The WAR on Science: Thursday, November 21, 2013, 7:00 pm Room 1900, SFU Harbour Ctr

Status
Not open for further replies.
NAFTA Body - Investigate Canada Industrial Fish Farms
A key NAFTA body recommended today that a formal investigation take place into Canada’s failure to protect wild salmon from disease and parasites from industrial fish farms in British Columbia.

This signifcant decision by the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, an environmental dispute body established under NAFTA, responds to a 2012 petition by Pacific Coast Wild Salmon Society (me), the Kwikwasu’tinuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation (chief Robert Chamberlin) in Canada, the U.S.-based Center for Biological Diversity and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.

Picto fishThe territory of the Kwikwasu’tinuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation lies between Kingcome and Knight Inlet, sometimes called the Broughton Archipelago. There are 27 Norwegian salmon feedlots in their territory, and still they have never supported the presence of the industry.

They have served eviction notices to the farms. Chief Chamberlin filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Kwikwasu’tinuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation against the damage done by salmon farms to wild salmon in their territory. Ultimately the courts decided they were not a "class" and so that case was not allowed to go to trial. As a result, this NAFTA decision is the first ray of hope that an international spotlight will be cast how Canada handling impact of salmon farms on wild salmon. Along with the recent 60 Minutes broadcast on salmon farming in BC, there is now international attention on what is going on here with respect to how Canada is handling the conflicts between wild and farmed salmon.

The Secretariat’s decision identified “central questions” raised by the petition that should be investigated, including whether Canada is effectively enforcing section 36 of its federal Fisheries Act in relation to salmon aquaculture operations in British Columbia that allow “deleterious substances” in waters frequented by fish. Today’s recommendation by the commission is an important step in moving the petition forward under NAFTA’s environmental dispute process.



“Wild salmon shouldn’t continue to be subjected to viruses, toxic chemicals and parasites from open-water industrial fish operations in their migration routes,” said Jeff Miller with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Canada’s own Cohen Commission recommended moving finfish farming off wild salmon migration routes but that still hasn’t happened. An investigation by NAFTA would shine a spotlight on Canada’s refusal to protect wild salmon habitat as required by its own Fisheries Act.”



The petition challenged the Canadian government’s violations of its Fisheries Act in permitting more than 100 industrial salmon feedlots in British Columbia to operate along wild salmon migration routes, exposing ecologically, socially and economically valuable salmon runs to epidemics of disease, parasites, toxic chemicals and concentrated waste. The petition documents the proliferation of industrial aquaculture and its impacts on British Columbia ecosystems that support wild salmon. Salmon feedlots are linked to dramatic declines in wild salmon populations worldwide and spread of lethal salmon viruses.



Background
When a country that is signatory to the North American Free Trade Agreement fails to enforce its environmental laws, any party may petition the Commission for Environmental Cooperation for investigation. Canada’s Fisheries Act prohibits harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of fish habitat or addition of “deleterious substances.” The petitioners seek a finding that Canada is violating its Fisheries Act with regard to industrial aquaculture. Such a finding could push Canada to protect wild salmon, ideally by relocating fish aquaculture into contained tanks on land.



Following today’s decision, the Commission’s governing body, composed of high-level environmental authorities from Canada, the United States and Mexico, will consider the issue. The body has 60 days to make a final decision. If the review goes forward, the Commission will initiate a full factual investigation into Canada’s lack of enforcement of the Fisheries Act.



Scientific evidence of threats to wild salmon swimming through B.C. waters from fish feedlots has been mounting, as has public concern that feedlots could spread epidemic diseases. This is a threat that jeopardizes the health of every wild salmon run along the Pacific Coast, since U.S. and Canadian stocks mingle in the ocean and estuaries.



Since the petition was filed, Atlantic salmon farms around Vancouver Island suffered a virus outbreak in May 2012 that led to a quarantine and the cull of more than half a million fish. More recently scientists documented a devastating Norwegian virus that attacks the heart of salmon—called the piscine virus—infecting nearly all farmed salmon raised and for sale in British Columbia.



In fall of 2012 the Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the decline of sockeye salmon in the Fraser River issued a final report concluding that salmon farms along wild salmon migration routes have the potential for serious and irreversible harm to salmon through introduction of exotic diseases and to aggravate endemic diseases, with a negative impact on Fraser River sockeye. The Cohen Commission recommended a freeze on net-pen salmon farm production along part of the Fraser sockeye migration route until 2020, at which time all farms should be removed unless Canada has hard evidence that the farms are doing no harm. The commission also suggested revising siting criteria to protect all wild salmon migration routes, and that Fisheries and Oceans Canada should no longer promote salmon farming as an industry or farmed salmon as a product.



Yet in January 2014, Canada opened the British Columbia coast to more salmon farms and is considering removing section 36 of the Fisheries Act to accommodate the salmon farmers’ needs for more effective salmon de-lousing drugs.



The Kwikwasu’tinuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation is a native tribe whose territory off northern Vancouver Island is being used by 27 Norwegian-owned salmon feedlots. The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations is the largest trade association of commercial fishers on the west coast, representing family fishing men and women. The University of Denver Environmental Law Clinic helped prepare and submit the petition.

- See more at: http://alexandramorton.typepad.com/...dustrial-fish-farms.html#sthash.wyJ5KV2i.dpuf
 
Wow, will be interesting to see how this unfolds...

http://www.watershed-watch.org/2014...fish-aquaculture-management-planning-process/


Open Letter on Flawed DFO Marine Finfish Aquaculture Management Planning Process

This entry was posted in Watershed Watch Activities and tagged AMAC, aquaculture, DFO, Watershed Watch.. Posted by Trish Hall on May 27, 2014

After three years of trying to meaningfully engage in DFO’s flawed aquaculture advisory process, Watershed Watch joined with the Pacific Salmon Foundation, SOS Marine Conservation Foundation, and the David Suzuki Foundation in an Open Letter on Flawed DFO Marine Finfish Aquaculture Management Planning Process. This letter lists our concerns and reasons for boycotting this process. Please feel free to share/post.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mark-taliano/harper-defund-science_b_3971531.html
Why Harper Hates Evidence-Based Data
Posted: 09/22/2013 11:31 pm

For years now, the federal government has been censuring, muzzling, de-funding, and laying off scientists, librarians, archivists, statisticians, and researchers in its efforts vacate government involvement in core research, and to shift its focus to industry-specific needs.

There are three granting councils that allocate federal funding for research in Canada: the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council (NSERC), and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR). In constant dollars, from 2007-2013, base funding for SSHR has decreased by 10.1 per cent; funding for NSERC has decreased by 6.4 per cent; and funding for CIHR has decreased by 7.5 per cent. Meanwhile, NSERC funding aimed at "company-specific" problems has increased (between 2001-2012) by 1178 per cent, while success rates for CIHR grants has dropped by 61 per cent.

The government rationale for the de-funding and transfer of funding is that tax payer-funded research should serve the needs of industry. However, the shift in focus corrupts core research by creating research parameters that compromise thorough examinations of any given hypothesis or premise.

While these restrictions serve the government's agenda to create an unimpeded/streamlined environment for both industry and government ideology, they endanger the public. Core research that interferes with the government/corporate agenda (but sometimes negatively impacts public health and safety) is discarded or suppressed, while narrowly focused research that doesn't contradict corporate government messaging is rewarded.

Public dangers inherent in this strategy of information suppression and distortion are not always tangible, but they are toxic nonetheless.

Consider first the federal government's de-funding of the internationally acclaimed Experimental Lakes Area in Kenora, ON, (constituency of Canada's recently appointed Minister of State for Science and Technology, Mr. Greg Rickford.) The only plausible explanation for such a closure would be that its findings would likely serve as an impediment to reckless resource extraction.

Instead of addressing challenges such as the effect of crude spills on water, or the impact of air pollutants on an ecosystem, the government chooses to deny that the problems exist, or to minimize their impacts. Both strategies of evasion (deny or minimize) are enabled in the absence of core scientific data, but the problems remain and the impacts on the environment, including humans, are perpetuated.

The track-record of the pharmaceutical industry also serves to highlight the dangers of industry-specific scientific research.

The tragedy of Vioxx is a case in point.

In its rush to secure a new patent for a new product, the international pharmaceutical company Merck rejected studies on the cardio-vascular risk of its new arthritis and pain drug, Vioxx (rofecoxib), and introduced it prematurely to the general public, in 1999. The drug contributed to an estimated 88,000-140,000 excess cases of serious heart disease, of which close to half would have resulted in fatalities, before it was withdrawn from the market on September 30, 2004

In Canada, the drug caused from 4,000-7,000 deaths.

Corporate corruption of science is not a new phenomenon. For decades, scientists employed by Big Tobacco successfully created unreasonable doubt about the safety of their products. Their distorted findings, as we now know, were to the detriment of the public.

The same dynamics are at play with global warming.

Industry-funded global warming "scientists", unqualified to make pronouncements on global warming, and unimpeded by the rigors of submitting their work for peer-review, have created unreasonable doubt about man-made global warming. Consequently, they have impeded efforts to responsibly address what is likely the largest threat to humanity.

The Harper government's decision to cancel the Long Form Census (LFC) is another example of the suppression of core evidence. A thorough census such as the (LFC) produces a detailed and accurate picture of Canada's demographics. Normally, such data is crucial for creating evidence-based policy; however, the comprehensiveness of the data reveals unwanted information. For example, currently there are about 4.2 million people living in poverty in Canada. Once poverty issues are no longer statistically verifiable, they will no longer need to be thoroughly addressed. Not surprisingly, Canada does not have a national anti-poverty strategy.

Core historical/social science -oriented research -- another area targeted for cuts --is vital for a nation's self-awareness. Without such awareness, a government can create alternate narratives at will, that may be to the detriment of the public.

For example, we are currently being assaulted with what Naomi Klein calls an "extractivist" mind-set, where core Canadian values are being treated as "overburden" (the derogatory term used by extractors to describe the trees, earth, and ecosystems that are excavated and destroyed before the tar or minerals are exposed).

Additionally, our Republican-inspired governance rejects -- through Omnibus legislation -- constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations to prior consultation, consent, and accommodation for development projects that impact treaties and unceded territories.

As author Anthony James Hall explains in "Flanagan's Last Stand?" , the government has a duty to recognize and affirm aboriginal and treaty rights, but instead it denies and negates these rights as stated in Section 35 of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1982.

Furthermore, explains Hall, the Harper government's "USAcentric" view of North American history ignores the Canadian reality of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which guarantees the Crown's protection of the Aboriginal and treaty rights of Britain's First Nations allies who, along with the British, successfully repelled American efforts to annex Canada during the War of 1812.

Core understandings of Canada's history and its juridical commitments are foundational elements upon which we can rely to combat falsified government narratives whose barely-hidden agenda is the termination of First Nation reserves and cultural protections in favour of corporate extractivism.

The censuring, muzzling, de-funding of Canada's knowledge base works as a cancer that undermines public safety, health and welfare, as well as our societal pluralism, self-determination, and sovereignty.

Out first step in combating this assault is continued awareness.
 
http://mikedesouza.com/2014/06/01/s...s-from-federal-scientists-in-canada/#more-149
Stephen Harper’s evidence: Top 10 quotes from federal scientists in Canada
Posted on June 1, 2014

Some Canadian government scientists allege that they are being muzzled

Last week, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a strong case for parents to accept scientific evidence about the effectiveness of vaccines.

“We do have scientists and medical professionals who do great work and verify this and I just think its a tragedy when people start to go off on their own theories and not listen to the scientific evidence,” he told the CBC in an exclusive interview.

“Don’t indulge your theories, think of your children and listen to the experts.”

Within his own government, scientists and professionals who do research and gather evidence, are urging the prime minister to take a second look at his own theories.

A major survey, conducted by Environics Research and sponsored by the labour union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, collected dozens of quotes from scientists who believe the Harper government doesn’t know how to use evidence. They allege the government is muzzling them, interfering with their research and ignoring their findings – particularly when it comes to evidence that covers issues such as climate change and other impacts of unsustainable industrial development.

Here’s a list of ten significant quotes from that survey:

Quote 10: The “Banana Republic”

“I am a surplused employee at DFO (Department of Fisheries and Oceans). I will be leaving my position and the civil service soon. What has been done to environmental legislation and Regulatory Authority in Canada in the last year+ is CRIMINAL! This now also includes a complete lack of capacity and funding. The Public are being grossly misled by Gov’t as to the state of the environment, especially the aquatic ecosystems and likely future negative consequences. The face of DFO is now virtually gone from communities and especially in the North where all the development is occurring. We are becoming a ‘Banana Republic’ when it comes to environmental legislation and regulations. These ‘wholesale’ changes are being led by ideology and not cost savings or common sense. The list of threatened and endangered species continues to grow. Salmon stocks are struggling all along the west coast of NA (North America). The number of contaminated sites continues to grow and clean up efforts are tied up in politicized bureaucracy. We have tens of millions of dollars for The War of 1812 and Canada’s Action Plan but cannot even respond in a timely fashion to the Cohen Report (inquiry into the plight of salmon) that cost $26 million. Canada has also lost significant environmental and scientific credibility internationally b/c of the muzzling of scientists and inaction on climate change. Continually making decisions and policies based on politics and the economy only will continue to degrade the environment around us.”

Quote 9: “Systematic dismantling”

“In my 31 years with the federal public service, I’ve never seen such a systematic dismantling of science capacity. My only hope of ever seeing a scientifically viable and credible public service again is a change in government.”

Quote 8: “Set aside and ignored”

“Because of changes in regulations and shifts in departmental mandates, science disciplines aimed at environmental and human protection have been set aside and ignored, without taking the real risks into consideration (e.g. environmental assessment, toxicology research on freshwater systems, aircraft inspection, food inspection).”

Quote 7: Using funds to equip companies

“I am a researcher in AAFC (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) and I have witnessed a strong research branch, which contributed immensely to Canada’s Agriculture and food sector getting dismantled under the guise of ‘transferring’ this activity to the private sector. The new research activities are narrow and serve short-term profit objectives. Funds are used to equip and run individual companies. These are business subsidies and not research programs benefitting all Canadians… I fear the public does not yet realize that within 10 years there will be no one acting in their interests.”

Quote 6: “Political interference”

“The current government’s positions have led to fundamental changes in environmental laws and regulations. Government scientists are as professional as ever but have to do their best in the current political context. Government interference is pervasive in our work, sometimes subtly (communications approval process, muzzling of the public, transparency towards the public) and sometimes very explicitly (changes to laws and regulations). Muzzling, lack of transparency, abandonment of Canadian environmental values for economic values at the expense of the environment, and political interference for economic purposes are the defining characteristics of the current government when it comes to the environment. It is harder to work in the environmental sciences under this government which is trying to do everything it can to avoid answering questions on the environment and serving as a world leader in environmental protection.”

Quote 5: “Orwellian”

“I am outraged by the Orwellian restriction of information under the current government… I am sure that I did not sign a confidentiality agreement designed to protect elected officials from minor embarrassment or surprise. If the public service is truly non-partisan, then our results should not be repressed to serve the interests of one political party over another. Furthermore, every time we have to ask permission to speak to the media, even if that permission is ultimately granted, it reduces the appearance of independence and transparency of government science.”

Quote 4: “Hate every day of my job”

“Despite what the scientists think, we are told what to say and that we have to put a positive spin on everything and to support economic development at all costs. Our role as both stewards and advisors has been silenced. We are tasked with work that we ethically do not agree with and must support. If we do not, they simply bring in project people who are non scientists who will write what senior management wants to hear. I am over worked, disrespected, undervalued, and I hate every day of my job where I used to love coming to work.”

Quote 3: “Minders”

“Up until the Harper govt., when the media called for an interview with me as a research scientist I simply gave the interview and wrote up a media report thereafter. Now managers decide if whoever gets the call is the appropriate contact for the specific topic; the process of waiting for approval is slow (days), and onerous (lots of email, phone calls) and involves minders, therefore I have given up doing media interviews bc it takes so much time from my work. I refer reporters to NGOs that might be involved. I believe other research scientists and biologists do the same based on conversations with them.”

Quote 2:

“Help”

Quote 1:

“I’m probably quitting. Harper wins.”
 
http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post...eeped-out-stephen-harpers-anti-privacy-agenda
JUN 3, 2014 by PressProgress
10 reasons you should be creeped out by Stephen Harper's anti-privacy agenda
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Canadians' privacy is in the spotlight after Stephen Harper's controversial pick to be the country's next privacy watchdog arrived on Parliament Hill on Tuesday amid a growing chorus of critics of the government's latest snooping bill, C-13.

Here are 10 things you need to know about why alarm bells are going off:

1. C-13 opens the floodgates to telecom companies giving your private info to the government — and you'll never even know it


"Bill C-13 in its current form provides telecom companies who hand over sensitive private information about innocent Canadians with absolute immunity from criminal and civil liability.

Recent revelations show that government agencies made 1.2 million requests for customer data from telecom companies in just one year, and that the companies apparently voluntarily complied with these requests most of the time.

After learning of this, Canadians are increasingly calling for stronger safeguards against warrantless access to our private information, in contrast to the weakening of safeguards proposed in C-13....

Canadians find it troubling that Bill C-13 makes little effort to keep government agencies transparent and accountable. Most shockingly, there is no requirement that officials notify those innocent Canadians who have had their data stored in government databases."

Steve Anderson, Executive Director of OpenMedia.ca, testifying at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, June 3, 2014.
2. Bill uses cyberbullying as an excuse to access information on your phones and computers without a warrant

"If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again. Perhaps that’s the federal government’s motto regarding Bill C-13 — the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act. It represents yet another attempt by this government to pass legislation that will open the door to undue state intrusion.

The currently proposed legislation is a more palatable but still troubling restatement of the unpopular Bill C-30 — the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act. That bill, tabled in February 2012, mentioned neither children nor predators and was likely so-named only to sway the public toward accepting the legislation. It attempted to do precious little of what its title purported, mostly dealing with giving the police new powers — including making it mandatory for Internet service providers to disclose subscriber information to police without court oversight....

With Bill C-13, the government is at it again.

Debate around Bill C-13 has cast it as dealing with cyberbullying — especially relevant after the tragic stories of Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons. The cyberbullying label is less disingenuous than the previous legislation’s title — Bill C-13 does make it illegal to distribute intimate images without consent. But just like Bill C-30, it deals with far more. Of the 60 plus pages in Bill C-13, the majority grant new powers to police and do not deal with cyberbullying."

Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Derek James From, "Bill C-13: Tories trying again to open door to undue state intrusion," Toronto Star. March 26, 2014.
3. Even Amanda Todd's mother thinks the bill goes beyond its stated goal of addressing cyberbullying

"'I am concerned about some of the other unrelated provisions that have been added to the bill in the name of Amanda, Rehtaeh (Parsons), and all of the children lost to cyberbullying attacks,' Todd told a House of Commons committee Tuesday.

'I don’t want to see our children victimized again by losing privacy rights.'

Todd called on the Conservatives to split the cyberbullying element from the larger bill.

'We should not have to choose between our privacy and our safety. We should not have to sacrifice our children’s privacy rights to make them safe from cyberbullying, sextortion, and revenge pornography,' Todd said.

'If there’s any way we can separate these controversial provisions from the law designed to help other Canadians avoid the pain experienced by Rehtaeh and my Amanda, I would support that process.'"

"Amanda Todd's mother raises concerns about cyberbullying bill," Toronto Star. May 13, 2014.
4. Conservatives are actually trying to make a case for letting police go on "fishing expeditions" into our phones and computers just to make sure we're not up to anything that would make their "spidey sense" go off

"Critics of the new omnibus privacy-restricting legislation, says a Conservative member of Parliament, would tie Spider-Man’s web-slinging hands.

That’s what cop-turned-MP David Wilks told witnesses at justice committee recently.

'As a police officer, my Spidey Senses … are the one and only thing that will allow me to move forward in an investigation that will potentially bring forward information,' Wilks said.

He was interrupting defence lawyer Michael Spratt, who was arguing that the federal government shouldn’t be giving powers that allow police to go on 'fishing expeditions.'...

The bill also removes language requiring that data be requested only under the auspices of an investigation. Now all you need is a tingling in your Spidey Sense and a phone.

'What's the harm?' wondered the parliamentary secretary to the minister of justice, Bob Dechert.

'The harm is done when the Charter is breached,' Spratt responded."

"Spidey Senses tingling over C-13," Ottawa Citizen, June 2, 2014.
5. The new law is so flawed it would actually let Rob Ford see what you're up to on your phone or computer. And to answer your next question: yes, Seriously

"A wide-ranging new federal bill that will allow Internet and cellphone providers to hand over your personal data without a warrant has privacy advocates concerned about just how many officials will have access to that information, a list that could range from CSIS agents to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford.

When passed, Tory bill C-13 will mean that any 'public officer' or 'peace officer' can request, obtain and use data that has been voluntarily provided to them by telecommunication companies, and it spells out legal immunity for any company that co-operates.

The officers obtaining that data can be anything from tax agents to sheriffs, reeves, justices of the peace, CSIS agents, and even, yes, mayors."

"How federal bill C-13 could give CSIS agents - or even Rob Ford - access to your personal online data," National Post, May 4, 2014.
And if that's not bad enough, Harper's new pick for the country's privacy watchdog is actually the guy who clashed with privacy advocates.

6. The last job of Harper's new pick for privacy watchdog was to do damage control over "intrusions into privacy on a grand scale"

"On Wednesday, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that he was nominating Daniel Therrien to be the new privacy commissioner, I looked at his biography and thought: uh-oh. [...]

He is surely an extraordinarily talented, smart and hard-working fellow — and he may be capable of completely changing his world view — but in his most recent job he has been involved in negotiating and managing intrusions into privacy on a grand scale."

Stephen Maher, "Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau agree on spooky pick for next privacy commissioner," Ottawa Citizen, May 30, 2014.
7. The guy Harper picked as privacy watch dog actually used to give advice to Canada's spies

"Stephen Harper's choice for Canada's next privacy watchdog has given legal advice to the country's top spying and national security agencies, according to sources with knowledge of a confidential resumé circulated by the Prime Minister's Office.
In his role as assistant deputy attorney general, Daniel Therrien advised agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and the Department of National Defence.
He has now been nominated to safeguard Canadians’ privacy from those organizations."

"New privacy watchdog gave legal advice to Canadian spy agencies," Toronto Star, June 3, 2014.
8. The selection of the new privacy commissioner was surrounded by really, really dodgy circumstances

"New details, meanwhile, of his selection are emerging. Sources tell The Globe and Mail that Mr. Therrien was picked by Treasury Board President Tony Clement from a two-person shortlist, and that the candidates favoured by many in Canada’s privacy community – each respected for their work as commissioners already – did not make the final shortlist.

Mr. Therrien is currently the assistant deputy attorney-general for public safety, a position that makes him closely familiar with government data-monitoring programs, such as cross-border data sharing, that are widely criticized by privacy advocates as being too invasive.

If approved by Parliament as Commissioner, Mr. Therrien will be tasked with picking apart those very programs, sparring with government and doing so without experience working either as a commissioner or in a commissioner’s office."

"Critics decy new Privacy Commissioner appointment," The Globe and Mail, June 2, 2014.
 
(continued from above)
9. Even former privacy watchdogs think this was a "bizarre" choice

"A former federal privacy commissioner put it more bluntly. 'It strikes me as a bizarre nomination – like putting a fox in charge of chicken security at the hen house,' George Radwanski, who served as commissioner between 2000 and 2003, said when contacted by The Globe and Mail.

Mr. Radwanski said Mr. Therrien’s job at Justice Canada 'by its very nature involved focusing on and developing privacy-invasive measures intended to enhance public safety. And that’s exactly the opposite of the pro-privacy bias any privacy commissioner should have.'"

"New privacy watchdog slammed by critics," The Globe and Mail, May 29, 2014.
Oh, and by the way...

10. Canada's spy watchdog thinks you're stupid

"Canadians are 'stupid' and post far too much information online, a former head of the national electronic spying agency says, leaving the country with a 'long ways to go' in protecting personal information in an Internet era.

John Adams made the comment in a Senate meeting Wednesday as he and other witnesses discussed a bill that would create an all-party parliamentary committee to oversee the top-secret efforts of Canada’s intelligence and security agencies – a notion backed by Mr. Adams, who led Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) from 2005-11. [...]

Mr. Adams told the committee one perception he’d heard of Web-surfing Canadians. 'One half is stupid, and the other half is stupid,' Mr. Adams said, recalling a view of Canadians in their online habits. 'I can confirm that. We put more online, [on] Facebook, than any other country in the world.' Mr. Adams later added: 'We’re not very smart, so we’ve got a long ways to go.'"

"Canadians are lax on privacy, Senate committee hears," The Globe & Mail, May 28, 2014.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...ve_legal_advice_to_canadian_spy_agencies.html

New privacy watchdog gave legal advice to Canadian spy agencies

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's choice for privacy watchdog gave legal advice to Canada's spies and the RCMP.

Treasury Board President Tony Clement, who recommended Daniel Therrien to the prime minister, stood by the Conservatives’ selection for the next federal privacy watchdog.

ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS FILE PHOTO
Treasury Board President Tony Clement, who recommended Daniel Therrien to the prime minister, stood by the Conservatives’ selection for the next federal privacy watchdog.

By: Alex Boutilier Staff Reporter, Published on Tue Jun 03 2014

Stephen Harper’s choice for Canada’s next privacy watchdog has given legal advice to the country’s top spying and national security agencies, according to sources with knowledge of a confidential resumé circulated by the Prime Minister’s Office.

In his role as assistant deputy attorney general, Daniel Therrien advised agencies including the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the RCMP, Public Safety Canada and the Department of National Defence.

He has now been nominated to safeguard Canadians’ privacy from those organizations.

His resumé has opposition politicians and Canada’s privacy community concerned about Therrien’s ability to provide oversight on agencies he used to advise.
“Any candidate for this important position . . . must have demonstrated expertise in and knowledge of the complexities of protecting privacy, and protecting privacy requires knowledge that goes beyond the law that’s on the books,” said Sukanya Pillay, the executive director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, on Tuesday.
“Unless we have a strong, informed and committed privacy commissioner at the helm, the privacy rights of Canadians might too easily be siphoned away.”
The CCLA is one of over 30 privacy experts and organizations urging Therrien’s nomination be withdrawn, calling it “indefensible.”

According to the groups, Therrien has a conflict of interest when it comes to reviewing organizations and programs he had a hand in advising or creating. Moreover, the groups say, Therrien lacks the specialized knowledge required to address “Canada’s many privacy problems.”

Therrien has declined to be interviewed before a House of Commons committee spends an hour vetting his nomination on Tuesday. But Treasury Board President Tony Clement, who recommended Therrien to the prime minister, stood by the Conservatives’ selection.

“Here’s an individual . . . that has been part of the public service for 30-plus years, has a high degree of skill and expertise in legal matters as well as privacy matters and so who brings a wealth of talent to the job as well as experience,” Clement told reporters in Ottawa. “And that’s exactly the kind of person that Parliament should consider.”

Clement confirmed a report from Postmedia News Monday that revealed Therrien was one of two people interviewed by Clement for the job. But he declined to say who else was interviewed, or who made a short list prepared by the selection committee. Clement also declined to say specifically what experience Therrien has in privacy law.
Privacy experts have said Therrien is completely unknown to the privacy community in Canada, and worry the Conservatives are sending a message by passing over several highly respected privacy advocates in favour of a lawyer with a national security background.

Privately — because they have to deal with the commissioner’s office — advocates are also concerned about how much Therrien will be able to say publicly about his experience at the Department of Justice.

In March, Ottawa slapped a life-long gag order on a number of senior bureaucrats and government lawyers who deal with the national security file. It’s not known if Therrien was included in that order under the Security of Information Act. Anyone subject to the law could face as many as 14 years in prison for disclosing “special operational information” without authorization from the government.

Therrien is scheduled to appear before a House of Commons committee on Tuesday.
 
http://16iacc.org/mansbridge-slams-information-secrecy-in-canada/
Mansbridge slams information secrecy in Canada

Posted on 14 Jun, 2014

Criticizes cuts to investigative journalism in Winnipeg speech

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s chief correspondent and anchor of The National, decried a “culture of secrecy” within Canada’s public institutions at a speech in Winnipeg.

“That’s why we’re here. To break this culture of secrecy,” said Peter Mansbridge on Friday at a conference co-sponsored by the CBC and the University of Winnipeg called “Holding Power to Account,” an international conference on investigative journalism, democracy, and human rights.

He recalled a headline in the Toronto Star back in April that read, “What the public is not allowed to know. Public information being kept secret.” That headline, he said, was not about blocked access to public information in countries notorious for their secrecy, but about his own country.

“Not China. Not North Korea. Canada,” he said.

Mansbridge made his remarks exactly one week after the 70th anniversary of D-Day, where thousands of soldiers died on the beaches of northern France in World War 2 and ultimately leading to the liberation of Europe from **** Germany. “They died for freedom and one of the pillars of freedom is openness. It’s a free and open media. A media that doesn’t accept. A media that pushes for freedom, for openness,” he told the 320 delegates from 15 countries.

Public institutions cloaked in secrecy, which keep public information in the dark, “is not what those guys died for on those beaches,” he said.

“We’re at a critical point”

Mansbridge

Mansbridge also criticized recent cuts to investigative journalism, including those to the investigative program Enquête. The award-winning program airs on Radio-Canada (the French version of the CBC). He said it could lose one-fifth of its staff. The CBC also made cuts to its investigative team in the same round of layoffs, although not to the same extent, he pointed out.

“My company, my corporation, the CBC, the public broadcaster who has a mandated interest in investigative journalism. Who boasts that we have more investigative journalists that any media organization. This is where we’re cutting back?” he asked.

“We should be investing more in these programs. Not cutting them.”

Enquête is credited with exposing corruption in Quebec politics and the construction industry, which included ties between the Mafia, politicians, and union bosses.

“Without Enquête, it would be very likely everyone in that scandal would be carrying on as if nothing was wrong,” he said.

It is not only CBC/Radio-Canada that is facing tough choices. All news organizations are facing cutbacks, he said. And the current situation has him worried.

“It’s death by a thousand cuts. And we’re bleeding.”

By Ryan Hicks. Ryan is a CBC Reporter and part of the Transparency International IACC Young Journalists Initiative.
 
BBC Told To Stop Giving Equal Time To Science Deniers

July 7, 2014 | by Lisa Winter

photo credit: Piers Morgan Tonight/CNN
Share39.3K Tweet242 5 Reddit1
205
“There’s two sides to every story.” We were all taught that line as children in order to to stop seeing the world in such black-and-white terms. It is also a good rule of thumb for journalists in order to provide a well-rounded representation of a reported topic, isn’t it? Not always- particularly when it comes to scientific facts. When certain scientific topics are discussed on television programs, there is usually an expert in the field pitted against someone with fringe beliefs not supported by evidence.

For instance, a conversation about climate change will involve a scientist as well as someone who claims Earth is actually cooling. When discussing an outbreak of preventable disease, an immunologist will cite the merits of vaccination against a Mommy Blogger who uses Natural News as an information source and believes vaccines are poison. This gives merit to pseudoscience cranks, detracts from the actual science, and creates the illusion of a debate in the scientific community where there is none.

The BBC Trust has had enough of this model and released a progress report outlining the steps it has taken to improve the integrity of its science reporting. The groundwork for this report actually began in 2010 when Steve Jones, an Emeritus Professor of Genetics from University College London, was asked to assess the BBC’s science content for accuracy and impartiality.

Jones released his findings in 2011 and revealed that while the BBC’s science reporting was pretty good overall, it gave too much weight to those whose fringe views are not well-accepted within the scientific community. “Due impartiality” by presenting two opposing viewpoints may be better served by “due weight” and making it clear how credible certain arguments actually are. BBC Executives immediately began to implement changes to bolster scientific integrity.

The current July 2014 progress report by the BBC Trust revealed that 200 of their senior managers have undergone training which explained that while scientific research can and should undergo proper scrutiny, it is important to reflect the actual scientific weight of any critical arguments to scientific announcements. They have been trained to prevent giving unwarranted attention to unqualified critics who report unsupported fringe opinion as fact.

The report states:

“The BBC has developed excellence in science broadcasting, and generalists who may be unfamiliar with these areas and where the weight of scientific agreement may lie should make the most of the resources of the BBC… Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified by Professor Jones.”

Well done, BBC! Other major news outlets would be well-advised to follow suit.


Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/environme...qual-time-science-deniers#e8ms2Xd9aDojpki7.99
 
"FriendsOfScience" Organization Do Not ******* Love Science

June 9, 2014 | by Lisa Winter

photo credit: Via Hemant Mehta, Patheos.com
Share66.9K Tweet491 7 Reddit18
83
A billboard in Calgary reads: “The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.” It was funded by the poorly-named group FriendsofScience.org (which I'll come back to later).

The billboard’s message takes aim at the idea of anthropogenic climate change or any possible effects of greenhouse gasses. Allow me to state outright, in no uncertain terms, that this claim does not represent the vast majority of scientific data.

The claim that the Sun is chiefly responsible for climate change doesn’t have much merit. Studies have shown that slight fluctuations in solar activity actually don’t affect Earth that much. Of the 1°C the planet has warmed in the last 300 years, a study found that the Sun probably contributed to less than 0.15°C of that. Any data that does point the finger of blame toward the Sun does not fit observational trends as well as humanity’s production of pollution. Claiming that humans and CO2 are not to blame doesn’t comport with the evidence and disagrees with the vast majority of the scientific literature.

Now, let’s get down to the sponsoring group itself. Friends of Science (FoS) was founded in 2002 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. On their website, they describe claims of anthropogenic influence on the climate as “weak science” and decry public policies founded on that information. They also describe the belief in those causes as “cult indoctrination” and those who support it as “religionists.” On the most basic level, a reputable organization advocating science would not resort to name calling for anyone who disagrees.

There are other clues that FoS isn’t all it claims to be, in the form of receiving money from petroleum companies. In 2006, Charles Montgomery published an exposé for Globe and Mail, illustrating the money to be made and the political power to be had in perpetuating the rumor that the scientific community hasn’t come to a consensus. If voters aren’t confident in the science, they can be persuaded. Most importantly, there’s no way to regulate what the claims of people like those from FoS. They can spread as many fallacies as they want, and there’s not a lot that can be done about it.

FoS releases articles describing current research in climate change, and they may speak to groups or get on TV, but it isn’t put through the scrutiny of peer review. That review process is a critical part of scientific integrity, but is lacking in the claims of FoS. It’s a lot easier to say whatever you want when nobody is checking your work over to ensure it is accurate or done in good faith.

At the end of the day, which group seems like the one with the agenda? The diverse group of the majority of scientists from around the world who collect and interpret data under limited budgets and who just so happen to agree on several major points? Or the group with ties to the petroleum industry that admits to pushing a particular slant on scientific data that is advocating against environmentally-responsible policy, which would hurt said petroleum industry?

This billboard’s content is complete nonsense.

[Hat tip: Hemant Mehta, Patheos.com]


Read more at http://www.iflscience.com/environme...-not-*******-love-science#gi71sQgVsYxMVcaQ.99
 

Attachments

  • billboard_0.jpg
    billboard_0.jpg
    68.4 KB · Views: 30
it is just me - or is somehow both symbolic and ironic that it is on a "Pattison" sign?
 
Canadian Weather Forecasters Forbidden From Discussing Climate Change

May 29, 2014 | by Stephen Luntz

photo credit: PD-USGOV-NAVY. Canadian weather forecasters have been forbidden to discuss the climatic influences on specific events
Weather forecasters employed by the Canadian Meteorological Service have been banned from publicly discussing climate change. The decision has been justified on the basis that years of study of meteorology does not make a person qualified to discuss climatic events longer than a few months.

“Environment Canada scientists speak to their area of expertise,” spokesman Mark Johnson told investigative journalist Mike De Souza. “For example, our Weather Preparedness Meteorologists are experts in their field of severe weather and speak to this subject. Questions about climate change or long-term trends would be directed to a climatologist or other applicable authority.” The Meteorological Service of Canada is a division of Environment Canada.

Since 2006, shortly after Stephen Harper's election as Prime Minister, the Canadian Government banned scientists from speaking to the media about their findings without getting political clearance. This has been conducted in conjunction with a process of shutting down research programs likely to turn up results not in keeping with the Conservative government's agenda.

The program is not limited to climate issues, or even the environment, but critics have argued that Global Warming is the key target. Since the ban there has been an 80% fall in coverage of Global Warming in the Canadian media, according to leaked Environment Canada documents.

In a survey by the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada 86% of respondents said that if a government policy had the potential to harm public health and safety or the environment they “could not share their concerns with the public or media or public without censure or retaliation.”

Weather forecasters represent something of a weak point in the government's efforts to keep the public uniformed. One anonymous response to the survey noted, “With meteorology we are in a somewhat unique position in that our availability to the media is relatively unrestricted.” Half of all media inquiries to Environment Canada relate to weather events – when a big storm is brewing journalists want to talk to an expert fast, and are reluctant to wait on approval from a government minder. The Meteorology Service operates a 24-hour media hotline, circumventing the need to gain ministerial agreement to talk to journalists.

However, while the forecasters can talk about what has happened, or what seems likely to happen, they cannot discuss why, insofar as it relates to wider climatic events. As with all the best censorship, the exact boundaries of what can be discussed without putting one's career on the line are unclear. Presumably if a huge storm was brewing as a result of exceptionally warm ocean temperatures meteorologists would be forbidden to note that the warmth was part of a long term rising trend. However, it is not certain whether it would be permissible to note that a historic record had been broken, and that this was likely to increase the anticipated severity.

by TaboolaSponsored ContentFrom The Web
 
Published on Jun 25, 2014
Many of the world's biggest problems require asking questions of scientists — but why should we believe what they say? Historian of science Naomi Oreskes thinks deeply about our relationship to belief and draws out three problems with common attitudes toward scientific inquiry — and gives her own reasoning for why we ought to trust science.

[RxyQNEVOElU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/08/19/oilsands-john-smol-harper-government_n_5692242.html

Government Memo Criticized Top Biologist For Comments On Oilsands
Posted: 08/19/2014 3:10 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago Print Article


One of Canada’s top biologists says he will not stop talking to the media after a government memo accused him of bias and speaking out of turn about the environmental impact of Alberta’s oilsands.

Queen’s University professor John Smol said Monday he was shocked and outraged to learn earlier this month of an internal Natural Resources Canada memo criticizing him over comments he made to reporters about a study on lakes near the oilsands.

“They cannot stop me from talking about research done in my lab,” Smol told Huffington Post Canada.


The Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change only learned about the complaint after being contacted by the political news website Blacklocks.ca, which was first to report on the memo. The document was made public through the Access To Information Act.

The study, jointly conducted by Smol’s lab and Environment Canada, found that levels of hazardous polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in six regional lakes ranged from 2.5 to 23 times greater than they were before oilsands development. The study was published in January 2013 in the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences.

“I’m allowed to talk about my science, and everything I said was pre-read by my Environment Canada colleagues,” he said.

The memo to the Natural Resources minister was signed by deputy minister Serge Dupont, who was appointed to a post at the International Monetary Fund in Washington earlier this summer.

It said the study received “significant media coverage” partly due to Queen’s University’s provision of an advance copy to media outlets and a technical briefing by Smol — both of which are standard practice and follow the procedures used for publication in major journals, Smol noted.

Story continues below:
Natural Resources Memo About John Smol's Oilsands Comments by HuffPostCanada


Smol said he became a spokesman for the study partly because the government has clamped down on any of its own researchers speaking with media.

The government memo cited Smol in interviews saying:

‘We have, in some ways, a smoking gun here…We can show that the amount of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, only one of the many contaminants that are out there, are increasing in lockstep with the tar sands developments starting in the 1960s…We’re not saying these lakes are poisonous, but it’s going to get worse.”

The former deputy minister then concluded that Smol’s comments to reporters “indicate a lack of neutrality in the study participants and are not in line with the study findings.”

Smol said his comments were completely in line with the findings of the study and were made to put the results in layman’s terms so taxpayers can understand a study funded by their money.

The government’s view that he lacked neutrality is “absurd” and shows a “disconnect” between government-commissioned science and their public relations machine, he added.

“What is the lack of neutrality in following scientific standards and protocol?” he said.

“Is that really the worst they can say, that I lack neutrality because I gave interviews? Do they see any media interview on dealing with the environment as a lack of neutrality?”

Smol said the government did not attempt to coach him before the media interviews and haven’t spoken with him since. He is working on another government-commissioned study and plans to be equally as vocal when those findings are released.

The memo mentions that Environment Canada is working on more studies on the impact of oilsands development and pledges to brief the minister "on these reports prior to their release."

The study was widely covered in publications ranging from Chinese TV stations to Canadian newspapers to the New York Times. The government memo included a letter to the editor published in the Edmonton Journal by the vice-president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers after the study was published. The letter accused the media of choosing “to deliver narrow speculation instead of facts in the broader context” in its coverage of the peer-reviewed research.

Smol has been widely recognized for his work over the years and is a winner of the Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council’s Herzberg gold medal, which recognizes Canada’s top scientist. He is also an officer of the Order of Canada and was named the country’s environmental scientist of the year by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society in 2008.

The Conservative government has come under fire for cutting back on government-employed scientists and muzzling those it does employ.

“I’ve already seen scientists resort to self-censorship,” Smol said, adding some of his colleagues are reluctant to speak out for fear the government will reject their grant proposals.
 
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/05/25/305314/confirmed-canada-2011-polls-fraudulent/

Confirmed: Canada 2011 polls fraudulent
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper
Sat May 25, 2013 9:18AM GMT


The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.”

The Canadian Federal Court has confirmed that the country’s 2011 federal election, which led to the victory of Stephen Harper's government, was fraudulent.


The court emphasized in a Thursday ruling that it has found in no uncertain terms that widespread election fraud took place during the vote.

The ruling also stated that “there was an orchestrated effort to suppress votes during the 2011 election campaign by a person with access to the [Conservative Party's] CIMS database.”

Accordingly, the Council of Canadians has called on the Conservative Party to investigate the issue. It says anything less at this point would be a cover-up on behalf of the Conservatives.

The Council of Canadians says that the non-cooperation, obstructionism, and attempts to disrupt the Federal Court case by the CIMS makes it look like Prime Minister Harper has something to conceal.

Garry Neil, Executive Director of the Council of Canadians said “This Federal Court decision is a major indictment of the Conservative Party of Canada.”

“Either senior leaders of the Conservative Party were directly involved in election fraud or they were astoundingly negligent in securing access to their voter database. Illegal or incompetent--just like in the Senate scandal.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09/02/stephen-harper-nobel-prize_n_5752828.html

Stephen Harper's Nobel Prize Nomination Sparks Outrage
The Huffington Post Canada | By Michael Bolen

Posted: 09/02/2014 12:08 pm EDT Updated: 09/02/2014 12:59 pm EDT STEPHEN HARPER ISRAEL

Stephen Harper's nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize by a Canadian Jewish organization has sparked a viral online petition to deny the prime minister the honour.

Harper is being nominated by B'Nai Brith Canada, the same Jewish group that gave the PM its Gold Medallion for Humanitarianism and which is planning to build the Stephen Harper Centre for Human Rights.

In a press release issued Friday, B'Nai Brith CEO Frank Dimant praised Harper's leadership.


"Moral clarity has been lost across much of the world, with terror, hatred and antisemitism filling the void," Dimant said. "Throughout, there has been one leader which has demonstrated international leadership and a clear understanding of the differences between those who would seek to do evil, and their victims. More than any other individual, he has consistently spoken out with resolve regarding the safety of people under threat — such as opposing Russian aggression and annexation of Ukrainian territory — and has worked to ensure that other world leaders truly understand the threat of Islamic terrorism facing us today."

Dimant and other officials from B'Nai Brith accompanied Harper on his trip to Israel earlier this year.

As a professor of modern Israel studies at Canada Christian College, Dimant qualifies as a nominator under the Nobel rules. However, because so many people are eligible to submit nominations (politicians, judges, professors etc.) the list of candidates can grow very long. Hundreds of people have already been submitted for consideration in 2014.

With such a long list of competitors, the odds are against Harper receiving the prize. But that hasn't stopped more than 10,000 people from signing an online petition to ensure it doesn't happen.

The Change.org petition says it would be a "disgrace and insult to your prestigious award" to give Harper the prize. As of Tuesday morning, the drive had received roughly 12,000 signatures.

NDP MP Charlie Angus tweeted that Harper does not deserve to be in the same company as former PM Lester B. Pearson, who won the Peace Prize in 1957 for his work in resolving the Suez Crisis through the United Nations.


Harper's nomination has also been criticized by at least one Palestinian Group in Canada.

Hanna Kawas, Vancouver chair of the Palestine Association, told the Vancouver Observer that he didn't know "whether to laugh or cry" when he heard about the nomination.

“It’s outrageous," he said.

Harper and the Conservative government have regularly voiced support for Israel since coming to power in 2006. During the recent conflict in Gaza, the Tories released a pro-Israel ad and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird regularly denounced Hamas and praised the government of Benjamin Netanyahu

Harper has run afoul of Nobel laureates in the past. In 2011, a group of eight prize winners wrote a letter to the PM asking him to stop the development of the Alberta oilsands
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/scientists-urge-government-to-fund-basic-research-1.2756038

A survey of 12 countries, including Canada, shows that scientists are concerned about the drop in government support of basic science in favour of applied research that leads to short-term benefits.

The report, from the French National Trade Union of Scientific Researchers (SNCS-FSU), showed that governments in Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. are shifting their funding away from basic research — the kind that looks at fundamental processes in nature — to more industrial science that leads to better products and economic gain.

While applied science is valuable and necessary to keep up in a competitive global economy, we need basic science as well to open new possibilities for true innovation.
 
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/03/15/Environment-Canada-Cuts/

Facing Millions in Cuts, Environment Canada Prepares to Get Lean
Harper gov't releases a trim three-year budget for the department.
By Andrew Nikiforuk, 15 Mar 2014, TheTyee.ca
OceanBoatSmokestack_600px.jpg
Government forecasts show Environment Canada could see 42.2 per cent cuts to pollution management and mitigation programs between now and 2016/17. Photo by Ann Baekken, in Pictou, Nova Scotia. Creative Commons licensed.

Related
Ottawa cuts hundreds of jobs from Environment Canada
Dismantling of Fishery Library 'Like a Book Burning,' Say Scientists
Harper government shuts down 'world class' collection on freshwater science and protection.
How Much Does Western Canada Subsidize Fracking?
Compared to US gov'ts, which take home a greater percentage of revenue, quite a bit.
Read more: Environment
The Harper government's plan for Environment Canada, the department tasked with coordinating the country's environmental policies and programs, involves millions of dollars in cuts and hundreds of job losses over the next three years.

The cuts are outlined in a newly-released 2014/15 report on plans and priorities for the department, along with government rhetoric that promises "a clean, safe and sustainable environment while supporting economic prosperity."

Budget cuts will affect the government's three top priority areas for Environment Canada, including the conservation and restoration of landscapes, water and wildlife; information on changing weather patterns and minimizing threats from pollution.

For priority one, Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq promises in the report's introduction "to protect and conserve wildlife and habitat" by unveiling "a new National Conservation Plan to further increase protected areas, focusing on stronger marine and coastal conservation."

Yet the department will cut funds for wildlife and water programs by 19.2 per cent between now and 2016/17, including a 35 per cent reduction to biodiversity programs, and nearly 10 per cent reductions for water programs, ecosystem sustainability and enforcement.

Money for water protection, for example, will decline to $88 million from $108 million.



Programs related to ensuring natural landscapes provide essential water quality, air quality and carbon filtering services for Canadians will suffer major subtractions: to $63 million a year from $92 million a year by 2017.

Many of the decreases in funding are due to something called "sunsetting," or the death of temporary or time sensitive programs that the government chooses not to renew or extend. However, funding decisions could be reversed or changed by government in future, the report indicates.

Rough weather ahead

According to Aglukkaq, the government will support priority two so that Environment Canada "can deliver high quality weather services" as well as "expand and improve our severe weather warning system."

Yet Environment Canada's weather services will be cut by 17.6 per cent between now and 2016/17. Funding for timely weather forecasts and warnings, for example, will drop to $143 million from $166 million by 2017.

Extreme weather in Canada set a record $3 billion in costs last year. For the last five years in a row, extreme weather related to destabilizing climate change has racked up nearly $1 billion in damages.

The budget for forecasts of the sea state, ice conditions and weather will also decline to $8 million from $12 million.

Minister Aglukkaq also promises that Environment Canada will develop and implement world-class regulations on pollutants, including carbon emissions, as well as "improve industry requirements for prevention, preparation, response and recovery efforts" on hazardous substances.

This will be undertaken despite 42.2 per cent cuts to pollution management and mitigation programs between now and 2016/17.

ECspending_600px.jpg
Source: Environment Canada.

Funding for programs to "reduce threats to health and the environment posed by pollution and waste from human activities" will fall from $76 million to $44 million.

The Conference Board of Canada, an independent research agency, gives the nation a "D" for its performance on municipal waste management, carbon emissions and the release of volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere.

According to the board, "Canada generated 777 kilograms per capita of municipal waste -- well above the 17-country average of 578 kilograms per capita and twice as much as Japan, the top-performing country," in 2008.

Climate cuts

The minister also promises to support climate change mitigation efforts and "to advance our sector-by-sector regulatory approach to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions." That approach still does not include the oil sands, which now accounts for 10 per cent of the nation's carbon pollution.

The minister plans to improve the nation's much criticized climate change record (among the worst in the industrial world) with 69.4 per cent cuts to climate change programs between now and 2016/17.

Funding for climate change and clean air programs will fall to $55 million from $118 million, while the enforcement budget drops to $29 million from $41 million by 2017.

Bill Donahue, an Edmonton-based water specialist and critic of rapid bitumen development, found the document's rhetorical goals at odds with its financial math.

"It is just stunning to see the degree to which they are reducing federal scientific infrastructure and the capacity to measure and monitor the environmental problems we are dealing with," said Donahue, who alerted The Tyee about the budget document via email.

Overall, budget cuts to Environment Canada between now and 2017 will total 28.6 per cent.
 
[h=1]Harper govt muzzles Arctic scientists from discussing polar ice melt[/h]
Melting-sea-ice-a-help-and-hindrance-to-Arctic-drilling.jpg


Read this Aug. 18 Postmedia story from Margaret Munro on the chill Canada’s Arctic scientists have felt when trying to discuss record polar ice melt with the public.

Federal scientists who keep a close eye on the Arctic ice would like to routinely brief Canadians about extraordinary events unfolding in the North.
But newly released federal documents show the Harper government has been thwarting their efforts.
In 2012, as the Arctic ice hit the lowest point ever recorded, scientists at the Canadian Ice Service were keen to tell Canadians about the stunning ice loss.
“Less ice doesn’t mean less danger. In fact the opposite is true and there is greater need for ice information,” Leah Braithwaite, the service’s chief of applied science said in an August 2012 memo to Norman Naylor, a strategic communications adviser at Environment Canada.
Braithwaite and her colleagues — aware of the national and international interest in the shrinking polar ice — wanted to hold a “strictly factual” technical briefing for the media to inform Canadians how the ice had disappeared from not only the Northwest Passage but many normally ice-choked parts of the Arctic.
The briefing never happened. Nine levels of approval — from the director of the ice service up to the environment minister’s office — were needed for the “communication plan,” according to the documents released to Postmedia News under the Access to Information Act.
“Ministerial services” — the sixth layer — cancelled the briefing, the documents say. And the ice service scientists ended up watching as the Canadian media and public got most of their information from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), where scientists were quick to give interviews, hold briefings and issue press releases as the ice shattered records as it melted from Baffin Island to the Beaufort Sea.
Environment Canada did not immediately respond to written questions sent on Monday about the cancelled briefing. The Privy Council Office (PCO) said any response would come from Environment Canada.
Observers say the case is further evidence of the way the Conservative government is silencing scientists.
“It’s suppression through bureaucracy,” said Katie Gibbs, executive director of Evidence for Democracy (E4D), an Ottawa-based non-profit pushing for open communication of government science.
 
Thanks to our friends down south for this information about our Canadian Arctic sea ice.
Only a week or so to go so but you get the idea...
asina_N_stddev_timeseries.png


Just to add some context.... That Black line (1981-2010 average) is way below the 1960's and 1970's decades. Do you see a trend? No computer models required.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top