François Cardinal ponders the Biosphere on Quel Avenir. He’s quite down on the existing museum elements in the building but strongly wants it to stay open to the public.
I went over there a couple of weekends ago (alas, without realizing it, during the heavy metal festival, so it wasn’t a quiet visit). And there were people in the museum bits, playing with the gadget that lets you do practical water management, peering through the telescopic gadgets that point out the many features visible up and down and across the river from the heights of the museum. Whether one, as a journalist or hip observer, finds the museum passé, in fact it’s got its public and they were there, adults solo and in small groups, families and kids all enjoying the exhibits and the incomparable views from the top levels of the structure inside.
But the Harper government wants to axe all this, no doubt as part of their ongoing policy of shutting down public access to information about Canada’s environment. We can’t stop the Harper juggernaut along these lines but we shouldn’t let that fact shut the building off from us.
The sphere must remain open and accessible. Why insist it must be useful or didactic? Just on its own, the structure is a trip to visit, and I recommend everyone do so while they can. It’s not expensive – $9 for an adult. I think maybe if you put a café on the main upper floor and let people just go inside and wander around – there’s wi-fi, you can just sit and look out at the horizon in several directions – it would be wonderful. The building’s geothermally heated and has wind turbines, so its operating costs can’t be too high.
Adam 20:59 on 2012/08/22 Permalink
“But the Harper government wants to axe all this, no doubt as part of their ongoing policy of shutting down public access to information about Canada’s environment.”
A question, in all sincerity: do you believe that having a viewpoint that’s different from yours and being sincere and well-intentioned are mutually exclusive?
Kate 21:53 on 2012/08/22 Permalink
Adam, do you think the accounts from many environmental scientists in Canada that the Harper government is silencing them vis-à-vis the media are lies? Or do you think they’re true, but that the Harper Tories are “sincere and well-intentioned” in keeping Canadians in the dark about environment issues?
Doobious 23:06 on 2012/08/22 Permalink
I’m revolted by politics in general, so I’m kinda loathe to post in these threads, but I would like to point out that the Harper government does seem to be making more than a token effort at getting our federal finances in order. I often don’t think much of where they choose to cut back on expenditures, but you do have to give them *some* credit for having balls enough to tighten the proverbial belt *somewhere*. Our provincial government could stand to learn a lesson or twelve from Harper’s in terms of basic fiscal responsibility.
Stefan 03:19 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
traditionally, in canada conservative governments have accumulated debts, which liberal governments have reduced. harper is no exception, with putting billions into military (fighter planes, maybe even nuclear submarines in the arctic?), many new jails, and other unnecessary stuff. reducing necessary educational stuff which is not important for their voters does not take any balls, imho. i can not disagree about them being well-intentioned for their apparently misinformed clientele.
Anto 05:37 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
Doobious: http://www.ledevoir.com/politique/canada/357145/755-millions-pour-de-nouveaux-snowbirds
Ian 05:46 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
@Doobious – Harper’s conservatives are belt-tightening, alright – now that they spent the entire EI surplus and racked up an impressive deficit. Conservatives create huge deficits then plead austerity so they have a good excuse to hack away at things they didn’t like. Mulroney did the same thing.
walkerp 06:16 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
It’s amazing how Canadians are buying into that same myth that the neo-cons sold to the Americans, that they were somehow fiscally responsible all the while they were the administrations that increased the deficit more than any other in history. We had a balanced budget under the Liberals, that’s gone now. Now Harper hacking away at relatively small expenditures is seen as a “token effort to getting our finances in order”.
It is very clear that Harper’s administration is driven by an ideological agenda and strategy, to reduce voter and citizen awareness of facts and create a reliance on fear propaganda. Thus massive cuts to science, government data-gathering, big-time spending on creating prisons, security (special RCMP task force to fight “terrorism” against resource extraction, “child pornography” bills, etc.) all driven by a rhetoric of divisive fear.
This is just basic stuff. If you can’t see it, it’s because you don’t want to.
But please don’t try to pretend that Harper is fiscally responsible just because he is pro-business.
Kate 08:37 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
Oh my boys! Thank you.
Kevin 08:52 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
@adam @Doobious
Harper’s been in power for 6 years. In all that time the only thing you can say is that his real agenda is to eliminate the Federal Liberal party and hike spending.
Don’t take my word for it, look at the charts.
You can bitch all you want about cost-cutting during Paul Martin years and dumping costs on the provinces — but for the nation as a whole, he was a great finance minister.
Then Harper came in, saw the big pile of cash marked ‘rainy day fund’ and spent it on bribing voters.
Kate 09:12 on 2012/08/23 Permalink
I read some of the UK press and it was odd to see the same story play out both here and in England: a guy who was a terrific finance minister (they call it “chancellor of the exchequer” which sounds grander, but it’s the same thing) (i.e. Paul Martin and Gordon Brown) as second-string to a showier PM (Jean Chrétien, Tony Blair) in a mildly lefty government (Liberal, Labour) decides to go it on his own as prime minister, and falls on his face.
Pity.