Budget 2012

[PuckChaser]

Apparently Paul Martin and Jean Chretien work for CCPA now... they're advocating a return to the decade of darkness.

 

[jollyjacktar]

They would de-fang Canada by the looks of it if they had their wicked ways.  :tsktsk:

 

[larry Strong]

Or Stephen Staples.

 

[a_majoor]

They would de-fang Canada by the looks of it if they had their wicked ways.  :tsktsk:

Or Stephen Staples.

Defang Stephen Staples? I'm in...

 

[a_majoor]

:goodpost:

I'm totally with you there.

 

[Robert0288]

In order to return to pre-2001 levels in the next five years

Called decade of darkness for a reason.

Review planned equipment spending to ensure projects still meet Canada’s national defence policy priorities.

Parliament already does that...

establishing a parliamentary committee or sub-committee responsible for Major Crown Projects

Because throwing in more partisan politics into procurement projects is a good thing?  The recent ship building contracts where applauded for going around this exact thing to exclude politics from awarding contracts

Increase Overseas Development Assistance to impoverished countries to approach Lester B. Pearson’s goal of 0.7% of GNP over 10 years.

Because that gained us so much influence and "(soft)power" in regions that we invested in.  Last I heard our major partners that we donated to didn't vote for us to get on the security council.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Now in the private sector, managers who can't budget (optimistic costings) are sacked. If we apply the same sort of discipline to the Public sector management, I'll bet we could see lots of savings indeed...

My boss had budgeted till the end of fiscal and had a tiny buffer left, that went all went away when they said "give us X amount now" The fact that HQ had committed most of their funding just prior to the news of the clawback has the region fuming.

We are adapting as we can, it means that certain commitments we made to other departments and the Province can't be honoured, despite them willing to match our funding to solve some long term mutual issues. Also amusing that HQ continues to add new and interesting requirements oblivious that all have associated costs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Although I agree it, the tactics referred to in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is "bullying," I happen to agree with dropping the "supply management" system even without concessions for the reasons I have cited above:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/being-a-spoke-in-american-trade-isnt-enough-for-canada/article2382331/

Both Plans A and B should be pursued at the same time ... they both make good economic sense.

Supply management must go, sooner or later, it is a dumb policy - unless you happen to be one of the lucky few who are allowed to fix the prices the 99%+ pay for milk and eggs. The farmers concerned have been quite vocal, going so far as to threaten violence, and when, in past years (e.g. 1976), Ottawa even dared to talk about eliminating supply management those farmers did demonstrate, with violence, on Parliament Hill.

Source: CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/01/04/pol-supply-management-trade.html?cmp=rss

What better time to move than now, during the first two years of a mandate ~ by the time the 2015 election rolls around 99%+ of Canadians will be grateful for lower milk, butter and egg prices.

Further to this, here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is virulent anti-Harper columnist Lawrence Martin's analysis of the soon to be brought down budget:

My highlights added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/no-room-for-sacred-cows-in-this-budget/article2381878/

No room for sacred cows in this budget

LAWRENCE MARTIN

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Published Tuesday, Mar. 27, 2012

Change, anyone? How about one of the most comprehensive and consequential policy rollouts this country has seen in a long time.

The NDP leadership race and various scandals, imagined or real, have been capturing headlines. But after years of hesitation, Stephen Harper’s government is putting forward an agenda that, if implemented, could amount to a conservative watershed.

If there’s a theme, it’s market efficiency. If there’s a target, it’s some of the country’s long-standing sacred cows. The transformation, some of which will be outlined in Thursday’s budget, will incense social democrats but find big favour on the right.

Start with the health-care system. Mr. Harper and company have outlined plans for funding changes that will allow provinces to spend federal cash as they like, no strings attached. If provinces wish to go the privatization route, they’ll be free to do so.

Then there’s Old Age Security, a planned overhaul aimed at making the system more sustainable over the long term. The reforms are reportedly going to move the age of eligibility from 65 to 67.

Also in the works is a bold, market-driven reshaping of trade policy. It entails a pronounced move away from the “all eggs in one U.S. basket” approach to a courting of free trade everywhere. There’s already been the dismantling of the age-old Wheat Board. And speaking of sacred cows, there’s serious talk of bringing an end to the supply-management system that shields farmers from foreign imports on eggs and dairy products.

Regarding immigration, on the table is what Jason Kenney calls “transformational change”: a streamlining of the system that’s meant to blast away the backlog and allow provinces to cherry-pick newcomers, with the intent of bringing skilled professionals to the country instead of freeloaders.

How about resource development, which has traditionally contended with environment protection? A winner has been declared and it isn’t the tree huggers. It’s full speed ahead for pipelines and resource exploitation at the expense of green priorities. This week’s budget is expected to further weaken environmental assessment laws and reduce fish habitat protection.

On the big bloated bureaucracy, the new Tory course will see substantial cuts. But Mr. Harper’s team is also touting a culture shift aimed at turning bureaucrats from spending enablers into cost containers. This change, bizarrely enough, is being ushered in by Tony Clement, he of G8 spending boondoggle fame. Thursday’s budget, with its deficit reduction plan, will also see the Conservatives start to get serious about smaller government.

In the area of innovation and research and development, a reform is likely to see a shakeup of the 96-year-old National Research Council. Ottawa’s $3.5-billion Scientific Research and Experimental Development program is also slated for an overhaul aimed at a more efficient distribution of incentives.

Another former untouchable that could be targeted is the Atlantic fishery. Conservatives are talking about a move toward a more market-based approach that weans the system off unemployment insurance dependency.

As part of the big shift, we’ve already seen the hawkish casting of foreign policy, the demise of the gun registry and the “lock ’em up” hard line on crime.

Through years of minority government, the Conservatives moved cautiously on policy, the politics of survival. Remember the first Harper government and its much-touted five priorities: accountability legislation, a reduction in health-care waiting times, the GST cut, a cash handout instead of national daycare, and some anti-crime measures. Compared with today, it was anemic stuff.

The big right turn coincides with the advent of Thomas Mulcair as leader of the NDP. Many in his party, fearing that the Conservatives are grabbing the country by the lapels, will want him to assume the role of defender of the old Canada. The presumption is that the people want the old Canada.

Does the "various scandals, imagined or real" comment mean that Martin now also knows that robo-calls is not a problem for the Conservatives but may blow up in Bob Rae's face?

Re: all the other things in orange: they all look good to me.

I think Martin understands why Mulcair wants to drag the NDP towards the centre, i.e. to the right; it is because, as Martin himself has so often feared, the whole country is less and less moderate progressive Liberal socialistic.

 

[McG]

Defence cuts will put focus on costs - not policy
Matthew Fisher
Ottawa Citizen
27 March 2012

As by far the biggest spender in the federal government, National Defence will take the biggest dollar hit when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announces the Conservative government's austerity budget on Thursday.

Like other departments, DND has given Prime Minister Stephen Harper options based on cuts of between five per cent and 10 per cent. The generals and admirals spent about $22 billion last year.

While tight-lipped about what they think is coming, multiple military sources have indicated that the brass believes the axe may fall somewhere between seven and eight per cent. With the costs of the Afghan war now greatly reduced and set to disappear entirely within two years, those are reductions the military believes it can absorb without cutting into core capabilities.

The exception may be the Royal Canadian Navy's four Victoria-class submarines. There are grave concerns at National Defence headquarters that the budget may deep six these ex-Royal Navy boats. If the subs should survive this week's budget, they could still get torpedoed in the near future unless the navy can suddenly do a much better job of controlling costs and improving their woeful performance.

Among the certain budget casualties are the reserves, which will take major cuts after performing bravely in Afghanistan as relief for the overstretched regular forces. Also to be drastically chopped is the department's civilian workforce which, like NDHQ, grew dramatically during the Afghan war.

The budget is expected to result in greatly pared down plans for the new National Defence headquarters in western Ottawa. The concern is that less money could mean weaker electronic security at a complex that is bound to attract the attention of foreign spy services.

Part of the reason the military is particularly vulnerable when the government is intent on sharply reducing overall expenditures is that despite proving itself adaptable and capable in Afghanistan, it has been the subject of far more critical media scrutiny than any other government department.

The military and the Conservative government have contributed to this narrative by doing a poor job of justifying key expenditures such as bringing the submarines to operational status and acquiring F-35 stealth fighter jets. Arguments in favour of the F-35s include keen Chinese and Russian interest in its secrets and their determination to field 5th-generation stealth fighters of their own. Tellingly, while some allies lined up to buy the F-35 have reduced their orders, all thus far remain in the game.

The military may be more exposed to cuts because Stephen Harper is said to feel personally burned by the purchase of 15 Chinook helicopters for the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Pitched as a cost-effective rebuild of used U.S. army air frames to provide a medium lift capability that Canada's military lost decades ago, costs have doubled and the choppers are yet to arrive. Some now see the program as a back door attempt by the military to get a cutting-edge transport helicopter. Whether this is fair or not, the programs' problems do raise questions about the military's ability to handle major procurements.

The pending cuts arrive against a backdrop of previous disappointments. Former top general Rick Hillier called the Chrétien government's defence cuts the Decade of Darkness, believing they came close to destroying the military as a combat force. Before that the Mulroney government promised much, including nuclear submarines, but delivered little other than a fleet of ill-suited Griffon helicopters the military had not asked for. They were purchased to keep a Quebec factory going.

The irony is that as generous funding for the Afghan combat mission and the purchases of CC-117 Globemaster and CC-130J Hercules transport aircraft have demonstrated, Harper has been far more willing to spend money on the military than his seven predecessors. In awarding the multibillion-dollar ships contract for the navy last year, the prime minister also made a welcome break with the pork-barrel decision-making of the past.

Another aspect is that Canadian politicians, journalists and the public do not have much experience with large high-tech purchases. Those nations that purchase military gear more regularly know that such programs often end up behind schedule and over budget. Indeed, that is true of most programs that push technology.

The alternative is to only buy once a piece of kit is fully developed and costed. Unfortunately, this means that "new" gear quickly falls a generation behind and the government is in a poor position to secure meaningful industrial benefits, which have traditionally been used to justify Canadian defence purchases.

A separate problem that probably has not worked in the military's favour lately is the widespread belief at DND that relations between Harper and Defence Minister Peter MacKay are seriously strained.

The looming military spending cuts occur in a policy vacuum. Aside from the slim Canada First Defence Strategy of 2008, there has been little public discussion or political leadership from any party about Canada's strategic goals, its military relationships with the UN, NATO and the U.S., or the security threats it and its allies face in the decades ahead.

The media have shown little interest in such challenges. Almost all reporting revolves around costs. This has proven a sure-fire way to press the buttons of highly partisan politicians on Parliament Hill. Unlike their counterparts in the U.S., Britain or Australia, many elected officials have proven to be ignorant regarding the larger security imperatives that influence military spending.

The focus on costs, to the exclusion of a meaningful debate about what is required to defend Canada's interests, has also helped disguise the fact that some interest groups involved oppose virtually all purchases of actual weapons. Given the limited scope of public debate on security issues, it is hardly surprising that Canadians, while impressed by and supportive of the Canadian Forces during the Afghan war, remain ill-informed on defence matters.

In the end, despite the hullabaloo generated by the media about defence spending, the topic is unlikely to generate much budget day interest, aside from the usual comments that more should have been cut to preserve social spending. Proposals on pension and social-security reform, job creation and streamlining resource development approvals will all attract more attention because they remain central to our politics in a way our military never has.

 

[GAP]

ER....LAWRENCE MARTIN pretty much nailed it.......and the problem is? Everything you highlighted needs to change. It's time we grew up as a country.

 

[GAP]

In response to ER's post on No room for sacred cows in this budget here's a little more on the issue of Supply Management.

Being a spoke in American trade isn't enough for Canada
John Ibbitson Globe and Mail  Tuesday, Mar. 27, 2012
Article Link

Canada is launching free-trade talks with Thailand and Japan in case Plan B must turn into Plan A, because Plan A is in trouble, thanks to what is being described as American bullying.

Plan A is the Trans Pacific Partnership, a set of trade talks currently involving the United States and eight other Pacific nations that Canada badly wants to join. Negotiators from the two countries are attempting to secure a pre-agreement so that the Americans will support Canada’s accession to the talks.

But the Americans are being particularly bloody-minded, from the Canadian perspective. Supply management is the biggest issue. This is the system of quotas and tariffs that protect the Canadian dairy and poultry industry from competition.

Canada is willing to put everything, including supply management, on the TPP table, but only after reaching that table. The Americans, however, insist that Canada must signal its readiness to abandon supply management as a condition for joining the talks.

The American intransigence – “bullying” is the word that gets most often used – has led to a theory that is making the rounds in Ottawa circles.

According to that theory, the Obama administration is employing a hub-and-spoke approach to foreign trade.

That is, as the Americans pursue new trade agreements, they seek to place the United States at the hub of any relationship, with smaller nations serving as spokes.

The spokes supply the U.S. with whatever it needs to make things, and the U.S. then sells the finished product back to the spokes and to other countries.
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on Budget 2012 in this article, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen:

My emphasis added
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Deep+federal+department+level+cuts+expected+budget/6362031/story.html

Deep federal department-level cuts expected in budget

By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News

March 26, 2012

OTTAWA — House of Commons spending, MPs' pensions and department budgets are in the crosshairs as the Conservative government prepares to table a budget Thursday that is expected to contain billions of dollars in spending cuts.

The Department of National Defence, Public Works and Government Services, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Environment Canada, Foreign Affairs and the federal auditor general are just a handful of the departments and offices that either have already been targeted for substantial savings over the next few years or are expected to face sizable cuts in the budget.

Furthermore, the House of Commons budget will be cut by almost seven per cent — or around $30 million — over the next couple of years, according to NDP House leader Joe Comartin, who sits on the secretive multi-party Board of Internal Economy that approves Commons spending.

Cutting the $446-million Commons budget could affect MPs' travel, office staff on Parliament Hill and in constituencies, as well as the number of green buses that cruise around downtown Ottawa to pick up and drop off parliamentarians and staff at their offices.

But it's the department cuts that are expected to be noticed the most. Public-sector unions fear thousands of federal government jobs will disappear as part of the sweeping review of operating spending in which the government hopes to find up to $8 billion in annual savings over the next few years.

The government has said the budget document won't contain much detail on the specific cuts to departments. The extent and exact targets of the cuts will become known in the coming months.

Conservative government has, however, already identified some of the departments it's eyeing for substantial spending reductions in the coming years, including Defence, Human Resources, Public Works and Fisheries.

The Department of National Defence is already being tapped to find at least $525 million in savings in the new 2012-13 budget year and at least $1 billion in both 2013-14 and 2014-15, according to targets identified by the federal government in last year's budget as part of its ongoing strategic reviews. The separate and new spending review being led by Treasury Board president Tony Clement will identify additional cuts as well.

DND is preparing to eliminate almost 700 civilian support jobs with the Canadian army in an effort to save cash, according to a military plan obtained earlier this month by the Ottawa Citizen.

Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, which is leading the government's reforms to Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement — including possibly raising the qualifying age to 67 from 65 — has been targeted for $141 million in savings in 2012-13 and about $274 million in 2013-14, according to last year's budget.

HRSDC is now considering major changes that could see the corporate and not-for-profit sectors deliver more social programs. The department is already closing Service Canada student summer job centres, insisting younger Canadians prefer to get help with job searches and resume writing online.

New NDP leader Thomas Mulcair argued Monday the last thing the government should be cutting is direct public services, but said all indications are that's "the first thing" the government is targeting.

"There are many services that will suffer," Mulcair said, adding that he's also worried about what the cuts will mean to jobs and the economy.

Public Works and Government Services — which handles federal purchases and accommodations — is being targeted for nearly $150 million in savings over the next two years, before additional cuts from the latest spending review are included. Fisheries and Oceans is facing about $75 million in budget reductions by 2013-14, according to savings targets in last year's fiscal blueprint, on top of any extra cuts pegged in Thursday's budget.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty promised last week the budget will contain only "modest" spending cuts, telling reporters that if they simply focus on the savings, "you're going to miss most of what the budget is about."

Spending estimates for the new 2012-13 budget year, recently tabled in the House of Commons, identified significant cuts to environmental monitoring before any additional reductions from the new spending review.

The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, the government centre of expertise for ensuring that industrial projects do not harm natural ecosystems, is expected to see its funding chopped by 43 per cent in 2012-13, from around $30 million to about $17 million.

"Any cuts in government spending should focus squarely on waste and not critical services," Green party leader Elizabeth May said Monday.

As the federal government hunts for billions of dollars in cuts as part of its so-called deficit-reduction action plan, it's expected to also scale back the lucrative pension plan for MPs and senators.

Members of Parliament are eligible to collect full pension benefits at age 55 if they sit in the House of Commons for six years or longer. Qualified MPs currently serving will be eligible to collect an average pension of nearly $55,000 a year in 2015, according to a recent report from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

New federal Auditor General Michael Ferguson, meanwhile, has stepped into his role as the AG's office prepares to cut, by 2014-15, around $6.5 million (close to eight per cent) of its $88-million annual budget. Approximately 60 employees (10 per cent of the staff), including some auditors, will lose their jobs, the AG's office has said.


jfekete@postmedia.com


Twitter.com/jasonfekete

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

 

[Fishbone Jones]

All right folks, the official word is starting to be passed around the CF. Below is an example of what's being ordered.

As the federal budget will be released next week, we have been placed on "radio silence" regarding all external comms.  This includes all Public Services Announcements (PSA), Media Advisories (MA), and New Releases (NR) regarding any type of training (BFT, Freedom of the City, etc.) that have already been approved for release.

Please continue to pass PA products for review as per SOP, ...will not return them until radio silence has been lifted or special approval to release the product is granted by Ottawa, via LFCA PA.

What it's basically saying is that CF business is not to be discussed with outside sources. That will include here. We have a huge volume of 'journalists' that persistently troll this site for information. In the past they have also not been shy about using it and revealing their source as here, in their newspaper, magazine, TV or radio spots.

Until the 'Radio Silence' has been lifted by higher, please follow the parameters asked. No discussion related to matters internal to the CF that could be construed as budget business, be they cuts, grants, programs, whatever.

We appreciate your cooperation.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is some analysis of the "one-two punch" that Ontario and Ottawa are landing on public sector unions:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/as-flaherty-prepares-to-take-on-public-service-he-owes-ontario-a-thank-you/article2383763/

As Flaherty prepares to take on public service, he owes Ontario a thank-you

JOHN IBBITSON

Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Mar. 28, 2012

Ontario’s austerity budget, released Tuesday, offers splendid political cover for the Harper government.

The federal Conservatives are about to take on the public-service unions. That confrontation will be long, loud and painful, with union leaders going to the wall in defence of long-standing prerogatives. But public opinion is likely to turn against them, if only because much the same confrontation will be underway in Ontario. Each government, in that sense, will be helping the other’s cause.

At Queen’s Park, Finance Minister Dwight Duncan is resolved to bring his province’s frighteningly high deficit under control by imposing wage freezes on the public service.

Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is resolved to go much farther. In his budget, to be released Thursday, the Conservatives plan to eliminate the federal deficit at least two years before Ontario balances its books through system-wide cuts to government programs, which will lead to thousands of job losses across the public service.

But the Conservatives are discovering just how hard it can be to dismiss a public servant. Collective agreements protect a lengthy, elaborate and cumbersome seniority-based process. Older workers can force out younger workers, even if a younger worker is more qualified and productive than whoever is replacing her.

There are 18 major bargaining units in the federal public service. As each contract comes up for renewal, the unions will find an employer demanding far greater flexibility in choosing whom to keep and whom to let go, whom to reward with merit pay and whom to put on notice. The unions will fight to protect the rights of workers from arbitrary dismissal. There are bound to be strikes.

The unions will argue that the Harper government is once again employing the ruthless bullying tactics for which the Tories are famous. But the Conservatives will point to public sector contract disputes from Halifax to Toronto to British Columbia as proof that governments everywhere are being forced to limit or freeze increases in public-sector salaries.

It will be particularly helpful to the Conservatives if the Liberal McGuinty government, which has long sought to be known as the working man’s friend, is also at war with its unions. The fact that both the Ontario and federal governments are demanding changes to pension contributions and benefits will also be mutually reinforcing.

Each government, in effect, will have the other’s back whether it wants to or not, as both set about reining in the salaries and entitlements of their workforce. However much Mr. Flaherty, who was himself an Ontario finance minister, has criticized Mr. Duncan’s alleged profligacy in the past, in this case he owes his Ontario cousin a thank-you.

I think Harper/Flaherty are on the side of the angels here; Canadians, by and large, don't like public sector unions - the perception is that the public sector writ large, including politicians, government workers and school teachers, is overpaid, has gold-plated pensions and is under worked. It doesn't matter if that's true or not, it's what the general public feels and my sense is that Canadian labour leaders, except, maybe, a few 'tone deaf' public sector union officers, know it.

 

[Haletown]

Helpful video for taxpayers unfamiliar with Ottawa-Speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtLL7pLM-yE


Maybe she could explain  procurement to Evan?

 

[RangerRay]

How about resource development, which has traditionally contended with environment protection? A winner has been declared and it isn’t the tree huggers. It’s full speed ahead for pipelines and resource exploitation at the expense of green priorities. This week’s budget is expected to further weaken environmental assessment laws and reduce fish habitat protection.

I have to disagree with this.  To me, it would be a huge mistake to weaken the environmental assessment process and fish habitat protection laws.  These processes are the only way we have to ensure that industry mitigate their externalities, and ensure projects which would cost more environmentally than they would reap in economic benefits, never see the light of day.

We have seen what happens when environmental regulation in BC is weakened (while we got a carbon tax shafted on us).  It effectively turned the Province into a Monopoly board, public good be damned.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think there is a disconnect between proper, constructive environmental regulation, which I agree is vital, and the unnecessarily long review processes. Those reviews are, in my opinion, aimed more at pacifying project opponents, very often serial opponents - folks who oppose, oppose and oppose anything, than at ensuring that projects that can be approved are safe and clean. I don't think we need to our should do irreparable harm to the environment just to make money, but I also think that the environment can and even should be changed to support human development.

 

[Jed]

I think there is a disconnect between proper, constructive environmental regulation, which I agree is vital, and the unnecessarily long review processes. Those reviews are, in my opinion, aimed more at pacifying project opponents, very often serial opponents - folks who oppose, oppose and oppose anything, than at ensuring that projects that can be approved are safe and clean. I don't think we need to our should do irreparable harm to the environment just to make money, but I also think that the environment can and even should be changed to support human development.

I concur with your assessment ERC, however;

As with all the professions in today's litigation prone society, environmental engineers and other technical persons are very reluctant to get on with approvals of any sort. It takes individuals in positions of power to take the political risk to move these projects forward. I do not feel there is enough trust between elected officials and the bureaucratic support staff to expedite any of the in place approval processes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think there is a disconnect between proper, constructive environmental regulation, which I agree is vital, and the unnecessarily long review processes. Those reviews are, in my opinion, aimed more at pacifying project opponents, very often serial opponents - folks who oppose, oppose and oppose anything, than at ensuring that projects that can be approved are safe and clean. I don't think we need to our should do irreparable harm to the environment just to make money, but I also think that the environment can and even should be changed to support human development.

I have been involved in many CEAA reviews from screenings, comp studies and Panels. We generally don't get a lot of bang for the buck with how screening level CEAA's are done, mostly it's a report listing the submission of the agencies, First Nations and responses by the proponents. My CEAA screenings are triggered by the "Lawlist regulations" some of the triggers are stunningly silly, I can imagine some junior policy wonk running through a list going; "Decision, yep add to lawlist" We have one section of our Act that allows for us to take action after 24hrs as it's determined to be an emergency , yet that same section is also on the Lawlist requiring a CEAA to be done first.

Comp studies and Panels are more indepth, happen less, but generally produce a better and more useful product, however they cost everyone a great deal more time and money. For 1 comp study the proponent spent $100,000 on printing costs and their application weighed 60lbs when it hit my desk. The good news is that it sent our IM Nazis with their obsession with RDMIN's running out the door in terror.  ;D

DFO has moved away from CEAA's by creating "Operational Statements and Best Management Practices"  for things like clearspan bridges and reactivating old log dumps, these sort of regulatory practices will be the wave of the future as it removes the need to apply, generally just notification.
My concern about the above is that the wonks in the Ivory tower, think going this way saves money. It actually costs more as the only way to maintain standards is through consistant compliance and enforcement, which is way more expensive than regulatory work. If you don't maintain standards and force the industries to comply with the standards, then the "gypo" companies win the contracts as they have no intention of meeting the standards and they force the good companies to the same level in order to survive.

 

[Kirkhill]

Much like the USMC General who couldn't remember the last time they manned an ICBM missile, I can't remember the last time we had a public review of the National Building Code, Fire Code or Electrical Code.

Most planning applications involve public input at the Development Permit stage (hands up all those that want a sewage plant next to your lovely marina) and that is it.

I fail to understand why environmental regulation should be any different than any other type of regulation.  Once they are promulgated then they are incorporated into the project plan and converted to a dollar value.  The client decides if he can afford the cost or not.

The politicians, bureaucrats and (indirectly) the public control the regulations.  Those can be managed. 

What makes life difficult is an indeterminate timeline and random synaptic surges from local PTA members.