quinton

As of now married and common-law gay partners can pass on CPP Survivor Benefits if one of them dies to their partner. It is not so clear that other types of dependent relationships can get the same CPP Survivor Benefits: Examples: -two brothers living together on the family farm -a daughter who is living with and providing care for her ailing mother -two friends living together in a dependent relationship . In fact, these people would have to say that they are in a conjugal common-law partnership, and hope that the government would use a compatible definition of conjugal. Obviously the above partners are not having sex, but they are dependent. Shouldn't they have rights to? Is the government trying to reward people for having sex, or are they trying to set up a system to support those who have just suffered the loss of a dependent partner that they were living with at the time of death? Should rights such as CPP Survivor Benefits or income tax deductions for a dependent be extended to partners that live together in non-sexual relationships who are dependent and sometimes related like family members?

As of now married and common-law gay partners can pass on CPP Survivor Benefits if one of them dies to their partner. It is not so clear that other types of dependent relationships can get the same CPP Survivor Benefits: Examples: -two brothers living together on the family farm -a daughter who is living with and providing care for her ailing mother -two friends living together in a dependent relationship . In fact, these people would have to say that they are in a conjugal common-law partnership, and hope that the government would use a compatible definition of conjugal. Obviously the above partners are not having sex, but they are dependent. Shouldn't they have rights to? Is the government trying to reward people for having sex, or are they trying to set up a system to support those who have just suffered the loss of a dependent partner that they were living with at the time of death?

Better things that helping understand a species through scientific research that we've pushed to the brink of extinction? I think not. Did you know that there are so few flying squirrels in the Pinery Provincial Park that there is question if they have enough genetic diversity to have a viable breeding population? The reason is because the park is too small and it is filled with tons of roads, development and campsites. Apparently the public doesn't care about preserving any wilderness in southern Ontario. Just tiny parks which are more for recreational development than protection of fragile ecosystems.

You don't have to live like a caveman to not own and operate a car. But yeah, unless human population growth is stopped, we're all doomed and so is biodiversity of all life on earth.

All we can do is educate all of our friends and family. We need to get people thinking about this. Until the majority of the public is focussed on this issue, nothing really pro-active or good can result.

Still looking for ways to continue growth in energy consumption because people still want population-growth-for-economic-growth is absurd. No form of energy is environmentally sustainable at present population and usage levels. Not even solar or wind. They have environmental problems too.

I notice that David Suzuki never proposes a solution to the problem of perpetual growth. In his latest article he says: "But one thing is for certain - we cannot continue on this relentless march for growth without eventually confronting the biological limits of the planet itself. The question is, will we have turned around enough by then? Will we learn to live within the planet's limits before we reach them? In a society where growth is considered the goal in itself, rather than a means to an end" http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_Dav...kly03310601.asp I know that the solution to saving the earth is extreme. I see why Dr. Suzuki does not propose any solutions because it would just backfire unless the public was more educated. Sadly, the public does not presently recognize the problem. They are in denial and their mentality is "business as usual", all while ignoring the environmental pitfalls of economic (population and consumption) growth. Until the majority of the public is aware of the problem, the solution is less important than the acknowledgement of the problem.

BTW: I hate McGuinty too, but for different reasons. My biggest complaint of him was when he gave hundreds of millions of dollars of tax payers money to GM just so it would stay here and pollute. Talk about subsidizing unsustainable practices.

Quit jumping to stupid conclusions. Scientific research is vital to our understanding of nature. Science without some economic agenda is rare and must be funded. Read up: http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about_us/Dr_Dav...kly04070601.asp

Nocrap, unfortunately private land ownership is a necessary evil of overpopulation. I think Canadians have gone mad to let in so many immigrants. Resources per capita is going to go way down. I seriously heard some nutbag Liberal named Deb Mathews say that: "Canada needs to work on making itself more attractive to lure in more immigrants from China and India to bolster economic growth" There is a serious downside to this status quo belief -- the natural environment here in Canada will suffer.

What a surprise that geoffery the fundamentalist Christian supports the conservatives and Steven Harper. I'm just going to take a wild guess that if he lived in the USA he would support George W Bush. I wish people like geoffery would move to the USA so that he could "support his troops" there. I don't like any of the parties, but I'd probably rate them from worst to best in this order. Conservative Block Quebec Liberal NDP Green That is based on my priorities (protecting the environment as long as possible before its inevitable demise) In our fast paced world of 9-5 jobs people have lost sight of what is really going on. I'm not talking about global warming. To me, there is a far worse human-induced problem - loss of natural wild habitat.

None of the status quo environmental policies or actions will address the root problem of our culture of economic growth which equals population growth times consumption per capita growth. It would take something extreme to prevent the earth from being exhausted. For starters, the human population would have to stop growing. There are no status quo friendly solutions. If you want status quo and non-extreme politically correct under our current culture solutions, then we are doomed. It's too late to save the planet. I agree with Richard Heinberg's book Powerdown. In an interview he said that preserving the wilderness in the only possible way (by stopping population growth) is extremely unlikely and will not realistically happen.

Yes I agree that people are too uneducated to understand that these policies are for their own good. Therefore I believe mankind is doomed. In India for example, the government almost implemented mass sterilization for population control, and then they got voted out. So it backfired and the population exploded quickly when the new government took over. Obviously this population explosion was to the detriment of Indian wildlife habitat. The new government won't even broach the topic of population control. The earth will slowly lose all of what makes it livable for human beings including resources, biodiversity, etc. What is left will be reserved for the elite.

Yes mass sterilization would also work, but not in a democracy. A major incentive might be used like $1 million dollars for allowing yourself to be sterilized. Alas, I don't realistically think that anything will be done. I think it is already too late. Even the national parks will eventually get exploited. The earth will eventually be robbed of all of its natural wealth. Economic growth (more people and more consumption of goods) will destroy us.

How to save the world from being made uninhabitable by human growth: -Stop all immigration. (people should have to deal with the country they were born in) -Stop exporting goods from one country to another. (if survival essentials cannot be produced locally, people should not live there) -Stop population growth by imposing extreme taxes for having children that make having children undesirable for all. -Outlaw the use of unecessary luxuries like home air conditioning units in Canada as well as cars and automobiles for home users. -Eventually give families their own land and let them sustain themselves by subsistence hunting and agriculture I know the ideas above sound extreme, but I maintain that they lead to a more satisfying healthy life that is good for people and the planet.

Why am I supposed to be excited over yet another status-quo party? I'd rather just vote on the issues. Issue based politics offers some hope. Personality based politics is futile when there are so few parties to choose from. It is impossible for one of 4 or 5 parties to share my view on all the issues. There would need to be thousands of parties to have any chance of one that represented all my views. For that matter, why can't we just vote on the issues. As for how a referendum on an issue is summoned... why not just nominate them with petitions?

Overpopulation ! All people must consume from the earth in order to survive. There are too many people chasing too few resources. The media focuses on aging populations but it is all a big lie. Virtually no countries are declining in population. They cannot afford to because of their economic growth model which relies on more people and more production of goods. You can never pay the true cost of environmental damage. Money has no intrinsic value. There are already too many people and too few wild areas free from human impact.

Hicksey, none of that will amount to a hill of beans unless the population stops growing. Technology won't save us. Technology harms more than it helps as it is being used at present.

Our environment is paying the true cost of the "benefit" received. We perceive growth of money as a benefit, without realizing that with more people, a large amount of money today is worth less than a small amount of money yesterday.

LabourPartyCanada says: No surprise there. More people, more consumption of goods. What else is new? The earth will be robbed of its natural wealth until it is inhospitable for humans. Every country is in a race to destroy biodiversity for its own growth and expansion of humans and human activity. Little do the stupid citizens know that unless we gear away from economic growth, the earth will be left permanently impoverished. Economic Growth is the product of more people and more consumption. So is Environmental Degradation.

What about Canada's 1% annual population growth due to immigration? This is done to increase economic growth, but it comes with a severe price to the environment. When is enough enough?

Canada's economy, like every other nation's economy on planet earth, is geared towards growth. With more people and more production of goods, where will this leave the planet's fragile ecosystems? When does the growth stop? When is enough enough? Who is looking at the big picture?

Geoffrey, again you say Netherlands is doing just fine. My definition of doing fine is different than yours. I'll make up my own mind on that thank you very much. When I see the majority of rivers in the Netherlands turned into concrete-walled canals it reminds me of the Greater Toronto Area. To me that is not "just fine". Futhermore, Canada cannot support as high of a human density as a country like the Netherlands (not that Netherlands is supporting its own population, because it is not) because the majority of its geography is shield rock or tundra and the climate is cold enough to make heating conventional homes impractical and unsustainable. Consider this when you think Canada is vast with a low density of people 3.3 people per square kilometer. http://www.canadainfolink.ca/chartten.htm Ellesmere Island is 196,236 square kilometers. Canada is 9,970,610 square kilometers. So the number 3.3 people per square kilometer means that the population was 32,903,013 at the time of this 2001 census. Time for a reality check: ... Toronto's average annual temperature is about 10 degrees celcius. Eureka Nunavut on Ellesmere Island has an average annual temperature of -20 degrees celcius. Yes, that's negative twenty!! If you take away the land of Ellesmere Island since no one lives there, Canada has only 9,774,374 square kilometers jumping its density from 3.3 people/km2 to 3.4 people/km2. Ellesmere is just one arctic island. If you look at the density of Ontario, it is 12.6 people per square kilometer, even though most of Ontario is uninhabitatble shield sometimes with permafrost. In fact 90% of Ontarians live on a region occupying only 10% of the land. The other 10% of Ontarians are in what is classified as Northern Ontario but the majority of them are clinging to the southern parts of Northern Ontario such as Sudbury, Thunder Bay and North Bay. 1 kilometer squared is about 200 acres. That means the average 200 acres in Ontario would have 13 people on it. Canada does not seem so vast anymore does it?

JerrySeinfeld, diversity of ocean life declined by 50% in the Altlantic and 25% in the Pacific over the last 50 years according to a study released last year. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...57/?hub=SciTech

Indeed Glen Lawrence councilor of Ward 7, Strathcona Alberta is a rare politician who is a diamond in the rough. Hollus you were right he does seem to grasp the problem in this article: http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/Strathcona/Cou...+planning++.htm I think what he means by qualitative growth is striving for personal growth in knowledge and understanding instead of just economic growth which he understands is doing us more harm than good.