View topic - June 4 blackout and speakout against cdn Bill C-38

It is currently November 21st, 2019, 6:25 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: June 4th, 2012, 11:13 am 
Offline

Joined: March 15th, 2004, 8:31 pm
Posts: 57
Location: Chelsea, Qc.
Hi Friends,
I've blacked-out my http://www.redcanoes.ca page for today June 4th because....as our federal government tries to rush through an omnibus bill that would strip away Canada’s environmental protections and shut down public discussion, Classic Solo Canoeing is joining hundreds of organizations across the country to say: Silence is Not an Option.

http://blackoutspeakout.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ede9fe983d87a67a71ed32743&id=2d0f1c30eb&e=222baa605b
Could you join us?

I'm inviting you, to stand alongside thousands of others as we speak out for two core Canadian values: nature and democracy.

Visit Black Out Speak Out to see how to join the movement TODAY June 4th and access tools to help amplify your opposition to Bill C-38. Send an
http://blackoutspeakout.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=ede9fe983d87a67a71ed32743&id=b17fd48771&e=222baa605b
email or letter to your MP. Speak out on Facebook or Twitter. Or black out your website, if you have one. In this historic Canadian moment, your voice has never been more important.

Together with more than 500 organizations representing millions of Canadians, we will Black Out and Speak Out to send a single, unified message to decision-makers: Protect Canadian values. Our land, water, and air. Our communities. Our human rights and democracy.

Please consider speaking out and for standing up for Canada. I am, Becky Mason, 2012
********************************************
Backgrounder with all the details, petition and how to join today's action at
http://blackoutspeakout.ca

_________________

Becky Mason



Last edited by Becky Mason on June 4th, 2012, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 4th, 2012, 1:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2004, 9:53 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Atlanta
NOTE: The blackoutspeakout link has two instead of one dots ahead of the "ca" at the end. Remove one dot so the link works!

Tell the Canadian government we won't buy any more tar sand oil if they go around messing up the rest of their country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 4th, 2012, 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 15th, 2004, 8:31 pm
Posts: 57
Location: Chelsea, Qc.
Thanks for telling me about the html slip up I corrected it thanks.

_________________

Becky Mason



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 4th, 2012, 2:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
Thanks, Becky! I used your link and signed the petition... Of course!

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 4th, 2012, 8:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 19th, 2006, 8:47 pm
Posts: 8936
Location: Rattlesnake Pond ME
ezwater wrote:
NOTE: The blackoutspeakout link has two instead of one dots ahead of the "ca" at the end. Remove one dot so the link works!

Tell the Canadian government we won't buy any more tar sand oil if they go around messing up the rest of their country.



thanks EZ.. I put one and one together and FINALLY with your prodding on Pnet realized I had a voice.

:doh:

And yes did register my vote. As an American you ask why? Because all of a sudden there is this massive push by Cianbro Bros, an American construction outfit , to make an East West toll road through Maine. It would be along the Route 2 corridor now sometimes used by Canadian tourists as a quick alternative to Autoroute 20. Route 2 links Montreal to Moncton/Fredericton in a relatively straight line. There is no demand by locals for faster transport in the region..so why the push...

The corridor would be 2200 feet wide..for "utilities". Read oil transport. Yes Tar Sands oil. The Route 2 corridor is sparsely populated as I indicated to Cheryl in some tourism posts. Also the corridor would cut some two hours off for trucking..

I do not mean this post to be anti Canadian. But clearly to us in Maine there is a push by industry both American and Canadian to make their life easier at the cost of the environment and the quality of life in the woods.

But yes I am pissed off.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 4th, 2012, 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: March 15th, 2004, 8:31 pm
Posts: 57
Location: Chelsea, Qc.
hey I enjoyed reading your post. I've driven Route 2 it's so beautiful and a unique area. wow! that would be terrible for the environment to put a pipeline down along there. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and I don't find your words anti-Canadian at all. A lot of us up in Canada (including me) blacked out our homepage today to express our anger towards our gov't. Blacking out our websites today and this evening is a rather extreme thing to do since lots of us earn our income via our websites. Many of us are very upset about our gov't chopping Canadian environment laws without consulting Canadians.

_________________

Becky Mason



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 12:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 19th, 2006, 8:47 pm
Posts: 8936
Location: Rattlesnake Pond ME
I am appalled at the lack of feedback and support. Have we entirely LOST a CCR Community?

If we as paddlers do not stand together as a unit, who wins? What is the problem? Apathy or a problem with the forum?

Something is terribly wrong here!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 12:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 20th, 2003, 9:27 am
Posts: 943
Perhaps some are like me, they signed the petition but didn't post that they did it.
Scary stuff. Too much like Shock Doctrine.
Ralph


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 6:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
littleredcanoe wrote:
...
If we as paddlers do not stand together as a unit, who wins? What is the problem? Apathy or a problem with the forum?

Something is terribly wrong here!

I am sure that more folks supported the petition and just don't talk about it. But I was surprised that CCR did not join the black out...

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 8:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 12th, 2004, 9:28 am
Posts: 2245
Location: Waterloo, ON
Signed.
Wish I'd had time to add my own site to the blackout.

_________________
No, your other left!
Loon Island Outdoors
"Like" my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/LoonIslandOutdoors


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 9:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
Here's a bit of a status report, from the Calgary Herald:
Quote:
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet ministers fanned out across the country Monday to counter a "black out" campaign launched by charities that are accusing the government of using budgetary measures to weaken federal environmental oversight and intimidate critics.

Led by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver, the cabinet ministers used their campaign to tout the government's budget plan and its supporting legislation, which would rewrite several environmental laws and significantly reduce the number of federal scientists monitoring Canada's air, wildlife, waterways and oceans.

More than 500 groups, including some south of the border in the United States, symbolically blacked out their websites to protest the measures in the budget and its supporting legislation, Bill C-38. They claim the plan is the result of intensive lobby efforts from the oil and gas industry.

The groups have also denounced some ministers in government for making unfounded allegations that suggest the groups are involved in criminal conspiracies. The charities further questioned the motives behind increased federal funding for the Canada Revenue Agency to investigate their operations.

Among the allegations, Environment Minister Peter Kent has in the past accused the groups of doing "money laundering" — before admitting it was a "figure of speech." His Conservative colleagues in the Senate have also suggested Canadian environmentalists are conspiring with aliens from another planet and terrorists.

Oliver and nine other cabinet ministers argued Monday that the budget and its supporting measures would boost economic growth without sacrificing environmental-protection measures and policies.

"Responsible resource development will ensure that our abundant natural resources are developed in a sustainable way for the benefit of all Canadians," Oliver said at an event in Gatineau, Que., near Ottawa.

Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence, a charity group that has worked closely with the Harper government in support of its plan to manage toxic manmade substances, mocked the ministers for their efforts to contradict the "black out" campaign.

"The amazing thing is that when these 10 ministers speak, you can barely see Big Oil's lips moving," Smith joked at a news conference. "Make no mistake, Bill C-38 is not a simple budget measure. It's the latest expression of an agenda to dismember any effective federal oversight of environmental protection."

He noted that the Conservative party never campaigned on any of the policy changes it is now proposing in government, but was pressed into action because of U.S. President Barack Obama's 2011 decision to delay approval of TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone XL pipeline expansion project, which would allow Canadian oil companies to increase exports to refineries on the gulf coast of Texas.

Smith said that other companies in the forestry, fisheries and mining industry have worked with conservation groups to reduce their environmental footprints and promote sustainable development, but the oil and gas industry is taking an adversarial approach.

"There's one industry in this country that's knuckle-dragging, that is aggressive, that is used to getting its own way and that clearly, in the wake of the Keystone XL decision, went like a bunch of crybabies to the federal government, demanding that the government do something to push through these pipeline projects at all costs," Smith said.

"The one commonality of all these changes to environmental statute is that their undermining was on the oil industry's wish list," Smith said.

Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, defended the federal government's proposed overhaul of environmental protection laws, expressing "frustration" that "activists have chosen name-calling over constructive debate."

He said that regulatory reform is not weakening environmental outcomes.

"It's about timely decisions, clear process, public transparency and an efficient regulatory regime for all Canadian industries that helps Canada compete for global capital," said Davies, echoing arguments adopted by the government.

"Today's blackout campaign completely ignores the fact that regulatory reform is necessary and applicable to all Canada's major projects (and) industries, and will increase Canada's competitiveness, ability to attract investment, employment and overall economic strength while continuing to meet the same environmental requirements as previous."

Davies added the reforms were also positive changes for other sectors, such as mining, forestry, infrastructure and manufacturing as well as other development plans, such as the Ring of Fire in Ontario and Quebec's Plan Nord.

Quebec Premier Jean Charest has said regulatory reforms were not necessary in Quebec since a joint environmental review process has already reduced levels of duplication.

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair also criticized the government in the House of Commons on Monday for suggesting it would replace a specialized team of Environment Canada smokestack monitoring scientists, by outsourcing work to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Usually countries try to take care of their own environment," Mulcair said. "We don't outsource it."

Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney responded that his government has made more environmental progress than any other regime in "the history of the dominion," through various measures, such as stronger tailpipe standards for vehicles, restrictions on toxins, and increased enforcement policies.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Cabinet+mini ... z1wva9Qxet

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 2:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2004, 9:53 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Atlanta
"....name calling over constructive debate." As if they proposed and welcomed constructive debate, rather than trying to ram the measures through tacked onto a budget bill.

We've seen that in the States, now and then. Fast track exploitation. It's interesting that the industries "native" to Canada, forestry, mining, fishing, have been willing to discuss things and work them out. But it's the international petroleum guys who want to "get 'er done" because they want to cut and run. They want to extract petroleum and get it on the market before competing energy sources ruin the value of their leases.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 20th, 2008, 6:05 pm
Posts: 494
I can not speak for or against Bill C-38 as I do not know it well enough to feel qualified to offer an educated opinion. I do feel quite stongly though that regulatory reform is a worthwhile target when it comes to such things as environmental assessments. I do not for example understand why we need both a provincial and federal EA for the Ring of Fire mining initiatives. Why do we need this duplication of effort, time and money? Why would it be such a bad thing if some of the dupolication was removed? I get the push back for cramming all of this into one bill, but I truly feel that some reform would be worthwhile.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
JF, for someone who seems to be so knowledgeable about MNR processes they seem to have left you in the dark.
CPAWS points out some problems that they perceive and at the same time indicate that they have not had time yet to go through all the implications of the changes. Here's what they list as obvious problems with this rushed legislation:
Quote:
Some of CPAWS’s major concerns upon first reading of the 431 page Bill are:


• Fish habitat protection requirements appear to be severely compromised by the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act.


• The scope of environmental reviews has been drastically narrowed, leaving many projects not subject to proper environmental assessment.

• Concerned citizens and organizations will no longer be able to participate in many environmental review processes unless they are “directly affected” by the projects under review, and strict time limits will be imposed on reviews, regardless of the time needed to scientifically assess the projects’ potential impacts, and to conduct public and Aboriginal consultations.


• Cabinet will have more power to approve industrial projects that were once under the decision-making authority of regulatory agencies such as the National Energy Board. This gives elected officials the ability to place politics ahead of environmental science in making major decisions that will affect our country’s ecological health.


• National park management plans will be reviewed every decade instead of every 5 years. With ecological and social conditions in and around parks changing rapidly, this is too long a time period to address issues such as steep declines in species.


To my limited knowledge there is a problem with jurisdiction when Ottawa pushes all assessments to the provinces. E.g. some laws and regulations are in the federal domain, like fish habitat. I have seen the MNR casually approve dynamiting a riverbed - and the sh*t hit the fan when it became known higher up in the organization - because that was illegal in the federal context. Extrapolating this to larger issues - one would have to modify provincial jurisdictions to cover all environmental aspects and make appropriate provincial laws and regulations. Then one could download the responsibility for assessments. Now making the laws in each province - wouldn't that be a waste of time and money? And it would create a patchwork of laws across the country, based on which political forces are the most powerful. Not exactly what protection of the environment demands....

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: June 5th, 2012, 9:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: February 19th, 2004, 9:53 pm
Posts: 1451
Location: Atlanta
According to American Whitewater Beta this month, the same kind of protection weakening, public participation restricting, extractor enabling laws are making their way through the US legislature.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group