It is ridiculous that the position is referred to as communications officers and they are part of communications teams when their primary purpose is to prevent communications. And it is even more ridiculous that they are paid by taxpayers, who they do not serve.
Thank you for this, Linda. It certainly is frustrating to hear that "clarification" does not in any way mean "change," when it is clear as day that it does. (It certainly brings to mind the "alternate facts" debacle of a certain comms person south of the border in past years.)
This may be just my own highly suspicious imagination, but is it possible that changing the protected status of wetlands (to unprotected) might be a ploy for this current government to "re-protect" them at a later date and count this as part of the 20% by 2030 legislation this government has promised to follow through on?
Receiving that much pushback from MacDonald, I'd have to say that where there's smoke, there's fire - probably a big one.
It is ridiculous that the position is referred to as communications officers and they are part of communications teams when their primary purpose is to prevent communications. And it is even more ridiculous that they are paid by taxpayers, who they do not serve.
Thank you for this, Linda. It certainly is frustrating to hear that "clarification" does not in any way mean "change," when it is clear as day that it does. (It certainly brings to mind the "alternate facts" debacle of a certain comms person south of the border in past years.)
This may be just my own highly suspicious imagination, but is it possible that changing the protected status of wetlands (to unprotected) might be a ploy for this current government to "re-protect" them at a later date and count this as part of the 20% by 2030 legislation this government has promised to follow through on?
Well, I guess anything is possible. I'll be talking to someone soon who might know something about this... I'll see what they think.