Hidden cost of cuts to Environment Canada
http://www.thestar.com/iphone/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1043380--hidden-cost-of-cuts-to-environment-canada
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-08-23
driving with eyes closed
Past successes in environmental monitoring demonstrate how policy informed by science can tackle daunting issues. Cuts to monitoring will deprive us of new data - data essential for improving models and accuracy of the predictions upon which public policy is forged.
2011-08-21
the chattering mind
Woke up at 3am obsessing over a work issue.
Started writing it down, and had to compose it as an email to myself at work.
I hope that will put my mind at ease and I can go back to sleep. Then again, part of me feels like its time to go for a run (its 540am and the birds are starting to chirp). I'm going to overrule that impulse.
Now I'm getting hungry.
sigh.
The day ahead is not promising to be a good one.
Started writing it down, and had to compose it as an email to myself at work.
I hope that will put my mind at ease and I can go back to sleep. Then again, part of me feels like its time to go for a run (its 540am and the birds are starting to chirp). I'm going to overrule that impulse.
Now I'm getting hungry.
sigh.
The day ahead is not promising to be a good one.
2011-08-13
2011-08-05
I hope this is not a trend
I'm noticing in a draft bill proposing changes to legislation that instances of "the minister is satisfied that [X]" are slowly being replaced with "that, in the minister's opinion, is [X]" .
While the former creates an expectation that the minister has reviewed evidence impartially prepared by the department (which one can assume is largely science-based), the latter does not. So I wonder, what exactly will form the basis of the minister's "opinion" : Personal interests? Religious beliefs? Party lines? And how will the Opposition hold them to account? Where did this change come from: drafting team's own initiative, or party influence? And most importantly, how can any of this be the public interest?
While the former creates an expectation that the minister has reviewed evidence impartially prepared by the department (which one can assume is largely science-based), the latter does not. So I wonder, what exactly will form the basis of the minister's "opinion" : Personal interests? Religious beliefs? Party lines? And how will the Opposition hold them to account? Where did this change come from: drafting team's own initiative, or party influence? And most importantly, how can any of this be the public interest?
posted from Bloggeroid
2011-08-02
Change - or not (yet)
When I left the office, the earliest batches of project phase 1 were starting to be finalized, the final batches of phase 1 of the project were being launched, and phase 2 of the project was being planned.
When I left the office, our program funding was in its sunset year and a proposal had been submitted for another few years.
When I left the office, our enabling authority (the legislation that allows/mandates us to do what we do) was several years past its "mandatory" review date (rumour had it that the minority government at the time feared the legislative review process would become a can of worms).
When I left the office, we had a minority Conservative government.
...
Here I am now, nine months later, about to go back to work.
I'm not sure how reassuring it is, if at all, to have learned last week (at lunch with some of my office mates) that nothing, not a single thing, has changed. Except that we have a majority Conservative government and somehow we still had an operating budget.
Not sure though how long that funding (or our legislated requirement to do our work) will last, if this is any indication of the secretive governing mindset here...
When I left the office, our program funding was in its sunset year and a proposal had been submitted for another few years.
When I left the office, our enabling authority (the legislation that allows/mandates us to do what we do) was several years past its "mandatory" review date (rumour had it that the minority government at the time feared the legislative review process would become a can of worms).
When I left the office, we had a minority Conservative government.
...
Here I am now, nine months later, about to go back to work.
I'm not sure how reassuring it is, if at all, to have learned last week (at lunch with some of my office mates) that nothing, not a single thing, has changed. Except that we have a majority Conservative government and somehow we still had an operating budget.
Not sure though how long that funding (or our legislated requirement to do our work) will last, if this is any indication of the secretive governing mindset here...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)