On May 1, a greeting card was mailed to me from a Canadian scientist who I had never met nor heard of before. This scientist continues to work in a field unrelated to my research and in a federal government lab in another province. Shocked by this week's news that the Harper Tories were closing Environment Canada's Experimental Lakes Area, cutting a smokestack emissions research group and a Department of Fisheries and Oceans contaminants program, I reread it today. Here is what it said:
Dear Dr. Weaver,
Just a quick note to say thank you for your efforts to make public the plight of federal government scientists. Restrictions on our ability to address the public are certainly in place and are being enforced. Like you, I suspect that part of the strategy may be to keep the public from knowing that we do anything to earn our salaries so that somewhere down the line, they will get rid of science in the federal government claiming that we don't do anything anyway...This attack on government science and scientists will have repercussions for science in Canada for years to come...
How prophetic this scientist's words were. But they are also deeply troubling.
It's become evident to me that the Harper government has little understanding of science in general, and the distinction between university, government, and industry research in particular (see my other post). It's also evident to me that the Harper government has an agenda: mortgage our future to maximize short-term profits from the tar sands. And in order to fast track implementation, they squash or remove any obstacles that might slow things down. Is shutting down key groups involved in pollution research and monitoring really in the best interest of the public? I think not.
Equally disturbing is the widespread muzzling of federal scientists.
The media play a critical role in a functioning democracy. First, they widely communicate issues of public interest in a timely fashion. Second, they act as watchdogs over those we elect to make decisions that affect our livelihood. Third, they provide us with a forum for public debate. When the media is stymied from getting access to information, and in particular science, the very foundation of democracy is at stake.
What we're seeing emerge in Canada is the dismantling of scientific institutions that have been in place for decades. These institutions have played important roles in ensuring the health, safety and welfare of the Canadian public. But who needs science when it can sometimes lead to inconvenient results? It's a lot easier for the Feds to simply feed media lines to the Canadian public. Besides, as George Orwell pointed out, Big Brother knows best.
Where are the real Tories willing to put the word "conserve" back into the Conservative Party of Canada? There must be a dozen or so sitting in the backbenches. Do they really want to be part of the legacy of destruction this government is bringing to Canadian science?
Kevin Grandia: If the Tar Sands Were a Teen, I Would Ground Them For Life
Now where's the dynamite?
At the same time, we are getting the word out that Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities alike must be aware that their concerns will not be heard and their interests will not be protected under the proposed system, even to the limited extent that they previously were. If we fail to get the government to drop the “reform” of CEAA, and undertake meaningful consultations towards a real reform, then we will have a lot of work to do to prevent badly-planned megaprojects from destroying a lot more watersheds, communities, and livelihoods.
******
Copyright © 2012 MiningWatch Canada, All rights reserved.
******
Our mailing address is:
MiningWatch Canada
508-250 City Centre Avenue
Ottawa, On K1R 6K7
Canada
You may have noticed we’ve been getting really worked up over the federal government’s proposed changes to the Canadian environmental laws as part of its omnibus budget implementation act, Bill C-38. There are a lot of reasons to oppose C-38, but the repeal and replacement of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and the related changes to the Fisheries Act are some of the biggest.
Actually lots of folks have been getting worked up about this issue. We’ve been getting the word out in the mainstream and alternative media, and working with environmental groups, academics, trade unions, faith groups, community groups, and non-governmental organisations. Check out Save Canada’s Environmental Laws! for more information about C-38, the alternatives, and actions you can take.
On our own, and through the Canadian Environmental Network’s Environmental Planning and Assessment Caucus, MiningWatch has been working with environmental law specialists and environmental groups across the country to critique the government’s proposals, but also to bring forward more constructive proposals for an EA regime that would actually work. We’ve helped ensure that other environmental groups, and civil society groups of all descriptions, have access to the analysis and documentation they need so they can inform and mobilise their members. The “Save Canada’s Environmental Laws!” web site and social media campaign are part of that.
con't ...
It's just an extension of their, "barefoot and pregnant", mentality; it won't catch on and they'll be gone soon enough.
Between 1979 & 1982 more than 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15 mile radius of the Lubicon community.
The gov't liked to say they were included in Treaty 8 signed in 1899, although they never signed it, nor took scrip for it nor sold it, nor ceded it to anybody nor lost it in battle.
Actually DIAND never even showed up until 1939 & promised them a reserve in 1940 which never materialized and in 1942 a DIAND official decided they didn't exist!!
Two judicial commissions of inquiry denounced that tactic but alas said Diand official ensured no action was taken to undo that tactic. In 1952 when the Lubicon remarked to the feds that they were still waiting for the reserve - it was remarked that both levels of gov't wanted the Lubicon to move the reserve to a more convenient place.
A DIAND memo revealed " There were so many inquires from oil companies to explore the area that it was becoming an embarrassment to state that it could not be entered."
Other people now want the mineral rights , which both levels of gov'ts admitted were included in the original reserve proposed in 1940....
more research:
http://www.bayefsky.com/html/128_canada167_1984.php
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
The government only took action to quell the growing uproar after years of critiques against one monitoring program in particular, the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP).Criticism dates back to 2004, when RAMP released its first independent peer review that showed it was statistically biased and had inconsistent monitoring sites.
RAMP is the primary group that monitors the aquatic environment surrounding the oil sands, but RAMP is funded by industry, and the majority of its members are industry players.
Despite this, public scrutiny of the program did not come to light until 2009, when a world-renowned scientist brought forward findings that were very different than RAMP's.
It was an admission, wrested under enormous pressure, that oversight of the oil sands — an industry that has grown from roughly 350,000 barrels per day in 1990 to about 1.35 million in 2009 — is inadequate.
Schindler Research Reveals RAMP's Failings
David Schindler, a biologist at the University of Alberta, showed that toxins were being released by the oil sands into water supplies, in a study he released in the journal, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA."
Because Schindler went to the media with his findings — and because of his prominent international reputation — the Alberta government was eventually forced to address the differences between his research and RAMP's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564278/
&
http://burycoal.com/blog/2010/08/30/david-schindler-on-the-oil-sands/
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/briefingnoteosfntoursep10.pdf
With the summer heat, waste ponds , which are known to be 50 square kilometers, release thousands of tonnes of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) including benzene. Long term exposure to VOCs can result in cancer, and is listed as a ‘non threshold’ pollutant which means exposure at any level can result in harm. Airborne acidifying emissions are known to travel as far as Quebec, possibly further. Forests in that province show a growth rate decline of 30% where acid rain was a problem between 1970 and 1990. Effects in aquatic systems show that the formation of methyl mercury is aggravated with acid deposition (Hatch & Price 2008).
more..
Be afraid...be very afraid.
http://carolynbennett.liberal.ca/blog/ottawa%E2%80%99s-media-rules-muzzling-federal-scientists-say-observers/
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/829665/europe_moves_to_ban_imports_of_tar_sands_oil_from_canada.html
The Canadian government cancelled an 18-month investigation into water pollution from the Alberta tar sands. No reason was given for the cancellation, or for the destruction of preliminary reports from the investigation.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2010/07/06/oil-sands-inquiry-no-reason/
course…Its not surprising Feds have decided against an inquiry as its risky business to say the least.
Feds heavily invest CPP funds in a Tar Sands operation so Canadians now own 1/3 shares….sigh
Further toxins produced from the oil extraction process include mercury, arsenic and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons to name a few. An independent study estimated that arsenic could be as much as 453 times the acceptable level in moose meat. Alberta Government responded with a report that concluded that arsenic levels are “only” 17-33 times the acceptable level (Hatch & Price 2008). What they were both correct about is the level of arsenic is well beyond acceptable levels for survival of any biodiversity.
http://hetf.org/index.php/alberta-tar-sands-and-the-environmental-effects-on-indigenous-north-american-culture
Ottawa?s environmental-review overhaul hits tough hurdles
SHAWN MCCARTHY ? GLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER
OTTAWA? Globe and Mail Update
Published Tuesday, May. 29, 2012 7:13PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, May. 30, 2012 8:21AM EDT
The federal government?s insistence that cabinet should have final say
over resource projects such as Enbridge Inc.?s (ENB-T40.90----%)
Northern Gateway pipeline is stirring opposition that could undermine
its effort to streamline environmental approvals.
First nations groups in British Columbia are poised to launch legal
challenges if the government intervenes in the ongoing National Energy
Board review of the Gateway project through legislation now before the
House of Commons.
And critics say the Conservative government is politicizing the entire
review process by giving cabinet the power to overturn any future NEB
ruling that blocks a resource development on environmental grounds.
Hear, hear! That's been my main beef with old Lipless & Co. ever since they got a majority and any last vestage of common sense deserted them.