next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --Apple-Mail-51--280193132 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi all, The Purpose section of C-38 does sound perfectly reasonable. The devil = is in the details; a handy summary of 10 of the worst (not all of which = I find all that bad, but some of which are awful) is here: = http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/budget-bill-top-10-list/at_download/file It takes a lot of patience to sort through the actual bill and find all = these. Which of course is part of the problem. Hope that helps, Andy Horn Halifax On Jun 4, 2012, at 6:20 AM, Rick Whitman wrote: > First, this and other items should never have been included in a = "Budget" Bill. Their placement there is a calculated slap in the face to = Canadian parliamentary tradition. It is a statement that the Opposition = has no useful role in government. >=20 > Second, the Harper Government has made it perfectly clear that they = plan to restrict and reduce the environmental impact process, reduce = environmental research, reduce fisheries research, reduce climate change = research, reduce Arctic climate monitoring, downsize Environment Canada, = downsize Parks Canada within EC, downsize Fisheries & Oceans Canada, = eliminate our commitments under Kyoto, increase the development of the = oilsands, challenge the involvement of charitable environmental groups = in environmental issues, and so forth. >=20 > All of this has been public. One would have to make a conscious choice = in order to believe that huge changes have not occurred and will not = continue to occur, most likely at a faster pace. >=20 > Rick Whitman >=20 > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:19 PM, james simpson = <desolatechair@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you would cite the relevant sections in C 38 that are so = contentious? I've read through most of the bill as it relates to = environmental issues that I can find and it all seems pretty reasonable = and prudent to me. >=20 --Apple-Mail-51--280193132 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii <html><head></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi = all,<div><br></div><div>The Purpose section of C-38 does sound perfectly = reasonable. The devil is in the details; a handy summary of 10 of the = worst (not all of which I find all that bad, but some of which are = awful) is here: <a = href=3D"http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/budget-bill-top-10-list/at_download= /file">http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/budget-bill-top-10-list/at_download/= file</a></div><div><br></div><div>It takes a lot of patience to sort = through the actual bill and find all these. Which of course is part of = the problem.</div><div><br></div><div>Hope that helps,</div><div>Andy = Horn</div><div>Halifax</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Jun 4, = 2012, at 6:20 AM, Rick Whitman wrote:</div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type=3D"cite">First, = this and other items should never have been included in a "Budget" Bill. = Their placement there is a calculated slap in the face to Canadian = parliamentary tradition. It is a statement that the Opposition has no = useful role in government.<div> <br></div><div>Second, the Harper Government has made it perfectly clear = that they plan to restrict and reduce the environmental impact process, = reduce environmental research, reduce fisheries research, reduce climate = change research, reduce Arctic climate monitoring, downsize Environment = Canada, downsize Parks Canada within EC, downsize Fisheries & Oceans = Canada, eliminate our commitments under Kyoto, increase the development = of the oilsands, challenge the involvement of charitable environmental = groups in environmental issues, and so forth.</div> <div><br></div><div>All of this has been public. One would have to make = a conscious choice in order to believe that huge changes have not = occurred and will not continue to occur, most likely at a faster = pace.</div><div><br> </div><div>Rick Whitman<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jun 3, = 2012 at 4:19 PM, james simpson <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a = href=3D"mailto:desolatechair@gmail.com" = target=3D"_blank">desolatechair@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 = .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><table border=3D"0" = cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" width=3D"1646" = style=3D"font-size:13px;font-family:'Times New = Roman',Helvetica,sans-serif"> <tbody><tr><td align=3D"left" valign=3D"top" colspan=3D"3" width=3D"388"> Perhaps you would cite the relevant sections in C 38 that are so = contentious? I've read through most of the bill as it relates to = environmental issues that I can find and it all seems pretty reasonable = and prudent to me.<br> </td><td width=3D"30"> </td><td align=3D"left" valign=3D"top" colspan=3D"3" width=3D"388"><table = width=3D"100%" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0"><tbody><tr><td = width=3D"295" align=3D"left" valign=3D"top"><div = style=3D"text-align:center;margin-top:10pt"><br></div> </td><td width=3D"8"></td><td width=3D"85" align=3D"left" = valign=3D"top"></td></tr></tbody></table></td><td width=3D"50"></td><td = width=3D"380" align=3D"left" valign=3D"top"></td><td width=3D"30"></td><td= width=3D"380" align=3D"left" valign=3D"top"> </td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote></div> </div> </blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail-51