Comments on: Austerity obliterates ecology: Canadian budget to make environmental impact statements optional, class eco-groups as money-launderers

By: Katie Tippelt-Dempsey

Katie Tippelt-Dempsey — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 02:54:00 +0000

LOL. I hope this isn’t coming from an American…

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 10:19:00 +0000

And the fact that several of those wee incidents caused deaths in the tens of millions?

By: R_C_Banerjee

R_C_Banerjee — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:35:00 +0000

That’s what all the cuts are for. The angry fat bully wants his airplanes because his family has been in the Canadian military since 1774. Also, he enjoyed history, so long as it was the first half of the 20th century. In that half of the century, Canada had a considerable military presence in the world and in the World Wars. In the second half of the 20th century, there have been a series of left leaning governments that, in his mind, have led our country down a soft road of complacence and fence sitting.

In a word, the angry fat bully wants to go knock some heads. What a moron.

By: R_C_Banerjee

R_C_Banerjee — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:29:00 +0000

There was a wonderful book written a few years ago called “Harperland” by Lawrence Martin. In it, there are quotes from people in his cabinet and elsewhere, that describe a level of fear of what may happen if Harper ever succeeds in getting a majority. Well, it’s happening to us right now, and many of the institutions that I have grown up cherishing as a Canadian, are being systematically dismantled by this angry, fat, bully we now call PM.

As deviousasti says below, the monarchy is the head of state. I wonder if there has ever been a time when the monarchy / governor general has stepped in to remove the sitting PM and his party because of egregious crimes against the country…

By: R_C_Banerjee

R_C_Banerjee — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 03:12:00 +0000

Oh, how I wish we could.

By: cleek

cleek — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:18:00 +0000

for the sake of argument, i’ll grant you “a dozen”.

that gives the Chicken Littles a record of 12 out of 900,000,000,000,000 predictions.

awesome job!

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 19:14:00 +0000

It’s not like societies have tipped over the edge into fascism or totalitarianism dozens of times in the last century. Why be alarmist, eh?

By: Shinkuhadoken

Shinkuhadoken — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 17:09:00 +0000

Actually, the Canadian government has labeled environmentalists as "terrorists," not just money launderers, who receive their funding from American "foreign" socialist billionaires (so, international terrorists, I suppose).

By: chenille

chenille — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:34:00 +0000

The F-35 controversy is also a good example of how this government regulates itself: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/story/2012/05/29/f-35-hearing-close.html

By: deviousasti

deviousasti — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:11:00 +0000

Outdated? Well, you folks do have a monarch and a royal family and a Governor -General who is sworn to them. The Harper government is just trying to take you back to the dark ages, is all.

By: Pag

Pag — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:59:00 +0000

The amazing thing is that at the same time the Conservatives are making all these cuts in the name of austerity, they’re spending $25 billion on new F35 fighter jets. Because we must all make sacrifices — except for the military-industrial complex, of course.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/04/05/federal-cabinet-knew-f-35s-true-25-billion-cost-before-election-auditor-general/

By: MatthewFabb

MatthewFabb — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 13:20:00 +0000

As invictus point outs there are areas and criteria which aren’t covered by the province and now won’t be covered at all.

Also one of the reasons that it exists on a federal level is because some projects expand beyond the provincial area. Alberta might want to do run a project off a lake or river that connects to British Columbia. However, Alberta will naturally be more concerned about it’s own province and it’s people and government generally have a lot less environmental concern than say BC. Having environmental assessments on the federal level should address issues like this. Especially when it comes to some thing like air pollution that does not stay within provincial borders.

By: liquidstar

liquidstar — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:27:00 +0000

“(with the understanding that the main targets will be environmental charities–which the government has labelled as money launderers working for foreign interests)” You know, it’s funny how well this describes “the harper govt.” in so many ways. A classic case of Jungian projection.

By: cleek

cleek — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:08:00 +0000

of course it is. we’re always taking the first step towards the end of everything. have been, since the dawn of time.

By: suburbanhick

suburbanhick — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:06:00 +0000

It’s called the Thin End of the Wedge, my friend.
See what Pastor Niemöller had to say about it.

By: cleek

cleek — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:55:00 +0000

”…isn’t anywhere near the catastrophe that this site is making it out to be.”

hyperbole on a BB political story? why i never…

By: Jardine

Jardine — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:44:00 +0000

The weird thing is I thought there was some kind of rule in place about limiting the scope of legislation. Because previous governments actually did keep bills to one issue or a few related issues. They might do a large bill that was about more than one thing, but there wouldn’t be an amendment funding a bridge added to a crime bill.

The only reason I can think of for the ~~Reform~~ Conservative Party to do everything they’re doing in one bill is so the media can’t devote enough airtime to go over each issue. Or maybe they’re worried Elections Canada will invalidate the elections in some ridings because of the robocalls, causing them to lose their majority so they want to push their agenda through quickly while they have a chance.

By: Warren Grant

Warren Grant — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:35:00 +0000

Don’t forget killing off the National Archives – with evidently a great possibility that a lot of it will be lost – and eliminating the federal libraries.

I guess getting rid of Canadian history will make it easier for the Harper Regime to rewrite history as they see fit.

As well as ensuring that any scientist engaged in any research remotely related to climate change is subject to government review before they can publish any research, talk to the press etc. In a publish or die academic environment this likely means most scientists will end up shying away from any climate research.

The War on Environmentalists is just the latest sally of the Conservative party under Harper. There is worse to come I am sure.

Personally, I see this government as the biggest threat Canada has ever faced. I am SO ashamed my fellow citizens saw fit to elect this clown to a majority government. I don’t honestly think there is a single abuse of power of which Harper wouldn’t take advantage. As long as he has the majority, Canada is at risk.

By: suburbanhick

suburbanhick — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:48:00 +0000

Or pigheaded insistence on outdated approaches to crime & punishment that they insist will work, despite having been proven to be useless (if not outright counterproductive) by plenty of other jurisdictions.
Or sneaky, backdoor attempts to control womens’ right to choice.
Or badly-disguised attempts to reverse Canada’s landmark recognition of same-sex relationships.
Or ruthlessly silencing any dissenting voice, either through ironhanded control of a thoroughly-cowed parliament or by (not-so) subtle threats to the media.
Or invading other countries on trumped-up charges that have nothing to do with what’s really going on in those countries, but have everything to do with stoking Stevie Harper’s image of himself as a ‘statesman’ leading a ‘warrior nation’. (gag)

I could go on, but I have to go get my daughter off to school. While there are still public schools in Canada.

By: invictus

invictus — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:31:00 +0000

I came here to mention just that. BUT — and it’s a pretty big “but” — while there’s overlap between provincial and federal EIAs, there are also areas unique to each agency.
For example, if you’re affecting fish habitat in any way, you’ll have to get approval from DFO (dept. of Fisheries and Oceans), but if you’re affecting fisheries, as in specifically impacting the habitat of commercially harvested fish, that’s under provincial jurisdiction. Yes, despite “fisheries” being part of the DFO’s name, it’s not the one responsible for fisheries in this case.

All of which, to me, leaves a pretty clear gap: If you’re doing something that affects fish habitat but that fish has no commercial value, eliminating the DFO from the equation leaves a gap in regulatory oversight.

None of this changes the sleaze factor of trying to sneak this in by way of a budget bill. But then, given the government we’re talking about, I fail to be surprised.

By: deviousasti

deviousasti — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 09:11:00 +0000

If the Canadian government wishes to outdo the US govt., could it please be in an area other than predatory Capitalism?

By: darkjayson

darkjayson — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:59:00 +0000

Seriously Canada your government is evil, cartoon level of evil, do something about it.

By: syncrotic

syncrotic — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:13:00 +0000

I’ve never quite understood why the federal environmental assessment process is actually necessary or beneficial. It’s essentially a straight-up duplication of the EA process at the provincial / territorial level, so eliminating federal review of resource projects isn’t anywhere near the catastrophe that this site is making it out to be.

Putting it in a budget bill is sleazy though. I think Canada, like America, badly needs a law that limits the scope of legislation to a narrowly defined issue that’s accurately represented in the title of a bill.