Conservatives and Liberals have agreed to quickly clear the legislative decks in the Senate, committing to vote Friday on a host of bills, including the federal budget.
In return for the speedy budget vote, the Tories have also agreed to vote on a controversial Liberal private member's bill ordering the government to meet the Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
The Tories have long contended the targets are unachievable without destroying the economy and, until recently, had been filibustering the bill to prevent it coming to a vote in the Liberal-dominated Senate.
Under the agreement, all bills that are currently at third and final reading will go to a vote by noon Friday and then be given royal assent.
You can argue the merits of the Kyoto bill, and whether or not is it a good/bad thing politically for the opposition, particularly the Liberals, but there is no question this passage will be an issue.
13 comments:
If it does pass then the Conservatives will have to include a plan in the Throne Speech widely expected in the Fall.
If they do not then Canadians could find themselves in an election as defying Canadian law could be an excuse to bring down the government for all opposition parties.
I guess we will just have to see how the summer goes for all of the party leaders to see if political expediency will trump principle.
I'm somewhat surprised the Conservatives agreed to this compromise. There actually could be an element to the Kyoto bill they like, people like Coyne have argued it is a big mistake for the Liberals. On the environment the Conservatives lose, if the question moves to Kyoto by 2012, then you have an entire different debate and one that allows for more bombastic rhetoric from the government.
I'm not so sure it's as clear cut as outlined in the article. I watched the Senate debates and Senators from Atlantic Canada, no matter what side, were not fooling around.
The number of Senators in the room kept changing though, so I'm not sure how many have a say at final vote. Is it only the original Finance Committee?
There is the issue of amendments, but it seems strange they would agree on procedure without some confidence in the final vote.
Perhaps I'm confused. Wouldn't amendments cause the House to come back?
Maybe I misundertood your comment Steve.
Yes, they would have to call back parliament. But, don't they vote on the amendments? It is confusing, but to make this deal implies that the budget will pass intact.
They updated my original link, which has the same title, but then spends the second half of the story talking about amendments. Head scratch :)
Okay, I read the updated version I guess...that is why I wasn't following.
I'm telling you, these guys are on a mission.
I know it's a nerdy thing to do, watch senate hearings, but they are interesting. My only complaint, they like to hear themselves speak and repeat, for each witness, almost verbatim. That's annoying and that's my grandmother/father.
They know their stuff though and anyone who suggests that they sit around and snore, should watch. That would include Harper and Van Loan with their recent comments.
BTW, if they hate the Senate so much, why are conservative appointee's cool and all liberals bad? If there are conservative Senators balking too, that must be said.
Media? Honesty, gut's?
knb
On the "nerdy" thing. A few years ago, I visited a friend in Ottawa for a week. While he was at work, I would go to Parliament and watch Question Period. Everyday I went, on two or three occasions I was the only person in one of the galleries. It was so pathetic that on the Friday, Chretien came in, looked up at me and nodded to acknowledge me. I was like the furniture.
Trying unnecessarily to reduce or artificially sequester carbon dioxide emissions wastes energy. Wasting energy unnecessarily harms the environment.
Carbon dioxide is already sequestered naturally. Carbon dioxide released by man near ground level is heavier than air and sinks in air relatively quickly rather than rising up to the upper atmosphere to become a so-called greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere. While sinking, it stratifies from air; after sinking and stratifying, it tends to remain close to the ground. The carbon dioxide can then dissolve in soil water or alternatively it may find its way down to low-lying water bodies or down to ocean level where it can readily mix and dissolve in water or react with water to form weak carbonic acid. Carbon dioxide is also removed immediately from the lower atmosphere by rainfall.
David
Pardon me if I don't take your submission seriously, given that your webpage is devoted to the premise that we didn't land on the moon. Kook ko, Kook ko.
I do not claim that men have not landed on the moon; I was not personally involved in the Apollo space program. I do claim, however, that Apollo moon mission anomalies and inconsistencies exist which have not yet been adequately explained.
Members of the Senate who voted for the so-called “Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act” had an obligation, before taking their seats, to swear that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
They swore, or affirmed, that they would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule.
The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, not the Crown of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, according to the British North America Act, 1867.
This calls into question the legality of the “Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act”.
"I was not personally involved in the Apollo space program."
Are you sure, your sound pretty out there to me?
Post a Comment