Southern Alberta actually has one of the highest wind and solar potentials in the entire country. Our economy in Lethbridge could grow by including renewable energy to the grids.
We live on "Spaceship" earth. It is only fair that polluters pay for their pollution. At the same time we must balance the environment with the economy. A Liberal govt will eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, invest in green Technologies.
Thank you for those answers everyone. We are going to move on to our
next question is from Brian...
Perhaps you can clarify, Brian. HOS to me means HOurs of Service, and they are standard across Canada, and another standard in the US. There are north of 60 differences.
Maybe if it is done right. However, the problem with any standardization in Canada is that the west is drastically different than the east. We are more rural out here and might need different restrictions on vehicle sizes for example when it comes to the agriculture and lumber industry in BC
If you mean truck weights, yes, it does seem strange that states and provinces don't standardize their weight categories.
As we move good between provinces, it would seem to make sense that the regulations be consistent in order to alleviate different problems for those doing the moving. If regulations are all different, does this significantly impact business, or can business adjust where they are transporting to restrict to a certain area?
BTW, Brian, I work for a trucking company as the office administrator, so I am getting a sense of the trucking business.
Well, Brian, we would like to see harmonization across the country but are meddling in Provincial Jurisdictions. The Federal Govt does play a vital leadership role with the provinces and territories and I would be at the forefront of any discussions. The fragmentation across the country adds much cost and robs the industry of much need efficiency.
Regional coordination might make sense, Cheryl. Perhaps the three prairie provinces coordinate, and make allowances for B.C.'s mountainous terrain.
I think what we are all saying is that in order to have any standardization rules in place the federal government would actually need to consult with the provinces. Something that has not been done at all in the past decade.
I am not wanting to restrict business, and if a company only operates in one geographic area, they should not incur the expense of having to accommodate rules in other areas.
Agreed. Have the federal ministers at least met with their provincial counterparts, even if Harper's never been to a first ministers conference?
Not True Kaz. There have been a seemingly endless number of meetings and yet little, if anything, has been accomplished.
UPDATE: We will be extending out LIVE CHAT with the candidates until 8:30pm. Please send in your questions! :)
I am talking about the Prime Minister not meeting with the Premiers Mike.
Sorry Mike, Kas is right. I don't believe Harper has ever held a first ministers meeting.
Okay we are going to move on to a question now from Jamie
Cheryl, Harper's refusal to meet the premiers is beyond any understanding!
It is not a good bill, and as a CHP MP I would definitely support repealing all or at least the most odious parts of it.
I'm not talking 1st Minister's meetings. I'm talking about the various transportation departments meeting accross the country. Much can be accomplished without a 1st Minister's meeting which, as noted, has not happened under a Harper Govt.
My party has opposed Bill C-51 since the start. It was meant to protect Canadians, however it does the exact opposite while also eroding our freedoms and rights. So yes, Bill C-51 is discriminatory and has to go.
The NDP also opposed bill C51 because of the infringement on fundamental freedoms of every single Canadian. We can fight terrorism AND protect our personal liberties.
Bill C-51 is a flawed piece of legislation but the protective aspects are not a problem. The Bill needs parliamentary oversight, a narrowing of the overly broad language, and mandatory legislative reviews. The 1st job of a Government is to provide security for its people. Cheryl, I know the NDP are against the bill altogether. But why did they vote with the Conservatives to defeat the 11 ammendments that would have made it acceptable and protected Canadian's rights?
Mike, the Liberals wanted to have their cake and eat it too. After putting forward your amendments, none of which were passed, you still voted in favour of the bill. We voted against it from the start. No amendments make it a good bill.
Mike, if you were the MP for Lethbridge, would you have voted in favor of Bill C-51?
The amendments had no chance to pass, because of a majority government. That's why we need electoral reform... a mixed member-proportional system.
Cheryl, majority Conservative Government. The bill was going to pass anyway. Nothing was going to stop it. The amendments would have protected Canadian's rights. Why did the NDP vote, in committee, to defeat the amendments?
Canada has security in place in the form of border services, Canadian intelligence service, the RCMP, and so on. The Conservatives have made deep cuts in all these areas. This is counterproductive to security. No piece of legislation is going to keep you secure. People and services keep you secure.
Mike, in committee, were the Tories in a minority? Usually committees reflect the House proportions
At first blush, I'd say no. But I would have wanted to be there to hear all the arguments pro and con.
Mike, it was a terrible bill. Perhaps if the Liberals saw the NDP was not supporting this bill, they would have had the courage to also vote against it.
Even Irwin Cotler was persuaded to vote in favour. There must have been some strong arguments in favour.
We'll have to address this in the new Parliament.
Hey everyone, we are going to switch gears now. This is a broad question, so approach it how you wish, it's from campattendant...
Cheryl, you still haven't answered the question.
Mike, is the question about the amendments? Even with the amendments, the bill was still awful and should never have been presented, let alone passed. I would stand by my principles and say no to bad legislation. Making is 'less bad' does not make it ok.
Mike, are you saying that you would have voted against your party line even when Mr. Trudeau whipped the vote to force his MPs into voting for it?
We were asked something like that at 7:40 pm. Our economy will be worth nothing if there's no environmental cleanliness to allow life to go on. They are interconnected. Companies must accept the responsibility to be tidy as they work and not leave cleanup for later. We must investigate and develop cleaner technologies, dependent on them being able to be implemented without "dirty" technologies to support them or even them out (e.g. gas plants to even out wind turbine variations).
As we move good between provinces, it would seem to make sense that the regulations be consistent in order to alleviate different problems for those doing the moving. If regulations are all different, does this significantly impact business, or can business adjust where they are transporting to restrict to a certain area?