The Only Thing Idling Is the NDP Legislative Agenda

This morning the NDP Environment Minister introduced his anti-idling bill. It's a bill that does nothing but add to the number of bills Nova Scotia's NDP government can say they have introduced in this session of the legislature.

Idling is not only an environmental issue but one that costs motorists money as fuel is needlessly burned. It's an important issue. But this bill does nothing to reduce idling.

Once you get past the definitions the actual bill amounts to one line. That line says "The Government of the Province and every person who owns, operates, manages or controls a public passenger vehicle shall establish in writing on or before October 1, 2011, and thereafter maintain in effect an anti-idling policy that promotes the reduction of unnecessary idling." 

As this bill only applies to the provincial government and public passenger vehicles, everything accomplished by this bill could be done by a letter from government or cabinet policy. In fact, the vast majority of those covered by this bill already have idling policies.

This morning's bill is really symbolic of the fall session of the legislature in Nova Scotia. As many of the bills hit Committee of the Whole yesterday for clause by clause consideration, it was telling how short many of the bills were. Not that there's anything wrong with short bills if they mean something. But the vast majority of bills introduced by the NDP government this session are what are more frequently called housekeeping bills

Other governments use so-called omnibus bills to handle housekeeping amendments. Omnibus bills amend numerous pieces of existing legislation at once implementing corrections and making necessary changes to keep laws up to date. The NDP government in Nova Scotia has chosen instead to not only bring in every amendment as a new piece of legislation, but to often trumpet that legislation with press releases and media briefings as something earth shattering. 

There can be only one reason for this. To increase the total number of bills the government can say they've passed once the session comes to an end. To make it look like they have done more than they have.

There are serious issues in Nova Scotia. The government could be holding debates on issues like post-secondary education funding, the NDP's proposed 22% cut to public education, and the Ross Report on emergency health care delivery. They could also be working with the legislature to improve Nova Scotia's competitiveness and grow jobs instead of sitting by while jobs leave the province.

Instead the legislature is spending much of its time on government bills that accomplish little or are housekeeping matters.

NDP Launches Urban Sprawl Team

The NDP announced a Suburban Priorities Team today for a part of HRM. Too bad if you are in the capital district or rural areas of HRM - you are out of luck.

There's no question HRM needs attention. For years the Tory government made their political fortunes on bashing HRM. They failed to realize the success of Nova Scotia is tied to the success of HRM. Just as the success of HRM is tied to other parts of Nova Scotia from Cape Breton to Yarmouth.

There may even be merit for a Capital District or HRM committee of the legislature. Such a committee would have representatives of all parties and would address the interlinked and sometimes unique needs of all of HRM - especially the capital district. But that not what this is.

This is a committee of five back bench government MLAs who are having challenges in their own ridings. It's reported that at least one of those members has been claiming in their constituency they will be in cabinet very soon. It's a committee established to solely represent the interests of a part of HRM that downtown proponents often suggest contribute to urban sprawl.

Why set up a committee in a way that may only exacerbate the conflict between different parts of HRM?
The introduction of the "team" trumpeted three new laws. None of of those bills has anything to do with this team. A bill to prevent prohibitions on clotheslines has been a desire of Howard Epstein (not on this team) for years. The bills to allow buses right of way and to allow HRM to finance solar heating systems (but not other municipalities in the province) are direct requests of HRM.

The legislature chicken and cat debates can't be far off...

Stay tuned.

Minister Thinks He's Santa Claus - And That's The Problem

There's a problem with how Nova Scotia's NDP government approaches promises. It starts with the fact the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal thinks he's Santa Claus.

At first it was thought to be a bit of a joke. 

On April 28, 2010 Minister Estabrooks said "when it comes to this time of year, the Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal Minister often feels a bit like Santa Claus, because everyone is interested in what gift they're going to get under the tree and the gift arrives in the form of a tender."

But it seems the minister is more serious than previously thought.

Let me step back a bit and give this story some context...

In January 2009, the Nova Scotia government announced the Burnside Expressway - a long awaited four lane, $35 million highway connector - would proceed. In April 2009 then provincial Minister Angus MacIssac and federal Minister Peter MacKay announced a cost sharing deal that would split the cost of the project evenly. A completion date of 2011 was announced. 

The expressway is a critical piece of infrastructure needed for safety and to meet industrial and commercial demands of the province and Burnside. It's one of the approved elements of the Atlantic Gateway. During public consultations no one questioned the need for the roadway and previous NDP members were among those of all levels of government, and all parties, who lobbied for the project.

However, yesterday in Question Period I asked Minister Bill Estabrooks about the status of the Burnside Expressway and he would not commit to the project. It was intended to be a fairly easy question. A question just to confirm the project was still on schedule for 2011 completion. It became anything but.

After question period, I was contacted by a variety of sources who pointed out that federal funding for the Burnside Expressway may be at risk if the project is not completed on time. That could mean a loss of $17.5 million to Nova Scotia taxpayers. 

The possible loss of $17.5 million concerned me even more. So I asked the minister about it during today's Question Period. The minister simply complained that no one had lobbied him for the project to continue and asked why he should worry about it.

Were we supposed to give him some milk and cookies?

Up until the April 2009 confirmation that the project was funded and confirmed, many businesses and individuals including NDP members, the Greater Burnside Business Association, and members of Halifax Regional Council including me lobbied for this project. 

Once project funding had been approved why would anyone think they'd need to continue lobbying. After all, there was a firm completion date. Funding was in place. Owners of businesses went back to work and focused on their own business. People had no reason to believe the project was in jeopardy, after all as of today even the government website still offered a 2011 completion date.

The fact is, not only was the project funded and a time line committed, but the minister's office has said nothing to the business community to suggest the project was delayed, or that it may not happen. That is not the way to treat the many Nova Scotians and businesses who have been eagerly awaiting the project's completion (or even start). 

It also directly breaks a promise by the man who is now premier.

On May 13, 2009 the Chronicle Herald reported on a promise by now Premier Darrell Dexter to honour any commitments made by the previous Tory government. The 2011 completion of the Burnside Expressway was one very clear commitment.

The NDP not only promised to honour the commitments of the previous government, but also promised to take politics out of construction projects. Now the minister in charge of those projects thinks infrastructure investments should be done by writing pretty notes on the back of napkins or playing to the minister's ego.

And that is the crux of the problem. 

The minister could have said in Question Period that issues have arisen which have unavoidably delayed the project. People would be upset, but would likely understand if the reasons were legitimate. These things happen. 

Instead, Minister Estabrooks confirmed the NDP really hasn't taken the politics out of infrastructure projects. 

Reinforced by comments such as those today, and those we hear so often from ministers like Minister Estabrooks like "I don't have any adding machine to total it up - but we will see what happens when those tenders cross Santa Claus' desk" (April 28, 2010)

Why Remembrance Day Matters Even If You Hate War

I have met and talked with a lot of Veterans and service people over the years. Maybe that comes from growing up in Dartmouth. Halifax-Dartmouth has a long military history and so you can't help but see the many faces of the Canadian Forces.


No Veteran or current service person has ever told me how great war is. Yes, I've heard battlefield stories about comraderie, meeting wives, and the moments of joy that punctuated war and conflict. But none have ever said that war is a good thing.

In fact there are many Veterans who will not speak of the horrors of war and conflict. Most will tell you about how we must remember the past to help us avoid future conflicts.

Every day men and women answer the call of duty in the Canadian Forces to serve in places around the world. They answer the call of their country doing jobs many of us wouldn't be willing to do.

Veterans and service people have put their lives on the line in past world wars for many reasons but at least in part to defend the right of Canadians and others to be able to publicly state different opinions without fear of reprisal. Even different opinions on war, conflict, and the role of the military.

We must also never fail to remember that the role of the Canadian Forces is diverse. Our service men and women do all the obvious things a military does. But they also lead search and rescue efforts, provide humanitarian relief efforts in Canada and around the world, do work in fisheries monitoring and protection, and so many other things we so easily forget about.

The military is part of our community.

Peace and diplomacy must always be the first choice. There is nothing wrong with debates about the role of the Canadian Forces or what our role should be - if any - in conflicts around the world.
But this should not tarnish the memories of those who have died and those who on this very day serve around the world in the name of Canada.

Remembrance Day must be about remembering those who have served our country in honour and service on our behalf and the desire they have, like I hope we all have, for peace.

Political Sewer Pipe From Carleton County

If you watch parliament or the legislature you’ve no doubt witnessed the verbal sparring and heckling that’s become a part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition. Some days you’d figure anything goes.

Last week’s opening of the Nova Scotia legislature not only got me thinking about decorum and in particular about a book my colleague Wayne Gaudet showed me which includes a list for parliamentarians on what can and cannot be said. The list is continuously updated with rulings by parliamentary speakers throughout the Commonwealth.

Perhaps the most famous phrase contributed by Canada to the banned list is Pierre Trudeau’s famous “Fuddle Duddle” in 1971.

Some banned words are obvious – liar (1959), racist (oddly enough banned only in 1986), jerk (1980), sleazebag (1984), and scuzzball (1988).

However, some words and phrases stricken from the language of parliamentarians make you wonder about the story behind them. In 2007 calling someone a “weathervane” was banned. While back in 1881 saying someone is “inspired by four-rod whiskey” was deemed equally inappropriate.

Also on the list are from saying someone “has come into the world by accident” (1886), is a “trained seal” (1961), is a “bag of wind” (1878), or is an “evil genius” (1962).

One of the most intriguing ones to me is a banned phrase which I presume originates from the New Brunswick legislature, that is calling someone a “Political Sewer Pipe From Carleton County”. For those who don’t know, this is the area which is home to the world’s longest covered bridge in Hartland.

Apparently though it’s still ok to call someone a political sewer pipe from any other county in Canada. Just like it’s apparently ok to call someone a trained sheep. 

Well, at least until a speaker somewhere rules otherwise.