“We can reduce emissions by closing down a steel mill in Canada but if we’re just buying the steel from a company in China, what do you say to the steel worker in Canada?” -John Baird
Canadians rejected the Liberal platforms and policies that included the Green Shift in 2008. The policies of the NDP as a credible alternative to the Conservative minority policies that were in effect for two years were rejected by over eighty per cent of voters. In seven by election contests since the two general elections, voters have sent five more Conservatives back to Ottawa in by elections which equals a seventy-one per cent rate of success in an increased mandate. The voters have only sent one Liberal and one Democrat. It appears the opposition are not capable of respecting the democratic will of Canadians in giving a mandate. The changes in 2004, 2006 political party finances and delays in Democratic reform will continue to shape the make up of parliament.
 |
| PM Stephen Harper and Laureen Harper |
I don't know of any other democratic government in the OECD that has been as successful, first elected in 2006 than in a larger number in 2008. The world has shifted right as confidence in the illusion of benefits in redistribution policies are bankrupting the nations in Europe and United States. The opposition appear to be divided on how to win back power. The removal of confidence with the threat of a general election, the default position in a minority parliament has NEVER been carried out by the coalition parties in the left. Why are they unwilling to use the option they used in 2004 against the Liberal PM Paul Martin in his 2nd year of his mandate?
If the opposition is unhappy and critical of this government's policies why not "fire them" and quit the bellyaching?
Our Federal Government has been clear we will do our part, and the largest emitters of Green house gases must step up to the plate and share in the costs. Our media with help from special interest groups have no interest in holding the opposition parties to account for their misleading statements on the significance of Canada in the discussion of a redistribution of wealth from developed nations. The opposition parties don't have support in many parts of Canada to shut down the industry and jobs. In 2009 Liberals and NDP demanded billions for GM and Chrysler while the BLOC demanded billions for their forestry sector. If Canada accounts for only two per cent and the developing countries continue to grow their emissions how does it change the CAGW scenarios?
The largest emitters United States, China, India, Brazil must agree to verifiable third party audits and reductions or the calls for Canada reducing its emissions will be negligible. Our contribution to green house gases is too small.
 |
| 2008 |
Copenhagen was not a political breakdown. It was an intellectual breakdown so astonishing that future generations will marvel at our blind credulity. Copenhagen was a classic case of the emperor with no clothes.
Canada is an export nation with substantial reserves in Oil.
It does not make sense to target the industry in Alberta and allow the industry in Ontario to go untouched for their contribution to greenhouse emissions. Anyone hear from the NDP, Liberals or Bloc on the need to shutdown the mining, forestry, manufacturing activity in Ontario or Quebec? Did Toronto or Montreal pass a by law banning the automobile?
In a speech in London, he referred to Canada as an “emerging energy superpower” and backed his claim with a cluster of statistics that were to become a feature of his foreign speeches: “We are currently the fifth-largest energy producer in the world. We rank third and seventh in global gas and oil production respectively. We generate more hydro-electric power than any other country on Earth. And we are the world's largest supplier of uranium.-PM Stephen Harper
A left leaning piece worth reading. Before they were sucked into the giant vortex of global warming, environmentalists did useful things. They protested against massive Third World dams that would ruin both natural and human habitats. They warned about invasive species and diseases that could tear through our forests and wreck our water systems. They fought for national parks and greenbelts and protected areas. They talked about the big things too – such as how the world could feed another three billion people without destroying all the rain forests and running out of water. They believed in conservation – conserving this beautiful planet of ours from the worst of human despoliation – rather than false claims to scientific certainty about the future, unenforceable treaties and radical utopian social reform. - Margaret Wente
The majority of us that are in favour of conservation, charging polluters for their violations, more efficiency. We have not jumped on board for the crazy train of wealth redistribution as the correct solution. We did not take that leap of faith in giving large energy companies guaranteed profits for generations. We did not sign up for transferring billions to the worlds poorest nations led by dictators and despots.
Why are the opposition parties taking turns voting in favour of policies of this Government from Jets to Afghanistan?
Why are the opposition parties taking turns voting in favour of policies of this Government from Jets to Afghanistan?
