mentalfloss

Wasn't there a Nature report confirming scientists were being muzzled?

Looks like NRTEE has been busy waiting to release these final reports as their last hurrah. Both pretty damning in their determination of economic cost due to environmental laziness on the part of the government. Not thinking green will hurt Canadian businesses internationally Delays In Carbon Rules Mean Canada Is Locking In Emissions

They haven't done it because it's nowhere near a critical problem yet.

They are independent inasmuch as we would characterize the auditor general or parliamentary budget officer as independent. Those entities are government (taxpayer) funded and are also considered bi-partisan and independent. As per Harper, no less.

The carbon tax: history’s greatest monster

It's pathetic that he's independent? Or that he disagrees with the government?

Ask Kevin Page. He's going to be gone soon as well for revealing the $10 Billion F-35 bungle.

The idea that we can sustainably develop the oilsands and maintain environmental stewardship is not something this government believes. They may say they care about a good balance, but measures like these are clear evidence that this is not the case.

“Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected?” Baird said Monday in response to the Liberal Leader Bob Rae during question period. “It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government." Baird admits Tories cut funding to NRTEE scientists to silence opinions

Greece is the new WMD.

(it's because he's bilingual)

Do you have a link to review?

Considering we're all shareholders, yes.

Not at all. That's why we need more information on which jobs were cut, the reasons for it, the cost-savings from cutting and the repercussions to levels of service coming from those layoffs. I thought these criteria should be obvious by now in order for us to determine the appropriate jobs to cut. Just look at what's happening in Newfoundland, where people who need medical advise are routed to Italians who can't speak English. All because we decided to cut jobs without a proper assessment of occupational requirements prior to the layoff.

No, that would be an assumption. It could be that they were cut simply to save money, but there is no evidence to show that there is any redundancy or unnecessary level of service before those jobs were cut.

I don't think those jobs were picked randomly either.

Nice article by Macleans comparing Ford to London's new mayor, Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson of London vs. Toronto’s Rob Ford: One bumbles, one fumbles

No, I said there was no evidence to show either way. Which is why one cannot assume whether or not the loss of jobs would be good news.

Right. So how does an arbitrary number of jobs lost prove that?

Without any evidence to show whether or not these jobs were reasonable and necessary, I wouldn't make any assumption about whether or not this is good news.

Sorry, maybe I haven't made myself clear. Just because jobs are lost, doesn't mean they weren't required. Where is it shown that these jobs are not required?

Yea, but it depends on what jobs and who got laid off. I wouldn't just pronounce that as some sort of victory.

Losing public sector jobs is good?

I don't see it.. is it in another subforum? Edit: Ah - economiez forum.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/jobs/economy-posts-biggest-back-to-back-job-gains-in-30-years/article2429685/