Category: Politics

Kyoto bill passes

Bill C-288, An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol, passed third reading in the House of Commons last night.

The vote was along party lines — with Conservatives voting nay and every other party voting yea. Prime Minister Harper was absent for the vote.

The chief paragraph from the act — “

5. (1) Within 60 days after this Act comes into force and not later than May 31 of every year thereafter until 2013, the [Government] shall prepare a Climate Change Plan . . .
The bill is now off to the Senate where it must go through three readings and then we will learn when the 60 day clock starts and whether or not the Government will pay any heed to the act.
Mark Warawa, the Conservative MP from Langley who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to to the Minister of the Environment, calls this a “mischief bill.”

Final post on that Defence debate in the House of Commons

The battery on my laptop computer gave out last night after two hours of liveblogging the “Committee of the Whole” debate on defence department spending, held last night in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the debate lasted for four hours — ending just before 11 p.m. Ottawa time. I stuck around until about 10:30 pm, using the old-fashioned way of taking notes – a pen and a notebook.

There was lots of interesting stuff that I didn’t get a chance to blog about but I’m not going to update what I missed because the Hansard for that debate is now online. For those with an interest in defence policy, I highly recommend reviewing the debate for it’s not just all about Afghanistan (though a lot of it was). There were exchanges about the health of our reserve forces, about pilot training programs in Canada, about procurement, about Conservative promises to put the navy into the Arctic and many other subjects.

 

A PM's reading list

Friend and former colleague Paul Wells celebrated the launch of his first book earlier this week. It’s called Right Side Up and is account of the fall of the Paul Martin and rise of Stephen Harper. Early on in the book, one of Harper’s closest friends, John Weissenberger, talks about the kinds of books he and the future prime minister got into while they were both studying at the University of Calgary in the early 1980s.

“We spent a couple of years sort of doing a very broad review of the classic texts of classical liberal economies and political theory. A dozen or two dozen books that we had read and we discussed. You know, the Austrian school, Hayek, a couple of Buckley’s books — God and Man at Yale, Up From Liberalism. Peter Berger, a guy who wrote a lot of interesting stuff in the eighties, on the transition from the liberal state. Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France.”

– John Weissenberger, quoted in Right Side Up, by Paul Wells

Flaherty's Income Trust announcement: A textbook case of good PR?

Whatever you might think of the federal government’s announcement this week on income trusts, one professional communicator labels the way the announcement was made a “touchdown.” Bob Reid, a principal of the communications firm Veritas Canada, writes the following in his firm’s weekly newsletter “Touchdowns and Fumbles”:

How the heck could a hastily-made announcement which enraged many investors, sewered the stock market and broke a campaign promise possibly warrant a Touchdown? Because the communications part of it went flawlessly. Believe what you choose about the merits of Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s decision to start taxing income trusts, but when it comes to the communications execution, this commentator says it was nigh on perfect. First and foremost, there was absolutely no leak. Until Flaherty gave notice of a major announcement (safely after the markets had closed), there was not a peep of advance word or speculation of any kind that the move was in the offing. Then, both in making the announcement and in the subsequent defense of the new policy, Flaherty was as clear as he was consistent in his positioning: that it was the right thing to do, for Canada’s economy, taxpayers and future competitiveness alike. And, to cap it all off, the next-day editorials and comment pages were filled with expressions of support from business columnists to political pundits to such unlikely endorsers as CUPE and the editorial writers at Toronto Star. Yes, it was a shocking change in position for the Conservatives. But the only thing that can trump a policy reversal is a communications plan that successfully makes the case that it was the right thing to do – not in terms of politics, but in terms of public policy. Only Nixon could go to China; ditto Flaherty and taxing income trusts.

Same-sex marriage: Here we go again!

My colleague Robert Fife reported yesterday that the same-sex marriage debate will be back on the table in early December. The Conservatives figured that might make the new Liberal leader’s first week on the job a little more fun. The Conservatives promised during the last election plan — and I’ve heard nothing to susggest there’s been any change — involves a two-step process.

First, the government will introduce a motion asking MPs if they wish to re-open the debate on same-sex marriage. The status quo, of course, would be that same-sex marriage in Canada is A-Ok. If a majority of MPs vote ‘No’ –that they do not wish to re-open the SSM debate — then that’s it. It won’t be back on the table in the current Parliament (unless a private members bill gets through but that seems a remote possibility).

If a majority of MPs vote to re-open the debate, then Justice Minister Vic Toews will be charged with drafting legislation that would reverse the Liberal bill, i.e. re-defining marriage to mean a union between two individuals of the opposite sex. If that bill is introduced, it would go — as all bills do — through three votes, at first, second, and third reading.

So: Does it ever get to a third reading? Not a chance. It won’t even get by that first stage. A majority of MPs — I am boldly predicting — will vote against the idea of even re-opening the debate. Why do I think this way? Both Bloc Quebecois and NDP MPs will be ‘whipped’ to vote against the idea. MPs will risk the wrath of their leaders if they vote to re-open the debate. So that’s as many as 79 votes against right off the bat. Not all Conservative MPs will vote to re-open the debate. Harper has promised a ‘free vote’ to every MP, including cabinet members, on this issue. My rough guess is that of the 124 Tory MPs in the House — a maxiumum of 110, and possibly fewer, vote to re-open the debate. So now, it’s 110 to 79 to re-open the debate. A majority is 154. So how do the 101 Liberal MPs in the House vote? Does a new Liberal leader whip them? Will it be a free vote for the Libs? If it is free vote, Liberals will vote either way but I see a maximum of about 30 Liberals voting with the Tories on this one.

So — final score on this one, if everyone shows up: Yays: 140. Nays: 168. End of SSM debate for this Parliament.

 

 

Tories circumvent Access to Information Laws: Citizen

Tim Naumetz has a report in today’s Ottawa Citizen which details a memo dug up by professional document digger Ken Rubin that indicates that Treasury Board President John Baird agreed to set up a separate computer system in his office to hide contracts, memos and other documents from from Access-to-Information requests. Naumetz reports that the system was set up by the Liberals and Baird chose to keep it:

Access denied: Confidential computer dodges info laws  

A government briefing note to Treasury Board President John Baird discloses the existence of a confidential computer system designed to keep ministerial documents, including contracts, from the public.

The memorandum sent to Mr. Baird soon after the Conservative government took office last February advised him that even though the Tories promised to make cabinet ministers subject to the Access to Information Act, a “segregated” Internet server could be established to ensure his documents could not be obtained under the act.

An aide to Mr. Baird said the system was established at Treasury Board in 2004 under the former Liberal government of Paul Martin …. The memo warns if a minister or their staff give control of their records to a government institution, the records become subject to public access under the information law. Government officials took the position ministerial documents were not covered by the act.

… The memo noted the Conservative government had promised to incorporate recommendations from former information commissioner John Reid — including expansion of the Information Act to cover ministerial documents — in its new government accountability act. But the Conservatives postponed those amendments to the access law …

[Read the full story]

Strahl to the Wheat Board: Shut up, already!

One of the things “Canada's New Government” wants to do is to change the way Canadian farmers market their products. That will include the relatively controversial initiative of breaking the monopoly that the Canadian Wheat Board has when it comes to marketing Canadian wheat and barley. Apparently, the Wheat Board has been telling people it doesn't think much of the idea from “Canada's New Government.”
So yesterday, Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl told the Wheat Board that “Canada's New Government” doesn't want to hear it anymore …

“Canada’s New Government wants to provide greater freedom of marketing choice for Western Canadian grain farmers, allow them to maximize their returns, and preserve a strong, voluntary and viable CWB.
The CWB reports to Parliament through me, and should not be attempting to undermine this government’s policy objectives. . . .

The Wheat Board's Chairman — who runs a farm near Kindersley, Saskatchewan — Ken Ritter says — oh yeah?:

“As an organization, we are fully aware of the extensive debate surrounding the future of the CWB. We believe that it is critical that farmers have the benefit of a free and open debate. Any restrictions which stifle this debate will not do it justice.
Our position has always been that farmers, through the plebiscite called for under the CWB Act, must vote on any changes to the mandate of the organization. The CWB works on behalf of the farmers of Western Canada, and it is the farmers of Western Canada who should decide its future.”

Technorati Tags: , ,

Liberals: Watch out for "ominous weasel words" in Harper Green plan

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in Vancouver today that next week he’ll announced what’s in his governnment’s Clean Air Act.

There were few details in today’s speech. But, in a question period with reporters after the speech, Harper said his government would introduce emission reduction targets based on energy intensity — a fancy phrase which refers to the amount of energy consumed per unit of economic output. The Kyoto Protocol – an international treaty to which Canada is a signatory — says nothing about emission targets based on “energy intensity” targets. Kyoto calls for absolute reductions.

“We will produce intensity targets over the short, medium, and long-term, and they will cover a range of emissions” Harper said in response to a question from a reporter.

“The only specifics we heard was “intensity targets”,” said John Bennett, the executive director of the Canada Climate Action Network, at a press conference in Ottawa. “And that means we've abandoned the Kyoto protocol. Because the Kyoto Protocol requires us to reduce emissions absolutely, to bring our emissions below 1990 levels. We can't do that if we only slightly improve on the ratio of emissions to our economic output. It just means we destroy the planet a little slower.

In other words, in a world where targets are keyed to energy intensity, a car manufacturer could become more energy efficient by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced in the making of one car by, say, 10 per cent. But if that manufacturer increased the number of units produced by 10 per cent, then the absolute amount of greenhouse gases have not been reduced even though the individual manufacturer is more efficient. If the number of units rises over time by, say, 40 per cent, then greenhouse gas emissions have actually risen. Again: Kyoto says overall greenhouse gas emissions must fall, no matter how many cars you produce.

“Now the one thing that the Prime Minister did say was that the new system would be based on intensity — on intensity-based targets. This gurantees that emissions will  continue to rise. This is not what we need,” said Dale Marshall of the Suzuki Foundation.

Liberal environment critic John Godfrey said Harper’s move to energy-intensity targets is shocking: “… those ominous weasel words — energy-intensive targets which doesn't mean you are going to absolutely reduce the amount of greenhouse gases produced in this country, it means the rate of emission growth will slow but that will not solve our problem.”

Bennett said that while last year's Liberal government deserved criticism, at least it recognized climate change was a problem and wanted to do something about it. The Harper government, today, appeared to reject climate change as the most significant global environmental problem.

“We've taken a giant step backwards. A year ago, we had a government that at least conceded that climate change was a critical problem and we needed action. Now we have a government that has actually rejected climate change as a problem,” Bennett said.

The Sierra Club’s Stephen Hazell said Harper’s Green Plan was deeply disappointing:  “The Prime Minister's main announcement was that there would be a Clean Air Act introduced in the House of Commons. The Clean Air Act is a Hot Air Act.”

Harper also tried to sell his plan as a “Made-in-Canada” plan. He’s trying to contrast his plan with the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to which Canada is a signatory.

Here’s what Harper said about his plan: “It’s a serious, Made-In-Canada plan that will deliver real results, over the long term.
Liberal environment critic John Godfrey says this is not a made-in-Canada plan, it’s a Made-in-the USA plan:  “Intensity-based targets still allow Canada to put out more greenhouse gases. What we need are absolute targets, not ones based on energy intensity. Those are words that are used by George Bush and the Republicans to describe what they want.”