Liberal Party of Canada co-operates with Conservative government to destroy Canadian environmental protections.

Although I'm not adding to the topic...

The NDP need to be front and center on a lot of issues currently being presented to Canadians. In fact we have no party that champions the issues of the people, they are all pandering to business.

A little play on the headline:

Liberal Party of Canada co-operates with Conservative government to destroy Canadian _____________.

Fill in the blank, it pretty much applies to all the goings on at the Fed level.

Augustus wrote:

remind, your thread title bears no resemblance to the title of the article.

It is rather inflammatory, to say the least.

Inflammatory, but not inaccurate. Just what did you think a giant oil spill in the Arctic would look like? Perhaps worse than the Gulf of Mexico considering that the manpower and equipment for dealing with a spill would have to come from thousands of kilometers away. These legislative changes make that more likely.

If the Liberals vote against this omnibus bill the government will likely fall and an election will ensue. The Liberals don't seem to want an election, so they likely won't vote down the bill. Canada should have a parliamentary system where MP's can vote their conscience without fear of causing an unwanted election. The last 4 years where opposition MP's have continuously voted for policies they don't believe in just to avoid an election  has been a low point in Canadian democracy.

Would Canadians think that the omnibus bill was worth having another election over?  If an election was called over this bill, the opposition parties could run on a pro-environment plank. They could also run against the anti-democratic nature of the bill.

If the Liberals vote against the government, they should learn from last year's fiasco. They should not give prior notice that they are voting against the bill so as to avoid a massive Conservative ad campaign. They should also make sure the NDP and Bloc are onside.

Maybe Chretien and Broadbent are discussing this?

JKR wrote:

If the Liberals vote against this omnibus bill the government will likely fall and an election will ensue. The Liberals don't seem to want an election, so they likely won't vote down the bill. Canada should have a parliamentary system where MP's can vote their conscience without fear of causing an unwanted election. The last 4 years where opposition MP's have continuously voted for policies they don't believe in just to avoid an election  has been a low point in Canadian democracy.

JKR, please stop this.  It's not "opposition MPs" doing so.  It's "Liberal MPs".  Period.  Full stop.

Augustus wrote:

remind, your thread title bears no resemblance to the title of the article.

It is rather inflammatory, to say the least.

The truth is often inflamatory.

There is no policy on babble (nor should there be) that says that we are bound to use the same headlines as the newspapers do.

ottawaobserver wrote:

JKR, please stop this.  It's not "opposition MPs" doing so.  It's "Liberal MPs".  Period.  Full stop.

Last year when the Liberals voted against the government the NDP quickly replaced the Liberals and voted with the government to avoid an election. All the talk of always opposing the Conservatives quickly melted away when all the NDP was the only party that could prevent an election. It's easy to vote against the government knowing the Liberals will vote with the government in order to avoid an election.

The opposition should vote against the omnibus bill and let the chips fall where they may. It would be the ethical thing to do.

ottawaobserver wrote:

There is an opposition party that's actually introduced amendments to sever the omnibus bill today.  You'll never guess which one.

 The Liberals also appear to be working to gut C-9.

Liberals take aim at ‘dumpster’ legislation

Quote:

Rebellious Liberal senators are threatening to carve large swaths out of an omnibus Conservative budget bill, excising everything from plans to sell off Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to breaking Canada Post’s monopoly on overseas mail.

“The Senate has very strong views because that’s where sober second thought comes in,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday. “I can tell you, Liberal senators are steaming for very good reason. This is a terrible way to do legislation and we said so last year, we said so this year.”

Bill C-9 is a confidence matter that could bring down the government if it is defeated. For that reason, the Conservative government has stacked it with measures that the opposition is unlikely to support – none of the political parties wants to go to the polls at this juncture.

The decision to lump all of these policies is an “abuse of power” on the part of the government, Mr. Ignatieff said. “But the issue is whether you trigger an election,” he said.

The Senate, however, could hive off the items that are not budget matters without risking an election. While the decision to do that has not been taken, there is strong sentiment running in that direction.

“We’ve done it before in my time with animal cruelty legislation,” said Joseph Day of New Brunswick when asked if the Senate could split up the 900-page bill. “The Senate will do what we are constitutionally required to do.”

The Liberal Senators have an ally in Progressive Conservative Senator Lowell Murray, who has said “no self-respecting or Parliament-respecting MP or senator should allow C-9 to go through as it is.”

Fidel wrote:

Both old line parties possess extraordinary disdain for the environment as much as they loathe ordinary human beings and living things in general.

Maybe they`ll merge and form the Party of Satan.

JKR, nowhere in that exerpt does it say that the Liberals in the Commons will move or vote for amendments in sufficient numbers FOR THEM TO PASS.  I've read some other coverage today quoting them saying they still won't prevent the budget bill from passing, and in fact they snuck an MP out the back door of committee the other day, so that Linda Duncan's motion to sever the environmental assessment provisions could not pass.

They always make sound and fury.  And then they always cave.  ALWAYS.

The Toronto Star has an advancer on Layton's speech Saturday outlining the NDP's budget strategy.

NDP to Oppose Budget Bill
Layton says omnibus legislation waters down environmental assessment requirements

Quote:

Jack Layton says he is calling Prime Minister Stephen Harper's bluff over the controversial omnibus budget bill that calls for the sale of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd. and the watering down of federal environmental assessment requirements.

The NDP leader is to tell a party gathering in Toronto on Saturday that the NDP caucus will no longer be "bullied" by a Conservative government that believes the threat of a federal election will hold the opposition parties at bay.

The NDP will oppose the bill, Layton told the Star Thursday.

"I think that it is time for us to take a firm position," Layton said. "To propose that we eliminate environmental assessments for major energy projects with what we're seeing going on in the Gulf (of Mexico) is madness."

Buried deep within budget Bill C-9 is legislation that would sell off Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., take away Canada Post's monopoly on overseas mail and give the environment minister unilateral power to waive an environmental assessment under certain circumstances.

...

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has already said his party will not defeat Bill C-9 when the vote comes up as early as next week, no matter how unpalatable the legislation.

Unless the Liberals have a change of heart, the bill will almost certainly pass. Liberal MPs will rely on Liberal senators to divest the budget bill of unpalatable measures.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said earlier this week there is nothing unusual about throwing other related matters into a budget bill.

"It is common practice to include various measures in a budget implementation bill.  The previous Liberal government included various measures in its bills.  For example, in 2005, the Liberal budget implementation bill . . . had 24 parts and amendment dozens and dozens of different pieces of varied legislation," he told reporters.

Liberal House leader Ralph Goodale is resigned to the bill passing. Other than a few procedural tricks, he said the Liberal strategy is to have Canadians recognize the "constant abuses of the process" by the minority Conservative government.

"We have to develop a large degree of public understanding and public consensus about the pattern of this government to resort to these kinds of abuses of procedural tactics. As Mackenzie King said, 'You can't solve a problem until people know there is one,' so we have to accumulate the evidence and develop the case."

The bolded parts are for JKR's benefit.  That party is being run by a bunch of cowards and right-wing retards.  No wonder Harper keeps trying to get away with more and more bs.

If wishes were drams. If pigs could fly.

If you are going to continue dodging to talking about "the opposition parties" in general, then you have to make the practical acknowledgement that the Liberals are a bottleneck. And the topic here is the behavious of the keepers of that bottleneck.

And it is not only a question of not wanting an election no matter what. Questionable that, but if only it was just that.

How JKR do you explain the Liberals actually sabotaging the splitting off in Committee of the parts of the bill about environmental regulations? How was splitting it off going to cause an election?

And now, the bill can be broken up in the Senate. And thats not a confidence vote. And the Liberals have the votes to do it. Goodale has already prpared the ground for that not happening.

JKR wrote:

I think that the voters would likely turn against the Conservatives once they find out how this omnibus bill hurts the environment and attacks democracy.

I don't think the Liberals support this legislation. They are voting with the government to avoid an election that they feel would produce a Conservative majority.  Their thinking seems to be that if the Conservatives win a majority they'll have even more freedom to downplay the environment and subjugate democracy.

That's it?

You've been building up to this decisive identification. When it comes down in the final analysis to choose, its the Liberals no matter what. And one of your roles here- not saying its the only one- is to offer up [weak] rationalizations to buttress that choice.

"I really do wish they were better. I know they can be. After _______ ...."

You never actually say "As the primary vehicle for political aspiration, Im sticking with the Liberals." You just consistently provide the fall back rationalizations for that.

KenS wrote:

How JKR do you explain the Liberals actually sabotaging the splitting off in Committee of the parts of the bill about environmental regulations? How was splitting it off going to cause an election?

And now, the bill can be broken up in the Senate. And thats not a confidence vote. And the Liberals have the votes to do it. Goodale has already prpared the ground for that not happening.

If the Liberals stifle major Conservative government measures, the Conservatives will be able to call an election on the grounds that the Liberals have stalled the government's business.

That's what Harper did a year and a half ago.

KenS wrote:

That's it?

You've been building up to this decisive identification. When it comes down in the final analysis to choose, its the Liberals no matter what. And one of your roles here- not saying its the only one- is to offer up [weak] rationalizations to buttress that choice.

"I really do wish they were better. I know they can be. After _______ ...."

You never actually say "As the primary vehicle for political aspiration, Im sticking with the Liberals." You just consistently provide the fall back rationalizations for that.

I'm not sticking with any particular party. I think that this reprehensible bill should be voted down. And if that means an election, so be it. And if the Conservatives gain a majority because of it, once again, so be it. It's best to stick with your principles and let the chips fall where they may.

The Liberals are being cowards for not voting with their conscience. Their fear of a Conservative majority has  paralyzed them for 4 years. But even though I disagree with it, I can understand the Liberal's argument that a Conservative minority is so much better then a Conservative majority, that it's worth selling your soul for.  Cowardly, yes, but understandable.

What's important to understand is that politics doesn't have to be this way. MP's in the House of Commons shouldn't have to vote strategically against their consciences to avoid unwanted elections. But the rules of the game have caused this. Just as FPTP causes strategic voting among the electorate, confidence rules cause MP's to vote strategically within Parliament.

The solution to these twin problems is the structural change of our political system that was built over a hundred years ago for a two-party democracy. Electoral reform and removing confidence measures are required now that we have a multi-party democracy. In a true democracy, the House of Commons would only be dissolved when the House of Commons passes a measure for its own dissolution. Allowing the Prime Minister to hold the House of Commons hostage to the threat of unwanted elections is undemocratic.

It doesn't matter one whit if they're against it, BUT ALLOW IT TO PASS.

The Liberals have had 4 years now to get ready for an election. Not being ready for an election and leaving Harper in a minority government you're NEVER prepared to vote against is NO DIFFERENT than letting him have a majority. A majority government lasts 4 years too.

They are not up to the job. Period. Full stop.

I think the Conservatives have growing negatives, and that their current lead in the polls is based on the public's perception of Ignatieff's weakness. I think there is decent ground for a campaign here, and if it accomplished nothing more than relegating the Liberals to the rump of Parliament, at least the new alignment would have the potential to shake up political dynamics in this country. Layton would have more room for growth as opposition leader than Iggy, if we can pass the Liberals in the next campaign, and would do 100 times better of a job at it.

Well well well..again the Liberals show they have NO INTEGRITY whatsoever..just a craving for power only.

There desperation is truly showing now that they are discussing a merger with the NDP. The NDP should say NO and should take a stand on the environment like they are doing.

It's just a matter of time ..less than 20 years to go before the dinosaurs that run and support the right have kicked the bucket. This last ditch effort from the right to get there foot in the door is just that. If people can't see or sense the desperation like I do, I really don't care.

Funny how the Liberals were mostly responsible for many environmental initiatives and laws but see the popularity of the conservative geezer club and are quite willing to throw all and everything they ever stood for out the window.

That is there poor leadership in action. Remember the speechs from the leadership race that Stephan Dion eventually won. I do, and one of the things that stood out was Iggy's insatiable appetite to please US intrests when it came to Canada's water and the environment. That would mean scraping plenty of regulations.

So just maybe the Libs aren't trying to prevent an election but rather actually believe that environmental rules are inded cumbersome for there twisted goals which are just like the conservatives ..to serve the US and corporate interests before Canada.

Either way they lose ..they are damned if they do or damned if they don't. Unless they actrually come up with a leader that Canadians have a sense they can trust ...like Justin T.or Ralph G. they are history.

Like I say the " The NDP Can and Will Win" ...it'll just take some time. Now < 20 years and ticking.

KenS wrote:

The main point has already been covered: it doesnt matter a whit what Liberals personally support, or like, or whatever. Its what they do.

But as to the secondary point- that you are a member of the NDP. Interesting.

And before I heard that, I already thought there was some kind of mystery as to why you go to such lengths to make excuses for the Liberals.

The Liberals actions will speak for themselves. If the Liberals don't attempt to break up the bill, their purported anti omnibus bill position will be exposed as a lie.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

ottawaobserver wrote:

But Layton has a really good point about the G8/G20.  Harper won't let the government fall before that (and probably not before the Queen's visit in June either).

Harper might also not like holding an election during the startup of the HST. The opposition could campaign against the Harper Sales Tax.

There is an even more crass reason than fear to the Liberals complete cave-in. And the word 'complete' is important. Because there is the option of deciding you wont take risks of triggering an election, but will do everything you can short of that.

We saw this in 2006 before the Liberal leadership race [and possibly at occassios during Dion's tenure that I cant remember at the moment]: when the Liberals decide making an issue of something isnt in their strategic interest; then no matter how crass and/or lame that calculation may have been, by god they are going to prosdurally undermine anyone else in the opposition making an issue of it.

So in this case it goes like this: "we've decided that given that we're going to let this omnibus bugger through, the best way out of this the quickest way: get it done quickly, while highlighting how evil Stephen Harper is. Breaking pieces off the bill in Committee does not fit our plan, and we can't let the NDP have a bully pulpit."

Iggy is really proving himself to be a jerk. Here he has a great opportunity to stand up to Harper and make a statement, fully aware that Harper will back down because of the impending G8/G20 meets, but instead, Iggy folds like a cheap suit. Why the Libs have kept this idiot as their leader as long as they have, escapes me. At least Iggy makes the NDP look good.

I do have a bone to pick with the comment that this is a coalition government with the Liberals.

A coalition implies some accountability and compromise and it implies the support of a majority of the MPs in the House based on their conscious choice.

This is not in any way a coalition.

This is something much worse.

When you have a dysfunctional party that does not do its job, does not vote for what its supporters want or even what it itself believes in, that is paralyzed by fear, that has no negotiating position in parliament you have something else.

This is much more like a parliamentary boycott, a refusal to work an abdication of the role of governance by a substantial number of MPs.

This is much worse than an agreement by a majority of MPs that we disagree with. You can lose an election and then accept that the majority of MPs of parties you do not support will then govern. This is a substantial number of MPs who campaign for one thing, believe something slightly different but then effectively allow something completely different than anything they or their supporters believe in as they provide a blank cheque to a government of a minority. They are not finding agreement with the Cons they are not participating in the business of the nation.

This is so much worse than a governing majority of Liberals and Conservatives. This is a party that has fundamentally placed itself as an obstacle to democracy. This is effectively a removal of responsible government, the giving up by an opposition party on the basic principles of democracy. A party so fearful of an election loss that it is not participating in governance, is placing its MPs salaries ahead of every single national consideration.

The Liberal party are stealing their salaries from the Canadian people in the same way a worker does when they go to work and play video games all day instead of doing the work they are paid to do-- except here the stakes are higher.

Really the campaign should be about this. The Liberals should be defeated-- it would in fact be better to elect a broader range of people who believe in Harper's agenda and will give majority support for it than to elect such a large number of people that will play hooky with parliament. The Liberals because of what they claim to be but are not are fundamentally in the way of any democratic progress.

I accept that once in a while in exchange for some legislative advantage, such as that the NDP gained last year on EI, that an opposition party may allow the government to pass something. However it is the ongoing decision of the Liberals to succumb to whatever the Cons propose not for anything at all for their supporters or the people of Canada, but merely to preserve their own salaries. Seen properly, this is a scandal so much worse than the sponsorship scandal and a sellout so much worse than an election loss or a majority of those you disagree with. Please for the sake of clarity people, do not call this a coalition.

Another point: if Canadians realized that the Cons could not work with anyone and not provide a sustainable government, eventually the Cons would lose seats. Several elections close together-- even losses for the opposition would in the end lead to the defeat of the Cons or the forcing of them to respect a majority of the House. People would not continue to elect a Con minority that could not negotiate an agenda that would pass. Either the Cons would get a majority and then likely lose the following election or they would lose their minority. Governments that cannot obtain confidence time in and time out do not get re-elected. People would lose patience with a party that does not negotiate with the House or recognize that it does not have a majority. It is this gutlessness of the Liberals that is in fact doing more damage to democracy than anything the Harper government can do. It is time people recognized this

(edited to add last paragraph)