Posted on 12/09/2002 11:32:30 AM PST by Clive
A vote to end debate on the ratification of Kyoto was passed in the House of Commons early Monday afternoon, despite the antagonism of all four opposition parties.
The vote, which passed 133-92, was backed by the Liberals, who earlier had invoked a closure motion to limit debate on the environmental agreement, but voted against by all opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois and the NDP. Both the Bloc and NDP are in favour of the ratification of the accord but said they could not support a vote that allowed the government to limit debate on such an important matter.
A number of Liberal MPs, including Paul Martin, were not present for the vote.
Mr. Martin was expected to vote against closure of the debate. The former finance minister has said while he is in favour of ratification, he wants to see more consultation with the provinces on the matter.
During a special session of Question Period prior to the vote, opposition parties voiced their dissatisfaction with the Liberal government forcing an end to the debate on Kyoto.
Canadian Alliance environment critic Bob Mills called it a "horrible deal that will do little for the environment and will kill jobs."
During the over 30-hours of debate that took place on Kyoto, Mr. Mills, who was the first Opposition speaker, held a mini- filibuster where he spoke for more than 11 hours against the legislation.
Environment Minister David Anderson said the Liberals were invoking the closure motion because there had been enough debate on the matter.
"Why are we involved in closure at this time? It's because we've had extensive debate," Mr. Anderson said. "If we're to have filibusters, the only logical motion is for the government to invoke closure.
Meanwhile on Monday, opponents of the accord, including Alberta Premier Ralph Klein and Canadian Alliance Leader Stephen Harper, have their final say against ratification.
Mr. Klein, in a speech to the Canadian Society in New York Monday, encouraged Americans to invest in Alberta, saying that his province offers the United States "secure, affordable energy and first-rate investment opportunities."
If the protocol is ratified, Mr. Klein said in a speech obtained by globeandmail.com, "Alberta will protect its economic and environmental interests."
Alberta has warned that the United States, which has not ratified Kyoto, could pull investments out of Canada if doing business here means costs will rise.
Mr. Harper, meanwhile, will make a speech warning against the protocol in the House of Commons about 4 p.m. Monday.
The Alliance Leader told reporters outside the House of Commons last week that his speech will be decidedly anti- Kyoto.
On Tuesday, a vote on the ratification of Kyoto is expected to be held in the Commons about 3 p.m. EST. It is expected to pass easily.
All Liberal MPs will be expected to vote in favour of the protocol or face political consequences. It is being considered a confidence motion by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien.
Another vote will be held in the Senate, most likely before Christmas.
But while the House of Commons is slated to approve Kyoto on Monday, the Senate appears to be on a slower timetable and has up until Dec. 20 to vote on the matter. That is when senators are scheduled to rise for Christmas. Mr. Chrétien, who is determined to ratify Kyoto by year-end, does not need Commons or Senate approval to endorse the treaty but would like to have their approval before doing so.
The slower pace of Senate debate on Kyoto could move the date for official ratification closer to the end of the year.
Also in the Commons on Monday, Environment Minister David Anderson confirmed a Globe and Mail story that said Ottawa is offering to cap the amount that businesses would have to spend to meet Kyoto Protocol targets, and the taxpayer would cover any costs above that.
The move, designed to calm corporate investor fears that their costs might jump if the treaty is ratified, would cap business exposure at $15 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. It represents a bet by the federal government that the costs of implementing the international accord will be far less than the figures its opponents cite, and that taxpayers will not be left with a high tab.
And if they are, what the f---, it's only taxpayer money, right?
The move, designed to calm corporate investor fears that their costs might jump if the treaty is ratified, would cap business exposure at $15 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions. It represents a bet by the federal government that the costs of implementing the international accord will be far less than the figures its opponents cite, and that taxpayers will not be left with a high tab."
Wasn't this the same reasoning for their cost estimates on gun registration? Hmmmm... In this case, the higher costs translates into higher prices for the consumer. Anything over the cap will be paid by taxpayer. This can't be good for employed Canadians.
Why isn't there a special interest group called "Big Taxpayer" or "Big Consumer"?
They can use all the extra money to fund the gun registration.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I recall my high school history the march actually started at Montgomery's (just above Yonge and Eglinton) and proceeded downtown to around King or Adelaide I think. It was there, as you describe, that the "one volley rebellion" occurred.
You are dead right that the Family Compact remains. Our ruling class, both in Ottawa and in the major media, are rapidly wrecking this nation. We, not long ago, were a nation of risk takers, innovators and leaders who felt that nothing was beyond our capabilities. Rocketry, advanced aircraft design, the International time system, I could go on and on. The Liberals, sadly, have squandered our birthright to the point that too many of us just sit back and accept being herded like sheep and have the Libs tell us what's best for us. Its disheartening, to put it politely.
I want my country back, dam*it!
- Anonymous, circa 1838
Do us a favor and stay in your own country. We don't need anymore neo-cons
As an aside, and you would have to live in or be familiar with Toronto to know the location, but The Jolly Miller site at York Mills and Yonge was originally the last great roadhouse before what would now be Markham. It was the pub the farmers stopped for the night at when returning from bringing their herds down for sale and slaughter. It's amazing how much Canadian history revolves around taverns. In Chatham, Ontario where I grew up, there were something like 43 taverns in 1850 for a population of maybe 5 - 10 thousand citizens.
Cheers, eh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.