The Facts: Some of the world's darkest days was in the 1930's during a worldwide servere economic depression preceding WWII. During those hard times, R.B Bennett gave Canada a sense of hope, although not through his personality but through his policies. When the depression first started to have an effect on Canada, Bennett immediately increased trade within the British Empire and imposing tariffs for imports outside the Empire. This decision resulted in moderately good success for Canadian business. During the depression and Bennett's time as leader Bennett promoted the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, health care and the regulation of banks. He signed the Statute of Westminster, making Canada fully independent from Great Britain in its decisions. He also founded the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission (later the CBC) and the Bank of Canada. The policies that R.B Bennett brought into effect, has shaped Canada and has shaped us for who we are today.
In 2010, a teen by the name of Jordan Grondin 16, of Albert County, submitted a project about the former Conservative prime minister into a heritage fair in New Brunswick. The teen admired Bennett's work and was surprised to find he is not immortalized in Canada's capital. As the young history buff continued to do research , he found out that in fact a Bennett statue was ordered in the 1970's, but the design was deemed unsuitable for a national monument, and the idea was then abandoned.
Several months later the determined Grondin began to get signatures in support of having the statue erected on Parliament. After going to public events such as markets, musuems and fairs, he collected 1000 names, and then began calling local politicians. Jordan Grondin has received broad support, from all major political parties federally and provincially and it's now being taken to the House of Commons. In the past few monthas, Hon. John Williamson MP for New Brunswick Southwest stood in the house and told MP's that "the time for a statue of R.B Bennett is now." Now the possibility of having an R.B Bennett statue on Parliament Hill is quite great. Good luck to Jordan Grondin!
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Canada won't try for Security Council seat again.
The Facts: After Canada's embaressing defeat last year for the security seat on the United Nations Security Council, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says that the Harper government will not pursue another campaign for the seat. Baird continues to say "Listen, I mean, we don't go along to get along. That's just not a phrase," suggesting that the Harper government doesn't even want to be on the council.
Last year after the historic defeat, it sparked harsh criticism in many quarters about whether Canada's foreign policy under the Conservative government, toward Israel and away from Africa and an unpopular policy on climate change, may have cost the country support among a majority of the UN's 190-plus member countries.
The Right Wing View: After the continued critisms last year Baird defended the decision of the conservative government, saying in an interview that "Maybe if we had shut up, and not talked about gay rights in Africa; maybe if we had shut up and been more quiet about our concerns about Sri Lanka; maybe if we hadn't been so vocally against the deplorable human rights record in Iran, maybe Iran might have voted for us. But we didn't and I don't think we regret anything. Iran probably voted against us; North Korea probably voted against us; Gadhafi probably voted against us. I think those are all badges of honour," he said.
Many conservatives feel that the Harper government is being open and out-spoken with international issues, thus many countries that Canada has cristized is stubbing Canada with their vote, so there is no sense in making a bid for a seat when theres a small chance of Canada actually getting it.
Left Wing View: Many liberals feel that internationalism is very important, hence it's hard for Canada to be a world leader, without being on the security council. The left-wing voters have expressed greatly that they believe we didn't and won't get the seat because the Harper government seems to be very indecisive when it comes to making decisions on Canadian soil, and abroad.
Taylor's Take: "The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace." Seeing that the UN aims at things such as "social progress" , "human rights" and "international security" it makes me wonder why some of the most terrorist-filled and poor human right's countries are part of the UN. To me it makes the UN look contradictory. Although the UN has done some great work in past decades, I do feel that they will accept any country thats willing to give a fininical contribution. Thus I think it's a step in the right direction if the Harper government is backing away from the UN slightly. Time and time again polls have come out showing that foreigners have the most respect for Canada. Being a leader in peacekeeping, accepting large amounts of immigrants, and giving millions to foreign aid, I think Canada is and will be a international leader, with or without the UN and being on the security council. What do you think?
Last year after the historic defeat, it sparked harsh criticism in many quarters about whether Canada's foreign policy under the Conservative government, toward Israel and away from Africa and an unpopular policy on climate change, may have cost the country support among a majority of the UN's 190-plus member countries.
The Right Wing View: After the continued critisms last year Baird defended the decision of the conservative government, saying in an interview that "Maybe if we had shut up, and not talked about gay rights in Africa; maybe if we had shut up and been more quiet about our concerns about Sri Lanka; maybe if we hadn't been so vocally against the deplorable human rights record in Iran, maybe Iran might have voted for us. But we didn't and I don't think we regret anything. Iran probably voted against us; North Korea probably voted against us; Gadhafi probably voted against us. I think those are all badges of honour," he said.
Many conservatives feel that the Harper government is being open and out-spoken with international issues, thus many countries that Canada has cristized is stubbing Canada with their vote, so there is no sense in making a bid for a seat when theres a small chance of Canada actually getting it.
Left Wing View: Many liberals feel that internationalism is very important, hence it's hard for Canada to be a world leader, without being on the security council. The left-wing voters have expressed greatly that they believe we didn't and won't get the seat because the Harper government seems to be very indecisive when it comes to making decisions on Canadian soil, and abroad.
Taylor's Take: "The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achievement of world peace." Seeing that the UN aims at things such as "social progress" , "human rights" and "international security" it makes me wonder why some of the most terrorist-filled and poor human right's countries are part of the UN. To me it makes the UN look contradictory. Although the UN has done some great work in past decades, I do feel that they will accept any country thats willing to give a fininical contribution. Thus I think it's a step in the right direction if the Harper government is backing away from the UN slightly. Time and time again polls have come out showing that foreigners have the most respect for Canada. Being a leader in peacekeeping, accepting large amounts of immigrants, and giving millions to foreign aid, I think Canada is and will be a international leader, with or without the UN and being on the security council. What do you think?
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Kyoto Protocol
The Facts: The Kyoto Protocol is an international environmental treaty aimed at stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions, and prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of September 2011, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol. The only remaining signatory not to have ratified the protocol is the United States. Other states yet to ratify Kyoto include Afghanistan, Andorra and South Sudan, after Somalia ratified the protocol on 26 July 2010. In 2011, Canada declared its intention to withdraw from the Kyoto treaty.
Under the protocol the countries who agree, commit themselves to reduce four greenhouse gases by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012. Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties"($14 billion) under the treaty unless it withdrew.
The Right Wing View: Although no one individual can speak for an entire political spectrum, a majority of conservatives feel that the Kyoto Protocol is too much of a risk to the economy. Why? The financial penalties that are given to countries that do not comply with the protocol are quite hefty. Because Canada's geography, with its vast distances between many communities combined with the length and coldness of Canadian winters, contributes to Canada's high hydrocarbon consumption. As temperatures drop, fuel consumption rises and fuel efficiency drops. Thus, some may say that for Canada, it is close to impossible to agree to such a strict agreement without throwing the Canadian economy and way of life out of whack.
The Left Wing View: Many left-wingers feel that the future of our environment is too important to put on hold. Many liberals believe that the Kyoto Accord may be a burden on the economy but if the Kyoto Protocol doesn't than climate change defiantly will. But many other liberals believe that the Kyoto Protocol isn't even that much of a commitment.
Taylor's Take: As a young Canadian, I feel the future of our environment is obviously important, no not important but VITAL. Somebody would be a fool to deny that the world (which includes Canada) is in an exuberant amount of trouble in regards to climate change, and unless something is done, it's only going to get worse. But my big question is, "Is the Kyoto Protocol the answer to climate change?" It's a very open ended question, but it's also very important. All in all, I feel that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT the answer to climate change. When environment minister Peter Kent announced that Canada would not agree to the Kyoto Protocol, he said something that made sense (for once) which is "The Kyoto protocol does not cover the world's largest two emitters, the United States and China, and therefore cannot work". Mr.Kent hit it right on the head! If the United States and China continues to pollute liberally, than Canada, and other nations who only emit fraction sized emissions are participating in the Kyoto Protocol in vain. When Canada first made the announcement about not partaking in the Kyoto Protocol, China's foreign minister Liu Weimin said that "Canada's move goes against the efforts of the international community and is regrettable". He says "Beijing hopes Canada will face up to its obligations, honor its commitments and actively participate in international efforts to fight climate change". (Nicely said Mr. Liu ,I'm happy that China is doing things in an effort to help the international community, but it's too bad that China isn't taking part in the international community for human rights). So all in all, if the U.S and China takes the bull by the horns and makes some drastic changes and actually begin to cut down on their emissions, than the Kyoto Protocol would be perfect, but until then, it's a money sucker. What's your opinion?
Under the protocol the countries who agree, commit themselves to reduce four greenhouse gases by 5.2% on average for the period 2008-2012. Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties"($14 billion) under the treaty unless it withdrew.
The Right Wing View: Although no one individual can speak for an entire political spectrum, a majority of conservatives feel that the Kyoto Protocol is too much of a risk to the economy. Why? The financial penalties that are given to countries that do not comply with the protocol are quite hefty. Because Canada's geography, with its vast distances between many communities combined with the length and coldness of Canadian winters, contributes to Canada's high hydrocarbon consumption. As temperatures drop, fuel consumption rises and fuel efficiency drops. Thus, some may say that for Canada, it is close to impossible to agree to such a strict agreement without throwing the Canadian economy and way of life out of whack.
The Left Wing View: Many left-wingers feel that the future of our environment is too important to put on hold. Many liberals believe that the Kyoto Accord may be a burden on the economy but if the Kyoto Protocol doesn't than climate change defiantly will. But many other liberals believe that the Kyoto Protocol isn't even that much of a commitment.
Taylor's Take: As a young Canadian, I feel the future of our environment is obviously important, no not important but VITAL. Somebody would be a fool to deny that the world (which includes Canada) is in an exuberant amount of trouble in regards to climate change, and unless something is done, it's only going to get worse. But my big question is, "Is the Kyoto Protocol the answer to climate change?" It's a very open ended question, but it's also very important. All in all, I feel that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT the answer to climate change. When environment minister Peter Kent announced that Canada would not agree to the Kyoto Protocol, he said something that made sense (for once) which is "The Kyoto protocol does not cover the world's largest two emitters, the United States and China, and therefore cannot work". Mr.Kent hit it right on the head! If the United States and China continues to pollute liberally, than Canada, and other nations who only emit fraction sized emissions are participating in the Kyoto Protocol in vain. When Canada first made the announcement about not partaking in the Kyoto Protocol, China's foreign minister Liu Weimin said that "Canada's move goes against the efforts of the international community and is regrettable". He says "Beijing hopes Canada will face up to its obligations, honor its commitments and actively participate in international efforts to fight climate change". (Nicely said Mr. Liu ,I'm happy that China is doing things in an effort to help the international community, but it's too bad that China isn't taking part in the international community for human rights). So all in all, if the U.S and China takes the bull by the horns and makes some drastic changes and actually begin to cut down on their emissions, than the Kyoto Protocol would be perfect, but until then, it's a money sucker. What's your opinion?
Welcome to Canadian Politics Inside and Out!
Welcome,
Here on Canadian Politics Inside and Out, daily Canadian political news will be reported from a neutral point of view, in an attempt to reveal the truth and include you in on the debate!
Here on Canadian Politics Inside and Out, daily Canadian political news will be reported from a neutral point of view, in an attempt to reveal the truth and include you in on the debate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)