Provinces start raising holy-**, everyone is going to remember who’s bill this is.

Cheers,
lance

“Lance, Dean - have the Gang of Three set up the rules”

I don’t see that there is any mechanism to force them to do so, ET, and I exect that they will resist any attempt to put them in that position since that exposes them to complaints about the rules they impose.

“penalties are to be set by the Governor in Council (GG Jean)… the GG is Constitutionally bound to take advice from the Privy Council.”

Lance - my recollection is that the “Governor in Council” is the Cabinet - the Privy Counsel is more of a ceremonial (or perhaps “theoretical”) body made up of ex-cabinet ministers, as well as some of the great and the good; it includes, for instance Conrad Black and (until his death) Maurice Richard, and appointment / membership is for life. Your point is taken, however, that the Act may not bite very hard.

Ooops: “…I expect that they will resist…”

How bout this:

Harper appoint a committee on the creation of steps to implement it (stopping 30% of flights, closing down factories, criminal sanctions for driving more than 3 days a week, fun stuff like that)

and appoint to the committee,

ONLY LIBERALS.

The Liberal “you made your bed, now sleep in it” committee.

Within a few days I’d expect to see a bill to repeal the kyoto law,

coming out of that very committee.

ooooo…Chester, that’s a great idea…..

Chester, might I suggest a little smoke (and maybe mirrors too)?

The Liberals would have to be shut off in a conclave until they reach a decision. They would be agreeable to that because Liberals being shut off from the outside world is not a hardship; it’s normal.

Black smoke until the Liberals reach a solution

And

White smoke when they’ve reached a decision.

Does the bill contain any penalties for failure to implement? Breach of statute is not an actionable tort (see Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, SCC). I’m not sure about the federal act, but in most provinces’ proceedings against the crown legislation, injunctive relief is not available against the crown.

Time for an election on the socialist fairy tale that is Kyoto. If Canadians don’t have the sense to vote this bullshit down we’re done for anyway, so let’s get this over with.

The sections on “Regulations” will be very exciting to people who prefer a strongly directed economy.

It will be one thing to create the plan required annually, and another to meet it. The ownership of the Bill is not in any doubt. The question is whether voters will be able to understand the implications of meeting the annual plans, or will require at least one cycle as a demonstration.

How about this: Conservatives submit the plan which is exactly what is included in the current Clean Air Act, and say they will buy emissions credits to make up for any difference, at any rate then current up to $0.10 per ton. (This would cap the cost at about $25 million per year, whcih is not much for the government). Since they don’t have to settle up until 2012, this kicks the issue way down the road. If the Round Table says the plan is impractical, because credits are currently going for about $10 per ton, and so the total expense will be $2.5 billion per year, the CPC says “we are shocked, shocked”, introduces a bill to repeal the law, and makes that a confidence vote, saying we won’t send $12.5 billion to Russia. Since the opposition’s position is 100% fake, the more discussion about this the better, for the CPC.