How many other federal politicians report to Canadians in such a useful way? I regret to say I don't know of any others. So kudos to Elizabeth May.
This time her article was of particular interest to me, as it included her analysis of bills C-38 and C-57, both presently before Parliament, and both having serious potential consequences for those of us living on the BC coast.
She'd actually read them, in toto.
This reading revealed that the Conservative ministers sponsoring those bills have seriously misrepresented them, promising “safeguards” not actually present in writing:
In March of last year, Budget 2012 promised more pipeline inspections and new tanker regulations. Then ministers claimed the new measures were in the budget omnibus bill C-38. Since C-38 was over 400 pages long, perhaps they did not expect anyone to read it. Maybe they never read it themselves, as Minister Oliver trumpeted then, “Mr. Speaker, the bill will do a great deal to protect the environment... As I mentioned in my remarks, tankers will have to be double-hulled, there will be mandatory pilotage, there will be enhanced navigation, there will be aerial surveillance and additional measures will be taken in particular cases when necessary.
None of this was in C-38. It is, in fact, what he announced in Vancouver on March 18, 2013. I imagine he wondered why he had such a strong sense of déjà-vu.
So much for C-38. What about C-57?:
Yesterday Harper’s ministers announced we would find these new measures in Bill C-57, the just tabled for First Reading Safeguarding Canada’s Seas and Skies Act. I have read C-57. This now takes top honours in the on-going competition for most over-hyped legislative title. I have read it and it is essentially a housekeeping act. It deals with the skies, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents and aeronautic indemnities. There is no environmental aspect to the “skies” component. Then there are the amendments related to “seas.” The Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are in the Marine Liability Act. The act is brought into compliance with the 2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea. So, nothing about double-hulled tankers...
In other words, the Ministers' words are just smoke, widely covered in the media, but having no legal weight at all.
More kudos to Elizabeth May MP, for doing her job!
I thought the information was important and hadn't seen it reported anywhere else, so sent the URL along to a number of our friends and family, all of whom are, to the best of my knowledge, reliably NDP voters. Most of the time.
And got back several negative comments, in effect pointing out that that Elizabeth May is the leader of the Federal Green Party: the competition; the enemy; potentially the spoiler.
Which misses the point, as far as I'm concerned.
Understand, as a lifelong activist NDPer, I don't support the Green Party of Canada. Any party whose website claims they stand for the following...
The Green Party respects the need for a balance between competition and co-operation in a healthy economy, and the gifts and flexibility that this dynamic tension offers to society. We believe in social justice while encouraging self-reliance and we respect the principle of reward for effort and risk. Green Party policies will make Parliament more democratic and diverse through democratic renewal. Government must be far more accountable and transparent. The Green Party knows that social justice at home and abroad is both an environmental and an ethical issue.
...is just spouting vacuous nonsense.
And we know now for a fact that, given any chance of electoral success, the Green Party's values and principles are fungible: how else to explain Green candidate Donald Galloway coming out against sewage treatment for Victoria in the recent federal bye-election there? How else to explain Elizabeth May's pandering, unscientific position on smart meters?
But just because Elizabeth May represents a party of -- in addition to a number of committed environmentalists -- a slew of new-agers, wingnuts, and flakes of the tinfoil-hat variety is no reason to disparage what she actually brings to the debate and to the House of Commons.
It's true that she is effectively her own party, and thus is pretty much free of the constraints placed on members of larger and more significant parties. It's also true that she was named 2012 Parliamentarian of the Year for a reason, and that she does her constituency, province, and country proud most of the time.
Had I lived in Saanich-Gulf Islands during the last election, given the available options I would have voted for her. Having seen her in action, I'd probably do so again in the next.
Occasionally exceptional individuals are more important than party affiliation.
..........
Further link: for those of you still interested in the disconnect between the Conservative propaganda and the problems of shipping dilbit in BC waters, I strongly recommend an article by Dave Tyre printed in Laila Yuile's blog.
