next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
think otherwise.<br /><br />I prefer not to talk politics on NatureNS This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010008040002000503010103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have two comments about Bill-C 38. JS mentioned in paragraph 6 that the Act contains many references to 'precautionary principles'. To depend on these principles without further clarification of the principles is like signing a blank cheque. The second issue is this Governments continued usage of any method to limit public input. Virginia Redden Port Howe NS 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 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 > > > > On , Andrew Horn <aghorn@dal.ca> wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Rick Whitman > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> > Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5044 - Release Date: 06/04/12 > --------------010008040002000503010103 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font face="Candara">I have two comments about Bill-C 38. <br> <br> JS mentioned in paragraph 6 that the Act contains many references to '</font>precautionary principles'. <br> To depend on these principles without further clarification of the principles is like signing a blank cheque. <br> The second issue is this Governments continued usage of any method to limit public input. <br> <br> Virginia Redden <br> Port Howe NS<br> <br> <br> <br> desolatechair@gmail.com wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:bcaec51b18fb57b4bb04c1a605a4@google.com" type="cite">Andy<br> <br> This is informative, th