Jump to content

Talk:Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV

[edit]

The title of this article has no legitimate basis, as no other democratically-run national government is typically referred to by the leader's name. Would an article on Chinese or Iranian environmental policy be titled "Environmental Policy of Chairman Mao's Government" or "Environmental Policy of Ayatollah Khomeini's Government"? --Emperor Zhark (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence—

Since 2006, the Canadian Conservative Party government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper adopted several environmental policies in order to fight rising greenhouse emissions, pollution problems and climate change.

—is severely flawed. Stephen Harper doesn't seem to believe climate change is a threat; emissions have only risen since he took power in 2006; he signed Canada out of Kyoto; climate change coverage in Canadian media has supposedly fallen by 80% since he took office; he's pushing the tar sands full-steam ahead; he's put nothing forth at Copenhagen. To say that Harper has "adopted several environmental policies in order to fight greenhouse emissions, pollution problems and climate change" is shameful and false. 142.161.53.211 (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Record of Canadian emissions - Canada's 2006 emissions peak is not a relevant benchmark, as Ontario's coal plants were still operating, and the 2008 recession hadn't yet occurred. The Federal government cannot claim good environmental management as they were not responsible for either Provincial coal shut-down or global demand-destruction. Our national emissions have risen from 2010 onwards, and will rise by 2020, to miss the government's weak, unscientific Copenhagen target by 113 MT, see http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/6423/2013-02-28/governments-2012-progress-report-greenhouse-gas-emissions-cause-concern --Emperor Zhark (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call the clean air act and the clean energy programs? SilverserenC 04:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I call them weak and cowardly. For instance, the Clean Air Act's lowering emissions by "45-65% of the 2003 levels ... [by] the year 2050"—as stated in the article—is hardly enough for the country with the highest per capita emission ratings on the planet, not to mention Harper's lack of clear plans to bring forth these reductions. Besides, what do you call his using the Senate to block the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act that was voted through by our elected MPs?—Point is, Harper's take on climate change is way too debatable for the article to have such a one-sided first sentence. 142.161.53.211 (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's clearly your opinion, but not one represented by the references used in the article. SilverserenC 14:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And without even looking at those refs (yet), that's a fault of this article, which was written and framed as a POV "stump" from the very start, despite claims of objectivity (a common claim made by those who are not, especially from "that side" of the political fence). The changes to fisheries and waterways protection in the Omnibus bills and omnibus budget amendments and so much more - including the FIPA with China and the CETA agreement with Europe now under negotiation are also matters which not only affect environmental policy and spending but which are aimed to target it. There's lots of cites to that effect, even in the mainstream media. The budget slashes to the Experimental Lakes Area have wound up trashcanning decades of research and scientists (or anyone) are now forbidden to access the area, scientists and Parks Canada people and librarians are forbidden to speak to the public (librarians in particular are told not to speak to school groups, which are "high risk").....I didn't mean to rant but an itemized list of this government's anti-environmental conduct can be found on any one of a few dozen websites; are they reliable sources? Well, if they contain widely-known facts, those are hardly "opinion" simply because they're on blogs like canadians.org, but you don't even have to go to blogspace for those...Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahaha. Come on. Let's divide my previous comments between facts and opinions. Facts:
emissions have only risen since he took power in 2006
he signed Canada out of Kyoto
climate change coverage in Canadian media has supposedly fallen by 80% since he took office (I don't remember my source; this shouldn't be mentioned in the article unless I find it again)
he's pushing the tar sands full-steam ahead
[Canada is] the country with the highest per capita emission ratings on the planet
Harper's lack of clear plans to bring forth these reductions (debatable but generally agreed upon)
[harper used] the Senate to block the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act
Opinions / My assumptions:
Harper's take on climate change is ... debatable
... shameful and false.
... weak and cowardly.
the Clean Air Act's lowering emissions by "45-65% of the 2003 levels ... [by] the year 2050"—as stated in the article—is hardly enough
Let's actually write a balanced article, here. I'm not saying we should go all "Harper is HORRIBLE!!!!" (I mean, I think he is, but that's my opinion), but let's keep all the facts in mind, not just the ones that make him look good. 142.161.53.211 (talk) 00:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my "opinions" could easily be referenced by dozens of reliable sources. If the information I gave isn't found in any of the article's current sources, then that just goes to show how biased the article is. 142.161.53.211 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should present those sources here on the talk page. I'm not Canadian, but i've clearly seen how much Harper is disliked and I don't want this article to become biased in the other direction either. SilverserenC 04:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not Canadian and have clearly seen how much Harper is hated you must have to ask yourself why? And not wanting this article become biased in the other direction is a nice fantasy; facts are not biases, however, and presenting lies and misdirections as if they were facts is beyond bias, it's spin and political spam....these articles, again, were written as gladsheets and used the "brand" of "Harper government" in their titles at the very same time that term was being forced on the civil service and pushed into the media, they were always biased. And deliberately deceptive and misrepresenting matters as "protecting the environment" when the agenda is to say "environmentalists are foreign-backed radicals and potential terrorists" and so on.....I encourage you to educate yourself as to the actual policy changes and "judge a man not by what he says, but by what he does" type of facts and, well, if you're not Canadian, you're not in a position to judge if criticism of the policies, and the lies/spin presented about them, are POV or not. Truth is not a POV, it is the truth...and don't throw that WP:TRUTH thing at me. Facts are facts, and lies are lies. Lies do not deserve equal weight with truth, and that's that simple. If a list of facts indicts someone, that doesn't make it biased; it makes it factual. This article was built around an ego and an ideology, its whole premise was POV from the day it was composed. Sorry for this rant, but "I don't want the article to become biased in the other direction either" isn't really helpful if you don't understand what the biases and lies here are, and what that other direction is, and why.....the history of this government's environmental policy is, by their own proud declarations, "dismantling the edifice of liberalism" which has contaminated Canada from its true conservative path and so on and so on...and, well, targeted tax audits of environmental NGOs and "liberal activist" groups like the newsletter of the Mennonite Brethren for pacifism, environmental and social aids as "political" while the overtly Fraser Institute and EthicalOil.org and Shell enjoy their "charitable foundation" status unmolested...nay, protected and sheltered......and yes, Shell has a wing that enjoys tax-free status in Canada...and ethicaloil.org has yet to reveal who funds them.....BTW Silver Seren, your username is familiar....weren't you around the AFDs back in June 2011 when i got blocked. Are you sure you don't have a bias yourself, I rmemeber some of those people openly admitted to being right-wing...I don't remember anything about you, it's only your username that rings a bell....this bell.Skookum1 (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm glad you mentioned you're not Canadian, since I can now see why you would be sceptical about what I was saying. Anyway, I'll edit the article sometime in the future to add (with sources, of course) to it. (I say "add" because I'm not planning to take away any of the good things he's done, of course.) Until then, I'm adding {{POV}} to the article. 142.161.53.211 (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal with Environmental issues in Canada

[edit]

This is the one Stephen Harper-related article I haven't so far expunged from my watchlist as a waste of time and an offence to my sense of POV/decency. I'm staying for now because it should be merged with Environmental issues in Canada or renamed to History of environmental policies of the Government of Canada. "Harper government" is a brand and well-known as a political directive to media communications people and to newsrooms alike; there's no reason for an article to be based around statements and reactions to same, and this starts off as a p.r. putsch and that hasn't changed; a general article on Canadian government environmental policies in a true historical context, not based around on PM's agenda, is much more relevant; the Environmental issues article needs broadening, of course, but technically these are two redundant articles, each with their own POV foundation. I'm holding off on the merge template to see if anyone knows of other parallel articles that need coalescing into this one, and to point out yet again that this whole series of articles is really political advertising, as well as furthering use of the noxious term "Harper government" when the proper title is "Government of Canada". Environmental policies of Lucien Bouchard and Environmental policies of David Anderson or Fisheries policies of John Fraser etc are more viable as individual-based articles....Skookum1 (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second the moves to merge this article and remove the noxious title. And it needs major revision, starting from the first line, which should have added to it both Canada's actual emissions increase from 2006 to the present, and all the climate mitigation initiatives destroyed by this government. And while we're at it, don't forget that the first thing Mulroney did when he came to power was to totally demolish the CMHC's energy efficiency office.--Emperor Zhark (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What term is used in Canada to describe a cohesive group of Ministers, officials, and other policy makers that make a distinct government, as to distinguish them from other such groups? --Jayron32 00:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order to avoid the controversial "Harper government" terminology, time-periods are an option e.g. Canadian environmental policy (2006-present). This would allow for earlier periods to not be defined by who was in charge of the government-of-the-day and address periods of policies, spanning in many cases several governments.Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do reliable sources refer to these different governments? That is, do reliable sources talk about the "Trudeau Government" and the "Mulroney Government" and the "King Government" or do they call them the "1968-1979 Government" and the "1984-1993 Government" and the "1935-1948 Government". I only ask because the guidance should be that Wikipedia uses the terminology used outside of Wikipedia. I see that the particular group is called the Cabinet of Canada. When referring to a specific cabinet, what do reliable sources call it? --Jayron32 18:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinets get shuffled all the time, even during one session of the House and between sittings...."Harper's cabinet" is how the phrasing would go or "Trudeau's cabinet"....yes you do see the phrase "FOO government" for other prime minsters and premiers, but not with the capital-G, ever. The problem is that "Harper government" has political baggage and its use in replacing "Government of Canada" is noxious and not just to the left but to the civil service, who were the ones who brought the edicts forward (and got slapped for it). And yes, why not year-periods. History of Canada is broken down that way, as with other articles of that kind. In Trudeau's time, for example, "McEachern's economic policy" is what you'd hear, i.e. the name of the finance minister. Portfolios and the ministers who hold them don't have the clout anymore that they once did, partly due to the new rules for how the monkeys in the trees report upstairs and more centralization of power and such.....the current title should not stand; even a more awkward phrasing like "Economic policy and issues during the Harper era" would be preferable....right now this article carries a branding tag and unduly associates the person of the prime minister with the overall government. When we say "Trudeau government" the meaning is the government caucus, primarily the cabinet; "Harper government" was pushed to mean all the government, not just the governing party's elected officials and appointed ministers. Until Harper, policy was developed by the civil service by consultation and data; fact-based policy it's called, and there's been international criticism of Harper for abandoning that in favour of imaginary figures and unproven policies that are totally ideological in origin (and anti-scientific, and anti-scientist); what I mean is that the association between the first minister and the policy machinery never used to be so intimate, nor so micromanaged....the civil service and its consultation systems used to be relatively autonomous; with ministers taking direction from their deputy ministers and various agencies and bodies and departments....not giving them marching orders about what to say and what policies are going to be, and shelving research at the same time as ignoring; and sequestering, data. The Trudeau government was not like that, the Mulroney and Clark and Chretien and Martin governments weren't either; economic policy was developed by the Government of Canada, i.e. the day to day civil service, and Ministers were the ones fielding the results and getting them passed; so the sense of "FOO government" before teh Harper era was very very different; and transformed once he tried to use it as his own personal brand on the government....on the government's letterhead, no less. The best course here is to merge the article into the environmental issues article, which is level ground....not an article written to push a term, or because a term was being pushed, as part of a political agenda and, well, personality cult.Skookum1 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments

[edit]
  1. If this article is to survive, the title really ought to mention Canada. Many readers in other countries have never heard of Harper.
  2. The lead says "Harper adopted several environmental policies ...", as if the article is about his pro-environment stance. The rest of the article gives the strong impression that he cares about the environment even less than most politicians. I don't know which is right; but the lead ought to summarise the rest of the article, rather than contradicting it. Maproom (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See section below; my opinion/read of these (there are other articles in this series), plus all kinds of insertions in town and other articles about money he'd given away or he'd announced a program there, etc, was that they are a form of advertising and were in defiance of Canadian election laws, and even though they are located on servers in another country they were a violation of the Elections Act and should have been blocked from Canadian IP addresses, if not deleted entirely, or changed to "Environmental policy of the Canadian government" with less focus on an individual politician; no other Canadian PM has such heavy coverage on Wikipedia, WP:UNDUE run amuck, and worth noting these were launched at the same time as the "Harper Government" rebranding was underway and he was in power only in his first minority term...teh equivocation that "you can go write articles about the other PMs" and such similar rationalizations were only that; and despite the original author's claim that he "just found him very interesting" and that he wasn't a Tory or on Tory assignment, WP:DUCK applies; go look at hte original version and compare to the "contradictory" materials that others have inputted since to try and balance the article; as one editor noted, the problem is that he is not the government, nor is he the focus of policy, other than within the context of his own "communications agenda". I've kept only this one of the four (Economic, Social and Foreign were the other articles) on my watchlist, as I'd advocated it be merged with Environment of Canada or retitled Canadian environmental policy (2006-2013) or some such.......and have been tempted to author Democratic reform policies of the Harper government and Senate reform policies of the Harper government and so on....but oh, those would be POV wouldn't they?  :-|.Skookum1 (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I added more information about the funding cuts and review of environmental assessment agencies. There is so much information about budget allocation it is difficult to understand there was an overall major decline in funding for environmental assessment and research. Rarerick7 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Harper government" is spin-oriented title - citation

[edit]

There have been rationalizations of this usage in Wikipedia of various kinds, but given the date of provenance of the "FOO policy of the Harper government" articles, this article is one of many that demonstrates that being innocent about this, if not simply disingenuous as I believe the case often to be ("oh, oh, no personal attacks" is getting tiresome when someone points out obvious fact as valid criticism...); others have complained about this since I was blocked by an ANI during the last federal election for seeking a de-POVing of this series of Harper-centric titles and content (which led to my quitting Wikipedia for a long time....until I discovered the POVism on the Idle No More and Theresa Spence articles was out of control). I'm not going to thump this tub again, I know how difficult it can be to argue with people who make specious points based on Wikipedia guidelines and refuse to see obvious POV even when it bites them in the face; but this will be an ongoing major flaw in Wikipedia so long as people who pretend not to be Harper supporters keep on WP:DUCKing through criticisms of these titles and other obvious examples of "spin and rinse" cycles....that many in the ANI that blocked me admitted to right-wing biases of their own continues to rankle me, but I know better than to bite back directly...in this case I at least made the opening statement more honest than it was. The whole thing was written as WP:Weasel and WP:POV from the very start....Skookum1 (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

closure of science libraries

[edit]

Since this has been raised at various WikiProjects by User:Wavelength, citing these articles:

This would seem to be the place for any discussion of how to include mention of this in Wikipedia; I can't see it being its own article. I almost posted about this here a few days ago but because of my personal hands-off policy about this series of articles, all of which I believe were started as POV/SOAP spam, though this particular one has since morphed beyond its original p.r. tone, I will not have this watchlisted; but rather than spreading the discussion over four different wikiproject talkpages (WP:Science, WP:Libraries, WP:Environment and WP:Canada), it seems better to focus this here.Skookum1 (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawal from international treaties

[edit]

The withdrawal from United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification should mentioned. Canada is the only country to withdraw. Also from the ITTA Canada has not renewed the 2006 for this ITTO organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.191.182.80 (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

[edit]

The whole article is Conservative party bashing - it's so one sided, it's absurd. Not one mention that CO2 went down under the Conservatives and up with the political party in the past (Liberals). Most of the references are from groups that had their funding cut by the Conservative government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.16.145.179 (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have accurately pointed out the objective data of Greenhouse Gas Emissions levels. This has now been added to both the Environmental policy of Canada page as well as the Stephen Harper WP article. Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Comments should not label the CPC as having a 'good' or 'bad' environmental record, but rather cite specific votes in the House of Commons which relate to the environment such as the Lower Churchill Project.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Environmental policy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on Environmental policy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 25 external links on Environmental policy of Canada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to fit original scope

[edit]

I have changed the name of the article from "Environmental policy of Canada" to "Environmental policy of the Stephen Harper government". I believe the POV title concerns outlined above that justified the name change were overblown. No serious work on this article has been done after the name change. Time to bring it back. Mottezen (talk) 18:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_policy_of_the_Stephen_Harper_government&oldid=1206918997"