Gong:
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose says Canada has paid all the money it owes in support of the Kyoto Protocol, but that's not what UN figures indicate...
Asked for clarification in the Commons on Tuesday, Ambrose said no money is owed under the climate treaty.
"I can confirm again what I said at committee that was accurate," Ambrose said.
"Canada has met all of our obligations. All of our mandatory obligations under the Kyoto protocol were paid up in full. I have the United Nations document here to prove it if the Speaker would like me to table it."
It's not clear what document she was referring to.
Bob Klager, Ambrose's director of communications, said the money was a pledge, not a legal commitment, and no money is owing.
However, the $1.5 million is listed as outstanding on the official website of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
We should come up with a fundraiser, wherein everytime Ambrose makes a gaffe people contribute $10 to the UN bill. In this way, the issue could be resolved by early February.
9 comments:
I'm praying to the political gods that this lady is still environment minister during the next election.
I'm praying that calls for her resignation bring down the government. Harper is on record saying he would view such a vote as a matter of confidence.
"Canada has met all of our obligations
Huge gaffe.
Bottom line, she seems to have no idea what she is talking about.
I'm a bit older than some of the commenters I've seen here. I've managed people in my time. This is an employee that I either would have moved or fired.
She is their rising star that fizzled. She does not understand the file.
She should be gone, full stop.
That said, if she stay's, well, all the better for those of us who would really like to do something.
Hey I've had to fire people in my young career too but if I wanted to destroy my company - I'd keep her.
And not that I want to see the party destroyed, just bumped down about 30 notches in the next election ;)
Darren, lol. I'm not pulling the age card here...gawd forbid!
I think we are agreed.
Rona is toast and the Conservatives are pathetic on the environment (but that may change given Harper's ability to outflank the Liberals on many issues) but you all need to be careful.
Despite all the hype that seems to have overtaken the party, it is quite something to criticize the government on an issue in which our own party failed miserably to deal with
Harper Today:
"Mr. Speaker, the Liberal leader has a record on the environment that is no different than Alfonso Gagliano on accountability."
That is a powerful zinger that has the potential to resonate with swing voters in an election campaign
CTV commentary today:
However, if the Liberals want to reposition themselves as a greener party, they do have to explain how they promised in 1993 to cut greenhouse gas emissions and then didn't table a plan until 2005
I’d like to hear an answer to the above point.
-ITC
in the centre
You raise valid points, and I can't defend the Liberals previous failures. There is a danger in attacking the government, because it opens Liberals up to easy zingers, as Harper demonstrated. The only hope, Dion sounds intelligent when he speaks on the environment, whereas Harper shows remedial comprehension. In a debate, Dion should look relatively attractive.
You can't discount the Conservatives ability to deflect, especially when ample evidence exists to be critical of the Liberal record. Crisp soundbites are there for the taking, so no one should assume that we have automatic advantage on this issue. I think it all boils down to how Dion reacts. Despite the failures, Dion does seem to enjoy a certain amount of respect from environmentalists, primarily because of Montreal, so this could serve him well when it gets nasty.
I didn't vote Liberal last election, and the environment was the primary reason. Having said that, there does seem to be a genuine epiphany within the party and am I now cautiously optimistic.
Steve
I voted Green in the last election precisely because their platform talked about introducing carbon taxes and gradually reducing income taxes in order to strive towards revenue neutral change in government tax collections
We need to price emissions into the cost of goods. It just feels like common sense. As a result of my beliefs, I picked Ignatieff (only one to bring up and stick with carbon tax) over Dion when it came to the environment (Since I wasn’t a fan of Dion’s carrots on a stick approach)
However, I am waiting to see if Dion actually has some great concrete proposals in his platform. Until then, The Conservatives have ample time to "pull the rug" underneath us when it comes to the Environment. I have a feeling the $300 million Toxic plan was just the beginning. I think their clean air act will be heavily modified with NDP amendments)
Time will tell if I am being too pessimistic
in the centre
I hope that ultimately the Liberal Party endorses Ignatieff's carbon tax, revenue neutral, approach, because it was the most progressive idea presented during the campaign. The sky isn't a free garbage can, and we need to put a price on negative consequences, while rewarding the positive.
Post a Comment