[NatureNS] blackoutspeakout

From: Christopher Majka <c.majka@ns.sympatico.ca>
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:54:38 -0300
References: <bcaec51b18fb57b4bb04c1a605a4@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Ca

--Apple-Mail-220--262773908
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi JS,

While there are circumstances where giving 'the benefit of the doubt'  
is a reasonable thing to do, I think the facts in relation to Bill  
C-38 have long since put such a notion to bed. In addition to the "Top  
10 items of environmental concern" compiled by Ecojustice in relation  
to the bill and cited by Andy Horn:

	http://www.ecojustice.ca/files/budget-bill-top-10-list/at_download/file

I can point you at another similar compendium compiled by Wildsight,  
"Bill C-38: Undermining Our Environment and Democracy":

	http://www.wildsight.ca/news/bill-c-38-undermining-our-environment-and-democracy

I list a part of this below.

Elizabeth May of the Green Party calls Bill C-38 the "Environmental  
Destruction Act":

	http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/05/10/Bill-C38/

However, here's the point, in a gigantic bill such as C-38 there might  
indeed be some good ideas (in addition to the who's who of simply  
dreadful ones provided by Ecojustice and Wildsight), but the whole  
idea of concatenating changes to some 70 pieces of legislation (a  
large number of which have nothing at all to do with the budget) into  
one massive 'budget implementation act'   (452 pages!) and then asking  
Parliamentarians to simply take it or leave it is a dreadful abuse of  
Parliamentary process.

We elect Members of Parliament, our representatives that make up the  
Canadian government, to (amongst other things) provide oversight to  
the legislative process. To debate and discuss proposed legislation,  
make constructive amendments, and in the end give it their thumbs up  
or down. Throwing everything including the kitchen sink into one  
gigantic bill, with a miniscule amount of time to consider it, debates  
behind closed doors, and without the oversight of the many  
parliamentary committees who would normally consider the individual  
pieces of this legislation, reduces parliamentary oversight, the role  
of members of Parliament, and indeed Canadian constitutional democracy  
to an abject farce. It exhibits utter disdain of Canadian citizens and  
our rights to have a government directed and overseen by our elected  
representatives. Does democracy matter or not? If so, it needs to be  
conducted in a sane and rational way, not as a runaway juggernaut  
forced down the throats of legislators and citizens alike.

This isn't how the Canadian government was conceived by our founding  
fathers (sadly not many mothers in the Fathers of Confederation), nor  
how it is practiced in the many countries that have adopted the  
Westminster tradition of parliamentary democracy. In my view, one of  
the reasons why over 400 Canadian organizations, spearheaded by  
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canadian Parks  
& Wilderness Society, David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice,  
Enviromental Defence, Equiterre, Greenpeace, Nature Canada, The  
Pembina Institute, Sierra Club of Canada, World Wildlife Fund, and  
West Coast Environmental Law are participating in BlackOutSpeakOut.ca  
today is that they recognize this dreadful abuse of process and what  
it implies for nature, the environment, and democracy in Canada.

Cheers!

Chris

On 4-Jun-12, at 11:05 AM, desolatechair@gmail.com wrote:

> Andy
>
> This is informative, thanks.
>
> However I find again here some pretty negative assumptions (without  
> citation unfortunately) that seem to be based on perceived  
> fundamental 'bad' intentions of the current government. I struggle  
> to accept this point of view, in particular when it is cast with the  
> high dudgeon and lack of substantiation that often accompanies it.  
> It frankly sounds unreasonable and not credible to me.
>
> Hence my attempt to get around the smoke and find the canonical form  
> in the actual bill itself - of which it is my understanding that the  
> omnibus bill has a long parliamentary tradition in Canada and the  
> British commonwealth, and may not in fact be the latest diabolical  
> ploy to turn Canada into a dictatorship - another argument I hear  
> way too often.
>
> For example if we take this statement from ecojustice.ca "The new  
> Act gives the Environment Minister and government officials broad  
> decision-making power" - I think this is supported based on my  
> reading of C 38. But I wonder - is this wrong? Perhaps the minister  
> should have those powers? After all he is directly elected (and of  
> course removable) by the people? And if things go wrong he will  
> undoubtedly and rightly bear the blame? Seems to me one might argue  
> that given the guy making the ultimate decision is directly  
> answerable to the electorate then this is grass roots democracy at  
> it's finest. Straight up.
>
> I'm just saying that one could make that argument - and it seems to  
> me to be at least as credible as the "selling licenses to his  
> corporate friends" accusations.
>
> I've read the text of C 38 now several times

All 542 pages? If so, you get several gold stars for effort above and  
beyond the call of duty. Even many Parliamentarians have found it  
difficult to wade through the entire bill event once. :~>

> and it contains repeated references to 'precautionary principles' to  
> protect the environment. And the obligations imposed on the agency  
> to practice scrutiny and diligence in upholding those principles  
> seem pretty rigourous (e.g "Enactment of the Canadian Environmental  
> Act 2012, 52:11) to my sore eyes.
>
> I have no reason to believe that the current minister is anything  
> other than a reasonable, honourable, intelligent person who is just  
> as committed to conservation and environmental protection as you or  
> I. Nor have I seen, to this point, any reason, in the legislation or  
> elsewhere, to think otherwise.
>
> I prefer not to talk politics on NatureNS but if we must than I am  
> trying very hard to do in an open and rational (scientific?) and  
> unemotional way.
>
> Thanks Again
>
> JS
>

Bill C-38: Undermining Our Environment and Democracy
Here is a short list of some of the changes proposed in Bill C-38:
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act would be replaced with a new  
Act that will significantly shrink the number of projects reviewed and  
give the government the power to exempt projects from having to  
undergo an environmental assessment.
The federal government intends to offload the responsibility of  
environmental assessments and implementation of federal Acts, such as  
the Fisheries Act, to the provinces at a time when provincial  
ministries are consistently shrinking. Last year, the Auditor General  
released a scathing report on the lack of oversight provided by the BC  
Environmental Assessment process.
There will be more backroom decisions as cabinet ministers make  
political decision