Tag Archives: Elizabeth May

Roundup: Complicating the “Dutch disease”

Posted on by

Western premiers continue to strike back at Thomas Mulcair, refuting his assertion that they are simply “Harper’s messengers,” while he sticks to his guns on the “Dutch disease” diagnosis, calling it “irrefutable.” Erm, except more economic data shows that it’s not. An IRPP study shows that while there may have been a mild case of said “disease,” it’s a far more complex picture than simply Alberta versus Ontario’s manufacturing sector, as the decline in the manufacturing sector has more to do with the rise of China than it does with the strength of our dollar, which has in turn helped other sectors of the economy as well. Meanwhile, Statistics Canada reports that the manufacturing sector is rebounding. Not that we should expect Mulcair to back down from his position anytime soon.

It seems that the F-35s were built with no cybersecurity protections in them, making them as vulnerable to cyberattacks as Humvees were to roadside bombs, apparently. But these are still the best aircraft that our airmen and women need, remember! Meanwhile, the government sent the RCMP on a five-month probe into what they thought might have been leaked documents after a Globe and Mail story on the F-35s, which turned out to be nothing. Well, nothing but a warning that if the government doesn’t like what the media is reporting, they’ll read too much power into certain National Security Acts that don’t really apply and send the RCMP after them.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Convenient committee travel

Posted on by

While there is supposed to be a special sub-committee of Finance where environment critics can study the environmental portions of the omnibus budget bill, that has entirely been made problematic by the fact that environment committee – which means the associated critics – will be travelling this week as part of a study on the National Conservation Plan, and they’ll be in Alberta and BC. But it should be noted that this plan was approved weeks ago, so it’s entirely possible the timing of this was not a deliberate ploy (giving full benefit of the doubt).

Parliamentary watchdogs and auditors are starting to collaborate and work together more – much to the chagrin of senior public servants and the Treasury Board, who grumble that these agents of parliament are just looking for trouble to justify their existence.

Poor Peter MacKay – after equivocating within an inch of his life on what he knew about the costs of the Libya mission when he went public about them, he now blames the opposition and media for the controversy. Because nothing he says or does is ever his fault.

BC Premier Christy Clark has also joined in on the criticism of Thomas Mulcair’s take on oil sands development and his warnings of the “Dutch disease.” (And how many people crying about the “Dutch disease” and our “petrodollar” take into account the fact that the Americans have slowly but surely been devaluing their own currency to manage their debt?)

More analysis that the Liberals held more in camera meetings than the Conservatives? Don’t be fooled, says Kady O’Malley, who points out that top-line numbers don’t reveal that committees do go in camera for legitimate reasons – like picking witness lists and drafting reports, and the Liberals drafted a whole lot more reports than the current Conservative majority. Add to that, most of the previous in camera meetings were done by unanimous vote, not under opposition protest. And a reminder about why committees go in camera and what the alternatives might be (which aren’t really good either).

The president of the Canada West Foundation and one of the staunchest defenders of “Triple E” Senate “reform” has now backed away from his position, and actually sees more harm than good in the government’s current “reform” plans. This is big news in conservative circles, and should hopefully prompt some re-thinking of a flawed (and rather boneheaded) attempt to kludge together some reforms that will only make the system worse and will have no added democratic benefits in the long run.

And if you haven’t yet, watch Elizabeth May’s speech in the House on Friday about the omnibus budget bill. It’s probably one of the best denunciations of it to date.

Roundup: Retroactively changing the facts

Posted on by

The Department of National Defence quietly amended a tabled parliamentary report on the F-35s under the guise of a correcting a “typographical error” when in fact they were changing a significant line about the status of the procurement. With nothing more than a quiet amendment notice on the Treasury Board website, they changed the status from “definitions” phase to “options analysis,” which is really significant. And they did it quietly, hoping nobody would notice – because nobody has anything to hide on how badly this whole file has been handled. Meanwhile, the name of the new procurement secretariat has officially been changed so that it isn’t specifically to procure F-35s, but rather is now the “national fighter procurement secretariat.” And University of Ottawa defence analyst Philippe Lagassé wants the opposition to ask better questions about the fighter since they keep getting distracted by shiny things and missing the real point – which of course is why a rigged process was allowed to happen and why due diligence was not followed.

Today in voter suppression news, an American Republican operative who was convicted and spent time in jail over improper calls says that the various misleading calls here were likely imported American tactics, and that it looks like a systemic and sophisticated operation. Over in the bid to overturn the results of the Etobicoke Centre election, it appears there are missing voter registration certificates, which could point to some improper votes being cast – enough to have changed the outcome. Meanwhile, over in Eglinton-Lawrence, it looks like a flyer was going around trying to get some improper votes cast on behalf of Jewish voters (not that the margin is enough to challenge in court).

DND looks to be set to chop mental health monitors and PTSD monitors. Because that sounds like a genius idea, not to mention totally “supporting our troops.”

What’s that? Major pipeline projects could face lengthy court challenges in the absence of robust environmental assessments? You don’t say!

Liberal Party president Mike Crawley indicates there are likely to be six or seven interested candidates in the upcoming leadership race – whenever it actually kicks off.

Here’s a look at Elizabeth May’s first year in Parliament.

Alison Crawford looks at the use of private members’ business to push through government business – not that it’s what they’re doing with the Woodworth motion.

The Conservatives’ latest proposed elder abuse television spots were panned by focus groups as being “too creepy” and the “worse commercials ever.” Yikes!

And the Procedure and House Affairs committee has tabled its report on the whole Anonymous vs. Vic Toews issue, and basically finds that they can’t do anything about it. Case closed.

The crystal palace

Posted on by

Green Party leader Elizabeth May held a press conference this morning to talk about cuts and austerity, and as part of that suggested that the government could save $100 million by forgoing the construction of the “crystal palace” to replace the House of Commons. This of course refers to the plan to glass in the courtyard of the West Block, which will serve as a temporary House of Commons while the Centre Block undergoes needed renovations. May’s suggestion is that the Commons relocate down the street to the Government Conference Centre – the old train station across from the Chateau Laurier.

When the so-called “crystal palace” was first unveiled, there were a number of people writing into newspapers suggesting that the House could perhaps “tour” various parts of the country, and incredulously suggested that the only people put out would be those MPs who hail from different time zones, and that those from closer ones would get the break for the change.

What either of these proposals miss are the fact that the House of Commons is more than just a chamber in isolation. There is a machinery of government that cannot simply pick up and move. That the Chamber itself will be moving one building over to the West Block will be disruptive enough to the machinery of government, but the logistical hurdles necessary to accommodate either move would be unfeasible to say the least.

First of all, the Commons is more than just a debating society in isolation that can debate wherever it likes. While in theory, MPs could hold debates wherever they like, the fact is that they have committee duties, staff, and obligations within their offices that cannot simply be packed up and done out of hotel rooms for weeks or months at a time. More than that, ministerial offices are located in Ottawa, and having ministers work entirely remotely from there is a non-starter. The “democrabus” of a travelling Chamber is an idea that holds no basis in reality.

As for May’s suggestion, however, she seems to miss some of the finer logistical points. For starters, it’s more than just the fact that the Chamber itself is a rather technologically sophisticated marvel, between wiring for sound and simultaneous translation, as well as for television. As well, there needs to be adequate security measures in place, and room for press, dignitaries to visit, and the general public to observe. None of this can be accommodated either in the Government Conference Centre, a ballroom at the Chateau Laurier, or any other nearby space that would be physically large enough. On top of that, the distance between the Conference Centre and the rest of the offices in the precinct become unwieldy. It’s bad enough with the committee rooms at One Rideau under the Chateau Laurier – and those are only committee rooms. When it comes to debates or votes, getting MPs and staff to and from the Conference Centre becomes a nightmare, and even doubling the fleet of little green busses becomes not only an expensive proposition, but one would add a step back for the environmental credentials that May possesses. Simply demanding that 338 MPs (as they would be at the time) and staff trudge quickly through blocks of wind and snow in December or January is not going to be feasible.

While people may grumble about the expense of putting in the glass dome in the West Block as part of its restoration process (as the building had reached the point of systems failure), it’s important to realise that not only will it have to accommodate the technological aspects of the Chamber, but the logistical demands as well. Only that space is so well situated and suited. And for as temporary as it will be – and we all know it will be for longer than currently advertised, as the renovations and restorations inevitably come in over time and over budget – it’s not as though it’ll simply be abandoned once the Commons moves back into a renovated Centre Block. The new glassed-in space will be used for committee rooms in the West Block for generations that will follow. I’m sure that over its lifetime the money will end up being well spent.