Canada Politics Thread

[Mazmaz]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nment-spending

Canada cuts environment spending

Stephen Harper's administration is cutting budgets for climate, conservation and ozone monitoring projects

Canada's Stephen Harper government is spending more than 60 billion dollars on new military jets and warships while slashing more than 200 million dollars in funding for research and monitoring of the environment.

Amongst the programmes now crippled is Canada's internationally renowned ozone monitoring network, which was instrumental in the discovery of the first-ever ozone hole over Canada last spring. Loss of ozone has been previously linked to increases in skin cancer.

"The proposed cuts go so far the network won't be able to do serious science," said Thomas Duck, an atmospheric scientist at Halifax's Dalhousie University.

Canada was the pioneer in ozone monitoring, developing the first accurate ozone measuring tool that led to the discovery that the world's ozone layer was dangerously thinning in the 1970s, which in turn led to the successful Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances.

Canada has about one-third of the ozone monitoring stations in the Arctic region. It also hosts the world archive of ozone data, which is heavily relied on by scientists around the world.

"There's only one guy running the entire archive, and he's received a lay-off notice letter," Duck told IPS.

Ozone monitoring and research is part of Environment Canada, the government department charged with protecting the environment, conservation and providing weather and meteorological information.

Environment Canada is roughly analogous to a combination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Environment Canada had a 1.07- billion-dollar budget in 2010, which has now been cut 20 percent to 854 million dollars for 2011-12. The EPA and NOAA budgets for 2010 were 10.3 billion and 5.5 billion dollars, respectively.

Some 776 Environment Canada employees have been told their jobs may be terminated. That's 11 percent of the current staff in a government department that has been a favourite target for budget and staff cuts for the past decade, to the point where it was barely functional, said Duck.

A similar gutting of science and research is underway at Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the department responsible for protecting and managing Canada's ocean and inland waterways including the Great Lakes. In addition, the main source of public funding for environmental science for Canadian universities has run out of money, and is expected to close early next year. Not surprisingly, scientists are leaving Canada in droves.

"My international colleagues are shocked by what has happened to Canada. We were a leader in environmental science and research for so long," Duck said.

In 1988, Canada organised and hosted the world's first high-level international conference on climate change in Toronto. The 1992 Rio Earth Summit and the United Nations Environment Programme were championed by Canada, and Canadians served as their leaders.

That was then. Now, under the rubric of reducing Canada's modest budget deficit, the Harper government has targeted programmes that inform Canadians about the state of the environment. Monitoring of heavy metals and toxic contaminants is another programme that will be crippled. These are programmes that have a direct impact on the health and welfare of Canadians, said Duck.

"I'm speaking out because these cuts will be very bad for my children," he added.

Duck was the one of the few Canadian scientists willing to talk to IPS on the record. Government scientists are under a "gag order" to not to speak to media under any circumstances without permission from Prime Minister Harper's office. Non-government scientists working at universities declined to be interviewed, fearing loss of funding or other forms of reprisal.

"There will be fallout for anyone talking to you," Duck told IPS. "My prospects for doing any work for Environment Canada are now zero."

Canadian civil society organisations know all about the Harper government's reprisals. Many that once received funding but questioned government policy have lost their funding.

For 34 years, the non-partisan Canadian Environmental Network (RCEN) successfully walked the line between the needs of government and the needs of its more than 650 civil society members. But on Oct. 13, after waiting more than six months for its expected 536,000 dollars in annual funding, the group was informed by letter it would not be coming. Ever.

The network had been Canada's best two-way communication channel between the public and the federal government on all matters environmental. Now the government says this can be done more cost- effectively online.

Just six days after the pressing need to save 536,000 dollars, the Harper government awarded contracts totaling 32 billion dollars to build ships for the Canadian Navy and Coast Guard. It has also committed to spending another 29 billion dollars for 65 fighter jets.

"Among the first acts of the Harper government was to cut our funding to zero," said Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network Canada (CAN Canada), an environmental NGO that used to get some government funding prior to the 2006 election.

CAN Canada has obtained some funding from its more than 80 member civil society organisations. It acts as the coordinator on climate issues, and once worked with government to improve programmes and policies for the benefit of all Canadians. Now has become the de facto watchdog on government promises and actions to tackle climate change.

"Canadians are deeply concerned about climate change and want their government to act," she said.

Instead of actions, the Harper government makes promises and pushes propaganda that the economy is more important and that protecting the environment comes at too high a cost, she said. The only action being taken is at the local and provincial level, McKinnon added.

"If there is a need to reduce the federal budget deficit, why is Canada continuing to give the oil and gas industry 1.4 billion dollars (1.3 billion U.S.) in subsidies every year?" she asked.

Harper promised to end these government subsidies in 2009. The International Monetary Fund, the International Energy Agency, the United Nations and many others have called for an end to such subsidies to the world's most profitable industry.

"Canada can't afford to pay scientists but we can line the pockets of big oil? That is totally backwards," McKinnon said.

[Mazmaz]

This country is gonna blow balls after these 4 years. They'll pretty much use the economy excuse for anything. Getting tired of this propaganda.

[Mazmaz]

Haven't had any real debates in a while, but here's a bump anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...o-pullout.html

Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol

Canada is formally withdrawing from the Kyoto accord, Environment Minister Peter Kent said Monday.

The decision to do so will save the government an estimated $14 billion in penalties, Kent said. The Conservative government says it has no choice given the economic situation.

Blaming an "incompetent Liberal government" who signed the accord and then took little action to make the necessary greenhouse gas emission cuts, Kent said he was formalizing what the Conservative government has been saying for weeks.

"Kyoto for Canada is in the past. As such, we are invoking our legal right to formally withdraw," Kent said.

The Kyoto Protocol, which expires next year, committed major industrial economies to reducing their annual CO2 emissions to below 1990 levels, while providing financial supports to developing nations to encourage them to follow suit eventually. Canada ratified the accord in 1997 but was not on track to meet its legally binding targets.

The Conservatives have committed to 17 per cent cuts from 2005 levels by 2020, a much lower threshold to meet than cutting below 1990 emissions levels.
Canada 'abdicating' responsibilities

NDP Environment critic Megan Leslie says Kent is fear-mongering about the consequences of staying in the Kyoto pact.

"What this is really about is the fact that our government is abdicating its international obligations. It's like we're the kid who's failing the class so we have to drop it before that happens," Leslie said.
P.O.V.

Do you agree with Canada's stand on climate? Take our survey.

The cost to staying in Kyoto is "absolutely" made up, she added.

Kent says Canada produces less than two per cent of global carbon emissions, Kyoto doesn't require major emitters like China and India to cut the amount of greenhouse gases they produce.

Kent says Copenhagen and Cancun agreements, which were negotiated in 2009 and 2010 as the world stared down the end of Kyoto, are the future.

Gary Doer, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., says Canada signed onto the Copenhagen agreement because it had the "on-ramp" for more countries to join in.

"We took measures, often which aren't credited in either of our countries, to start by reducing through energy efficiency the emissions from light vehicles," Doer told Evan Solomon, host of CBC's Power & Politics.

Canada had to notify the United Nations of its intent to withdraw from Kyoto by the end of the year or face additional cuts under the accord based on a five-year audit being conducted at the end of 2012. Canada would have been forced to buy expensive carbon credits to meet those targets.

The Conservative government has opposed any extension of the Kyoto Protocol framework in future agreements, arguing instead for a new international agreement that includes commitments from all major emitters, including those in the developing world.

The 194 nations attending the UN climate change summit in Durban, South Africa, agreed Sunday to start negotiations on a new accord that would put all participating countries under the same binding commitments to control greenhouse gases.

Kent returned to Ottawa from Durban Monday afternoon and made the announcement about two hours after landing.

He said he waited to formally pull out of the Kyoto Protocol because he'd promised a top UN official in Durban not to distract from the talks.

[Mazmaz]

Easiest way to fill in that missing $10 billion in their budget so they can say they've done good.

[tonyg]

I still don't understand how those fucking backpedaling incestuous retards got a majority. Oh wait, they got elected by backpedaling incestuous retards from the Prairies where they came from!

[Atreides]

Amazing what finding a shit ton of oil you can sell to America will do to a countrys environmental policy in just a few years lol

[Skjie]

Amazing what finding a shit ton of oil you can sell to America will do to a countrys environmental policy in just a few years lol

Nah, the Tories have always been against Kyoto etc., especially with Harper at the helm. This was a long time coming, regardless of anyone's opinion. Their reasoning is as made up as it usually is.

[Mazmaz]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...ministers.html

Premiers split over Flaherty health-funding bombshell

The federal government is guaranteeing six per cent health-care funding increases until the 2016-17 fiscal year, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Monday.

After that, the annual increase will be tied to nominal GDP, but is guaranteed to be at least three per cent, he said.

Nominal GDP is the monetary value of all goods and services produced within the country annually, including inflation. If nominal GDP rises four per cent and inflation is two per cent, the economy's real GDP growth is two per cent.

The current agreement, which guarantees six per cent a year increases, expires in 2014, and the provinces wanted that to continue.

Flaherty made the announcement as he wrapped up meetings with the provincial and territorial finance ministers on federal funding for health and pensions Monday afternoon in Victoria.

The Conservative government kept the previous Liberal government's health accord promise, bringing funding from $20 billion in the 2005 fiscal year to nearly $27 billion at the end of the 2011 fiscal year, which closes March 30, 2012.

Flaherty said the new offer to the provinces and territories means health-care investments will rise from $30 billion in the 2013 fiscal year to $38 billion in 2018.

"This means a total investment of $178 billion in our health system over that five-year period," he said.
'Totally unacceptable'

The provincial and territorial ministers were informed of the new federal formula over lunch.

Six of them lined up to speak out against the decision, citing a lack of negotiation with two years left to reach a new agreement.

They also complained that they didn't expect to be handed the new funding arrangement at this round of talks — they thought they were going to touch on how the talks would be set up.

Flaherty said there was one hour set aside to discuss the 2015-24 health transfers.

The provinces will lose out on $21 billion over the life of the deal, which will be reviewed in 2024, Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan said.

"True, it does not take place for a few more years … But it represents a significant move away from the health-care table by the federal government," he said.

"It means less access to quality health care from sea to sea to sea, in French and in English."

Flaherty said the provinces are increasing health spending on average by 3.2 per cent a year, so he thinks a three per cent federal increase to the federal share of those budgets is reasonable.

Every government is doing its best to control costs, Manitoba Finance Minister Stan Struthers said.

"This is not about ministers who are being innovative and ministers who aren't. This is not about ministers who are containing the cost curve and those who are not, because quite frankly it's offensive to think some of us aren't doing that. We all are."

Quebec Finance Minister Raymond Bachand called the process "totally unacceptable."

The health funding will also shift to being doled out on a per capita basis, meaning smaller provinces could lose some of their funding, he said.

Not all the finance ministers were unhappy, however. British Columbia Finance Minister Kevin Falcon pointed to global financial instability and said Canada has to be responsible and maintain its strong reputation.

"We cannot ignore what is taking place around the world," he said.

The meeting wasn't supposed to deal with health funding, but the issue was top of mind with a federal accord expiring in 2014.

Flaherty hinted last week that the federal government may not be able to sustain the escalator after 2016.

On Friday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper would only say the government will keep its promise through the end of the health accord.

Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told CBC's The House on Saturday that the government would continue the escalator until the end of 2016.

[Mazmaz]

Get sick when the economy's doing shitty? Too bad go fuck yourself.

[Churchill]

lol

[Kaylia]

Get sick when the economy's doing shitty? Too bad go fuck yourself.

Get sick when you have no money? Borrow more and make your children pay.

[Mazmaz]

Yes that makes sense because individuals control the country's economy right?

[aurik]

Kyoto was a load of BS anyway. We weren't making our targets anyway, and nobody else was even committed to it.

Also LMFAO at the spin on that article. The current system, which the provinces want extended, is being extended. And they're mad. Because it's not extended indefinitely at the moment. GET MAD.

[Kaylia]

Yes that makes sense because individuals control the country's economy right?

Do you not understand what a debt is?

[Mazmaz]

Do you not understand what a debt is?

Do you not understand what a human right is?
You worried about money? Cut the military.

[Kaylia]

Do you not understand what a human right is?

Your hypocrisy is astonishing. The only reason why you're able to afford your current lifestyle is because you're taking a huge shit on the rest of the world. If you want true equality, which is what human right is all about, expect the quality of life to drop even further, not improve.

In the event that your moral only applies locally, explain us how it is possible to apply your beliefs in competitive world-wide market? Bring communism to Canada and hope that nobody leave maybe? I don't know...
I want to give everyone the best health care as much as you, but the difference between us is that you still believe in Santa Claus. Money isn't a resource you can dispense at will.

Secondly, the claim that you deserve better when you don't have the ressource to support it is retarded. This country, like many others, spoiled itself using money they did not have. While some might see it as an investment, you will have to realize sooner or later that the world economy can't last forever with this mentality. If you don't believe me, go spend a few day in Greece or Spain, plane ticket are pretty cheap lately.

You worried about money? Cut the military.

If I was in charge, I would cut way more than the military and health. This country, hell, most countries are in need of a serious economical reform.

Also, you can't blame the current goverment for being stuck with old contract left by their predecessor. Military expense started increasing in 1998 and has grown at a steady pace since then.


Lastly, military budget has been increasing at a slower pace than health care budget.

[Mazmaz]

I can't blame the current government for spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on JET PLANES and UNNECESSARY OMNIBUS CRIME BILLS?

That's exactly my point. This shit would be ok if they were completely out of options and had already cut EVERY FUCKING UNNECESSARY THING EVER. But clearly they're lavishly pissing away money on anything that goes with their ideologies and cutting everything that goes with the public's. The conservatives cite economic reasons for cutting all the things we need, but they never cite economic reasons for all the shit they piss away money on, and you're there standing by their actions every single time.

Also, explain to me in your infinite wisdom how making cuts doesn't SLOW DOWN the economy by costing jobs, therefore less people spending, therefore less economic growth? Since I'm convinced this bullshit debt reduction thing is made up by world governments as an excuse to introduce austerity measures and take away citizen rights.

And let's not forget Canada was in surplus until your best buds came to power.

[Kaylia]

And let's not forget Canada was in surplus until your best buds came to power.

Have you ever clicked on the "World" tab on any news website? I know this concept might be alien to you, but there is a financial crisis out there that fucked up economy pretty badly around the world. Amazingly, it turn out that Canada resisted much better than most country. Using that as an argument would be stupid.


I don't know why you're attempting to make such argument (no surplus --> must be government fault) when there is about 10 billions other factors that you have to consider. Your opinion is fueled by unjustified rage, and you're not even trying to understand what is really going on.

I mean, seriously... if you want to bitch about the lack of surplus, you should start by asking yourself if the alternative would have improved the situation and how? What was the best way to deal the situation? Economy is complex, politics are complex, and oversimplified statements like the one you made are retarded.

Also, explain to me in your infinite wisdom how making cuts doesn't SLOW DOWN the economy by costing jobs, therefore less people spending, therefore less economic growth?

Explain me how supporting a job that does not increase productivity is going to increase economic growth? Or do you believe that every job increase the growth just the same?

Again, you can't make broad statement like this one. Money handed by the government isn't magically going to come back to their pocket in a free market, even if a good chunk will.

If you really want to have this argument, we would need to look case by case at the cut and how it will impact the growth of the country. It's a complex problem, but considering where the cut were made, I sincerely doubt the "growth" was impacted negatively.

Since I'm convinced this bullshit debt reduction thing is made up by world governments as an excuse to introduce austerity measures and take away citizen rights.

What?

[Mazmaz]

Ok so I'm assuming you're not refuting my main point that I wrote first:

I can't blame the current government for spending BILLIONS OF DOLLARS on JET PLANES and UNNECESSARY OMNIBUS CRIME BILLS?

That's exactly my point. This shit would be ok if they were completely out of options and had already cut EVERY FUCKING UNNECESSARY THING EVER. But clearly they're lavishly pissing away money on anything that goes with their ideologies and cutting everything that goes with the public's. The conservatives cite economic reasons for cutting all the things we need, but they never cite economic reasons for all the shit they piss away money on, and you're there standing by their actions every single time.

Canada resisted the economic turmoil better because Chretien put measures into place that prevented banks from merging together and created the safest banking system in the world. Yet the conservatives take credit for it every time.

[Kaylia]

Ok so I'm assuming you're not refuting my main point that I wrote first:

No, I already addressed your main point before. Also, you can't post that while ignoring half of my post yourself.


This contract was signed during the liberal reign before. Breaking it at this point also come with penalty, and going through with it is not just a question of spending billions or not, because it's going to cost a lot of money either way.

If you wanted to make a real argument, you would have to cover
- The cost of the contract, and how much it would cost to retract.
- The political ramification that we don't know about (No one is immune to black mailing, and it's typically better to keep your ally)
- The actual benefit of the jets. You say there is none, but how does one demonstrate that they are going to have no impact on anything?

Like I indicated before, I wasn't in favor of the decision, but I'm not retarded to the point where I can pretend I have a complete understanding of the ramification and impact of something like this, and it's obviously not as black and white as you imply.

Sadly, what goes through the mind of someone like you is "ARRRMY BAAAD", and that's pretty much where your reasoning stop. You don't even try to understand what is going on, you just parrot what you heard.

Canada resisted the economic turmoil better because Chretien put measures into place that prevented banks from merging together and created the safest banking system in the world. Yet the conservatives take credit for it every time.

You always turn everything into an attack against the conservative, when I don't give a shit about them.

Go back to my post, and tell me where I gave them them credit? You're missing the point completely if you believe I did.

What bother me is your refusal to acknowledge that economy is a complex system, and that a direct cause to effect isn't something you can do. You tried to make a point that our economy was doing poorly where it really is not doing that bad.

What you're doing it not unlike saying "everyone who drank water over the last millenium died, water is bad". It's true, but it's not right.