Environment Minister John Baird's office confirmed Wednesday that representatives from the three opposition parties would not be welcome as part of Canada's official delegation at the United Nations conference.
That's a departure from a long-held government tradition of bringing critics along to major international conferences - opposition MPs participated in the last major UN environmental conference in Nairobi last November, for example.
The Liberals note that while Leader Stephane Dion was the environment minister, he brought Tory critic Bob Mills "to pretty much everything," and arranged for Mills to participate in some meetings with foreign ministers at which Dion wasn't present.
Liberal environment critic David McGuinty calls the move censorship.
"I thought that I had a responsibility as the Official Opposition critic for the environment, who ran to get elected to work in this field - I kind of thought I had a special responsibility to represent millions of Canadians who have a competing point of view."
Said NDP Environment critic Nathan Cullen: "It's so petty. It doesn't speak to a confident government. If they felt good about how they were dealing with climate change, then they wouldn't mind criticism."
Environmental groups have also been told they would not be part of the Canadian delegation.
Normally, I don't endorse embarrassing the federal government abroad, but I do hope the opposition leaders make the trek. The fact that the government is shutting out the opposition and the experts speaks volumes about their flimsy environmental policies, not to mention an admission that Canadians don't support their approach. When you are forced to censor people, ignore people, break from tradition, it is really more a statement on your own failure.
I wonder if one of the opposition websites can set up a fund. For example, "Help Send Nathan Cullen To Bali". My wallet is itching, the world needs to know that this government doesn't speak for Canada on this issue. The majority has made their view well known, if not for parliamentary games, we might actually have something substantive to bring to the table.
Every time I think they cannot sink any lower...
Such is the case, when you are perpetrating a fraud.
You've got this post following a pitty party about whining, following an Ontario seat tear jerker. Would you like some cheese with that?
Do Liberal supporters have anything other than complaints in their bag of tricks?
And the complaints are over???
Whether the grizzly bear of jurisdictions is getting enough protein in their kibble.
Now let's focus on this little topic. The last time the government allowed Godfrey, Cullen and the ENGO's to go with them on an environmentally related conference, all they did was look for the camera's and microphones to internationally embarrass their own country.
Who is surprised that the next invitation is being rescinded?
These tantrums just reinforce for the rest of Canadian's that the Liberal Pary of Canada still thinks its entitled to its entitlements. It isn't.
You're kidding right? Take out the partisan aspect, and you are still left with the Conservatives snubbing the experts, who have traditionally accompanied delegates. You're defending the go it alone routine, and I guess you have to, because NOBODY buys this fraud?
As to whining, please cite ONE source, any study, that has validated Baird's claims? All these wild pronouncements, no backing whatsoever, and your response is to justify. It's a joke. Like I said before, I'll ante up some money to ensure that the dog and pony show, reeking of obnoxious propaganda isn't left to embarrass again on the world stage. Don't turn your aim on people exposing the fraud, you should applaud them.
I'm not kidding. And if you review some of my previous comments, I think you'll agree that I don't enter a discussion without thought.
On the environment, sure, let Cullen, McGuinty, and the ENGO's go, but only after they pledge to behave with a lot more decorum than they did in Africa. They won't, and you know that. So does Baird, so what's the point of your post? To embarrass your country by providing the entertainment for Germany, Australia and Belgium while they eat their popcorn? Or is it more insidious, to provide good copy for the CBC/CTV to bring home and splash across our dinner time news?
Incidententally, you must know something I don't. What is it that Baird is suppose to be doing that he isn't?
In regards to the rest of the note, your last three posts were all long on hurt feelings and short on purpose.
"As to whining, please cite ONE source, any study, that has validated Baird's claims?"
Hurt feelings? Just the facts please. Still waiting....
You mis-understand me.
When I suggested you should get some cheese for your "whine", I meant your last three blogs.
All three are whining about something to do with the Tories.
In regards to Baird,
what are you looking for? I don't know of any works that either applaud or pan his output specific to climate change.
However, you know my position on this already and that is, Canada is not an issue. Our performance, and the Kyoto Protocol's measurement of it was always a red herring. It as an attractive story for left wing media. We, as a nation, are not the problem, although we have a role in devising technical and innovative solutions, reducing our personal footprint is likely not of significant value.
Fear of embarrassment is not an excuse for denying the Opposition from doing their job.
Indeed, sometimes the only weapon left to the Opposition is embarrassing the government when that government refuses to listen to any other points of view.
Steve is correct this is a greater reflection of the Harper government's own insecurities on this file than than on the Opposition.
That fact is further demonstrated by the government's decision to exclude NGOs from the delegation.
Tomm, you of course will not admit this, but this action seems to indicate that the government is running scared on the environment file.
As well, it would seem to indicate that the government's approach to the Bali conference will probably be somewhat obstructionist and they want to be certain that no domestic critics are there to point that out.
It has nothing to do with Kyoto, it is simply a matter of whether or not Baird's plan is credible.
BTW, I don't appreciate your characterization that I am "whining" in these posts. One deals with simple math, no matter how you spin, Ontario has a legitimate beef, which Van Loan then turns into a pissing match. To point that out amounts to whining, then I suppose any critique has to be a complaint. The other post, a rebuff to the CONSERVATIVE talking point, on moaning and groaning, where they clearly take a back seat to no one. This one, an attempt to censor, what amount to the majority opinion, both in terms of public representation, as well as expert analysis.
I will add this, never once have you taken this posture when I "whine" about the Liberals. You do the math on that one, seems pretty self evident from here.
We are in agreement.
I don't want our country/government embarrassed internationally by opposition grandstanding, and you do.
You think there is some purpose to doing it, I don't.
"I don't want our country/government embarrassed internationally by opposition grandstanding, and you do."
Does the same apply to Canada's environmental community, who were also thrown to the curb in Nairobi?
And since when is it grandstanding to have the majority express itself? Or is Canada better served by Baird's solo Goebbels routine? Do you support our government going around the globe, misleading people? If you can show me some backup to support fabrications, I will stand down.
We can select specific examples of what we have seen in the previous two years that have been disappointing, but what's the purpose?
Suzuki's bus tour? Suzuki confronting Baird at a Home Show, McGuinty in front of the cameras during committee meetings, Godfrey and Cullen representing their "country" in Africa, Pablo's Bill, etc.
Are you only interested in polarization, or are you more interested in production?
If embarrassing the Tory government isn't working, than thy wouldn't McGuinty and Cullen look for ways to work with them?
Let's be honest. McGuinty has no interest in working with this government and neither does Cullen. They want media exposure, sound bites, and playing "wedge" politics. The same goes for the ENGO's. Many were honest and indicated that they were refusing to even work on the Clean Air Act last winter, because their goals were political and that the Tory government needed to be defeated. Working to honestly and constructively build a new Clean Air Act, was not even on their radar. They wanted media interviews and they wanted to embarrass the government.
So go ahead and suggest that Cullen, MCguinty, and the ENGO's trail Baird around telling the international media that out "minority" goverment is wrong and needs a good public spanking.
They will embarrass their country as well as embarrassing Baird, and probably themselves.
"Suzuki's bus tour? Suzuki confronting Baird at a Home Show, McGuinty in front of the cameras during committee meetings, Godfrey and Cullen representing their "country" in Africa, Pablo's Bill, etc."
Well now you finally reveal yourself, with your attempt to trivialize the criticism. How about Jaccard's analysis, you know the same guy Baird hired for his apocalypse routine in the Senate? What about the German bank's analysis? You reduce the climate change experts as some partisan lobby? Come on man, bring something to the table, or frankly get out of the way with the apologist nonsense. There is only one party that is embarrassing Canada on the international stage, and your inability to argue the substance speaks volumes.
"Are you only interested in polarization, or are you more interested in production?"
The climate is changing. The changes are ocurring due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas release caused by industrial development, transportation, lifestyle, and total number of people on the planet. The changes are accelerating. With concerted efforts to lessen greenhouse gas footprints our global society can slow the increase in greenhouse gas production, and perhaps pull back on the negative feedback loop we are causing, sometime during the next 50 years.
Is that what you are waiting for?
In regards to solving the problems? Your guess should be as good as mine, but isn't, because your mind is befogged with partisan thoughts. The solution is for all counties to look toward innovative and technical invention. The solution is NOT in crippling the most innovative and technical economies, just for fun.
The Stern Report is important. So is the G8 figuring out how to work together, so is APEC finding ways to work together.
China, India and the US are key to any solution.
all they did was look for the camera's and microphones to internationally embarrass their own country.
Why should we let Stephen Harper have all the fun?
I wonder if Tomm felt this way when it was CPC/CA Opposition members going along with Liberal Ministers to such conferences and used that opportunity to "embarrass" the Liberal government of the day for their inactions on the file. Somehow I doubt that back then it bothered Tomm at all. He has illustrated why yet again I refuse to consider him a Conservative supporter worthy of trying to debate because of his belief in myths and his blatant double standards of partisanship. Why so many people think Tomm is a reasonable Conservative supporter like Olaf is something that I have never understood.
It is a fundamental role of the opposition to oppose the government and to make them look bad if there is any basis to do so, especially in terms of policy actions/inactions. For you to suddenly argue that it is a bad thing now that it is your guys in power speaks volumes for what kind of partisan/apologist for Harper and his CPC you truly are for all your civility in the manners department. A polite partisan hack is still a partisan hack, and that is all you have revealed yourself to be. Incidentally, Steve V was not writing about "whining". he was talking about Parliamentarians demanding apologies specifically from other Parliamentarians and the PM, not the same thing at all and yet you appeared to completely fail to grasp this rather basic distinction so you could take the approach you did to Steve V in this thread.
You reveal yourself for the blind partisan/apologist every time you do so, and you also reveal your inability/unwillingness to speak to what someone has actually written/said and instead create straw arguments like with the whining bit you did in this thread. You do this to a lot of those you disagree with, and it was one of the main reasons I found you no longer worthy of responding to. Indeed, I am only doing so this time because of how egregiously you have misrepresented Steve V, one of the least partisan Liberal supporters I have found in the online world and someone clearly less partisan in his party support than you are with yours.
Well put, I was watching this thread (is that the correct term?) last night and did wonder what the heck was going on.
When it's directed towards the Liberals it's good analysis, when it's directed towards the Conservatives it's "whining".
"...When it's directed towards the Liberals it's good analysis, when it's directed towards the Conservatives it's "whining"."
That's not a bad comment, occassionally I am selective, as are you, and as is Scotian. You are missing my point. To reiterate, I commented on the fact that three posts in a row were all similar in that they were whining about something to do with the Tories. They were not focussed on positive policy options or initiatives.
Let's go through some of your material:
"...I wonder if Tomm felt this way when it was CPC/CA Opposition members going along with Liberal Ministers to such conferences and used that opportunity to "embarrass" the Liberal government of the day..."
Quite frankly I do not ever recall even one incident where a CPC politician hounded Chretien, Martin, or their Ministers, outside of Canada. If you can find a decent example of this, I will apologize. I expect my apology will not be needed.
However, that being said, you then commented:
"...It is a fundamental role of the opposition to oppose the government and to make them look bad if there is any basis to do so,"
so clearly I can assume you were supportive of the CPC embarassing the government of the day in an international venue, when they felt they had a "basis" to do so.
In regards to my egregious defamation of Steve. I had not in any way done so. Steve has a blog site. A quite good one, too. He allows comments. I comment. That's it. If anything, my appearing as a commenter here means that I feel my comments are valued. That should imply respect.
I don't recall ever defaming Steve. We don't always share the same opinion, but that is to be expected.
"They were not focussed on positive policy options or initiatives."
It was my comment. That's it.
There is no so what.
Post a Comment