Conservative senators kill climate change bill

Snap vote in the Senate abolishes bill passed by House of Commons


 

Conservative party senators have abruptly killed a climate change bill originally introduced by the NDP and passed by the House of Commons. The Tory senators profited from the absence of 15 Liberal senators to call a snap vote on Bill C-311, also known as the Climate Change Accountability Act, which was then defeated by a vote of 43 to 32. The bill in question called for greenhouse gas emissions to be cut to 25 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. “This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada,” NDP Leader Jack Layton said at a press conference Wednesday morning. “To take power that doesn’t rightfully belong to them to kill a bill that has been adopted by a majority of the House of Commons representing a majority of Canadians is as wrong as it gets when it comes to democracy in this country.”

The Globe and Mail


 
Filed under:

Conservative senators kill climate change bill

  1. Reform you cannot count on

  2. Reform you cannot count on

  3. Why is it whenever I look at a story like this, a CAPP (Can. Assoc. Of Petroleum Producers) ad – usually with an earnest, attractive, environmental scientist starring at me – appears in the right margin of the Maclean's website?

  4. Why is it whenever I look at a story like this, a CAPP (Can. Assoc. Of Petroleum Producers) ad – usually with an earnest, attractive, environmental scientist starring at me – appears in the right margin of the Maclean's website?

  5. Welcome to Harperland; The death of democracy in Canada.

  6. Welcome to Harperland; The death of democracy in Canada.

  7. Every time I think Harper and co. aren't really Conservatives, I get a treat like Prentice quitting and Senate killing this bill.

    Sweet.

    Unlike leftists, I intend to put my money where my mouth is. The Tories can expect a humble cheque in the mail from an ordinary citizen that is from the "right-of-centre".

  8. Every time I think Harper and co. aren't really Conservatives, I get a treat like Prentice quitting and Senate killing this bill.

    Sweet.

    Unlike leftists, I intend to put my money where my mouth is. The Tories can expect a humble cheque in the mail from an ordinary citizen that is from the "right-of-centre".

    • Right. Harper laughs at people like yourself. So, You better hope you'll be able to retire on your pension. Or intend to retire. And watch your pension disappear. Or lose your job. So you can then work a much touted Harper MacJob. Because Harper will never send you a cheque. He'll just tell you it your problem "ordinary citizen". Remember Harper has never held down a job in the private sector. So to him you truly are an "ordinary citizen."

      • It's great to see — finally — that the public is beginning to realize what a snake oil sales job they've had shoved down their throats. PM Lumpy governs with the assumption that he can rule via the "stupid white man vote" (demographically speaking, not racially — I am white white with a healthy tan still hanging on from warmer days for the record).

        Some examples. Cutting the GST 2%. Every economist screamed bloody murder, every stupid white man said "yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy, now my Tim Hortons double-double is cheaper!" (forget about that $50 billion a year deficit — our kids can pay it later!). "Getting tough on crime". Even judges overwhelmingly say this is a horrible idea. But our ever gullible stupid white posse of male fury applauded the move (despite crime dropping year over year for the past 40+ years).

        I'm so tired of this clown running our country into the ground. I AM THE RIGHT OF CENTRE — fiscially. Take your social conservatism and shove it where the sun don't shine if you can't run this country economically. These conservatives should be embarrassed by the fact that the Liberals are clearly, CLEARLY the only authority on fiscal prudence over the past 20 years. Mulroney ran up the bills, and PM Lumpy's Machiavellian horde have actually been worse — at least Mulroney gave us NAFTA, all these clowns have given us is the political equivalent of bed bugs and herpes… hell bed bugs WITH herpes for that matter.

        Cretien's gang remain the only group that truly took care of business, and were the reason we didn't get our collective arses handed to us in the last election. Rant over, time for work.

        • I know, eh!?!

          For leftists, the Liberals slashed spending and balanced the budget. As for the Cons, anyone remember Stephen Harper during the 2008 debate gulping down a drink of water and muttering "There will be no recession"?

          That was before the recession hit, and we were already $15 billion in the hole. What a joke!

          I'm all for social programs, but only if we can afford them. A fiscally responsible government wins out any day, not ones that pay lip service to it.

        • Bed Bugs are annoying and should all be killed. – Ramon

  9. Hello. It is with great disappointment that I read of this behaviour on the part of the Conservative Party of Canada’s Senators. I completely agree with Jack Layton’s comments in the published article.

    As the effects of climate change continue to become more and more obvious – even as these Senators and others continue to deny its very reality – I sincerely hope that the electorate and the Citizens of Canada will remember this day when this utterly undemocratic and outrageous behaviour was committed by the “regressive” Conservative Party of Canada’s “Honourable” Members of the Upper Chamber.

    Denying the overwhelming scientific evidence, as well as, the fact that virtually everyone agrees that the weather has changed considerably in a relatively short period of time, will not dismiss or make the problem of climate change go away!

    WE MUST HAVE AN ELECTION AND REMOVE AS MANY OF THE HARPER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AS POSSIBLE SOONER THAN LATER! It is the only way by which to democratically make progress on this ALL IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUE!

    WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND BEFORE WE LOSE THE ABILITY TO DO SO! THE ALTERNATIVE IS A “RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT” that we will not be to curtail or modify sufficiently to prevent ecological catastrophe and make the EARTH UNINHABITABLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND VERY UNPLEASANT FOR OURSELVES!

    At the MINIMUM, the impacts on our economies will be profound and will potentially make the recent and current economic problems seem trivial by comparison.

    THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS SHAM VOTE.

    Sincerely, PHNATUREBEAR.

  10. Hello. It is with great disappointment that I read of this behaviour on the part of the Conservative Party of Canada’s Senators. I completely agree with Jack Layton’s comments in the published article.

    As the effects of climate change continue to become more and more obvious – even as these Senators and others continue to deny its very reality – I sincerely hope that the electorate and the Citizens of Canada will remember this day when this utterly undemocratic and outrageous behaviour was committed by the “regressive” Conservative Party of Canada’s “Honourable” Members of the Upper Chamber.

    Denying the overwhelming scientific evidence, as well as, the fact that virtually everyone agrees that the weather has changed considerably in a relatively short period of time, will not dismiss or make the problem of climate change go away!

    WE MUST HAVE AN ELECTION AND REMOVE AS MANY OF THE HARPER MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AS POSSIBLE SOONER THAN LATER! It is the only way by which to democratically make progress on this ALL IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUE!

    WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME TO TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND BEFORE WE LOSE THE ABILITY TO DO SO! THE ALTERNATIVE IS A “RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT” that we will not be to curtail or modify sufficiently to prevent ecological catastrophe and make the EARTH UNINHABITABLE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND VERY UNPLEASANT FOR OURSELVES!

    At the MINIMUM, the impacts on our economies will be profound and will potentially make the recent and current economic problems seem trivial by comparison.

    THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS SHAM VOTE.

    Sincerely, PHNATUREBEAR.

    • PHNATUREBEAR, with the spewing of so much hot air, who wouldn't be afraid of what's to come……? :)

    • PHNATUREBEAR , The overwhelming scientific evidence that you speak of just does not exist. Period. All of the scientific evidence of catastophic global warming has been shown to be based on faulty science, speculative computer models, or even outright fraud. So calm down, stop yelling, and read what is really going on in climate science. You might start with http://www.wattsupwiththat.com. I am sure that you will be overjoyed to learn that the situation really isn't at all like what the alarmists make it out to be.

      • With all due respect Bill T,

        You might as well consider starting with http://www.skepticalscience.com

        Anthony Watts and his gang are rarely supported by scientific evidence. In fact do you recall Tamino and others completely and utterly debunking Watts and Co here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to
        here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
        here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-wa
        here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-
        and debunking his crony Steven Goddard
        here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-One-Why-do-g
        and here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Respon

        Why don't you put up or shut your trap. We who are actually in the field know how wrong Watts and Co.
        Don't lead more people down the path to disinformation.

        • Don't worry Robert with the Republican control of Congress the climate alarmists will be getting a chance to prove under oath their theory.

          Any chance a large number of alarmists will be looking for another Ponzi scheme?

        • Robert, An abusive tone won't win many converts to your cause.

          People could start with Skeptical Science or Tamino's blog if they want to. However, I would point out that there are good reasons why Anthony Watts' blog is the most popular climate science site on the internet and has more traffic than all of the alarmist blogs combined. Think about it.

          As for your assertion that his site is rarely supported by scientific evidence, that's just plain wrong.

          • Bill, can you provide some evidence to support your claim that scientific evidence refutes climate change?

          • Actually the onus is on alarmists to show that scientific evidence supports their claims. Computer models are not scientific evidence. Good luck with that.

          • More stuff that isn't from models:

            "…Melting ice is by no means the only sign that the earth is warming. Thermometers on land, in the sea and aboard satellites show warming. Heat waves, flash floods and other extreme weather events are increasing. Plants are blooming earlier, coral reefs are dying and many other changes are afoot that most climate scientists attribute to global warming…"
            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/1

          • No they havent. You clearly believe anything a so-called scientist says just because of their authority as a scientist. That's fine, but dont go then and try and participate in discussion with people who actually understand the science. Now go protest harper or something and let the adults talk…

          • So you are saying that scientists do not understand the science but non-scientists do understand the science? How stupid of you.

          • Bruce, I did not say that the scientific evidence refutes climate change. The climate has always been changing.

            What I was talking about was Catastrophic Global Warming. There is no scientific evidence for this that stands up to any kind of reasonable scrutiny.

            But don't take my word for it. Look into it yourself.

            Catastrophic Global Warming is based on the theory that the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause runaway temperature rise. When it became obvious that the temperature stopped supporting the theory by remaining almost constant for the last ten or twelve years, the alarmists changed the name of their campaign from Global Warming to Climate Change. This fact alone should be enough to alert people to the fact that we are dealing with something other than science here.

            Here is a link to an article with graphs to support my assertion that the global temperature anomaly has remained relative constant for the last decade:
            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/rss-global-

          • "There is no scientific evidence for this that stands up to any kind of reasonable scrutiny. "

            That is a lie. You are lying to yourself. Go and see what the real scientists are talking about, not fakes like WUWT:
            http://www.realclimate.org/

          • Oh, come on now Holly. Put your evidence where your mouth is. Please post a link to one piece of scientific evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming that has not been refuted.
            Please note: Theories are not evidence. Computer models are not evidence. Only hard data that has been made available for critique, according to standard scientific practice, is acceptable.

          • Evidence that you are too stupid and dishonest to bother having a discussion with: I posted several links above with real evidence of real changes happening on earth now and you were too lazy to go and read them. You are also too lazy to read realclimate, which discusses all the hard evidence you want, if you were not too stupid to understand it.

            Anothery lying Conservative living in fairyland.

          • I ask for one piece of unrefuted evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming and I get an ad hominen attack thrown in as a bonus. I assume that you think this makes your argument more convincing?

            Your links above refer to sea level rise. The sea level is rising. It has been since at least the end of the last ice age. In the last decade it has been rising at a rate of about 3.1 mm per year, and that rate has actually been slowing since 2006. Hardly catastrophic. Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-

            The New York Times article that you link to as scientific evidence just doesn't cut it. It is great for scaring people, but is not real science. I asked for data and I got speculation and a reporter's opinion. If that's the best you can do I have nothing more to say.

          • Again you were too lazy to look at the links I posted above. They show that the rate of sea level is rising, not slowing as you falsely state. But you stupidly prefer to believe a weatherman at WUWT than a real oceanographer.
            http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-cli

            And of course uyou are still too lazy to go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and find out what the real climate scientists are studying, instead of the unscientific crap blogged by your oil company funded rightwing liars.

          • It's too bad Bill that the only evidence you will accept of Catastrophic Global Warming is it happening. And by then it's not a theory, it's happened.

            It's like driving down the wrong side of the road, saying "I'm not going to get in an accident" and only accepting that "theory" when you finally smash into someone. How do you propose we take the information we know, like that the earth is getting warmer by several degrees already since the 1950's and CO2 and Methane are increasing in volume at a steady rate… Perhaps we should just wait and see?

            I guess we should just get in our SUV's and turn on the AC and ignore it.

        • Robert, do be careful about admitting you "are actually in this field". It is really no longer considered respectable work.

          • Only by ignorant rightwingers.

    • Phnaturebear…your post so eloquently illustrates the "sky is falling" mentality of the ardent AGW believer.

      Send some money to Al Gore…you'll feel better.

      • Funny, because earlier I was speaking with a Conservative who was sending money to his party to make himself feel better.

        Never heard of any Canadians on this website doing the same for Al Gore though. You would think a Canadian might do something like send money to the Green, Libs or NDP.

        You know, you don't have to always equate climate change with one person. Climate change awareness didn't start with Al Gore, it started with a very popular Conservative politician. Do you know who that is?

    • PHNATUREBEAR, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read your comment. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

      • Alarmists are very emotional. This CAGW has become their new religious doctrine. If you challenge them they get abusive.

        • That is because we hate liars and fools.

          • oh dear, Holly, you too.

          • Oh, and me!

            I sit next to a climate change skeptic at work. He also believes that the shape shifting reptile and the plebians are fighting for control of the earth. All this stuff is on the same websites.

            9/11 was an inside job, not total incompetence. The New World Order controls everything, the banks (or the communists, depending on what decade you're reading the literature from) control everything. The Illuminati control everything… With all these shadow groups controlling everything, you'd think they could get something done!

            Dig a little deeper folks, and try to find out who's giving you this information and think about (rationally, please) what they have to gain.

    • It is with terrible shock & dismay I read this article demonstrating the complete lack of integrity on control freak Haper & his buddies..It is further proof to me that we must abolish the senate as soon as possible…Don Bater,Rouleau,Sask.

  11. PHNATUREBEAR, with the spewing of so much hot air, who wouldn't be afraid of what's to come……? :)

  12. The scary thing is not that the climate change bill was not passed, but that a body of unelected representatives killed a bill that a majority of elected representatives approved, without even a second reading which they are supposed to do. What era do we think we're living in? Back to the days when the House of Lords appointed by the Queen of England oversaw the colony of Canada?!?

  13. The scary thing is not that the climate change bill was not passed, but that a body of unelected representatives killed a bill that a majority of elected representatives approved, without even a second reading which they are supposed to do. What era do we think we're living in? Back to the days when the House of Lords appointed by the Queen of England oversaw the colony of Canada?!?

    • KC Tan, you get it. It's not just what bill was killed. It was how it was done, by whom and the fact that the last time this happened was back in 1938.

      Democracy is for well meaning people. People of integrity. Then a Harper comes along. A political sociopath without any principles and abuses our democracy. Harper will be remembered by historians as a thug.

      • As I see it, those who are present are doing their job as intended. You should question instead those who are not on their jobs while being paid. Have you heard Harper telling those 15 liberal senators to be absent? As for your history, actually this kind of absences for the purpose of defeating a bill has been happening quite often in the house of commons and senate since way long before Harper came into office. I do believe though that senators should be elected, instead of appointed. We could unelect them if they refuse to do their job or if we do not like what they are doing. At this point, they actually have a job for life no matter their actions or inactions (or even long time absences and inactivity) maybe. As for impartiality of those who are appointed instead of elected, this kind of action just debunk that heresy.

        • Why is the absence of 15 liberals so important to you? There were 30 senators missing and the conservatives have majority in the senate, even if the liberals were present, the conservatives have the majority to kill the bill anyways. Before today, no bill passed by a parliamentary majority has ever been killed and done without even a second reading in the senate. The fact that you choose to focus on something as irrelevant as "15 liberals were missing" will only encourage the conservatives to do it again and again, and again….. why bother having the house common if the Senate can kill any bill they want an no one can say or do anything about it since they are not accountable to anyone. A very undemocratic reality to have such a powerful senate. Get rid of the senate, and get rid of Harper too.. elections now!

          • 15 senators missing is not a focus on irrelevance. To find that there are actually 30 missing senators in one setting is jaw dropping. Why the heck do we have them? So we could pay them, while many of us have no jobs, and most of us are having trouble making both ends meet? Probably your question should focus on why those many absences? Is passing and not passing a bill not that relevant anymore? Are they not suppose to be present to do their jobs as they are paid? How many bills in the past have been passed/rejected due to so many absences? That, is what makes it real scary.

          • Did you even bother reading my whole comment ? Didn't I just say that the best thing we could do is to get rid of the senate? You are the one defending the senate's actions by focusing on who was missing at the time of voting instead on the implications of what they voted. If you want to focus about money that is fine, but today was not about money. Today was about a fundamental shift on our democratic process, a process that the conservatives are slowly taking this country in where the elected parliament loses its power and a single party leader, in the office of the PM, overrules the will of people.

        • Listen get your head out of your ass and understand the facts. The Senate, on all sides is obliged to send the bill to debate and before committee. To be discussed and vetted. By both professionals, senators and Canadians, for those who are interested will understand the facts and in turn why it may have been passed or defeated with the final vote. This conservatives didn't have to, but in a minority government when the government is outvoted, it is their democratic duty to at least allow it towards debate…

          But the conservatives killed any debate on C-311, never mind waiting for the final vote…they didn't want to hear it, talk about it or even entertain the idea of open discussion.

          That's what this is all about…not about Liberal vs. Conservative and who wins….you're the sort of Canadian that dumbs down democratic imperative to a Don Cherry Rock'em and Sock'em mentality.

          • Cool down or you might break an artery! My answer to you is just as above.

    • Thanks for getting back to TFA, KC Tan ;)

      It's not like the Cons have done something illegal here, I mean. I'm a little upset but I know this is how our Parliament works. And I for one am in favor of an unelected senate. I don't however feel lifetime membership is a good idea.

      Uproar from the right on the usurping of democracy? Only if there's an agreement on the left.

      However, if we go back and look at the promises of senate reform Harper promised us, nothing has been done except to stack the senate to block bills. Business as usual. It's not like they need a second reading, since the the money comes from the oil patch, what's to read, eh?

  14. When Liberals or NDP cut corners and use sneaky way to push bills through parlament then it is OK, but when Conservatives do a trick then suddenly everyone is disturberd? What a hypocrite attitude…..
    Conservatived did a right thing, thay undercut a bill that threat an economical development in Canada.
    Cut "80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050" ? It sounds like shut down all economy ang goingh back to stone age….but hey, eco-nuts will be happy…even if all nation will starve.
    “This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada,” – yeah…frutcakes from NDP are outraged…. How about undemocratic impose of multiculturalism in Canada with our even asking anyone about opinion?
    Good job Conservatives ! We can't let LIberals&NDP to play ther social-fascist game.

  15. When Liberals or NDP cut corners and use sneaky way to push bills through parlament then it is OK, but when Conservatives do a trick then suddenly everyone is disturberd? What a hypocrite attitude…..
    Conservatived did a right thing, thay undercut a bill that threat an economical development in Canada.
    Cut "80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050" ? It sounds like shut down all economy ang goingh back to stone age….but hey, eco-nuts will be happy…even if all nation will starve.
    “This was one of the most undemocratic acts that we have ever seen in the Parliament of Canada,” – yeah…frutcakes from NDP are outraged…. How about undemocratic impose of multiculturalism in Canada with our even asking anyone about opinion?
    Good job Conservatives ! We can't let LIberals&NDP to play ther social-fascist game.

    • Before you become an ignorant cheerleader and scamper like a lemming over the edge into the river below. Do a little homework before you open your ignorant mouth. This not a hockey game. where if you are losing (Harper) you can beat the hell out of someone for the sake of beating the hell out of somebody. You still lose the game. This is a democracy. And what the Harper Reform PArty goons did with C-311 was yet another betray to the Canadian people.

      Do your homework.

      • I've done my homework, Fool, and I daresay a lot more than you have. This Bill was an absolute joke, introduced in 2006 when the "chicken littles" still held the sway of public opinion, but shockingly passed in May, even after the various disclosures of the last year, precipitated by Climategate.

        One has only to look at the aim of the Bill – absolute Cuts greenhouse gas emissions – 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 – to realize this would carry us back to the stone age economically speaking.

        Wish I could credit Harper with a brilliant move here, but it appears that the bill was defeated because of a procedural mistake on the part of the Liberals and not some clever orchestrated plan of Harpers.

        How appropriate that it should go down on the anniversary of Climategate!!!! Sweet irony that…..

        • So defeat then if it was a piece of crap — on the final vote — But that not this point. The HOC voted and asked that this bIll be discussed, debated and vetted. Until that is done all it is, is subjective calls. These bills are debated because they down into the parliament record for future generations. And why because professionals, experts and scientists are asked to participate in the debate. And provide valuable knowledge as to whether or the bill is worthy… that's how a democracy works…and I rather have due process as opposed to Harper's word on anything…

          It was not a procedural mistake you moron…it was that the conservatives should have voted to bring it before committee…this was not a motion for royal ascent…besides for 193 day your beloved goons ignored the bill…not a word as to why they believed it should be killed…

          It is beyond the pale how many Canadians talk sh#t about something they know nothing about, only because Harper wants it that way….move to Russia you'll fit in just fine.

          • Perhaps I was wrong about it being a procedural mistake (you'll note I said "it appears that"). But I would expect better from self-appointed experts in procedural matters than to stoop to crass insults in correcting me.

            " It is beyond the pale how many Canadians talk sh#t about something they know nothing about, only because Harper wants it that way….move to Russia you'll fit in just fine".

            What on earth are you talking about here? What are you trying to imply I (or "many Canadians") know nothing about?

            Procedural issues? Nahhh – not the point!

            Climate Change? Don't think so – please don't tell me you actually still think this Bill deserves to be debated on it's merits – if so you obviously can't take your head out the sand to follow what's going on in the real world

            Seems to me you have a hate on for Harper and you're really pissed because you lost. It's OK, really. That's the way of the word, Fool – you win some, you lose some. And private members bills, from what I gather, lose a lot.

            Most of us sh*t-talking Canadians are just thankful you lost this one, and, I might add , are rubbing our hands in glee.. lol

            Oh, and Fool, may I say what an appropriate moniker you have adopted, given what an ass of yourself you make above. But then I guess only the ass end of your moniker really counts – Fool.

      • I did my homework (perhaps you did not).
        Since we have only seven nukes in Canada and most of water-power plants are located in Quebec then majority
        of production facilities get their energy from traditional power plants.
        If you cut 80% emisions that you practically shut down all traditional power plants and most of production facilities.
        Of course eco-nuts do not want to deploy any more nukes and at the same time water-sourced power plants are beyond eco-nuts understanding so they push insane expensive wind mills that have efficiency below economical justification of their deployment. But who cares! Suzuki-Gore worshippers will be happy when we are all green but econiomically dead.
        I found recently in media this citation: "There are no muslim terrorist that hates Canada more than LIberal party" – and it is difficult to disagree with this statemement.

    • If Liberal senators get together and kill some beloved piece of Conservative legislation that has already passed through the House of Commons — and, no, this doesn't happen all the time, it hasn't happened in 70 years until yesterday — we'll see how happy you are then. This is a democracy, and sometimes votes don't go your way. The undemocratic senate shouldn't be used to thwart the will of the democratic House of Commons.

  16. I don't usually agree with Layton, but he is correct in his critique of democracy in Canada.

  17. I don't usually agree with Layton, but he is correct in his critique of democracy in Canada.

    • Layton has no idea about Democracy, he is nothing but a frigging wind bag. His idea of Democrocy is to allow his members a free vote (Gun Registry) but than he pressures his members to vote his way, i guess that is his idea of Democracy.

      • You're really an American, aren't you? NRA shill, I'm betting.

        • No, just tired of you left wing nuts who have no common sense, now go back to mommys basement.

  18. Right. Harper laughs at people like yourself. So, You better hope you'll be able to retire on your pension. Or intend to retire. And watch your pension disappear. Or lose your job. So you can then work a much touted Harper MacJob. Because Harper will never send you a cheque. He'll just tell you it your problem "ordinary citizen". Remember Harper has never held down a job in the private sector. So to him you truly are an "ordinary citizen."

  19. KC Tan, you get it. It's not just what bill was killed. It was how it was done, by whom and the fact that the last time this happened was back in 1938.

    Democracy is for well meaning people. People of integrity. Then a Harper comes along. A political sociopath without any principles and abuses our democracy. Harper will be remembered by historians as a thug.

  20. PHNATUREBEAR , The overwhelming scientific evidence that you speak of just does not exist. Period. All of the scientific evidence of catastophic global warming has been shown to be based on faulty science, speculative computer models, or even outright fraud. So calm down, stop yelling, and read what is really going on in climate science. You might start with <a href="http://www.wattsupwiththat.com” target=”_blank”>www.wattsupwiththat.com. I am sure that you will be overjoyed to learn that the situation really isn't at all like what the alarmists make it out to be.

  21. Before you become an ignorant cheerleader and scamper like a lemming over the edge into the river below. Do a little homework before you open your ignorant mouth. This not a hockey game. where if you are losing (Harper) you can beat the hell out of someone for the sake of beating the hell out of somebody. You still lose the game. This is a democracy. And what the Harper Reform PArty goons did with C-311 was yet another betray to the Canadian people.

    Do your homework.

  22. Excellent news! Killing the Canadian economy to please climate fantasists was a most ridiculous proposition. 'Climate scientists' have been exposed as cheats and liars – they should be charged criminally with misusing public funds.

  23. Excellent news! Killing the Canadian economy to please climate fantasists was a most ridiculous proposition. 'Climate scientists' have been exposed as cheats and liars – they should be charged criminally with misusing public funds.

    • I think you're spreading misinformation to the highest. Perhaps you should visit http://www.skepticalscience.com if you'd like to learn some facts about climate change. If you think that you are able to disprove actual SATELLITE and GROUND measurements of an increasing Greenhouse Effect it is up to you to do so (Harries et al. 2001, Wang and Liang 2009).

      Good luck.

      • You're kidding right? It has been de-bunked from the basic measurements on up, you can believe the lies if you want, but then 'climate science' becomes a matter of faith.

        • No, stupid creationist, it has not been debunked. Go ask the Russians how many of them died from heat last summer.

        • No, it hasn't.

          If the webpage you're grabbing that information from looks like it was written for Netscape Navigator 4.x there's a pretty good chance you're on a "conspiracy" website and these websites never have any basis in fact.

          It's like reading the national enquirer and thinking what they say is true. It's entertainment, in newspaper form. And it's clearly gotten to you.

  24. Abolish this useless Senate now

  25. Abolish this useless Senate now

  26. Why are 15 liberal senators absent? Are they not compensated enough? Isn't this same tactic done by NDP, liberal, and Bloc as well in the past? I bet you, those liberal senators are absent for the purpose of defeating the bill while still claiming that the liberal party is environmentally friendly. Does Double face and cowardice, the term best applied to these absent liberal senators?

  27. Why are 15 liberal senators absent? Are they not compensated enough? Isn't this same tactic done by NDP, liberal, and Bloc as well in the past? I bet you, those liberal senators are absent for the purpose of defeating the bill while still claiming that the liberal party is environmentally friendly. Does Double face and cowardice, the term best applied to these absent liberal senators?

    • There is some discussion as to what actually triggered the vote. Seems that a few Liberal Senators…you know…ones that were actually there…stood up at the wrong time which triggered the vote. Conservative Senators didn't hesitate to "look a gift horse in the mouth" and presto…the bill went down to defeat.

      Of course, Liberal Senators dispute this and point the finger at the Conservatives.

      Last I heard the sober second thought debate centred on "oh yeah?…well if I am than what are you?"

      • Very predictable then. It has been done in the house of commons quite often.

    • While I think your statement is obviously biased, you may have a point. The absence of the Liberals in the House of Commons was glaringly evident when Bill C-300 (the proposal to give the government authority to investigate complaints against extractive resources companies operating abroad, especially in terms of human rights abuses and environmental damages) was defeated last October. The Liberals were just as responsible for its defeat, but were not willing to publically vote against one of their own party members so let the Bill be defeated in the absence of key liberal MPs.

  28. With all due respect Bill T,

    You might as well consider starting with <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com” target=”_blank”>www.skepticalscience.com

    Anthony Watts and his gang are rarely supported by scientific evidence. In fact do you recall Tamino and others completely and utterly debunking Watts and Co here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to
    here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
    here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/anthony-wa
    here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-
    and debunking his crony Steven Goddard
    here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-One-Why-do-g
    and here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Respon

    Why don't you put up or shut your trap. We who are actually in the field know how wrong Watts and Co.
    Don't lead more people down the path to disinformation.

  29. The bill was nothing more than a partisan political move by the opposition parties in the first place. Not even they actually believed the reduction targets set in it could be met….by anybody. Strictly a move to gain partisan brownie points on their part.

    There shouldn't be any great surprise or consternation that it died an equally partisan political death.

  30. I think you're spreading misinformation to the highest. Perhaps you should visit <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com” target=”_blank”>www.skepticalscience.com if you'd like to learn some facts about climate change. If you think that you are able to disprove actual SATELLITE and GROUND measurements of an increasing Greenhouse Effect it is up to you to do so (Harries et al. 2001, Wang and Liang 2009).

    Good luck.

  31. The bill was nothing more than a partisan political move by the opposition parties in the first place. Not even they actually believed the reduction targets set in it could be met….by anybody. Strictly a move to gain partisan brownie points on their part.

    There shouldn't be any great surprise or consternation that it died an equally partisan political death.

    • No the Conservatives are the dihonest partisan wankers. The rest of the parties have people who actually want to govern well for the benefit of Canadians. The Conservatives are traitors.

  32. So why isn't anyone asking, where were the 15 Liberal senators? Why weren't they in session, doing their job? Where were they, and what were they doing that was more important?

    Much as I think we're better off for that bill being canned, I sort of agree with Jack. It is undemocratic, but it is also how the system (currently) works… all the more reason to get an elected and accountable senate.

  33. There is some discussion as to what actually triggered the vote. Seems that a few Liberal Senators…you know…ones that were actually there…stood up at the wrong time which triggered the vote. Conservative Senators didn't hesitate to "look a gift horse in the mouth" and presto…the bill went down to defeat.

    Of course, Liberal Senators dispute this and point the finger at the Conservatives.

    Last I heard the sober second thought debate centred on "oh yeah?…well if I am than what are you?"

  34. So why isn't anyone asking, where were the 15 Liberal senators? Why weren't they in session, doing their job? Where were they, and what were they doing that was more important?

    Much as I think we're better off for that bill being canned, I sort of agree with Jack. It is undemocratic, but it is also how the system (currently) works… all the more reason to get an elected and accountable senate.

    • Hear, hear!

    • 105 senators – (43 yeas + 32 nays + 15 missing liberals) = another 15 missing. This vote seems to have taken place with nearly a third of the senators missing.

      I bury my face in my hands.

    • Do tell how an elected senate would be more accountable. I present to you the House of Commons as counter-evidence.

      • You're SO RIGHT.

        New rules are all that's required, not a complete overhaul. Minimum required attendance could be a good idea. Or mandatory attendance for votes. All kinds of ideas to fix the issue at hand.

        Electing them is using the wrong tool for the job. Might not be a terrible idea, but trying to use it to fix attendance is silly.

    • it was a snap vote, opportunistically so, the senators have a responsibility to do committee work.

  35. While I think your statement is obviously biased, you may have a point. The absence of the Liberals in the House of Commons was glaringly evident when Bill C-300 (the proposal to give the government authority to investigate complaints against extractive resources companies operating abroad, especially in terms of human rights abuses and environmental damages) was defeated last October. The Liberals were just as responsible for its defeat, but were not willing to publically vote against one of their own party members so let the Bill be defeated in the absence of key liberal MPs.

  36. Hear, hear!

  37. Very predictable then. It has been done in the house of commons quite often.

  38. Phnaturebear…your post so eloquently illustrates the "sky is falling" mentality of the ardent AGW believer.

    Send some money to Al Gore…you'll feel better.

  39. Should the headline read " 15 absent liberal senators kill climate change bill", instead of the partisan author's heading above?

  40. Should the headline read " 15 absent liberal senators kill climate change bill", instead of the partisan author's heading above?

  41. The parliamentary framework allows this sort of obstruction, but there are workarounds.

    Nevertheless:

    The world can't be held hostage to scientists who have confused objective hypothesis-testing with the value-judgement of fixity-of-species-preservation.

    If the global temperature rises by 5 degrees at the end of this century, there will still be species, there will still be a dominant, intelligent, species.

    Stop the stupid 'warnings' until the big asteroid comes.

  42. The parliamentary framework allows this sort of obstruction, but there are workarounds.

    Nevertheless:

    The world can't be held hostage to scientists who have confused objective hypothesis-testing with the value-judgement of fixity-of-species-preservation.

    If the global temperature rises by 5 degrees at the end of this century, there will still be species, there will still be a dominant, intelligent, species.

    Stop the stupid 'warnings' until the big asteroid comes.

    • "If the global temperature rises by 5 degrees at the end of this century, there will still be species, there will still be a dominant, intelligent, species." Dominant? Perhaps. Intelligent? Debatable.

      To what degree are humans contributing to global warming? Is global warming even real? IMO, it seems likely that we are – but I don't rule out the possibility that it's just part of a natural cycle. Either way, it still makes sense to try to reduce the amount of pollution we cause, and the rate at which we are eating up the planet's resources. We are fools not to try.

      Was the bill excesive and overreaching? Possibly, though I laud the intent.

      But the method used to defeat it is another example of Harper's sleaziness further infecting and eroding an already slimy and wastrel senate. Rather than cleaning it up as promised, he's now using and abusing it to his advantage. It's time Harper had a new nickname – Mr. 180.

  43. PHNATUREBEAR, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on the internet is now dumber for having read your comment. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  44. 105 senators – (43 yeas + 32 nays + 15 missing liberals) = another 15 missing. This vote seems to have taken place with nearly a third of the senators missing.

    I bury my face in my hands.

  45. Whew! Saved once again from the socialist hordes who believe that taxing people even more is the solution to everything. Loving how the media are trying to score cheap political points on behalf of Moustache Jack and ignore their "Liberal comrades not showing up for the vote. Hilarious! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!! Quick, raise tax's on everything, than we can control the weather! Hilarious!!!

  46. Whew! Saved once again from the socialist hordes who believe that taxing people even more is the solution to everything. Loving how the media are trying to score cheap political points on behalf of Moustache Jack and ignore their "Liberal comrades not showing up for the vote. Hilarious! The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!! Quick, raise tax's on everything, than we can control the weather! Hilarious!!!

  47. In a small privately owned organization, to have 15 people absent at one time is a cause for investigation. Unless of course when there is olympic hockey (with Canada) going on. This seems to be more like an olympic size playing hookey. What was the reason again why we have appointed senators instead of elected?

  48. In a small privately owned organization, to have 15 people absent at one time is a cause for investigation. Unless of course when there is olympic hockey (with Canada) going on. This seems to be more like an olympic size playing hookey. What was the reason again why we have appointed senators instead of elected?

    • Because we already have an elected body. Appointed senators are supposed to be sober second thought, not an equally short-sighted group of partisans.

      Unfortunately, this relies upon the elected body having some respect for the government and the country they govern. The creators of the parliamentary system never imagined something like Harper to actually be elected.

      • Is it really possible for regular people like us, how much more appointed ones to have no prejudices and biases? Why the heck then do we have to pay very costly elections when we could just appoint people in every political seat – to as you say avoid short-sighted partisanship? That sounds more like playing purposely blind and stupid to me. Hillarious for intelligent and non intelligent people to make such assumption and leap of faith. Could anyone really say with such honesty and righteouness that these absences during important voting times has not happened before Harper's time (either the house of commons and the senate)? Whoever says that, is no better than those absentee senators.

        There seems to me a culture of blaming people for being present in doing their jobs while excusing and protecting those who absent themselves from doing their jobs – of which they are paid/compensated quite well. I can just rember weeks ago there was a blame game for students who study hard, while cuddling students who party, drink, and who knows what else.

  49. As I see it, those who are present are doing their job as intended. You should question instead those who are not on their jobs while being paid. Have you heard Harper telling those 15 liberal senators to be absent? As for your history, actually this kind of absences for the purpose of defeating a bill has been happening quite often in the house of commons and senate since way long before Harper came into office. I do believe though that senators should be elected, instead of appointed. We could unelect them if they refuse to do their job or if we do not like what they are doing. At this point, they actually have a job for life no matter their actions or inactions (or even long time absences and inactivity) maybe. As for impartiality of those who are appointed instead of elected, this kind of action just debunk that heresy.

  50. I've done my homework, Fool, and I daresay a lot more than you have. This Bill was an absolute joke, introduced in 2006 when the "chicken littles" still held the sway of public opinion, but shockingly passed in May, even after the various disclosures of the last year, precipitated by Climategate.

    One has only to look at the aim of the Bill – absolute Cuts greenhouse gas emissions – 25% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 – to realize this would carry us back to the stone age economically speaking.

    Wish I could credit Harper with a brilliant move here, but it appears that the bill was defeated because of a procedural mistake on the part of the Liberals and not some clever orchestrated plan of Harpers.

    How appropriate that it should go down on the anniversary of Climategate!!!! Sweet irony that…..

  51. Why is the absence of 15 liberals so important to you? There were 30 senators missing and the conservatives have majority in the senate, even if the liberals were present, the conservatives have the majority to kill the bill anyways. Before today, no bill passed by a parliamentary majority has ever been killed and done without even a second reading in the senate. The fact that you choose to focus on something as irrelevant as "15 liberals were missing" will only encourage the conservatives to do it again and again, and again….. why bother having the house common if the Senate can kill any bill they want an no one can say or do anything about it since they are not accountable to anyone. A very undemocratic reality to have such a powerful senate. Get rid of the senate, and get rid of Harper too.. elections now!

  52. Hey Reformers, your overlord just wrecked any credibility he will ever have on the Senate file. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

  53. Hey Reformers, your overlord just wrecked any credibility he will ever have on the Senate file. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    • You talk about credibility and yet when Harper wanted to change the way the Senate was filled you Liberals would have no part of it. The way I see it, is that Harper had to play the Liberal game and make his appoitments so as to get control of the Senate so as to pass any Tory Bills through. I guess you now understand how the Senate appoitments are wrong. The only reason you are complaining is because you were beat by your own game. I also don't agree with appointing senators as it leads to abuse. The bottom line is Harper is right about the Senate and most Canadians agree with him.

      • Wah, wah, wah! Poor, poor Harper was forced to ditch his principles and lie repeatedly by the Liberals! He has no will of his own! He is merely a puppet of the Liberals! That's why he is such a glorious leader, because he can't lead!

        • Wow another Talliban Jack supporter, you must be so far up jack's ass that you are breathing fresh air. Ok, Holly Stick this is where you get to show your basement mentallity by attacking me and everyone who disagrees with you.

      • Actually I am not a member of any political party. Just calling it like I see it, that's all. Nice to see how much you enjoy presuming so much about my position on things. Which Harper is right about the senate by the way? The one that uses it to kill bills passed by our elected representatives or the one that think he can reform it without re-opening the constitution?

  54. Listen get your head out of your ass and understand the facts. The Senate, on all sides is obliged to send the bill to debate and before committee. To be discussed and vetted. By both professionals, senators and Canadians, for those who are interested will understand the facts and in turn why it may have been passed or defeated with the final vote. This conservatives didn't have to, but in a minority government when the government is outvoted, it is their democratic duty to at least allow it towards debate…

    But the conservatives killed any debate on C-311, never mind waiting for the final vote…they didn't want to hear it, talk about it or even entertain the idea of open discussion.

    That's what this is all about…not about Liberal vs. Conservative and who wins….you're the sort of Canadian that dumbs down democratic imperative to a Don Cherry Rock'em and Sock'em mentality.

  55. So defeat then if it was a piece of crap — on the final vote — But that not this point. The HOC voted and asked that this bIll be discussed, debated and vetted. Until that is done all it is, is subjective calls. These bills are debated because they down into the parliament record for future generations. And why because professionals, experts and scientists are asked to participate in the debate. And provide valuable knowledge as to whether or the bill is worthy… that's how a democracy works…and I rather have due process as opposed to Harper's word on anything…

    It was not a procedural mistake you moron…it was that the conservatives should have voted to bring it before committee…this was not a motion for royal ascent…besides for 193 day your beloved goons ignored the bill…not a word as to why they believed it should be killed…

    It is beyond the pale how many Canadians talk sh#t about something they know nothing about, only because Harper wants it that way….move to Russia you'll fit in just fine.

  56. 15 senators missing is not a focus on irrelevance. To find that there are actually 30 missing senators in one setting is jaw dropping. Why the heck do we have them? So we could pay them, while many of us have no jobs, and most of us are having trouble making both ends meet? Probably your question should focus on why those many absences? Is passing and not passing a bill not that relevant anymore? Are they not suppose to be present to do their jobs as they are paid? How many bills in the past have been passed/rejected due to so many absences? That, is what makes it real scary.

  57. Cool down or you might break an artery! My answer to you is just as above.

  58. Way to go Senators! The insanity of the green religion is a completely insane, dangerous direction that does NOTHING to help the environment or our economy.

  59. Way to go Senators! The insanity of the green religion is a completely insane, dangerous direction that does NOTHING to help the environment or our economy.

    • Like any "religion", there are the fringe who make all the noise and get all the press, and then there's the largely silent majority with more moderate views. I think you'll find that most Canadian favour a shift to a greener economy, as long as it is done with an eye to avoiding complete upheaval.

      Problem is, the Tories aren't having ANY of that!

    • Ignorance is so helpful. Stick your head in the sand, that is a safe place.

  60. Fantastic news!

  61. Fantastic news!

  62. I'm very big on climate change: I feel it's the most important issue our species has ever faced.
    However this bill while well intentioned was going nowhere. There's no way any country in the world can reduce their GHG by 25% over ten years unless something absolutely insane happens.

  63. I'm very big on climate change: I feel it's the most important issue our species has ever faced.
    However this bill while well intentioned was going nowhere. There's no way any country in the world can reduce their GHG by 25% over ten years unless something absolutely insane happens.

    • Climate is and always has been changing. Read some geology.

    • I agree, unfortunately.

      Without some serious money and ideas, we would never be able to lower our CO2 levels by that much. Most of the growth in that area has been the oil sand, just extracting the oil from the ground!

      There's lots of ideas on how to fix this, how to create lots of energy required to heat up the bitumen, but it would cost quite a bit of money. We could have used some of that stimulus money to build wind and solar… ….. ahh nevermind. Alberta would never have wanted it. Climate change doesn't exist there. Drill baby drill! :(

  64. Don't worry Robert with the Republican control of Congress the climate alarmists will be getting a chance to prove under oath their theory.

    Any chance a large number of alarmists will be looking for another Ponzi scheme?

  65. Alarmists are very emotional. This CAGW has become their new religious doctrine. If you challenge them they get abusive.

  66. The Media is failing the public. Liberals are not showing up for work and they are missing key votes in the Senate and House of Commons.

    The media can continue to run cover for the opposition that are in the majority and continue to vote confidence in this minority government.

    It is a shame chasing rainbows, looking for Unicorns or Hall duty is not reported by our media and the absentee Liberals.

  67. The Media is failing the public. Liberals are not showing up for work and they are missing key votes in the Senate and House of Commons.

    The media can continue to run cover for the opposition that are in the majority and continue to vote confidence in this minority government.

    It is a shame chasing rainbows, looking for Unicorns or Hall duty is not reported by our media and the absentee Liberals.

    • While this 'Liberal absenteeism' line is an attractive talking point for a Conservative partisan like yourself, it'd be nice to see some evidence of general Liberal absenteeism besides today's vote. As far as I can tell, they're still trying to sort out what happened today… and I'm sure if the Liberals thought this would be voted on, they'd have been present. You're smart enough to know that all MPs and all Senators aren't in the House of Commons or the Senate all the time. I'm sure if the Liberals tried a snap vote on a piece of Conservative legislation in order to kill it by stealth, you'd be howling from the rooftops.

      For all I know, Conservative senators are as absentee as Liberal senators are… maybe more so. Just not today. I'll quite willing to go along with the absentee Liberal talking point if you can find some attendance records to back it up. I've been unsuccessful so far.

      • I would be howling at the moon if the majority of MPs used stealth, snap votes, closed door meetings to kill bills?

        This is the big leagues and not student politics in High school.

        We have had two minority governments since 2004. In 2006 the opposition removed the confidence of the Liberals. Paul Martin was NOT given an opportunity to four years. The voters backed up the opposition parties decision in a general election.

        The Liberal Senators made a tactical mistake in refusing to allow debate on the Bill and the Conservative Senators than were allowed a vote to kill the Bill. If the opposition parties in HOC feel this is an AFFRONT to democracy they can remove their confidence of this minority gov't.

        Now HOW many times have we heard this SILLY game from the opposition and media?

        LeBreton said Sen. Grant Mitchell did not want to stand the bill — a move that actually forced a vote on the bill's second reading.

        "We were as surprised as anyone else that the Liberals forced a vote on second reading of this bill," LeBreton told CTV's Power Play.
        http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101117/sen

        Not sure who was asleep at wheel or the fact the Liberal Senator is from Alberta and was pretending to screw up.

        The media should ask if the Liberals Senators were inept or asked to kill it by the Liberals who have been killing their own supported legislation for months on 2nd readings.

        According to the Conservatives they did not expect it and had a Senator prepared to debate the bill. You do remember how the Liberals also screwed up their own Maternal health motion with members skipping the vote and in fact voting against it this summer?

        I don't believe the Liberals could be this inept and they wanted to kill this bill. Do you think Liberals could be this inept?

        • I will be very interested to see how things unravel in the next few days… Conservative shenanigans and Liberal incompetence are the only two theories I had seen… I didn't consider the 'Liberals throwing their own vote' theory. Like you, I hope the media follow that up.

          I do know that I don't like the Senate thwarting the will of the House of Commons, however.

          • What does the will of the HOC have to do with our democracy or principles? Are you suggesting the inclusion of the Separatists have the same agenda or values as rest of Canada?

            The same HOC that refuses to open the Internal Board of Economy except for the Bloc?

            The same HOC that is delaying Democratic Reform with giving seats to Ontario, BC and Alberta with NDP-Lib pandering to QC?

            How many months did the opposition allege War Crimes, cover up, right to view documents and than roll over? Forget Parliamentary Supremacy we have Taco Supreme in Ottawa.

            Helena airport security breach a Liberal MP read an anonymous letter of an event that never took place according to the video tape as reported by Peter Mansbridge at CBC?

            Kevin Page refutes opposition talking points about Summit costs media ignore it and allow them to weaken international diplomacy?

            The same media that refuses to follow up or provide context beyond twisted headlines and yellow journalism?

            House of Commons has become the theatre of the absurd. It needs a full vacuuming. The traditional media is being tuned out and not trusted.

          • "What does the will of the HOC have to do with our democracy or principles?…"

            It has everything to do with Canada's democracy, and nothing to do with Conservative principles since the Conservatives have no principles whatsoever.

            Go find yourself a nice dictatorship to live in and quit destroying Canada.

          • Canada is doing fine in spite of you. No need for Canadians to worry about the reckless C 311 that would put thousands out of work. Thankfully some Liberal Senators felt it was necessary to call a vote with so many of their friends absent. You should ask Ignatieff if he planned it, gave permission to kill all along or if it was just another screw up.

            Five years and back to the ground floor again. Ouch!

            Want real Renewal Energy Action:
            Atlantic Canada will see a fundamental reshaping of its electricity market as a result of a $6.2-billion deal between Newfoundland and Labrador's Nalcor Energy and Halifax-based Emera Inc. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/atl

            Canada's GDP expected to grow by 3%
            http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Canada+e

          • What evidence do you have that it would have put thousands out of work. That's just Conservative lying alarmism.

          • Are you working on behalf of the Big Energy companies or mobsters that are cashing in to jack up hydro rates installing those Giant Fans?

            If you vote Liberal or NDP you should demand they vote non-confidence. If your party does not than they are complicit with the Conservatives , 15 missing Liberal senators.
            ————————-
            n fact, eliminating all the cars, trucks, bulldozers, railways and airlines in the country wouldn't get even halfway to meeting the requirements in the bill — namely, cutting annual greenhouse emissions by about 290 million tonnes by 2020.

            Similarly, turning off the heat in every home and commercial building in Canada would reduce annual emissions by less than 80 million tonnes.

            The largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country is the network of electrical power-generating stations fuelled by gas, oil and coal.

            Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/18/greg-
            ——————————————————————————

            Les J poster at CBC article https://membercentre.cbc.ca/ViewMember.aspx?u=803
            The numbers work out At the top is a link to our emissions to 2008.
            http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&a

            We would need to cut 290 million tonnes. Electrical generation accounts for 119 million, and all transport accounts for 198 million.

            Stopping every vehicle in Canada, and stopping all fossil fueled electrical generation, would just get us over the 290 million tonne cuts needed.

            Or, we could cut all transport, and all industrial processes AND all agriculture. That would get us there, too.

            Good luck with that, Jack.

            Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/18/greg-

      • How nice it is to be naive. Sad to say absenteeism to defeat an unrealistic/idealistic bill, while retaining glittering reputation, has been with us since way back when. It is usually a tactic used by unprincipled whimps.

    • Interesting but the Cons invoked the kill the bill plan, getting all their members, (sheep) into chamber, while the Liberals are off doing committee work. Game playing at the expense of democracy and the Canadian people. This government is a joke and there are the clowns laughing cheering on the strategist who makes fools of them and mocks the rest of us.

      • Cooper is 'second sober thought' only available to Liberal Senators?

        The sheep are those who suggest Bill C 311 would not adversely affect the Canadian economy.

        The UN would do an excellent job in making sure those despots and dictators would adopt the "low carbon" economy. Their success in Rwanda, Darfur speaks volumes.

  68. I'm just on the sidelines, quietly watching the events unfold. I've read about people saying Harper plays chess while the others play checkers – meaning Harper is all about strategy.

    Now I'm pondering if this is really a way for Harper achieves his objective of removing the unelected senate. I believe that was one of his platform promises.

    So it works like this:
    Kill a bill he doesn't want, creating a controversy over the power the senate has, then propose a way for this never to happen again. Anyone and everyone who was upset about the bill being killed falls hook line and sinker for the proposition to abolish the unelected senate and Harper gets to cross another thing off his list.

    Anyone else see it that way?

    (note: I'm talking about political strategy here, not the pros or cons of the actual actions – but I think getting an elected senate would be a good thing in the end)

  69. I'm just on the sidelines, quietly watching the events unfold. I've read about people saying Harper plays chess while the others play checkers – meaning Harper is all about strategy.

    Now I'm pondering if this is really a way for Harper achieves his objective of removing the unelected senate. I believe that was one of his platform promises.

    So it works like this:
    Kill a bill he doesn't want, creating a controversy over the power the senate has, then propose a way for this never to happen again. Anyone and everyone who was upset about the bill being killed falls hook line and sinker for the proposition to abolish the unelected senate and Harper gets to cross another thing off his list.

    Anyone else see it that way?

    (note: I'm talking about political strategy here, not the pros or cons of the actual actions – but I think getting an elected senate would be a good thing in the end)

    • I like your idea better.

    • I am of the personal opinion that the PM is brilliant. Coalition smackdown in 2008. His opponents outnumber him and they are unable to pass legislation without his support.

      (Read Harperland) Foes and allies comment he understands and has come to the subject matter at hand with depth and knowledge. Hard work, determination, perseverance are the qualities I attribute to this politial leader.

      The other team may have bright bulbs too. Is this system designed to allow the vested government an imbalance of power? It appears the opposition and the media are incapable of turning public opinion against the incumbent to affect the donations and support at the ballot. (Since 2004)

      I hear criticism and complaints about a views espoused by Preston Manning policies when the Reform party existed, This current PM provides many teaching moments and demonstrates this is not the Reform Party of Preston Manning. Some in the media and opposition have a very difficult time grasping who they are fighting.

      What was the year voters had the option of electing the Reform Party or Preston Manning to form the government?

      Look to the weakness in the opposition for failing to plan and make preparations for scuttling the Bill in the Senate. Expecting any other outcome was just plain silly.

      If you were a landlocked country would you build a navy to defend your borders? It appears the Liberals-NDP-Bloc are busy talking about George Bush and Reform party policies to the public.

  70. Perhaps I was wrong about it being a procedural mistake (you'll note I said "it appears that"). But I would expect better from self-appointed experts in procedural matters than to stoop to crass insults in correcting me.

    " It is beyond the pale how many Canadians talk sh#t about something they know nothing about, only because Harper wants it that way….move to Russia you'll fit in just fine".

    What on earth are you talking about here? What are you trying to imply I (or "many Canadians") know nothing about?

    Procedural issues? Nahhh – not the point!

    Climate Change? Don't think so – please don't tell me you actually still think this Bill deserves to be debated on it's merits – if so you obviously can't take your head out the sand to follow what's going on in the real world

    Seems to me you have a hate on for Harper and you're really pissed because you lost. It's OK, really. That's the way of the word, Fool – you win some, you lose some. And private members bills, from what I gather, lose a lot.

    Most of us sh*t-talking Canadians are just thankful you lost this one, and, I might add , are rubbing our hands in glee.. lol

    Oh, and Fool, may I say what an appropriate moniker you have adopted, given what an ass of yourself you make above. But then I guess only the ass end of your moniker really counts – Fool.

  71. "If the global temperature rises by 5 degrees at the end of this century, there will still be species, there will still be a dominant, intelligent, species." Dominant? Perhaps. Intelligent? Debatable.

    To what degree are humans contributing to global warming? Is global warming even real? IMO, it seems likely that we are – but I don't rule out the possibility that it's just part of a natural cycle. Either way, it still makes sense to try to reduce the amount of pollution we cause, and the rate at which we are eating up the planet's resources. We are fools not to try.

    Was the bill excesive and overreaching? Possibly, though I laud the intent.

    But the method used to defeat it is another example of Harper's sleaziness further infecting and eroding an already slimy and wastrel senate. Rather than cleaning it up as promised, he's now using and abusing it to his advantage. It's time Harper had a new nickname – Mr. 180.

  72. Robert, An abusive tone won't win many converts to your cause.

    People could start with Skeptical Science or Tamino's blog if they want to. However, I would point out that there are good reasons why Anthony Watts' blog is the most popular climate science site on the internet and has more traffic than all of the alarmist blogs combined. Think about it.

    As for your assertion that his site is rarely supported by scientific evidence, that's just plain wrong.

  73. Who supports Barack Obama ruling by Executive Order to thwart the will of the people as expressed by Congress?

    Czars?

    Hmmm?

    I think I just gave commies the middle finger…

  74. Who supports Barack Obama ruling by Executive Order to thwart the will of the people as expressed by Congress?

    Czars?

    Hmmm?

    I think I just gave commies the middle finger…

    • Uh. Considering that Obama is also directly elected by the people, hardly equivalent.

    • You're really out of your league here.

      Also, what commies?

  75. For all those complaining about how the Senate is abusing it's power (Power that it legitimately has, even if 19th century mechanics), I believe the Conservatives have been pushing for Senate reform for years. You know, some reform to stop this very thing from happening? Reform that people have no been interested until ooooooh… I'd say till today. Funny how that works.

    What's essentially is happening here is the Conservatives using a broken system to break the democratic process, while at the exact same time providing the fix. Yet what the opposition does is call names and throw a tantrum instead of agreeing to the fix.

    I remember when the opposition was decrying Harper for appointing people deep in the Conservative Party pocket when he said he was going to appoint elected people. He had no obligation to do so. It was easy to see what Harper had planned to do: Beat the Liberals at their own game. However; he needed time. He needed to wait for enough terms to expire so he could fill the Senate with party-line towers to *disrupt* parliament.

    That's the key word, disrupt. Unlike the Liberals who simply helped oil the broken machine for their party, it very much appears Harper is having the Conservatives throw monkey wrenches into the works to fix and change the system. It's hard to argue against that it does need change considering what just occurred no? Democracy for Canadians doesn't operate with foresight, rather with 20/20 hindsight. While dirty, it's hard to argue that Harper made it damn apparent that the Senate needs to be fixed.

    The final irony in all of this is that if the opposition does not take the Conservatives up on their offer to reform the Senate, that the Conservatives will be free to abuse the Senate all they want. Now what will be truly sad is if the opposition instead of co-operating to create Senate reform simply forces an election and leaves the Senate in it's broken mess (With the power to still grind Parliament to a halt)

  76. For all those complaining about how the Senate is abusing it's power (Power that it legitimately has, even if 19th century mechanics), I believe the Conservatives have been pushing for Senate reform for years. You know, some reform to stop this very thing from happening? Reform that people have no been interested until ooooooh… I'd say till today. Funny how that works.

    What's essentially is happening here is the Conservatives using a broken system to break the democratic process, while at the exact same time providing the fix. Yet what the opposition does is call names and throw a tantrum instead of agreeing to the fix.

    I remember when the opposition was decrying Harper for appointing people deep in the Conservative Party pocket when he said he was going to appoint elected people. He had no obligation to do so. It was easy to see what Harper had planned to do: Beat the Liberals at their own game. However; he needed time. He needed to wait for enough terms to expire so he could fill the Senate with party-line towers to *disrupt* parliament.

    That's the key word, disrupt. Unlike the Liberals who simply helped oil the broken machine for their party, it very much appears Harper is having the Conservatives throw monkey wrenches into the works to fix and change the system. It's hard to argue against that it does need change considering what just occurred no? Democracy for Canadians doesn't operate with foresight, rather with 20/20 hindsight. While dirty, it's hard to argue that Harper made it damn apparent that the Senate needs to be fixed.

    The final irony in all of this is that if the opposition does not take the Conservatives up on their offer to reform the Senate, that the Conservatives will be free to abuse the Senate all they want. Now what will be truly sad is if the opposition instead of co-operating to create Senate reform simply forces an election and leaves the Senate in it's broken mess (With the power to still grind Parliament to a halt)

    • Most sane people do not attempt to fix a problem with their house by blowing it up first.

      Just saying.

      • Most sane people don't pretend a potential for abuse does not exist does not exist when it rears its ugly head.

        'Told you so' is the technical term.

        Ignoring the flaws and reform of the Senate after losing control was foreseeable?

        Apparently those damn trees kept blocking the view of the forest.

        • Hey, just because some psychopath might drive his car through my wall and kill me doesn't mean I'm going to take the time and effort to put reinforced steel rebar and concrete in my walls.

          I mean, okay, the senate is manipulable to someone who has no scruples and doesn't give a damn about the governance or state of this nation. However, if we're setting up our systems planning for someone like that to be running our nation, I think that suggests our problems run a hell of a lot deeper than any institutions they might be able to manipulate.

          • Considering the destruction to our economy that would have been caused by this bill, this was a move by the senate that helps the car avoid crashing in the first place. What a wreck it would have been!

          • The bill was that the government create a plan. Are conservatives that bad that even creating a plan would destroy our economy?

            I'm not surprised.

            That said, the reductions are going to happen sooner or later, as oil is finite. Had the bill passed Canadians might have gotten the chance to be prepared for the inevitable, and possibly been in a position to profit from it, rather than be simply forced to react to it when it occurs, thus handing the profit over to someone who didn't think, "If we were going to have a recession, it would have happened already".

          • The Conservatives have thus handled this issue brilliantly (although we should hardly be happy that they have committed hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to climate boondoggles and to funding alarmism, in particular in promising to fork money over to the congenitally incompetent UN). They have maintained that any emissions legislation has to dovetail with that of the U.S. The fact that it would be politically stupid and economically destructive for Canada to “go it alone” was confirmed this week by none other than the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson. He acknowledged in a speech at McGill University that: “The practical reality is that in Canada you can't have a system of carbon pricing that is different from the one in the United States.… The negative effects on trade, on business and on environmental stewardship, in one country or the other, would be very significant.”

            Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/11/18/peter

          • In other words the unelected Liberal Senators that were delaying and blocking bills against Brian Mulroney were undemocratic and were lacking in scruples.

            Thank you for clearing this up.

            You need to be consistent with facts and history or you will appear to be a partisan hack cheering for your team.

  77. While this 'Liberal absenteeism' line is an attractive talking point for a Conservative partisan like yourself, it'd be nice to see some evidence of general Liberal absenteeism besides today's vote. As far as I can tell, they're still trying to sort out what happened today… and I'm sure if the Liberals thought this would be voted on, they'd have been present. You're smart enough to know that all MPs and all Senators aren't in the House of Commons or the Senate all the time. I'm sure if the Liberals tried a snap vote on a piece of Conservative legislation in order to kill it by stealth, you'd be howling from the rooftops.

    For all I know, Conservative senators are as absentee as Liberal senators are… maybe more so. Just not today. I'll quite willing to go along with the absentee Liberal talking point if you can find some attendance records to back it up. I've been unsuccessful so far.

  78. You're kidding right? It has been de-bunked from the basic measurements on up, you can believe the lies if you want, but then 'climate science' becomes a matter of faith.

  79. Did you even bother reading my whole comment ? Didn't I just say that the best thing we could do is to get rid of the senate? You are the one defending the senate's actions by focusing on who was missing at the time of voting instead on the implications of what they voted. If you want to focus about money that is fine, but today was not about money. Today was about a fundamental shift on our democratic process, a process that the conservatives are slowly taking this country in where the elected parliament loses its power and a single party leader, in the office of the PM, overrules the will of people.

  80. I would be howling at the moon if the majority of MPs used stealth, snap votes, closed door meetings to kill bills?

    This is the big leagues and not student politics in High school.

    We have had two minority governments since 2004. In 2006 the opposition removed the confidence of the Liberals. Paul Martin was NOT given an opportunity to four years. The voters backed up the opposition parties decision in a general election.

    The Liberal Senators made a tactical mistake in refusing to allow debate on the Bill and the Conservative Senators than were allowed a vote to kill the Bill. If the opposition parties in HOC feel this is an AFFRONT to democracy they can remove their confidence of this minority gov't.

    Now HOW many times have we heard this SILLY game from the opposition and media?

    LeBreton said Sen. Grant Mitchell did not want to stand the bill — a move that actually forced a vote on the bill's second reading.

    "We were as surprised as anyone else that the Liberals forced a vote on second reading of this bill," LeBreton told CTV's Power Play.
    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101117/sen

    Not sure who was asleep at wheel or the fact the Liberal Senator is from Alberta and was pretending to screw up.

    The media should ask if the Liberals Senators were inept or asked to kill it by the Liberals who have been killing their own supported legislation for months on 2nd readings.

    According to the Conservatives they did not expect it and had a Senator prepared to debate the bill. You do remember how the Liberals also screwed up their own Maternal health motion with members skipping the vote and in fact voting against it this summer?

    I don't believe the Liberals could be this inept and they wanted to kill this bill. Do you think Liberals could be this inept?

  81. I will be very interested to see how things unravel in the next few days… Conservative shenanigans and Liberal incompetence are the only two theories I had seen… I didn't consider the 'Liberals throwing their own vote' theory. Like you, I hope the media follow that up.

    I do know that I don't like the Senate thwarting the will of the House of Commons, however.

  82. If Liberal senators get together and kill some beloved piece of Conservative legislation that has already passed through the House of Commons — and, no, this doesn't happen all the time, it hasn't happened in 70 years until yesterday — we'll see how happy you are then. This is a democracy, and sometimes votes don't go your way. The undemocratic senate shouldn't be used to thwart the will of the democratic House of Commons.

  83. Welcome to the land of freedom. The death of green communism and Liberal foolishness in Canada! This is why I voted Conservative!

  84. Welcome to the land of freedom. The death of green communism and Liberal foolishness in Canada! This is why I voted Conservative!

  85. Do tell how an elected senate would be more accountable. I present to you the House of Commons as counter-evidence.

  86. Because we already have an elected body. Appointed senators are supposed to be sober second thought, not an equally short-sighted group of partisans.

    Unfortunately, this relies upon the elected body having some respect for the government and the country they govern. The creators of the parliamentary system never imagined something like Harper to actually be elected.

  87. Uh. Considering that Obama is also directly elected by the people, hardly equivalent.

  88. Most sane people do not attempt to fix a problem with their house by blowing it up first.

    Just saying.

  89. Bill, can you provide some evidence to support your claim that scientific evidence refutes climate change?

  90. Is it really possible for regular people like us, how much more appointed ones to have no prejudices and biases? Why the heck then do we have to pay very costly elections when we could just appoint people in every political seat – to as you say avoid short-sighted partisanship? That sounds more like playing purposely blind and stupid to me. Hillarious for intelligent and non intelligent people to make such assumption and leap of faith. Could anyone really say with such honesty and righteouness that these absences during important voting times has not happened before Harper's time (either the house of commons and the senate)? Whoever says that, is no better than those absentee senators.

    There seems to me a culture of blaming people for being present in doing their jobs while excusing and protecting those who absent themselves from doing their jobs – of which they are paid/compensated quite well. I can just rember weeks ago there was a blame game for students who study hard, while cuddling students who party, drink, and who knows what else.

  91. How nice it is to be naive. Sad to say absenteeism to defeat an unrealistic/idealistic bill, while retaining glittering reputation, has been with us since way back when. It is usually a tactic used by unprincipled whimps.

  92. I like your idea better.

  93. First, nobody said they have no prejudices or biases, so kindly serve that red herring elsewhere.

    Second, we have costly elections so that the will of the people is governing the people. This not only includes legislation, but also in the character and caliber of the appointments to various governmental bodies that are made. As I regularly point out, if appointments are undemocratic, than why is there no hue and cry for judges and police, those who actually determine how legislation gets enforced, to be elected as well? The answer is because political parties, namely Reform, have made the senate a bug-a-boo relying on the fact that most people are simply clueless as to what that body represents or does.

    Whereas the House of Commons represents the immediate will of the people, the senate represents the aggregate will of our national character. The House changes based on fads and issues of the moment. The members primary qualification for being there is electability — not intelligence, not wisdom, and certainly not honesty, but electability. The senate, by contrast, changes slowly and works as a brake to make sure that the whims of any particular election cycle do not throw out everything this country has been in the past — it works to prevent us from whipsawing from popular stance to popular stance. The primary qualifications to be on the senate are for those appointed to be representatives of the government in power when they are appointed. The flaw is that the designers of the parliamentary system were doing so in an era when they were full of vigor and hope about it, and they could not envision anybody wanting to be part of that system only to destroy it, as Harper does. So they thought that governments would try to appoint people who would represent them well and do credit to their name over time. We see now where that mistaken belief can cause a problem.

    Now, does the senate need change? I do think so.. but tweaks, not wholesale revision. If I could add any one single thing to the senate, it would be the ability for the citizens to recall a particular senator during a federal election. (Basically, the public gets the opportunity to write in the name of a senator they want ousted.. if that senator is written down by over 50% of the voters, there's a new vacancy). I think that'd serve well enough to keep senators in their seats most of the time, but is a high enough bar that only the most egregious offenders need worry — and they're the ones we want gone anyway.

  94. What does the will of the HOC have to do with our democracy or principles? Are you suggesting the inclusion of the Separatists have the same agenda or values as rest of Canada?

    The same HOC that refuses to open the Internal Board of Economy except for the Bloc?

    The same HOC that is delaying Democratic Reform with giving seats to Ontario, BC and Alberta with NDP-Lib pandering to QC?

    How many months did the opposition allege War Crimes, cover up, right to view documents and than roll over? Forget Parliamentary Supremacy we have Taco Supreme in Ottawa.

    Helena airport security breach a Liberal MP read an anonymous letter of an event that never took place according to the video tape as reported by Peter Mansbridge at CBC?

    Kevin Page refutes opposition talking points about Summit costs media ignore it and allow them to weaken international diplomacy?

    The same media that refuses to follow up or provide context beyond twisted headlines and yellow journalism?

    House of Commons has become the theatre of the absurd. It needs a full vacuuming. The traditional media is being tuned out and not trusted.

  95. Most sane people don't pretend a potential for abuse does not exist does not exist when it rears its ugly head.

    'Told you so' is the technical term.

    Ignoring the flaws and reform of the Senate after losing control was foreseeable?

    Apparently those damn trees kept blocking the view of the forest.

  96. I did my homework (perhaps you did not).
    Since we have only seven nukes in Canada and most of water-power plants are located in Quebec then majority
    of production facilities get their energy from traditional power plants.
    If you cut 80% emisions that you practically shut down all traditional power plants and most of production facilities.
    Of course eco-nuts do not want to deploy any more nukes and at the same time water-sourced power plants are beyond eco-nuts understanding so they push insane expensive wind mills that have efficiency below economical justification of their deployment. But who cares! Suzuki-Gore worshippers will be happy when we are all green but econiomically dead.
    I found recently in media this citation: "There are no muslim terrorist that hates Canada more than LIberal party" – and it is difficult to disagree with this statemement.

  97. You people don't actually think that a snap vote was called and the parties were all caught unprepared do you? What, do you think these guys run around in Paliament not knowing when votes are going to happen and they were tricked somehow? C'mon.

    Oooh those trixsie Tories, they pulled he wool over our eyes and the bill was killed so it's not our fault… Oooh those trixie Tories. Lol!

  98. You people don't actually think that a snap vote was called and the parties were all caught unprepared do you? What, do you think these guys run around in Paliament not knowing when votes are going to happen and they were tricked somehow? C'mon.

    Oooh those trixsie Tories, they pulled he wool over our eyes and the bill was killed so it's not our fault… Oooh those trixie Tories. Lol!

    • RTFM

  99. God bless those Liberal Senators who didn't feel it necessary to be on the job. This was a terrible bill with completely unrealistic objectives. Funny, as unproductive as the Senate seems to be I was always under the impression that their mandate was to approve or disapprove bills after they were sent to them from the House and I don't think the Conservatives were the only government to use the Senate to further their aims. One lesson here might be that you should show up for work. I'm waiting for Iggy's indignation although since it was Liberal Senators who were missing he will be hard pressed to make a lot of noise.

  100. God bless those Liberal Senators who didn't feel it necessary to be on the job. This was a terrible bill with completely unrealistic objectives. Funny, as unproductive as the Senate seems to be I was always under the impression that their mandate was to approve or disapprove bills after they were sent to them from the House and I don't think the Conservatives were the only government to use the Senate to further their aims. One lesson here might be that you should show up for work. I'm waiting for Iggy's indignation although since it was Liberal Senators who were missing he will be hard pressed to make a lot of noise.

    • It's better to set a high target to aim for, honestly try to meet it, and fall short thanto do absolutely nothing and watch as things get worse. At least by trying, even if we only meet 25% of the target, that's better than where we are currently headed.

      That said, I do think the bill was unrealistic.

      However, the real issue here is the abuse of process by the Senate. The bill was killed without any meaningful study or debate, through a process which, while technically permissable, is ethically bankrupt. As with the "ten percenters", the Tories – and esp. the Tory senators – have proven once again that they are the Loophole Masters.

      Just because one can doesn't mean one should.

  101. Actually the onus is on alarmists to show that scientific evidence supports their claims. Computer models are not scientific evidence. Good luck with that.

  102. The headline should be rewritten to "Absentee Liberals Senators Could not Save Useless Climate Bill"

  103. The headline should be rewritten to "Absentee Liberals Senators Could not Save Useless Climate Bill"

  104. More stuff that isn't from models:

    "…Melting ice is by no means the only sign that the earth is warming. Thermometers on land, in the sea and aboard satellites show warming. Heat waves, flash floods and other extreme weather events are increasing. Plants are blooming earlier, coral reefs are dying and many other changes are afoot that most climate scientists attribute to global warming…"
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/science/earth/1

  105. Bruce, I did not say that the scientific evidence refutes climate change. The climate has always been changing.

    What I was talking about was Catastrophic Global Warming. There is no scientific evidence for this that stands up to any kind of reasonable scrutiny.

    But don't take my word for it. Look into it yourself.

    Catastrophic Global Warming is based on the theory that the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause runaway temperature rise. When it became obvious that the temperature stopped supporting the theory by remaining almost constant for the last ten or twelve years, the alarmists changed the name of their campaign from Global Warming to Climate Change. This fact alone should be enough to alert people to the fact that we are dealing with something other than science here.

    Here is a link to an article with graphs to support my assertion that the global temperature anomaly has remained relative constant for the last decade:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/rss-global-

  106. "What does the will of the HOC have to do with our democracy or principles?…"

    It has everything to do with Canada's democracy, and nothing to do with Conservative principles since the Conservatives have no principles whatsoever.

    Go find yourself a nice dictatorship to live in and quit destroying Canada.

  107. There is plenty of evidence that humans are conributing substantially to global warming, and that the results of very fast climate change are going to be droughts and floods causing widespread crop failures, causing widespread famine, causing widespread wars for food and water and viable farmland. The hotter it gets, the more people will die as a result.

  108. No, stupid creationist, it has not been debunked. Go ask the Russians how many of them died from heat last summer.

  109. No the Conservatives are the dihonest partisan wankers. The rest of the parties have people who actually want to govern well for the benefit of Canadians. The Conservatives are traitors.

  110. "There is no scientific evidence for this that stands up to any kind of reasonable scrutiny. "

    That is a lie. You are lying to yourself. Go and see what the real scientists are talking about, not fakes like WUWT:
    http://www.realclimate.org/

  111. "…The Climate Change Accountability Act passed through the House of Commons to the Senate in the spring of last year. Because Conservative Senators had chosen not to take the opportunity to debate the bill, the bill had not yet been referred to a committee for study. Instead of doing so, Conservative Senators called a surprise vote last night, and managed to kill the bill while many of its supporters were away from the Senate…"
    http://www.pembina.org/media-release/2117

    So you Conservative liars can stop pretending the Liberals are to blame. Their only fault in this matter was expecting the Conservatives to behave honourably.

    You Conservatives are just a bunch of liars.

  112. We're actualy on the same side here, Holly.

    There is a substantial and growing body of evidence that climate change is real, and we most definitely are doing plenty of damage to the environment. The linkage seems obvious, but has not yet been conclusively proven – after all, the geological and fossil record indicates evidence of past periods of global warming. I tend to believe we are at least partially responsible, despite the naysayers. But there is plenty to be gained by taking action now, even if it turns out we are wrong about the cause(s), in the form of better resource management and reduced pollution.

    There can be no doubt that – even if we aren't the primary (or only) cause of global warming – we have become incredibly poor stewards of the planet and all life is suffering as a result.

  113. We're actualy on the same side here, Holly.

    There is a substantial and growing body of evidence that climate change is real, and we most definitely are doing plenty of damage to the environment. The linkage seems obvious, but has not yet been conclusively proven – after all, the geological and fossil record indicates evidence of past periods of global warming. I tend to believe we are at least partially responsible, despite the naysayers. But there is plenty to be gained by taking action now, even if it turns out we are wrong about the cause(s), in the form of better resource management and reduced pollution.

    There can be no doubt that – even if we aren't the primary (or only) cause of global warming – we have become incredibly poor stewards of the planet and all life is suffering as a result.

    • How do you expect to enforce your policy in the Bric countries? Do you think Russia, Saudia Arabia have a better environmental record in cleaning up pollution than we do?

      Liberals ignored third world conditions on our reserves while they were in power. They failed to replace the Chalk River facility, abandoned the Maple Three reactors, clean up closed military bases.

      This current government is moving on many files regarding the environment.

      • They are moving backwards. If Jim Prentice could not accomplish anything against the flat earthers and creationist dummies in Cabinet, none of the rest will be able to. When Prentice left the IQ of Cabinet dropped by half.

      • The decision to shut down the MAPLE reactors was a Tory one, made in 2008. They chose to scapegoat their chief civil servant rather than address issues squarely at Chalk River. The medical isotope issues may have their root in the Liberal era, but the Tories are failing miserably on this file under their watch. Not that this is relevant to the thread…

        For that matter, neither are your other points.

        We can't clean up the world, or force others to – but we CAN do better on how we treat our own environment. You say "[t]his current government is moving on many files regarding the environment" – can you name any? I'm not a political junkie, so it may be I've missed something, but I'm really not aware of any significant movement on the environmental front; it seems to me they've basically sat on their hands and said they will wait until the Americans do something and then say "me too".

        • I could go through the motions and pretend you actually care about facts. I won't

          The Maple Three Reactors were to replace the Chalk River Facility in 2000. That means six years before the CPC became elected that failed money pit (Liberal boondoggle) of Maple reactors would have been online.
          Feel free to ignore the expert and AG reports on the Maple Three reactors and why JC did not maintain them and left them for the next government to clean up.

          I have ZERO difficulty in slamming the CPC on funding or waste but you are chasing rainbows and unicorns if you believe the Maple Three reactors failed because of the newly elected government in 2006.

  114. No they havent. You clearly believe anything a so-called scientist says just because of their authority as a scientist. That's fine, but dont go then and try and participate in discussion with people who actually understand the science. Now go protest harper or something and let the adults talk…

  115. Like any "religion", there are the fringe who make all the noise and get all the press, and then there's the largely silent majority with more moderate views. I think you'll find that most Canadian favour a shift to a greener economy, as long as it is done with an eye to avoiding complete upheaval.

    Problem is, the Tories aren't having ANY of that!

  116. "there is plenty of evidence…" Can you provide some? Not links to your dumb@ss propaganda sites, actual EVIDENCE? no you cant.

    The IPCC relies on computer models to make its predictions – that is not scientific evidence, its just an elaborate video game.

    The global warming theory predicts a hotspot in the mid and lower tropical troposphere – we've been observing this part of the atmosphere since 1979, still cant find a hotspot. Clearly, the theory is WRONG. That's based on hard data, not computer games.

  117. "there is plenty of evidence…" Can you provide some? Not links to your dumb@ss propaganda sites, actual EVIDENCE? no you cant.

    The IPCC relies on computer models to make its predictions – that is not scientific evidence, its just an elaborate video game.

    The global warming theory predicts a hotspot in the mid and lower tropical troposphere – we've been observing this part of the atmosphere since 1979, still cant find a hotspot. Clearly, the theory is WRONG. That's based on hard data, not computer games.

    • Every national and international scientific organization on earth agrees that the AGW is occuring. The evidence is all over the place except for stupid Conservatives like yourself who are too lazy to look for it.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o

      • Argument by authority…. lame. try to understand the stuff you're linking too. But please keep calling us names, it nicely highlights your intellectual capacity.

        • Here, stupid. Read about models.: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.ht

          The Geological Society statement on climate change:
          http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statem

          As I wrote before, ALL of the major scientific societies agree that we are causing AGW and that it will have bad effects, just like earlier climate changes are associated with mass extinction events.

          You ignorant rightwingers are so pathetic, trying to pretend you know something just because you've read a few lies on a blog. Go back to school and try to learn about reality.

    • Here's what I don't get: Why are those who question global warming so hell-bent on NOT taking action to improve our environmental record? EVEN IF global warming turns out to be a myth, the other benefits of improved environmental policies – cleaner air; less and more efficient use of resources; reduction in waste; etc – still make the efforts more than worthwhile. Why would anyone want to stick their heads in the sand – or worse, actively lobby against improved environmental policies – when proper environmental planning will yield net benefits for us all?

      • They realize that we will have to take collective action to survive the climate crisis and this offends their selfish pseudolibertarian views. If Ayn Rand didn't write about climate change, they don't believe in it!

  118. Canada is doing fine in spite of you. No need for Canadians to worry about the reckless C 311 that would put thousands out of work. Thankfully some Liberal Senators felt it was necessary to call a vote with so many of their friends absent. You should ask Ignatieff if he planned it, gave permission to kill all along or if it was just another screw up.

    Five years and back to the ground floor again. Ouch!

    Want real Renewal Energy Action:
    Atlantic Canada will see a fundamental reshaping of its electricity market as a result of a $6.2-billion deal between Newfoundland and Labrador's Nalcor Energy and Halifax-based Emera Inc. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/atl

    Canada's GDP expected to grow by 3%
    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Canada+e

  119. Oh, come on now Holly. Put your evidence where your mouth is. Please post a link to one piece of scientific evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming that has not been refuted.
    Please note: Theories are not evidence. Computer models are not evidence. Only hard data that has been made available for critique, according to standard scientific practice, is acceptable.

  120. So you are saying that scientists do not understand the science but non-scientists do understand the science? How stupid of you.

  121. Evidence that you are too stupid and dishonest to bother having a discussion with: I posted several links above with real evidence of real changes happening on earth now and you were too lazy to go and read them. You are also too lazy to read realclimate, which discusses all the hard evidence you want, if you were not too stupid to understand it.

    Anothery lying Conservative living in fairyland.

  122. That is because we hate liars and fools.

  123. What evidence do you have that it would have put thousands out of work. That's just Conservative lying alarmism.

  124. Every national and international scientific organization on earth agrees that the AGW is occuring. The evidence is all over the place except for stupid Conservatives like yourself who are too lazy to look for it.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_o

  125. Are you working on behalf of the Big Energy companies or mobsters that are cashing in to jack up hydro rates installing those Giant Fans?

    If you vote Liberal or NDP you should demand they vote non-confidence. If your party does not than they are complicit with the Conservatives , 15 missing Liberal senators.
    ————————-
    n fact, eliminating all the cars, trucks, bulldozers, railways and airlines in the country wouldn't get even halfway to meeting the requirements in the bill — namely, cutting annual greenhouse emissions by about 290 million tonnes by 2020.

    Similarly, turning off the heat in every home and commercial building in Canada would reduce annual emissions by less than 80 million tonnes.

    The largest industrial source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country is the network of electrical power-generating stations fuelled by gas, oil and coal.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/18/greg-
    ——————————————————————————

    Les J poster at CBC article https://membercentre.cbc.ca/ViewMember.aspx?u=803
    The numbers work out At the top is a link to our emissions to 2008.
    http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&a

    We would need to cut 290 million tonnes. Electrical generation accounts for 119 million, and all transport accounts for 198 million.

    Stopping every vehicle in Canada, and stopping all fossil fueled electrical generation, would just get us over the 290 million tonne cuts needed.

    Or, we could cut all transport, and all industrial processes AND all agriculture. That would get us there, too.

    Good luck with that, Jack.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/11/18/greg-

  126. How do you expect to enforce your policy in the Bric countries? Do you think Russia, Saudia Arabia have a better environmental record in cleaning up pollution than we do?

    Liberals ignored third world conditions on our reserves while they were in power. They failed to replace the Chalk River facility, abandoned the Maple Three reactors, clean up closed military bases.

    This current government is moving on many files regarding the environment.

  127. Seriously Holly just because someone says something is representative of the majority of Canadians do you think that is so and even more unlikely is the fact that just because a majority of MP's voted for something makes it the will of the people. We need some strong leadership right now to do what is right and in this case that is exactly what happened. By the way we haven't heard a peep from Iggy about this, care to speculate as to why??

  128. Seriously Holly just because someone says something is representative of the majority of Canadians do you think that is so and even more unlikely is the fact that just because a majority of MP's voted for something makes it the will of the people. We need some strong leadership right now to do what is right and in this case that is exactly what happened. By the way we haven't heard a peep from Iggy about this, care to speculate as to why??

    • So you prefer dictatorship to democratic government. Fool.

      • Canadians prefer to have jobs so they can feed themselves, their families and heat their homes. This bill would have been horrible for the average Canadian. Anyone supporting it should be ashamed at the violence they would be perpetrating against Canadians.

        • What evidence do you have that it would have had such an effect? This is just Conservative alarmism.

  129. Argument by authority…. lame. try to understand the stuff you're linking too. But please keep calling us names, it nicely highlights your intellectual capacity.

  130. Robert, do be careful about admitting you "are actually in this field". It is really no longer considered respectable work.

  131. oh dear, Holly, you too.

  132. Climate is and always has been changing. Read some geology.

  133. I ask for one piece of unrefuted evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming and I get an ad hominen attack thrown in as a bonus. I assume that you think this makes your argument more convincing?

    Your links above refer to sea level rise. The sea level is rising. It has been since at least the end of the last ice age. In the last decade it has been rising at a rate of about 3.1 mm per year, and that rate has actually been slowing since 2006. Hardly catastrophic. Reference: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/global-sea-

    The New York Times article that you link to as scientific evidence just doesn't cut it. It is great for scaring people, but is not real science. I asked for data and I got speculation and a reporter's opinion. If that's the best you can do I have nothing more to say.

  134. Again you were too lazy to look at the links I posted above. They show that the rate of sea level is rising, not slowing as you falsely state. But you stupidly prefer to believe a weatherman at WUWT than a real oceanographer.
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/15/year-in-cli

    And of course uyou are still too lazy to go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and find out what the real climate scientists are studying, instead of the unscientific crap blogged by your oil company funded rightwing liars.

  135. Only by ignorant rightwingers.

  136. So you prefer dictatorship to democratic government. Fool.

  137. They are moving backwards. If Jim Prentice could not accomplish anything against the flat earthers and creationist dummies in Cabinet, none of the rest will be able to. When Prentice left the IQ of Cabinet dropped by half.

  138. Here, stupid. Read about models.: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.ht

    The Geological Society statement on climate change:
    http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/views/policy_statem

    As I wrote before, ALL of the major scientific societies agree that we are causing AGW and that it will have bad effects, just like earlier climate changes are associated with mass extinction events.

    You ignorant rightwingers are so pathetic, trying to pretend you know something just because you've read a few lies on a blog. Go back to school and try to learn about reality.

  139. Hey, just because some psychopath might drive his car through my wall and kill me doesn't mean I'm going to take the time and effort to put reinforced steel rebar and concrete in my walls.

    I mean, okay, the senate is manipulable to someone who has no scruples and doesn't give a damn about the governance or state of this nation. However, if we're setting up our systems planning for someone like that to be running our nation, I think that suggests our problems run a hell of a lot deeper than any institutions they might be able to manipulate.

  140. Considering the destruction to our economy that would have been caused by this bill, this was a move by the senate that helps the car avoid crashing in the first place. What a wreck it would have been!

  141. Canadians prefer to have jobs so they can feed themselves, their families and heat their homes. This bill would have been horrible for the average Canadian. Anyone supporting it should be ashamed at the violence they would be perpetrating against Canadians.

  142. The decision to shut down the MAPLE reactors was a Tory one, made in 2008. They chose to scapegoat their chief civil servant rather than address issues squarely at Chalk River. The medical isotope issues may have their root in the Liberal era, but the Tories are failing miserably on this file under their watch. Not that this is relevant to the thread…

    For that matter, neither are your other points.

    We can't clean up the world, or force others to – but we CAN do better on how we treat our own environment. You say "[t]his current government is moving on many files regarding the environment" – can you name any? I'm not a political junkie, so it may be I've missed something, but I'm really not aware of any significant movement on the environmental front; it seems to me they've basically sat on their hands and said they will wait until the Americans do something and then say "me too".

  143. Here's what I don't get: Why are those who question global warming so hell-bent on NOT taking action to improve our environmental record? EVEN IF global warming turns out to be a myth, the other benefits of improved environmental policies – cleaner air; less and more efficient use of resources; reduction in waste; etc – still make the efforts more than worthwhile. Why would anyone want to stick their heads in the sand – or worse, actively lobby against improved environmental policies – when proper environmental planning will yield net benefits for us all?

  144. It's better to set a high target to aim for, honestly try to meet it, and fall short thanto do absolutely nothing and watch as things get worse. At least by trying, even if we only meet 25% of the target, that's better than where we are currently headed.

    That said, I do think the bill was unrealistic.

    However, the real issue here is the abuse of process by the Senate. The bill was killed without any meaningful study or debate, through a process which, while technically permissable, is ethically bankrupt. As with the "ten percenters", the Tories – and esp. the Tory senators – have proven once again that they are the Loophole Masters.

    Just because one can doesn't mean one should.

  145. The bill was that the government create a plan. Are conservatives that bad that even creating a plan would destroy our economy?

    I'm not surprised.

    That said, the reductions are going to happen sooner or later, as oil is finite. Had the bill passed Canadians might have gotten the chance to be prepared for the inevitable, and possibly been in a position to profit from it, rather than be simply forced to react to it when it occurs, thus handing the profit over to someone who didn't think, "If we were going to have a recession, it would have happened already".

  146. RTFM

  147. I could go through the motions and pretend you actually care about facts. I won't

    The Maple Three Reactors were to replace the Chalk River Facility in 2000. That means six years before the CPC became elected that failed money pit (Liberal boondoggle) of Maple reactors would have been online.
    Feel free to ignore the expert and AG reports on the Maple Three reactors and why JC did not maintain them and left them for the next government to clean up.

    I have ZERO difficulty in slamming the CPC on funding or waste but you are chasing rainbows and unicorns if you believe the Maple Three reactors failed because of the newly elected government in 2006.

  148. In other words the unelected Liberal Senators that were delaying and blocking bills against Brian Mulroney were undemocratic and were lacking in scruples.

    Thank you for clearing this up.

    You need to be consistent with facts and history or you will appear to be a partisan hack cheering for your team.

  149. The Conservatives have thus handled this issue brilliantly (although we should hardly be happy that they have committed hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to climate boondoggles and to funding alarmism, in particular in promising to fork money over to the congenitally incompetent UN). They have maintained that any emissions legislation has to dovetail with that of the U.S. The fact that it would be politically stupid and economically destructive for Canada to “go it alone” was confirmed this week by none other than the U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson. He acknowledged in a speech at McGill University that: “The practical reality is that in Canada you can't have a system of carbon pricing that is different from the one in the United States.… The negative effects on trade, on business and on environmental stewardship, in one country or the other, would be very significant.”

    Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/11/18/peter

  150. It's great to see — finally — that the public is beginning to realize what a snake oil sales job they've had shoved down their throats. PM Lumpy governs with the assumption that he can rule via the "stupid white man vote" (demographically speaking, not racially — I am white white with a healthy tan still hanging on from warmer days for the record).

    Some examples. Cutting the GST 2%. Every economist screamed bloody murder, every stupid white man said "yaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy, now my Tim Hortons double-double is cheaper!" (forget about that $50 billion a year deficit — our kids can pay it later!). "Getting tough on crime". Even judges overwhelmingly say this is a horrible idea. But our ever gullible stupid white posse of male fury applauded the move (despite crime dropping year over year for the past 40+ years).

    I'm so tired of this clown running our country into the ground. I AM THE RIGHT OF CENTRE — fiscially. Take your social conservatism and shove it where the sun don't shine if you can't run this country economically. These conservatives should be embarrassed by the fact that the Liberals are clearly, CLEARLY the only authority on fiscal prudence over the past 20 years. Mulroney ran up the bills, and PM Lumpy's Machiavellian horde have actually been worse — at least Mulroney gave us NAFTA, all these clowns have given us is the political equivalent of bed bugs and herpes… hell bed bugs WITH herpes for that matter.

    Cretien's gang remain the only group that truly took care of business, and were the reason we didn't get our collective arses handed to us in the last election. Rant over, time for work.

  151. I am of the personal opinion that the PM is brilliant. Coalition smackdown in 2008. His opponents outnumber him and they are unable to pass legislation without his support.

    (Read Harperland) Foes and allies comment he understands and has come to the subject matter at hand with depth and knowledge. Hard work, determination, perseverance are the qualities I attribute to this politial leader.

    The other team may have bright bulbs too. Is this system designed to allow the vested government an imbalance of power? It appears the opposition and the media are incapable of turning public opinion against the incumbent to affect the donations and support at the ballot. (Since 2004)

    I hear criticism and complaints about a views espoused by Preston Manning policies when the Reform party existed, This current PM provides many teaching moments and demonstrates this is not the Reform Party of Preston Manning. Some in the media and opposition have a very difficult time grasping who they are fighting.

    What was the year voters had the option of electing the Reform Party or Preston Manning to form the government?

    Look to the weakness in the opposition for failing to plan and make preparations for scuttling the Bill in the Senate. Expecting any other outcome was just plain silly.

    If you were a landlocked country would you build a navy to defend your borders? It appears the Liberals-NDP-Bloc are busy talking about George Bush and Reform party policies to the public.

  152. I know, eh!?!

    For leftists, the Liberals slashed spending and balanced the budget. As for the Cons, anyone remember Stephen Harper during the 2008 debate gulping down a drink of water and muttering "There will be no recession"?

    That was before the recession hit, and we were already $15 billion in the hole. What a joke!

    I'm all for social programs, but only if we can afford them. A fiscally responsible government wins out any day, not ones that pay lip service to it.

  153. So sorry leftards.
    Shoulda jumped at Harper's Senate reforms when you couda.

    BTW, thanks G_d this job killer of bill died

  154. It's too bad Bill that the only evidence you will accept of Catastrophic Global Warming is it happening. And by then it's not a theory, it's happened.

    It's like driving down the wrong side of the road, saying "I'm not going to get in an accident" and only accepting that "theory" when you finally smash into someone. How do you propose we take the information we know, like that the earth is getting warmer by several degrees already since the 1950's and CO2 and Methane are increasing in volume at a steady rate… Perhaps we should just wait and see?

    I guess we should just get in our SUV's and turn on the AC and ignore it.

  155. Funny, because earlier I was speaking with a Conservative who was sending money to his party to make himself feel better.

    Never heard of any Canadians on this website doing the same for Al Gore though. You would think a Canadian might do something like send money to the Green, Libs or NDP.

    You know, you don't have to always equate climate change with one person. Climate change awareness didn't start with Al Gore, it started with a very popular Conservative politician. Do you know who that is?

  156. Oh, and me!

    I sit next to a climate change skeptic at work. He also believes that the shape shifting reptile and the plebians are fighting for control of the earth. All this stuff is on the same websites.

    9/11 was an inside job, not total incompetence. The New World Order controls everything, the banks (or the communists, depending on what decade you're reading the literature from) control everything. The Illuminati control everything… With all these shadow groups controlling everything, you'd think they could get something done!

    Dig a little deeper folks, and try to find out who's giving you this information and think about (rationally, please) what they have to gain.

  157. Thanks for getting back to TFA, KC Tan ;)

    It's not like the Cons have done something illegal here, I mean. I'm a little upset but I know this is how our Parliament works. And I for one am in favor of an unelected senate. I don't however feel lifetime membership is a good idea.

    Uproar from the right on the usurping of democracy? Only if there's an agreement on the left.

    However, if we go back and look at the promises of senate reform Harper promised us, nothing has been done except to stack the senate to block bills. Business as usual. It's not like they need a second reading, since the the money comes from the oil patch, what's to read, eh?

  158. No, it hasn't.

    If the webpage you're grabbing that information from looks like it was written for Netscape Navigator 4.x there's a pretty good chance you're on a "conspiracy" website and these websites never have any basis in fact.

    It's like reading the national enquirer and thinking what they say is true. It's entertainment, in newspaper form. And it's clearly gotten to you.

  159. You're SO RIGHT.

    New rules are all that's required, not a complete overhaul. Minimum required attendance could be a good idea. Or mandatory attendance for votes. All kinds of ideas to fix the issue at hand.

    Electing them is using the wrong tool for the job. Might not be a terrible idea, but trying to use it to fix attendance is silly.

  160. I agree, unfortunately.

    Without some serious money and ideas, we would never be able to lower our CO2 levels by that much. Most of the growth in that area has been the oil sand, just extracting the oil from the ground!

    There's lots of ideas on how to fix this, how to create lots of energy required to heat up the bitumen, but it would cost quite a bit of money. We could have used some of that stimulus money to build wind and solar… ….. ahh nevermind. Alberta would never have wanted it. Climate change doesn't exist there. Drill baby drill! :(

  161. You're really out of your league here.

    Also, what commies?

  162. They realize that we will have to take collective action to survive the climate crisis and this offends their selfish pseudolibertarian views. If Ayn Rand didn't write about climate change, they don't believe in it!

  163. What evidence do you have that it would have had such an effect? This is just Conservative alarmism.

  164. It is with terrible shock & dismay I read this article demonstrating the complete lack of integrity on control freak Haper & his buddies..It is further proof to me that we must abolish the senate as soon as possible…Don Bater,Rouleau,Sask.

  165. it was a snap vote, opportunistically so, the senators have a responsibility to do committee work.

  166. Ignorance is so helpful. Stick your head in the sand, that is a safe place.

  167. Interesting but the Cons invoked the kill the bill plan, getting all their members, (sheep) into chamber, while the Liberals are off doing committee work. Game playing at the expense of democracy and the Canadian people. This government is a joke and there are the clowns laughing cheering on the strategist who makes fools of them and mocks the rest of us.

  168. Cooper is 'second sober thought' only available to Liberal Senators?

    The sheep are those who suggest Bill C 311 would not adversely affect the Canadian economy.

    The UN would do an excellent job in making sure those despots and dictators would adopt the "low carbon" economy. Their success in Rwanda, Darfur speaks volumes.

  169. Layton has no idea about Democracy, he is nothing but a frigging wind bag. His idea of Democrocy is to allow his members a free vote (Gun Registry) but than he pressures his members to vote his way, i guess that is his idea of Democracy.

  170. You talk about credibility and yet when Harper wanted to change the way the Senate was filled you Liberals would have no part of it. The way I see it, is that Harper had to play the Liberal game and make his appoitments so as to get control of the Senate so as to pass any Tory Bills through. I guess you now understand how the Senate appoitments are wrong. The only reason you are complaining is because you were beat by your own game. I also don't agree with appointing senators as it leads to abuse. The bottom line is Harper is right about the Senate and most Canadians agree with him.

  171. Wah, wah, wah! Poor, poor Harper was forced to ditch his principles and lie repeatedly by the Liberals! He has no will of his own! He is merely a puppet of the Liberals! That's why he is such a glorious leader, because he can't lead!

  172. You're really an American, aren't you? NRA shill, I'm betting.

  173. No, just tired of you left wing nuts who have no common sense, now go back to mommys basement.

  174. Wow another Talliban Jack supporter, you must be so far up jack's ass that you are breathing fresh air. Ok, Holly Stick this is where you get to show your basement mentallity by attacking me and everyone who disagrees with you.

  175. I, as an employed Canadian, am very happy that the Senate did the right thing. And those that blame the Conservatives should probably do a little digging. It was the Liberals that forced the vote in the Senate, and thwarted any chance of discussion. And then, what 12 of them were off shopping or apparently doing something much more important then their jobs. Typical.

  176. I, as an employed Canadian, am very happy that the Senate did the right thing. And those that blame the Conservatives should probably do a little digging. It was the Liberals that forced the vote in the Senate, and thwarted any chance of discussion. And then, what 12 of them were off shopping or apparently doing something much more important then their jobs. Typical.

  177. You do not need an economics degree to see what would happen Holly!!! By cutting C02 emissions, AKA fuel consumption, aka electricity and heat, aka the economy of Canada you have to kill jobs. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. Can you explain how it would not kill jobs? Imports aka food, require massive fuel to grow and be transported here. Heat is required for anyone to live in Canada. Without heat, you would have nobody living here at all. Getting to work requires fuel. Whether you take a bus or drive. And no, not everybody can or wants to live within a block or two of downtown. Everything you use in your house is pretty much shipped in from somewhere else.

  178. So to take a 80% reduction from 1990 levels in C02 by 2050, either requires a) 80% less stuff coming into our country and 80% less stuff going out of the country and 80% less heating or b) the same amount of c02 being generated with no reduction and massive taxes on everything so we can offset our carbon output. I don't like either scenerio, and I will leave this country if it ever comes down to it. I'll move to a warmer client where I don't need to heat my home, and I can collect credits from the few of you that stay here to work and freeze in the cold.

  179. So to take a 80% reduction from 1990 levels in C02 by 2050, either requires a) 80% less stuff coming into our country and 80% less stuff going out of the country and 80% less heating or b) the same amount of c02 being generated with no reduction and massive taxes on everything so we can offset our carbon output. I don't like either scenerio, and I will leave this country if it ever comes down to it. I'll move to a warmer client where I don't need to heat my home, and I can collect credits from the few of you that stay here to work and freeze in the cold.

  180. Actually I am not a member of any political party. Just calling it like I see it, that's all. Nice to see how much you enjoy presuming so much about my position on things. Which Harper is right about the senate by the way? The one that uses it to kill bills passed by our elected representatives or the one that think he can reform it without re-opening the constitution?