The Budget And The Environment: The Deniers Liked It

 A statement from the ICSC:

Canadian federal Budget a step forward on climate change

Ottawa, Canada, March 29, 2012: “The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) congratulates the Government of Canada for removing from the federal Budget the misleading language of previous Budgets concerning clean air and climate change,” said Tom Harris, executive director ICSC which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “In past years, this serious science mistake, appearing repeatedly in such an important document, contributed to public confusion about the distinctly different approaches needed to address these two issues.

Meanwhile, what the budget means for the future of the Northern Gateway Pipeline:

The Northern Gateway pipeline project could make B.C.’s famous battles over clear-cut logging of the 1980s and 1990s look like a university residence food-fight. While we have been given plenty of advance warning of this coming reckoning, today’s budget appears to me to be a declaration of political war on the natural resources-environmentalist front.   

I don't think the federal government knows what its got itself into here, but if its a war they want...

Although that said, when you read this bit from APTN re the streamlining of approvals processes for projects like Northern Gateway:

What specific, detailed changes the overhaul will bring remains to be revealed, but federal officials speaking on background, said all projects currently awaiting approval will be reviewed during a so-called “transition period.”

...its hard to imagine too much time being cut from the 18 months set aside to review it.

NDP Sends Budget Signals

They'll support the Tory budget, festooned as it is with imprudent corporate tax cuts, for a 4 month (120 day) agreement to "work" on improving CPP. So a committee will be struck, witnesses heard, and a report written. At the end of the day, all the NDP members of the committee will be given a free bowl of soup.

Steve V has a similar take.

What Passing The Budget Does NOT Mean

Passing the budget does NOT mean passing the pay equity legislation that the Tories claim in the budget that they will introduce some time in the future. This is just the kind of legislation that will die late at night in the dark hole of some committee room. Nobody will even hear it scream. It is nothing to lose sleep over and no reason to bring down the government.

Canadians Want Green Budget

I have never heard of the company (Multi Réso), and the timing is suspect, but the message seems consistent with earlier surveys:

The findings also suggest that Canadians do not want their governments to ignore health and the environment in efforts to jump start the economy. Health is one of the top two priorities for 42% of Canadians, followed closely by the environment, with 38%.

The most interesting material lies in the regional breakdowns:

The findings suggest that a good part of the population is not feeling the impact of the economic crisis or is not worried about the impacts at this time. About a third of Canadians (31%) and half of Quebecers (47%) do not rank the economy and jobs as either their first or second concern.

Of course that doesn't apply to Ontario, where 70% say the latter two are the most important concerns.

A Suggestion For The Upcoming Budget

Looking for stuff to cut, Mr Harper?

STOP FUNDING DANGEROUS NONSENSE,
HEALTH EXPERTS TELL HARPER

The Canadian government is funding censorship and perversion of scientific information, charge a number of health experts in a strongly worded letter sent today to Prime Minister Harper.

The experts, from the Université de Laval and other universities across Canada, ask the Prime Minister to stop funding the Chrysotile Institute (formerly the Asbestos Institute) in his government’s January 27 budget.

“The Institute censors information from the world’s leading health authorities, distorts their views and puts forward nonsensical claims, for example that chrysotile asbestos disappears when it is mixed with cement and becomes harmless,” says Dr Colin Soskolne, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Alberta. “This is not science; this is dangerous nonsense.”

“It is a slur on the reputation of the scientific community and people of Canada for the government to be funding such distortion of scientific information,” says Dr Tim Takaro, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences, SFU. “But, more importantly, this misinformation puts people’s lives at risk. This is completely unethical and must stop.”

“Over the past 25 years, the government has given more than $20 million to support the dying asbestos industry in Quebec. Over 90% of the workers have lost their jobs; the remaining approximately 550 workers have had their wages slashed and work part-time; and in 2007, the asbestos mining company filed for bankruptcy protection,” said Kathleen Ruff, senior human rights advisor to the Rideau Institute. “It is time to stop this wasteful and unethical use of government funds. Instead, the government should help the remaining asbestos workers and the community with just transition assistance.”

Please contact Kathleen Ruff, kruff@bulkley.net for a copy of the letter.

- 30 -


CONTACTS:

- Dr Colin Soskolne (780) 492-6013; Colin.Soskolne@ualberta.ca

- Dr Tim Takaro (778) 782-7186; ttakaro@sfu.ca

- Kathleen Ruff (250) 847-1848; kruff@bulkley.net
-----

I remember when my dad was posted to base Gagetown in Oromocto, New Brunswick. Myself and a bunch of other kids found these fabric containers of something or other --shaped roughly like small pillows--lying in a field behind the PMQs. We had great fun with them, whacking each other over the head, throwing them back and forth. The next day, I felt a terrible itching sensation. Bits of glass fibre embed in the skin and can't be removed by showering. It lasted for several days without let-up.

Liberal Environmental Policy: The Next Step

Liberal infrastructure critic Martha Hall Findlay lays it out:

New infrastructure investment can and should be 'green' - to enhance conservation and energy-efficiency; to ensure cleaner air and water; to increase training, education and investment with regard to green technologies. We can spend now, for immediate stimulus, in ways that can ensure a better, cleaner environment, and at the same time create the jobs of the future.

Pretty obvious stuff. Not that it will necessarily get listened to. I wonder though if this signifies a different approach on the part of the Libs. Under Dion they proposed a grand scheme; under Iggy, they oppose Tory plans by offering greener alternatives on an issue-by-issue basis.

And, oh yeah, the Green Shift is "now burdened with political baggage". Nice way of saying "dead", I suppose.

The Incredible Lightness Of Being Jack Layton

He ain't seen the budget, but he's agin' it.

Does anyone really believe Layton wants to topple the gov. over the upcoming budget, or that he really expects to be part of a coalition in three weeks? No, its just about positioning--about diverting blame to the Libs when the budget passes. But the ploy is so transparent even some in his own party are questioning its usefulness.

This is the kind of silly posturing that makes people think: Ah well, its the NDP, they'll say anything because they know they will never come close to power and can never get called on it.

If It Got That Iranian Kid Outta Jail

...maybe it will work for me too!

Will These Liberals Support Budget?

Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Superior North) and Keith Martin ( Esquimalt- Juan De Fuca) are making noises in that direction:

The veteran MP said if the budget proves fruitful for Thunder Bay’s new Molecular Medicine Research Centre, he may have no choice but to go against the wishes of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and support it.“

That (MMRC) money is maybe the most important part of the budget for Thunder Bay,” Comuzzi said.

“That money’s not gonna come through if they’re toppled.”

Since the budget is already going to pass, Dion should probably let these two vote their preference (although I don't know what Martin's issue is). The place to stand and fight will be the Clean Air Act. Since John Baird has now promised that Canada will "honour" our Kyoto commitments, it will be quite difficult, I think, for the Tories to make this a confidence matter so as to kill opposition amendments that in fact bind us to those commitments.

h/t to One Dominion.

Update: Comuzzi is gonzo from the Liberal caucus. That took guts on Dion's part.

Update: Keith Martin is NOT supporting the Harper budget. Thanks Red Tory. And I am beginning to change my mind a little as to the Lib response to Comuzzi. It seems to me that a few metaphoric heads up on metaphoric poles might go aways to dispelling the notion of Dion as wimp.

The Lousiest Good News Budget Ever?

Although many of his individual criticisms are valid, it is unsurprising that someone like this guy should be criticizing a Conservative budget. What is more surprising is how poorly it seems to have played in Quebec. And what is most surprising has been the response from the Right side of the political spectrum. "The Tories have sold out," is the dominant message, from Andrew Coyne, for example. And indeed the whole Sun Chain feels similarly betrayed, running a pretty negative editorial in most of its papers this morning:

Wait a minute. Isn't this the same gang that promised to trim federal spending if we gave them the chance to govern? That won over a bunch of voters by saying that Canadians were far better judges of how to invest their own money than a government could ever be?

Indeed, the Ottawa Sun adds insult to injury by accusing the Jim Flaherty of stiffing Canada's "poorest" citizens in addition to spending like a drunken sailer.

The hits keep coming with negative columns from Joe Warmingon, Tom Brodbeck, and Lorrie Goldstein, who writes:

At long last, Stephen Harper has revealed his "hidden agenda."

It's to be a Liberal.

Ouch! That must sting!

Nor is the situation different in that faithful echo chamber of CPoC talking points, The Blogging Tories, where fiscally responsible types like Greg Staples have expressed a fair deal of dismay.

And even those righties, like Paul Wells, who have a few good words for the budget, approve of it not because they like what it contains, but because its "good politics" and others might like what it contains. Well, maybe the pundits and blogosphere are indeed totally detached from your "average Canadian voter". Maybe somewhere out there people are dancing in the street over this document. However, I am more inclined to believe that, if the opinion in the Canadian Commentairat is as negative as this, opinion among the general population will be similarly downbeat.

Harper Budget Seals Deal For Provincial Liberals...In Ontario

As Christina Blizzard notes in her T.O. Sun column this morning, while the latest Stephen Harper budget seems to have laid an egg in Quebec, where it is quite accurately perceived as a blatent attempt to buy votes for Jean Charest's Liberals in next week's election, it will almost certainly have the effect of greasing the skids for a Liberal return to power in Ontario. For one thing, if Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara can't craft an election year balanced-budget this week and still sprinkle goodies over the citizenry, then he is beyond incompetent. It was clear in 2006 that McGuinty's bunch was fiddling the books so it looked like the Province was running a deficit. This year the message will be SHAZAM! we're back in black and election-ready and, by the way Ontarions, here's a wad of program spending.

Note that Harper's attempts to buy Ontario votes have been fairly subtle and low key. At least, there will have been a respectful distance between the handing over of Federal dough and our Provincial election. In Quebec, by contrast, the Tories have acted like a John waving cash before a street-walker: here's the dough, now render me some services. Who would wonder at a backlash? The real question is: does Harper's budget doom Jean Charest rather than secure his victory?

What's With The Crap Tory Numbers in Quebec?

...asks BCer in TO after running down some really interesting SES polling stats re Harper, Charest, and today's budget. He says:

...I'm not overly surprised Quebecers aren't buying into what Harper has been selling to them. Which has to be a sock in the gut, given the effort he has expended trying to build his, and Charest's, support in the province that could well make or break his majority dreams. Interesting the poll says the sales pitch is hurting him there [emphasis mine] though, I wonder what's behind that.

If I walked up to you waving a wad of bills and said, loudly so that everyone could hear it: "I AM BUYING YOUR VOTE, NOW VOTE FOR ME!!!" would this make you think of me more or less favorably? Would it make you vote for me?

On the other hand, would you refuse the cash?