Author
|
Topic: Harper delivers environmental "knockout punch"
|
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234
|
posted 10 December 2006 10:36 AM
This is the most environmentaly friendly action by any Canadian government anywhere at any time and it doesn't even get 1% recognition...what is going on? Finally a government stands up for the people vs chemical killer corporation and it's taken as a fleeting whisp by media. This inititiave has way more and far reaching consequences than kyoto.This is something tangible that Canada can become a world leader in and is actually proceeding with. This is really good news. A fitting headline should be:"Harper to save millions of Canadians from dying a miserable death" or "Canada to lead campaign to stop global contamination of planet earth" "Harper gov't to ban and restrict toxic chemicals Updated Fri. Dec. 8 2006 10:58 PM ET CTV.ca News Staff Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced a "substantial investment in public funds" to clean up dangerous chemicals in the environment. The government has pledged $300 million towards assessing 200 potentially harmful substances on the market, and regulate the most toxic within the next few years. "I am proud to say we will become a world leader because of today's announcement," Harper said Friday. The list of chemicals includes some already proven harmful to animals and suspected to be potentially harmful to human health. Harper made his announcement at the Ottawa General Hospital, after touring the facility's new "Breathing Space House" -- a prototype home for people with environmental sensitivities. Environmentalist groups were largely positive about Harper's plan, in a notably different reaction from when the government outlined its troubled Clean Air Act. "We were very pleased with the announcement," Aaron Freeman, an activist and lawyer with Environmental Defence, told CTV's Mike Duffy Live. "We think it's a very important step in dealing with some of the most substances that are in our environment, and that pose a threat to the environment and our own health." Opposition MPs also welcomed the proposal, including NDP member Peggy Nash. "Do I think it's good to restrict potentially cancer-causing chemicals? Of course I do," she said. But Nash added that the government has cut money to Health Canada for the enforcement of health regulations for a variety of products. "If there's going to be a greater responsibility for enforcement for our health, we'd better back it up with the money to go with it," she said. Environment Minister Rona Ambrose said the new chemicals management program would provide Canadians with information about the chemicals in the products they choose. A list of more suspect chemicals will be released in groups of 15 to 30, every two to three months. Industry and stakeholders will be required, within six months, to provide information to the government about the chemicals. "If we're not satisfied, industry will be required to take action," Ambrose said. "In some instances, we may require industry to provide alternate materials." Ambrose released the name of the first chemical to be placed on the list: hexafluorobutadiene. Health Minister Tony Clement said chemicals not yet approved for the Canadian marketplace will be included in another list. The announcement follows a seven-year effort under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to identify dangerous substances among the 23,000 chemicals available in Canada. Ambrose explained that since 1994, new chemicals have not been manufactured in Canada or imported here without undergoing a scientific risk evaluation. Now that same assessment will be applied to chemicals introduced to Canada between January 1, 1984, and December 31, 1986. New website launched The government also launched a Chemical Substance website with the announcement, which details how the assessments will work, provides links to fact sheets on chemical impact on human health, and government resources and processes for managing chemical assessments. The website provides a list of chemicals not banned but regulated, and of "interest to Canadians" because of the risks associated with them. Some, such as carboxylic acids (PFCAs), which are used in non-stick coatings on pots and pans, and phthalates, which are used in cosmetic perfumes, are still being studied for their effect on human health. Those chemicals include: 2-Butoxyethanol (2-BE), also known as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether. It is used in paints, cleaning products and solvents, along with some industrial applications. A risk assessment concluded that chronic exposure could alter blood in ways associated with hemolytic anemia. 2-Methoxyethanol (2-ME), also known as ethylene glycol monomethyl ether. Used to be used for a number of things including de-icing airplanes, but the only current application listed is in a cleaning solvent for white boards. Has toxic effects such as malformation in the developing fetus, and adverse effects on male reproduction, blood and the immune and nervous systems Bisphenol A, used in manufacturing plastic consumer products, including certain water bottles, in dental sealants for children's teeth, and in resins used to line tin cans. It's being studied for its potential to disrupt endocrine function. Lead, a heavy metal found in air, soil, household dust, food, drinking water (many older pipes are soldered with lead) and consumer products such as pre-1960 paint. Can impact intellectual and behavioural development of children. Exposure to very low levels can be harmful and exposure to high levels can be fatal. Perfluorooctane sulfonate or perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS), used prior to 2002 in water, oil, soil and grease repellents, for paper and packaging, rugs and carpets, fabrics, and in fire-fighting foams. Scientists don't believe exposure risk is high enough to have an impact on health. Phthalates, found in medical devices such as blood bags and intravenous tubing, vinyl flooring and some plastics, and in non-petroleum-based lubricating oils in perfumes in cosmetics. Has caused changes to the liver, kidneys, reproductive systems, and birth defects in animal testing but not enough is yet known about the impact on humans. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants on cushions, carpet backings, automotive/aircraft seating and interiors, upholstery fabrics and electrical insulation and the cases on computers and televisions. Animal testing indicate effects on behavioural development, nervous system development, and on the liver and thyroid, but there is no clear evidence of impact on humans. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), best known for use as lubricants in transformers, but also widely used for years in sealing and caulking compounds, cutting oils, inks and paint additives. Testing has produced concerns about it being a carcinogen. "
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Naci_Sey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12445
|
posted 10 December 2006 10:46 AM
Yeah, well. Here's another view of the matter: quote: December 8, 2006Ottawa - The Conservative government’s delayed and deceptive announcement on toxic chemicals in Canada is jeopardizing the health of Canadians, Liberal Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion said today. “If the health of Canadians is a priority for Mr. Harper’s minority government, why did Minister Ambrose delay taking action for three months, only to come out with such a weak plan that won’t be implemented until 2010?” said Mr. Dion. Mr. Dion said it was the previous Liberal government that launched the review of the potential risks posed by the 23,000 substances found in existing commercial chemicals that were in use prior to current federal regulations. Environment Canada and Health Canada were required by law, under the Canada Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA), to provide a formal report based on their findings according to the inherent toxicity, persistence, bioaccumulation, and greatest potential for human exposure... Stakeholders and officials within the department had expected at least 400 chemicals would be placed on the List of Toxic Substances (Schedule 1 of CEPA 1999) within a year. Mr. Harper’s announcement today proposed listing only half that amount, over the next four years, with no clear plan for a regulatory regime. Not only did the Harper government commit to listing just 200 substances; it also failed to assure Canadians that the regulation of these substances would proceed through CEPA.
Harper's slow action on chemicals is toxic, says Dion
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518
|
posted 10 December 2006 10:51 AM
The Conservatives general bias is away from government control, and toward private decisionmaking (which they call "free enterprise").Consequently, any proposal they make about government controlling the use of chemicals by industry is likely to be of short duration, geared towards headlines only. Sharply put, care for the environment is impossible if one puts the ideology of the Conservative Party into effect.
From: toronto | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478
|
posted 10 December 2006 10:54 AM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: Sharply put, care for the environment is impossible if one puts the ideology of the Conservative Party into effect.
I think the Liberal Party also embraces free enterprise, especially Stephane Dion. He was sharply critical of the NDP for rejecting the marketplace and the need during the 1990s to cut federal spending. I am wondering if in Canada we need to adopt a more American approach to environmental legislation. Instead of bureaucracy and ministerial discretion, legislated standards that are enforced by court orders.
From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 December 2006 05:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house:
Sharply put, care for the environment is impossible if one puts the ideology of the Conservative Party into effect.
Right on. I said during the election campaign that it was inconceivable - impossible - that the Harper government would do anything positive for the rights and interests of the Canadian people. This is as true for the environment as for child care, workers' rights, LGBT rights, women's rights, Aboriginal rights, Québec (notwithstanding his stupid motion supported for different purely partisan reasons by everyone), foreign affairs, Canadian independence from U.S. policy, protection of Canadian farmers, "accountability", etc. etc. etc. I consider it borderline treachery for anyone to suggest otherwise, without concrete proof. And please don't tell me how he apologized to Chinese Canadians. I have it on excellent authority that he didn't mean it!!!
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605
|
posted 10 December 2006 06:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Right on. I said during the election campaign that it was inconceivable - impossible - that the Harper government would do anything positive for the rights and interests of the Canadian people. This is as true for the environment as for child care, workers' rights, LGBT rights, women's rights, Aboriginal rights, Québec (notwithstanding his stupid motion supported for different purely partisan reasons by everyone), foreign affairs, Canadian independence from U.S. policy, protection of Canadian farmers, "accountability", etc. etc. etc. I consider it borderline treachery for anyone to suggest otherwise, without concrete proof. And please don't tell me how he apologized to Chinese Canadians. I have it on excellent authority that he didn't mean it!!!
I will give the one and only example that I can think of regarding this government, granted they are only beginning the "consultation" phase and by no means have a solution. I have a friend who's mother encountered this problem when leaving an abusive partner and had to move off-reserve. Aboriginal women's matrimonial property rights Sorry about the thread drift, just answering unionist's challenge for "treachery". Regarding the environment - I have no hope or trust in either the Cons or the Libs.
[ 10 December 2006: Message edited by: EmmaG ]
From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478
|
posted 10 December 2006 06:26 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: And please don't tell me how he apologized to Chinese Canadians. I have it on excellent authority that he didn't mean it!!!
But the Liberals did mean it when they didn't apologize, is that it? You know, I find this kind of silliness more than a bit tiresome. It has no other purpose than to grease the skids that have led to our shrinking poll standing the last week or so. By one count we are down from the 16/17 range to just 10. Is this want you desire, unionist? If one were to infer motives from actions and their probably consequences one would have to conclude that this, and this alone, is your true purpose. [ 10 December 2006: Message edited by: DavidMR ]
From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 December 2006 07:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by DavidMR:
But the Liberals did mean it when they didn't apologize, is that it?
Your comment shows partisanship without principle. There are unfortunatley many comments like yours on babble. I find them sad and misguided, and indicative of much that impedes the progressive movement in our country. The Liberals had many years and far more ample opportunities than any other party to make amends to Chinese Canadians for the crimes committed against them. They did not. Therefore, they are the principal ones to blame for that omission. Your taunt to me about the Liberals indicates to me that you care more about political party labels than deeds. The only reason I mentioned the apology is that some other pure partisans on this board have sought, in vain, to find anything positive about the entire reign to date of the Harper Conservatives, and the only example I recall in all these months is that relatively innocuous and safe one - a paltry gesture next to the criminal destructive behaviour they have exhibited. That's my viewpoint. Your slanderous innuendo that my motive is to boost the Liberals shows a great deal about the validity of your viewpoint.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 December 2006 07:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by EmmaG:
I will give the one and only example that I can think of regarding this government, granted they are only beginning the "consultation" phase and by no means have a solution. I have a friend who's mother encountered this problem when leaving an abusive partner and had to move off-reserve. Aboriginal women's matrimonial property rights
I read this hypocritical self-serving government release with a feeling of sadness that anyone can think anything positive for Aboriginal women could conceivably, ever, emerge from this government. First of all, it was pathetic that the web link at the end to the Native Women's Association of Canada is not functional - just try clicking on it! - the proper link is here. Furthermore, that Association thought so little of this Conservative government initiative that it hasn't yet mentioned it on its website. Indeed, the most recent news release from the Association is entitled NWAC is deeply disturbed with the outcome of the United Nations vote on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and contains the following: quote: “The States who voted against the Declaration, including Canada, are utterly irresponsible and the result is disturbing for all Indigenous Peoples around the world,” says Beverly Jacobs, president of The Native Women’s Association of Canada. “It is a very sad day for all Indigenous peoples who saw the Declaration as one of their last hopes to achieving equal human rights for all peoples, especially the most marginalized, Indigenous Peoples.” [...]The Declaration was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council during its historic first session in June 2006. Opposition to the Declaration has been led by US, Australia, New Zealand and, since the election of the minority Conservative government, by Canada.
I think, EmmaG, that Aboriginal women understand very well what this gang has in store for them.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DavidMR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13478
|
posted 10 December 2006 09:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Your comment shows partisanship without principle. ... The only reason I mentioned the apology is that some other pure partisans on this board have sought, in vain, to find anything positive about the entire reign to date of the Harper Conservatives, and the only example I recall in all these months is that relatively innocuous and safe one - a paltry gesture next to the criminal destructive behaviour they have exhibited. That's my viewpoint. Your slanderous innuendo that my motive is to boost the Liberals shows a great deal about the validity of your viewpoint.
I can think of two other positive things the Conservatives have done. One is taxing the income trusts and the other is the Accountability Act.
I don't know why you think it's slanderous to say someone is promoting the Liberal Party. As for "partisanship without principle", perhaps I was being too knee-jerk in response to your post, but I found it funny to say you have some kind of insider information that Harper didn't mean it. To me a claim like that sounds like beer parlour political chat, all rumour and shading and the like.
From: Greater Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234
|
posted 11 December 2006 09:40 AM
The liberals may of had 25000 chemicals to look at but that's all they did...look. And what do they look like ...a pile of ents in a forest discussing what to do ..for eons and eons ..accomplishing absolutely NOTHING.At least the conservatives are capable of makeing decisions.Between the 50 year delay in apologizing to the chinese, agent orange sprayings and the trail of environmental mayhem created across the country..I look at the Harper inititave as the best step forward for Canada. The liberals have been following the six step plan of sucess: 6 step homegrown killing plan our mostly liberal government has been perfortrating on it’s people for decades step 1 – Poison , contaminate, kill using every excuse imaginable (Usually experimentation or profit ) step 2 – cover-up lie, deny, disinform step 3 - Continue step 2 till all or most victims are dead step 4 – If exposed by relatives or off spring repeat step2 step 5 – delay as long as possible step 6 – distribute small sums of taxpayers money and apologize (cost effective) What ever government can stop this behaviour is good in my books and the only one heading in that direction is the conservative one. Possibly the greens. The ndp are in a step one and two situation where I live right now with a rouge(no environmental impact statement or regulation to follow) gas project. So the ndp aren't the answer. It's getting to the point that people would have to have 2 years toxicology training behind them to figure out how the cruel government blessed corporations are killing us. Believe me it's real. [ 11 December 2006: Message edited by: Buddy Kat ]
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452
|
posted 11 December 2006 10:04 AM
quote: Originally posted by jeff house: The Conservatives general bias is away from government control, and toward private decisionmaking (which they call "free enterprise").Consequently, any proposal they make about government controlling the use of chemicals by industry is likely to be of short duration, geared towards headlines only. Sharply put, care for the environment is impossible if one puts the ideology of the Conservative Party into effect.
excellent point Jeff. Consider the famous case of Ethyl Corporation, MMT, and NAFTA regulations. Banning chemicals that have not been prohibited yet but are currently being used commercially looks to me like a situation ripe for a NAFTA challenge. Do you think that the Conservatives are prepared to cancel NAFTA to pursue their new committment to the environment? Not likely. The Liberals won't either. edited to add a link showing the outcome of the case. [ 11 December 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 11 December 2006 03:41 PM
... and then I suddenly remembered, Stockwell Day is in the cabinet! quote: Hey who knows, maybe Al Gore is right.Maybe all my constituents living high up on the West Bench, or Lakeview Heights, or the hills of Logan Lake will soon be sitting on lakeside property as one of the many benefits of global warming. All I know is last weekend when I got home from Ottawa there was more snow in my driveway than we usually get in a year. And I was begging for Big Al's Glacial Melt when the mercury hit -24°. Do not despair, my fellow dwellers of the Okanagan and Nicola Valleys. Global Warming? Castanet.net
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470
|
posted 11 December 2006 04:05 PM
I have a very difficult time believing that the Harper government is in any way serious about eliminating all these toxins from our environment. For one thing it will hit many industries deep in the pockets; not only the obvious ones like Monsanto, but every oil company out there.I would like to believe, but am with the scientists on this one: quote:
CBC Get tougher on toxic chemicals, scientists urge PM Critics say new federal plan doesn't commit Ottawa to act; may not protect consumers or environment Last Updated: Monday, December 11, 2006 | 5:16 PM ET CBC News Hundreds of Canadian scientists and doctors are calling on the federal government to take a tougher stand on dangerous chemicals used in consumer products. Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a plan to spent $300 million over four years to make Canada a world leader in the testing and regulation of chemicals. 'We're years behind the European Union. In fact, we're years behind some American states.' -Gideon Forman, of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. But scientists have said they're concerned that the plan does not commit the federal government to act and thus may not protect consumers. ......................
And just today Ms. Ambrose is reported to be calling for an assessment of all the environmental programmes the Libs delivered. That's right: First you cut funding to the programmes and then do a review.
These guys are just no good on environmental issues. Period. Edited to add, and pretty crappy at being fiscal conservatives also. [ 11 December 2006: Message edited by: siren ]
From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Buddy Kat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13234
|
posted 12 December 2006 09:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stargazer: I think, IMO, the main point here is that Harper is expecting the public, that means you and me, to clean up after corporations. Excuse me, why shouldn't the corporations doing the polluting pay for the cleanup themselves? Typical neo-con crap and a huge swindle of our money to fund corporations, yet again.
Canadians don't seem to mind that they are treated like bugs and exterminated like vernom and their children treated like larva. The writing has been on the wall for decades and Canadians basically say poison and kill us..give us any disease you want. Unlike the jews who were tricked into going to the gas showers. Canadians KNOW there getting the shower of death bigtime and they do nothing..nothing at all. How can you expect a corporation to pay when the people really don't give a crap.Government will surely make the people pay as they serve the corporation first and foremost.It's up to the people to do what they can..and the only tool at our disposal is talk, rat,inform and vote. That's it. They on the other hand have an entire militant regime that is just itching to serve and protect them from us the victim. Just bringing out the list and saying " We don't want to alarm Canadians" which Harper said...is a nice hint to Canadains to wake up or deservingly suffer and pay for this home grown Canadian terrorism. My guess... Canadians and their corrupt media will say continue to kill us all.
From: Saskatchewan | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 12 December 2006 10:51 AM
quote: How can you expect a corporation to pay when the people really don't give a crap
You realize this makes no sense right? So if I personally did not give a crap, are you saying corporations should not pay for their willingness to pollute? Sorry but if they have the same rights as a citizen, which they do, then they should have all of the corresponding responsibilities. I see no unfairness in this whatsoever.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|