[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dam-l Impact of the Federal Budget on Environmental Protection in (fwd)
Information on canadian environment vis a vis water that may be of interest
to dam-l members.
Cheers!
-D.
Forwarded message:
From cibe@web.net Thu Feb 26 21:27:27 1998
Message-Id: <m0y8CT1-0037f7C@netserver.web.net>
X-Sender: cibe@pop.web.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:04:04 -0400
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: "Gary Gallon, Canadian Institute for Business & Environment" <cibe@web.net>
Subject: Impact of the Federal Budget on Environmental Protection in
Canada
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca id VAA12069
THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Special Report
****************************************************************************
***
IMPACT OF CANADA'S NEW BUDGET ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
****************************************************************************
****
The new federal budget has done little to provide relief for the declining
functions of Environment Canada for protecting the nation's water and air from
pollution. More than $220 million has been slashed prior to this year from the
federal environment budget, representing a 40 per cent reduction — a cut that
is far beyond the 25 to 30 per cent across the board cuts contributed by most
ministries towards balancing the budget. This has resulted in a paralysis of
environmental protection in Canada It also means Canada will have a difficult
time preventing transboundary pollution on federal lands, between provinces
and
between Canada and other countries.
*****************************************************
PROTECTION OF AIR AND WATER UNDER-FUNDED IN CANADA
The cuts will result in Canada not being able to meet its commitments to the
some twnetyplus International Environmental Agreements (IEAs) it signed,
including the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Basel Convention on
Toxics Exports to other countries, and the Agenda 21 pledge at the UN Rio
Earth
Summit in 1992.
The "Harmonization Agreement" signed by the federal government with the
provinces was an attempt to shift costs and responsibilities to the provinces.
However, the federal government failed to transfer any funding to the
provinces
to carry out the old federal responsibilities. Furthermore, the provinces,
instead of picking up the ball, have themselves shedding environmental
protection efforts, making it even more important that a strong well funded
Environment Canada be maintained.
With the new federal budget failing to address Environment Canada's
problem, we
can expect a stall in national air pollution control, toxic site remediation,
and water quality improvement. Also, the budget for the environment ministry
failed to address a strong recommendation by the Auditor General made several
years ago that Environment Canada be given the resources to develop
programs to
clearly define what are the environmental obligations of the federal
government. Canada's Auditor General also requested that Environment Canada
assess the liabilities it may incur as a result of not carrying out these
responsibilities. These requests remain unfulfilled without the resources to
carry them out under this new Budget.
*********************************************************
$312 MILLION IN NEW CANADIAN SUPPORT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE
On the positive side, the Finance Minister did provide an additional $84
million a year over three years ($252 million) for global warming gases
reduction efforts by Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada. This is
in addition to the $60 million announced by the federal government for global
warming gases reduction earlier this year — resulting in a total commitment of
$312 million. This is a substantial and meaningful commitment.
Of the $84 million, $50 million a year will be provided for designing and
implementing programs to reduce global warming gases, including voluntary and
educational efforts. One of the key focuses of the federal government is the
development of economic instruments such as tradable emission permits.
However,
the tradable emission programs require assistive regulations that would create
a legal cap on emissions increases and define the trading instruments that
will
actual make the permits of value.
The remaining $34 million a year will be provided to the National Research
Council's (NRC) Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP) to support
grants
and repayable loans for small to mediumsized businesses for development of
energyefficiency and ecoefficient technologies. Canada appears to be doing
better than the United States when it comes to funding global warming
initiatives. While President Clinton proposed a $6.3 billion program to reduce
global warming gases, he hasn't been able to get it through Congress, with the
Republicans determined to block the spending. Clinton's proposal may go up in
smoke. Canada with approximately ten per cent of the U.S. economy should be
proportionately matching Clinton's effort with $$630 million. However, given
the circumstances, it is better to have $312 million in the hand under the
Canadian parliamentary system, than to $6.3 billion million in wistful wishes
under the U.S. system.
So, on the one hand, Paul Martin should be congratulated for his commitment to
fighting climate change. On the other hand, Martin should be given the bronze
acorn for weakening Environment Canada and letting the protection of Canada's
air, soils, and water slip away.
Gary Gallon
President
Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment
506 Victoria Ave.
Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5
Ph. (514) 369-0230, Fax (514) 369-3282
email: cibe@web.net