next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects Hi JS (et al.), I agree with just about everything in your email. Lots of the stuff on the ecojustice website is overblown. And no doubt the government's trying to do the right thing -- still emphasizing the precautionary principle, for instance. It's the details in the bill that worry me, more so because they come in the context of the other recent actions listed in Rick Whitman's email and, I suspect, more actions to come. But you're right, everyone should look hard at what's actually being proposed, using whatever sources they trust, and try to set aside the exaggeration that always happens whenever folks get all riled up. Cheers, Andy On Jun 4, 2012, 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 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects