It’s not easy being Green by Jason Setnyk – November 25, 2010 – Cornwall Ontario

Cornwall ON – “Today, we pay tribute to the many Canadians who have made the ultimate sacrifice so that we may live in a country free from tyranny and governed by freedom, democracy and justice.” Those were the words of Prime Minister Steven Harper a few weeks ago on Remembrance Day. It’s a shame Harper’s actions do not match his elegant words.

In a democracy we elect Members of Parliament, and they vote on bills, including Bill C-311, the Climate Act. Representation is an important foundation of our democracy. Soldiers risked their lives, and many perished, so we could have freedom.

Tyranny can refer to an oppressive power, or a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force, and it can also refer to an unjust act.

According to David Suzuki, “Had notice been given of the vote, more senators would have been present and the bill may have passed.” But there was no notice and there was no debate, and this is unjust.

What the Senate did was legal, but it was not right. It was tyrannical in nature. The Tory members of the Senate killed the environmental bill without debate, despite the fact a majority in the House of Commons voted for it.

The Senate according to Rick Mercer, “despite having Mike Duffy as a member, is suppose to be the chamber of a sober second thought”.

Steven Harper once promised to never appoint an unelected person to the Senate, but he broke that promise. How Harper is using the Senate to usurp our Democracy. I don’t know how Mr. Harper can ever look a war veteran in the eye again.

Kermit the Frog once said, “It’s not easy being green”, and that is especially true if you are an environmentalist in Canada.

But the Tory Senators actions do not simply effect environmentalist. What the Senate did effects us all, and it rattles the very foundations of our democracy.

Our democracy needs checks and balances, and that is why now more than ever we need a Senate that is elected.

Gault Family Chiropractic Truffles Burger

18 Responses to "It’s not easy being Green by Jason Setnyk – November 25, 2010 – Cornwall Ontario"

  1. Grimalot   November 26, 2010 at 11:35 AM

    They did that to Bill C-311 to cause uproar specifically while they passed the bill C-36 right under our noses and now its in the chamber of sober second thought.. wonder what will happen with their con dominated illegally appointed senate now..

  2. Stan   November 26, 2010 at 2:48 PM

    There’s nothing illegal about the Senate. The Bill was passed by a majority of the House of Commons.

  3. rodney vander veer   November 26, 2010 at 7:10 PM

    Maybe not illegal Stan, but it was certainly shameful.

  4. Saturday Sally & Sunday Sue   November 28, 2010 at 9:09 AM

    If the Senate voted with the House of Commons, blue movies, women in pants and the birth control pill would still be illegal. Recently, both Liberal and Conservative MP’s voted for mandatory minimum jail time for marijuana possession with Bill C-10 , turned down by the Senate, now known as Bill S-10. Aren’t you scared, Jason that an elected Senate will elect the same kinds of sinister, vested interest, elite, corporate shilling, organized crime protecting turds who seem to end up as MP’s? Suzuki forgot to mention that the Liberals forced the vote, preventing the Senate from due diligent discussion. If there is one thing a member of Parliament doesn’t want – it’s oversight from an unelected Senate. MP’s hate that.

  5. smee   December 14, 2010 at 5:32 PM

    Does anyone fully comprehend the repercussions of bill C-311. Let’s for once not venture into big money, but a logical perspective of the outcome.
    to ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by committing to a long-term target to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas emissions to a level that is 80% below the 1990 level by the year 2050, and by establishing interim targets for the period 2015 to 2045. It creates an obligation on the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to review proposed measures to meet the targets and submit a report to Parliament. It also sets out the duties of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy”
    How would this bill differ from Kyoto? Kyoto has the 5 basic principles to reduce emissions of green house gases of up to 6%
    Commitments to the Annex-countries. The heart of the Protocol lies in establishing commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are legally binding for Annex I countries. Dividing the countries in different groups is one of the key concepts in making commitments possible, where only the Annex I countries in 1997, where seen as having the economic capacity to commit themselves and their industry. Making only the few nations in the Annex 1 group committed to the protocols limitations.
    Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I countries are required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home.
    Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an adaptation fund for climate change.
    Accounting, Reporting and Review in order to ensure the integrity of the Protocol.
    Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforce compliance with the commitments under the Protocol.
    Is Bill C-311 not just another attempt at the same problem but this time with more defined targets?
    I have seen nothing to ensure the targets will be met. Interim or KPI goals are outlined but not once does it say anything about the repercussions g not reaching the KPI’s . Would carbon sharing overwrite the KPI deadlines thus undermining the intent of bill C-311.
    It would be great to finally see industry be held accountable for their actions, but what do we have to substitute with?

  6. Grimalot   December 14, 2010 at 7:18 PM

    Forget bill c-311.. what about bill c-36? Please, give your breakdown of that smee… Im sure you won’t be too pleased.. unless you have your nose so far up harpers wazoo

  7. smee   December 14, 2010 at 9:06 PM

    bill c-36
    Is a bill proposed to secure our safety from unsafe consumer products

  8. Grimalot   December 15, 2010 at 8:25 PM

    ok smee, it discusses giving the government extra “regulations” in order to be dealing with these unsafe products.. please elaborate on what these “extra regulations” are? who has the power to wield these “extra regulations”, etc, please? Look it over and explain it to me please..

  9. smee   December 15, 2010 at 9:03 PM

    It will be just like 311, just passed legislation with nobody controlling the outcome. Like Kyoto on the enviroment we already have product standards. Nobody enforces them.

    Our stores crry so many products shall we say with out CSA or ULC approvals but if you ask them about you get fluffed off. There is no control for the rules we already have.

    36 will be no different then the new enviromental laws, they are in place to keep certain groups happy and for absolutely no other reason.

  10. Grimalot   December 16, 2010 at 4:05 PM

    Smee, please, what are these “extra regulations” proposed in bill C-36? and who will be tasked to meter them out? its a simple question.. you seem to know so much about 311 and yet you are not answering my questions. Could it be because there are no “regulations” proposed? Could it be foreign regulations? Please, tell me? give me an honest breakdown? and please don’t tell me its like bill c-311.. because they have nothing to do with eachother other than the government using C-311 as a smoke and mirror tactic while they got bill C-36 passed with almost no one looking at it.. or the media knowing about it for that matter…

    And by the way, whatever was passed in C-36, was already covered under other laws and acts.. I’ve already read up on quite a bit of it, so please, you tell me what its going to do?

  11. smee   December 16, 2010 at 6:46 PM

    Grinmalot
    Really I already answered your question, however if you have concerns perhaps you could read the Regulations, Violations followed by the Penalties section of the Charter for yourself. There seems to be some descriptions laid out relatively clearly.

  12. Grimalot   December 17, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    Obviously I have to dumb this down for you smee… What are those “regulations”?.. please point them out to me… I see a lot of talk about those “regulations”, but not what those “regulations” are.. so point it out..

  13. smee   December 17, 2010 at 2:55 PM

    Grimalot
    You ae just as ignorant here as I have seen in the freeholder pages. Really mature up a little. As I have said many times before and you provide the proof
    “people will agree with you only if they already agree with you. You do not change people’s minds.””

  14. Furtz   December 17, 2010 at 9:05 PM

    Oh oh. Grimmie and Smee are tossing the “dumb” and “ignorant” salvos. That pretty much puts an end to any intelligent discussion.

  15. Grimalot   December 18, 2010 at 12:45 AM

    I don’t think the discussion can progress much beyond this point either to say the least.. Regardless, bill C-36 is a skeleton bill, there are no regulations listed, however there are violations and penalties outlined.. it basically opens the door for foreign entities to lay down the rules.. But also, it removes a lot of protection that business has against entities entering and shutting them down on a guilty until proven innocent basis. Farmers beware for one. Let alone any other business that may compete on any basis with big pharma for one, as well as other major conglomerates.

    Before anyone would be able to do this, you would figure, that they would outline just what these “regulations” are so that one can abide by them for one. That is a very scary bill that C-36. Instead here we are arguing about C-311 which is what they want. Continue in your ways smee, you are obviously set by them as I am set by mine. As you seem to quote at me, you cannot change peoples minds.

  16. Stan   December 18, 2010 at 7:20 AM

    “Dumb this down for you” means to explain in simpler terms that which you do not seem to understand. Obviously smee’s brain is not connected when he opens his mouth. Calling someone ignorant only shows how ignorant one really is!

  17. smee   December 18, 2010 at 8:37 AM

    Clause 5 of Bill C-36 prohibits the manufacture, import, advertisement and sale of certain consumer products, while clause 6 prohibits the manufacture, import, advertisement and sale of consumer products that do not meet regulatory requirements. Prohibited products are set out in Schedule 2 of bill. The products on this list include many of the same products that are currently banned from import, sale or advertisement in Canada under Part I of Schedule I of the Hazardous Products Act. With respect to the regulated products described in clause 6 of the bill, no regulations have yet been made under Bill C-36. Broad regulatory authority is, however, provided for in clause 37 of the bill.

    Clause 7 of the bill prohibits manufacturers and importers from manufacturing, importing, advertising or selling consumer products that constitute a danger to human health or human safety; are subjects of recall or review orders made by the Minister of Health or review officers under the statutory authority granted to them;23 are subjects of a voluntary recall in Canada; or are subject to orders to take certain measures in relation to the consumer products in question.24 Clause 8 contains similar prohibitions for those who advertise and sell consumer products.

    Bill C-36 makes consequential amendments to the Hazardous Products Act that are designed to account for the fact that the CCPSA, if enacted in its current form, will repeal Part I of the Hazardous Products Act. The changes are intended to ensure that there is no conflict between the operations of the Hazardous Products Act and the CCPSA, and that persons will be aware of which statute applies to their product.

    A bill does not specify the thou shalt aspects of law. That is what is done by individual ministries. in this case it is an strengthened ammendment and support to existing laws.

    Let me dumb this one up for you, the ministry of education proposes legislation and the government passes it. In this case CCPSA ( Canadian Consumer Protetction Agency).
    Let’s look at Jims privare member bills, and how they are passed. He has the idea but government makes it law.

    But I bet you already knew all this didn’t Grimalot…wellllllll

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.