I was truly honored to be able to create such a talented and respected panel:
• Kirsty Duncan MP, Liberal Environment Critic and member of the IPCC
• Adam Fenech, Climatologists at UPEI
• Emilie Novaczek, Canadian Youth Climate Coalition Member
• Catherine Miller, Artist on Climate Change

Kirsty was able to provide the audience with an understanding of how frustrating it is to be a climate scientist and expert in the House of Commons but never be able to debate it. Kirsty has presented numerous motions to the House of Commons and the Environment Committee but has yet to have one accepted by this Conservative government for debate.

Adam provided an overview to what is currently known on PEI about our weather; and that it is getting hotter and dryer. We also saw the impact of relatively conservative sea level rise on Charlottetown, which was a shocking but very real call to action.

Emilie, who has experience at international negotiations, provided us a view into how they are conducted, and the need to take action locally rather than wait on international developments. I was tremendously impressed with Emilie, who was graduating from King’s in Halifax the following morning.

Catherine provided an overview of her visionary artwork that seeks to identify Islanders with the impacts of climate change on our heritage, society and economy. I encourage you all to see her exhibit at the Confederation Centre of the Arts; it is on display until June 2nd.

Following the panelists presentations, we had an extensive discussion moderated by Carolyn Peach Brown from Environmental Studies at UPEI.

I heard a lot of support for Feed-in Tariffs for PEI, renewable energy development and the removal of subsidies to the oil and gas sector. There was also a lot of talk about Keystone XL pipeline and the impact of the oilsands on our climate and our international reputation.

I genuinely appreciated the informed discussion, and it was extremely beneficial for Kirsty and me to hear the comments and suggestions from the community of this issue.

Chris Shannon

Veterans marched in front of the office they’ve come to rely on, once more sending a message to the federal Conservatives their needs shouldn’t be shuffled to another government department. We have a Conservative who is looking after Nova Scotia and the (Department of National Defence), and I ask him to get off his duff to start doing something for us, the veterans. And you know I’m speaking about Mr. Peter MacKay, Ron Clarke, the Cape Breton chapter president of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping, said to loud cheers.

The noontime rally Monday organized by the Public Service Alliance of Canada was aimed at saving the Veterans Affairs office on George Street from closure.

More than 150 people, many from other public sector unions, were demanding the office remain open with the 14 people it currently employs.

The Sydney office is scheduled to close next March along with eight other offices across Canada, affecting approximately 800 employees. Union of Veterans Affairs Employees national president Yvan Thauvette told the crowd assembled that the federal government is misleading the public to think closing these offices will cut bureaucratic red tape.

This government approved cutting millions of dollars from the Veterans Affairs Department while they were signing a $318- million contract with a private company, he said.

They are not saving a single dollar. They’re moving the money around. They’re robbing Peter to pay Paul.

In an interview from Ottawa, Veterans Affairs spokesman Niklaus Schwenker said the changes will provide better service by dispatching case managers and nurses directly to a veteran’s home. People who need in-office services will be able to access one of five Service Canada offices across Cape Breton for assistance, he said.However, Thauvette said there won’t be any Veterans Affairs specialists handling cases at Service Canada offices when it comes to submitting such applications as veterans disability benefits or the veterans independence program.

Tell me something (Veterans Affairs) Minister (Steven) Blaney, if you need to get your car fixed, do you go to Home Hardware? Certainly not. You would bring your car to a specialist. Veterans won’t have that opportunity.

Schwenker said the partnership with Service Canada does include specialized training for all employees within the department to address the needs of veterans.

It’s about how we’re changing the model. We’re modernizing the department to try to deliver faster services.

Where someone had to collect 500 or 1,000 receipts to file for VIP (veterans independence program), well we cut that out. Now, they get a grant so there’s no more receipts, there’s no more having to go through that process to deal with someone to make sure you’ve got all those receipts submitted so you get reimbursed. It’s simply an upfront payment.

Liberal critic for Veterans Affairs, Sean Casey, said what the government isn’t telling the public is that staffing levels at Service Canada offices will remain the same, even as they take on these new responsibilities.

So the veterans currently serviced out of this office will be serviced off the corner of a desk somewhere, he told the rally in Sydney.

It’s a darn safe bet that when you go in to get the services that have been available to you in this office, you’re going to be pointed to a computer terminal or a 1-800 number to a call centre somewhere in Kirkland Lake.

The NDP’s Veteran Affairs critic Peter Stoffer said closing this government office could lead to a reduction in other federal services in Cape Breton.

Once this office is closed, what’s the next federal building that’ll be closed? PSAC says the employees, who received notice in January their jobs would be affected, have now reached the end of the 120-day opting period to decide what transitional support option they will choose.

Employees at the rally said they must finalize their decision by Friday, with some opting for buyout packages, early retirement, and, in at least one case, a layoff.

One employee, who didn’t want her name used, said she’s still in the process of making a tough decision on her employment status with the federal government.

With the strains of a husband working away and the responsibility of raising a young child, the likelihood of remaining in Cape Breton looks dim for her family.

To think you’ve fought so long to stay here and now it’s not really an option. It’s not really a good feeling.

Today’s rally was unusual. It is rare to see lobster fishermen from different provinces cooperate to the extent they did today. Their message is clear| they cannot fish for that level of compensation and they aren’t asking for the moon: just $4.75 a pound.

I know my colleague, Lawrence MacAulay, has decades of experience working with fishermen from across Canada, and he is seeking a Parliamentary investigation. Here is the motion he put forward at the federal Fisheries Committee:

That, due to the significantly low prices being paid to Canadian lobster fishers and the critical importance of the lobster fishery in economic, social, and cultural terms, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans immediately call witnesses involved in the industry to discuss potential solutions, that the Committee make recommendations to the government of Canada on steps it can take to address the problems faced by the industry, and that the witness list include representatives of fish harvesting organizations, the Lobster Council of Canada, lobster processing companies, and provincial and federal fisheries officials.

I believe we need to recognize that those who supply our food deserve fair treatment, whether that is a fisher or a farmer. I support their efforts and wish I could be there with them today in Charlottetown.

The YMCA Summer Work Student Exchange Program (SWSE) is currently accepting applications in many communities across Canada.

SWSE is a national exchange program offering youth the opportunity to improve their second official language skills while gaining valuable work experience. For 6 weeks in the summer, participants are matched with a youth in another province, and are hosted in each other’s homes. They work full-time in the non-profit sector during the week, and participate in organized activities in their new community during the weekends and some weeknights.

For more information and to see what others are saying about the program, please visit www.summer-work.com. For other inquiries or for information about presentations on the program contact:

Megan Burnside
Local Coordinator- Charlottetown, PEI
YMCA Summer Work Student Exchange Program
charlottetown.swse@ymcagta.org
(902) 367-5494

May 5-11 is North American Occupational Safety and Health (NAOSH) Week, raising awareness of the importance of injury prevention and safety in the workplace, at home and in the community.

During NAOSH Week, the Workers Compensation Board (WCB) encourages all employers, workers and Islanders to consider their safety and the safety of those around them in all that they do.

The Steps for Life Walk on May 4 in Charlottetown marked the beginning of NAOSH Week on P.E.I. Over 100 people participated in the event to raise funds for Threads of Life, the national charity dedicated to helping families who have suffered the consequences of occupational fatalities, injuries and illnesses.

“The Steps for Life Walk is the perfect event to kick off NAOSH Week, by showing support for families affected by workplace tragedy,” said Nancy Guptill, Workers Compensation Board chair. “They remind us why occupational health and safety is so important and inspire us to do all that we can to keep each other safe.

The WCB has a variety of resources to assist Islanders with safety matters at work, including safety workshops, videos, posters and workplace guides.

For more information, visit the Safe Workplaces section of the WCB website, www.wcb.pe.ca or contact WCB Occupational Health & Safety at 368-5697 or 1-800-237-5049. ILLUS: The May 4 Steps for Life Walk was the kick- off event for North American Occupational Safety and Health Week on P.E.I. At the flag-raising were, from left, Charlottetown Deputy Mayor Stu MacFadyen, Alan McCormick from Cavendish Farms, Charlottetown MP Sean Casey, Environment, Labour and Justice Minister Janice Sherry and Workers Compensation Board member Margaret Stewart.

Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press

The federal Conservatives are boasting that they’re pushing through more private members’ bills than any other government in Canadian history – particularly on criminal justice matters.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews made the claim Wednesday as he announced official government support for yet another tough-on-offenders bill put forward by a Tory backbencher.

“In fact, private member’s bills have been used more successfully by private members in this Parliament than I think in the history of Canada,” Toews said at a news conference on Parliament Hill.

Looking only at what Toews called “substantive” legislation, “we as a government, probably going back to 2006, have made record numbers of private members’ (bills) in cooperation with the individuals who are sponsoring them, because they can get these bills through.”

“There are certain timelines and they move much quicker than government legislation does.”

And that has critics concerned that the Conservative government is doing an end-run around parliamentary oversight, making a mess of the Criminal Code and setting up the legal system for years of constitutional challenges.

In the last month alone the government has announced it will throw its full weight behind three backbench justice bills: two that will restrict parole hearings and one that creates new mandatory minimum sentences for gang recruitment.

According to research compiled by Conservative MP Joy Smith, only 17 backbench MPs have managed to change the Criminal Code since Confederation.

At least half a dozen of those changes have come in the last seven years under the Conservatives, with a handful more on deck. Smith herself has done it twice – the only MP ever to achieve the feat – both with human trafficking bills.

Half of the top 20 Conservative private members’ bills introduced since the 2011 election involve either Criminal Code matters, a crackdown on prisoners or terrorism related measures.

Ned Franks, a professor emeritus at Queen’s University and one of the country’s pre-eminent experts in parliamentary procedure, said in an interview that some major Canadian legislation, including the abolition of capital punishment and changes to divorce law, “came in large part through private members’ bills.”

“They can be very useful tools for pushing reform that goes against the general opinion, and they have been,” said Franks.

“On the other hand, they can be used as instruments for very narrow causes or – as I think we’re seeing now – pushing the government’s program farther than the government is prepared to admit to in public.”

Franks said the Privy Council Office and the Justice Department scrutinize all government legislation, while private members’ bills get the assistance of Commons law clerks.

If the legislation ends up running amok, he said, the government “can always say these are not government bills – they are private members’ bills. Surely private members have a right to express their views?”

Justice Department lawyers must sign off on the constitutionality of government legislation, a step that private members’ bills bypass.

“They just lack the courage of bringing it themselves,” said NDP justice critic Françoise Boivin, a practising lawyer.

Boivin believes several will face Charter challenges, while others are simply clogging the court system – especially those imposing mandatory minimum sentences, which spur offenders to use every legal avenue rather than plead guilty.

“It’s just messy and you don’t mess with the Criminal Code,” said the New Democrat.

But a spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that before the government formally backs any private members’ bill, “Justice officials review the legislation to ensure it complies with the Constitution.”

Julie Di Mambro added that “the reason there are so many justice-related PMBs coming from Conservative members is because Conservative members, unlike their NDP and Liberal counterparts, actually care about crime and victimization.”

And that may point to the real, political motivation behind the government’s actions, said Liberal MP Sean Casey,

“Quite frankly, I think as much as anything it’s a fundraising tool for them,” said the Liberal associate justice critic. “I honestly believe that.”

Private members’ legislation setting stiff penalties for masked protesters, for instance, essentially duplicated existing Criminal Code provisions, said Casey.

“You feed that piece of red meat to the Conservative base and they’re sending you in five bucks,” said the MP.

“It seems as though everyone has to have their pet project to tweak the Criminal Code.”

Kim Mackrael – Ottawa

The Conservative government is throwing its support behind a private member’s bill aimed at giving victims better access to parole board hearings and limiting the frequency of reviews for violent offenders.

Bill C-479, introduced by Conservative MP David Sweet, would increase the maximum time between hearings for violent offenders from two years to five years and require parole boards to make a greater effort to allow victims and their families to present statements during hearings or provide a written or recorded submission.

The proposed changes have raised concerns that longer gaps between reviews could make it harder for offenders to reintegrate with society when they are eventually released.

But Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the bill would strengthen victims’ rights and give victims and their families more opportunities to be heard in the parole process. And he said the longer wait for violent offenders would help protect victims from the strain of attending more frequent hearings.

“I think what happens is that individuals, under the present system, are re-victimized every two years because it’s essentially mandatory,” Mr. Toews said. “And even where an individual has no hope of getting parole, the hearing proceeds and re-victimizes the victims.”

Catherine Latimer, executive director of the John Howard Society, said there can be good reasons for victims to attend some parole board hearings, pointing to situations where it is likely that an offender will return to a community where the offence was committed or where a victim requests particular conditions on the individuals’ release, such as a no-contact order.

But she said the release system is not designed to give victims a meaningful say in whether a person is released because those people have no knowledge of the offender’s behaviour while in jail. “The parole decision should really be looking at what progress the person has made against his rehabilitation plan, and what risk he poses now,” she said.

Ms. Latimer added that those who are serving sentences of less than five years may only have one opportunity for parole under the proposed changes. That means that if they lose the bid the first time, there is a greater likelihood that they would be released at the end of their sentence – without the kinds of conditions a parole board has the power to impose.

Mr. Sweet’s bill is the third private member’s bill on criminal justice that the government has announced its support for in recent weeks. During a debate on Conservative MP Parm Gill’s gang recruitment bill last week, Liberal MP Sean Casey accused the government of using backbench MPs to avoid an obligation to check proposed legislation for compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Speaking to reporters about the parole hearing bill on Wednesday, Mr. Toews said most of the private members’ bills the government has supported are focused on specific issues and relate to concerns raised by constituents. “We are giving our upper benchers, our back benchers, a real say in Parliament. They’re accomplishing what their constituents have sent them here to do,” he said.

2013 All material Copyright (c) Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved.

CBC, a long standing and favoured institution for many of us, was designed to be a national news network to connect Canada’s regions while remaining independent of influence from government and/or businesses. Lately, the CBC’s independence is being severely eroded by changes decreed by the Conservative government.

This May Day, we are awakened to the fact that the Budget Implementation Bill C-60 amends the Federal Financial Administration Act to provide Cabinet new powers over collective bargaining mandates of the CBC. Also included are the International Development Research Centre, VIA Rail, Canada Post, the Canada Council for the Arts, and the National Arts Centre in Ottawa; all supposedly independent crown corporations.

Under the changes in the lengthy budget implementation bill, Cabinet will have the authority to order any of the Crown corporations to get approval from the Treasury Board Committee for their collective bargaining mandates. As well, the Corporations may have to seek approval for any collective agreement reached through bargaining.

What concerns me is that Treasury Board would have the right to have one of its employees monitor the collective bargaining on site, limiting the independence of our national news source. We need to ensure that our news providers do not feel pressure to be beholden to our governments, at any level. If the government is aware of, or can participate in the collective bargaining for employees, there could be a sense of fear or intimidation.

So this May Day, the feeling across Canada is one where workers rights and unions are under attack, in both the private and public sectors. There needs to be a balance between efficiency and ideals, such as worker rights and independence of our crown corporations. So far, I am not seeing a fair fight.

We know that mandatory minimums have been struck down as unconstitutional in this country. My question for the member is the same one I posed to him at
committee: What measures has he taken to ensure that the bill will be constitutional, in view of the decisions that have already been made with respect to the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences?

———————————————————-

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the debate on Bill C-394 and the issue of gang recruitment. I had the privilege of sitting in on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights while it considered this legislation, and I will expand on some of the issues discussed in those meetings.

I speak, I believe, for all members of the Liberal Party when I say that I want to deter youths from joining gangs. Indeed, if this legislation served any preventive end, we would gladly endorse it. However, not only does Bill
C-394 fail to address the fundamental reasons that youths join gangs—the root causes, if I dare say that—but it also would employ a mandatory minimum penalty, which the Liberal Party opposes in principle.

I raise the root causes of youth gang involvement as an issue, because the government acknowledges the problems but it fails to provide solutions either in Bill C-394 or elsewhere. For example, the website of the Department of Public Safety lists risk factors relative to youth gang involvement and includes the following as major risks: limited attachment to the community, over-reliance on anti-social peers, poor parental supervision, alcohol and drug abuse, poor educational or employment potential and a need for recognition and belonging. Yet Bill C-394 does not address any of these. In fact, the government is missing in action on things like youth unemployment and access to education, things it could take proactive measures to correct.

With regard to violence among aboriginals, public safety’s website explains:

The increase in gang violence and crime in some Aboriginal communities has been attributed in part to an increasing youth population, inadequate housing, drug and alcohol abuse, a high unemployment rate, lack of education, poverty, poor parenting skills, the loss of culture, language and identity and a sense of exclusion.

As Idle No More and similar movements demonstrate, the government is out of touch with the needs of aboriginal communities. If it took those needs seriously, we could begin the process of reconciliation. We could address the social problems plaguing first nations. We could give aboriginal youth access to education and opportunity. Instead, by ignoring these problems, we further the cycle of despair that makes gang life attractive to youth.

It is interesting to have this discussion in light of the Conservatives’
attack ad on the member for Papineau. They criticize him for being a camp counsellor, a rafting instructor and a drama teacher. If we want kids to feel included in their communities, to have a sense of belonging and purpose, we ought to have more camp counsellors, more rafting instructors, more teachers seeking to make a difference in the life of a child, not attacking these sorts of things as useless pursuits unbecoming of a leader.
However, the government buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge that preventing crime involves addressing tough issues beyond the Criminal Code.

I can assure the House that youths are not joining gangs because they believe their activities are lawful, nor do gangs recruit because they believe it is legal to do so. This is the problem with the Conservative approach to crime. Everything is a matter for the criminal law, and every incident provides a pretext to legislate.

As was said by the member for Toronto Centre, “when the only tool we have in our toolbox is a sledgehammer, everything starts to look like a rock”. For Conservatives, criminal law is all about punishment. By adding new offences and penalties and, in some cases, duplicating existing offences and penalties, the Conservatives attempt to regulate on the back end, after the crimes have been committed. This ignores the fact that there are other elements to criminal justice such as prevention, rehabilitation of the offender and reintegration into society, let alone addressing the underlying causes of crime.

As I mentioned, I may be accused of perhaps committing sociology on this.
Let there be no mistake. Bill C-394 deals with gang recruitment only on the back end once it has occurred. I submit that by then, it is way too late.

As I have indicated, this issue is already addressed by the Criminal Code.
Former justice minister Anne McLellan said in this place, upon the introduction of what is currently in the Criminal Code that we are seeking to amend today, the following:

We know that successful recruitment enhances the threat posed to society by criminal organizations. It allows them to grow and to more effectively achieve their harmful criminal objectives. Those who act as recruiters for criminal organizations contribute to these ends both when they recruit for specific crimes and when they recruit simply to expand the organization’s human capital.

In other words, we knew when introducing what was already in the code that recruitment was an issue, is an issue, and we put in place offence language that captured it. Thus, while the regime in the code at present may not use the word “recruitment”, the intention is clear in the record and there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that prosecutions for recruitment are not happening because of some legislative loophole.

Indeed, as it is proposed, the bill will actually add to the problem by putting in a mandatory minimum penalty. International studies corroborate what even Justice Canada has found, that mandatory minimums do not deter crime. Among other things, mandatory minimums remove prosecutorial and judicial discretion. They lead to prison overcrowding. They lead to more crimes in prison and more crimes outside of prison. They contribute to a clogging of the courts, resulting in accused persons being set free. They are, as I indicated in my question to the member earlier, constitutionally suspect. Mandatory minimums have prejudicial consequences, particularly on aboriginal peoples and minority communities.

I know colleagues in the NDP have argued that the mandatory minimum in this bill is light and, therefore, acceptable, in their view. We take a different approach, which is that there is no need for adding something that could lead, in the right fact situation, to this legislation being overturned.
This just is not smart legislating.

However, if I were to address the Conservatives’ inability to legislate intelligently, I would certainly run out of time. In fact, we might be here all night. Instead, I will focus on one shortcoming relevant here, which is the failure to vet bills for constitutionality. Much has been made of that in the House and, in particular, by my colleague, the member for Mount Royal, of the obligation of the Minister of Justice, under the Department of Justice Act, to review government legislation for compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The minister, time and time again, has said that his bills are constitutional, yet time and time again the provisions are struck down and the government is called to account for its failure to comply with the supreme law of the land. Not only does legislating in such a reckless way risk the statute being struck, it also clogs up the courts with challenges that could have been avoided. It also costs the taxpayers, who bear the burden of defending the government. For a government that claims accountability, why is it not accountable to the charter and its statutory obligations? For a government that prides itself on fiscal restraint, why is it wasting taxpayer money?

One may wonder why I am raising this issue when the obligation for a charter check is only on government bills, not on private members’ bills like Bill C-394. The answer is that the government has been increasingly using private members’ bills to legislate through the back door. If this bill was so important, why was it not included in the omnibus crime bill, Bill C-10? Why has the minister not introduced it on his own accord? Surely, if it were so necessary, the minister could have made this change to a government bill and it would have passed through the House much faster. Indeed, by using the private member bill route, the government minimizes House debate and circumvents the required charter review.

We must address the cycle of poverty and homelessness that affects too many children in the country. Where is the government on that? We must say to ourselves that if children are to be the priority, maybe we need more camp councillors, rafting instructors and drama teachers. What they do not need is a government that says it cares, throws a band-aid on the problem that will not hold and then pats itself on the back for having done anything at all. Bill C-394 would be just that, and that is why the Liberal Party will vote no on this bill.

Since 2006, the Conservatives have:

Climate Change

• Withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol and limited further international negotiations on climate change
• Won the “Fossil Fool” and the “Colossal Fossil” awards
• Stopped Eco-Energy home renovation support programs
• Withdrawn from a UN convention to combat Desertification
• Cut the funding for and thus forced closure of PEARL (Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory), which is Canada‘s high arctic environmental research station that, among other things, contributes to climate and ozone layer monitoring.
• Been criticized by Former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern has for lack of climate change action
• Partnered with Big Oil to review and destroy the Environmental Assessment Regulations instead of strengthening them to include current and future greenhouse gases created from projects
• Attacked anyone that talks about adding a price to carbon

Environmental Assessment

• Replaced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act with a new Act that will significantly narrow the number of projects that will be assessed for their environmental, social and economic impacts.
• Significantly limited public engagement in resource review panel hearings, particularly for major oil projects, pipelines and mines.
• Granted authority to Cabinet to override a “no” decision of the National Energy Board
• Prohibited Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency -enabled review panels where a major energy project is subject to an NEB hearing, thereby eliminating joint review panels. Thus, only the energy regulator will now evaluate the environmental implications of major energy projects.
• Placed the Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf of St Lawrence in the hands of one province’s offshore petroleum board

Our Oceans and Water

• Shut down the Experimental Lakes Area
• Reduced the protection of lakes and rivers from 2.5 million to 62 rivers, 97 lakes and three oceans that will be protected under Navigable Waters Protection Act.
• Amended the Fisheries Act to remove protection for all fish and the waters where they live.
• Contributed to lower water levels and higher levels of contamination in The Great Lakes
• Failed to establish a national network of marine protected areas, in spite of the fact that it has been 20 years since Canada ratified the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and 15 years since it committed to leading and coordinating the development and implementation of a national network of marine protected areas under the Oceans Act
• Fisheries and Oceans Canada estimates that marine protected areas currently cover about 1% of Canada’s marine environment. At the current rate of progress, it will take many decades for Canada to establish a fully functioning MPA network and achieve the target established in 2010 to conserve 10 percent of marine areas under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
• Allowed water bodies to be “re-defined” as waste dumps for mines

Land Conservation and Management

• Cut Parks Canada, thereby limiting Canadians’ ability to access and enjoy their own natural heritage
• Introduced draconian changes to Indigenous people’s ability to control impacts on and ownership of their lands, despite calls for a healthier relationship between the federal government and indigenous communities

Species at Risk

• Exempted the National Energy Board (NEB) from species at risk protections
Sustainable Economy
• Repealed of the National Round Table on Environment and Economy Act
• Mismanaged the relationship between Canada and the US by not taking action on climate change

Cuts to Environment Canada

• Made deep cuts to Environment Canada, according to its Reports on Plans and Priorities from 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, which indicate a reduction of $222.2 million
• Made major cuts in the program activities of Climate Change and Clean Air, Substance and Waste Management, Weather and Environmental Services, Water Resources and Internal Services

Attacks on the Environmental Movement

• Stopped Eco-Action funding to organizations and charities taking action on the ground
• Vilified environmentalists as “radicals” and “enemies of the state”
• Attacked environmental organizations such as the David Suzuki Foundation and EcoJustice
• Muzzled evidence and advice of Canadian scientists
• Failed to engage in consultations on changes to the Species at Risk Act, the Environmental Assessment Act or the Fisheries Act