A Week on the Hill

Elizabeth May

The week was dominated by the little
things.  Finally getting into our
office on Monday- after the vote for the Speaker on Thursday and the Speech
from the Throne on Friday.  Finding
my seat in the House on Thursday, in the back corner of the Opposition
benches.  There are 308 Members of
Parliament.  In some magical way,
my seat is 309.  Somehow it reminds
me of Platform 9 ¾.     

The week also involved the big things.  Figuring out how to work with the rest
of my fellow Parliamentarians, as I am determined to avoid making assumptions
about people who ran under different coloured banners.  Making connections through social
gatherings and between debates. 
And finding ways to speak far more often than pundits had expected.  So far in six days of sitting, I have
been recognized by the Speaker four times.  More than most in any party. 

The biggest news of the week was the
long-awaited report of the Auditor General (AG).  Too bad the government was defeated before the AG report
came out.  It was due in April but delayed by the election.  As an officer of Parliament, when that
body is not in session, no report can be presented.

The issue most seized upon by the rest of
the Opposition was the so-called G8 Legacy Infrastructure Fund. The government
told Parliament that money they wanted for Tony Clement’s riding (a
multi-million “thank you” for hosting the G8) was for "Border
Infrastructure"  -- to reduce congestion at borders.  Thus, $50 million was approved for
border infrastructure without telling Parliament the intended plan was to spend
it 300 km from any border. Making matters worse, there was no accountability in
the process of how to spend the money.  Tony Clement told the mayors in
the Huntsville area to come up with projects and they approved them with no
paper trail indicating criteria, weighing of benefits, any possible
rationale.  They just doled out the money.   That's what paid
for the washrooms that were miles from the summit, the gazebo, the famous steamboat,
flowers and fountains and on and on (although the “fake lake” came from a
different fund).

Amazingly, the Prime Minister told Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae in Question Period
that if Rae had been more familiar with the Border Infrastructure Fund, he
would have known that money gets spent away from the border a lot of the

Meanwhile, the AG also found that the G20
meeting costs had been massively over-estimated
The picture that is painted is one of last minute, panicked decision
making.  And no wonder.   The G8 summit planning had begun
in spring 2008.  The decision to
add on a second, more complicated summit of the G20 was made more than a year
later – in fall 2009.  There was
less than a year to plan for the Toronto G20.  The Auditor General’s audit functions merely drilled down on
how the money was spent.  It
determined that over one billion was budgeted for a summit that cost far less
in the end  -- $661 million.  Of course $661 million is far more than
other governments have ever spent in hosting the G20.  The early mistakes and rushed decisions led to over one
million being spent to reserve the Toronto Convention centre, even though it
was never used.  Panic and a blank
cheque lead to wasted money.

What I hope we
can get to in the House of Commons is a discussion of the G20 that goes beyond
wasted money.  Why did we offer to
host a June 2010 G20 at all when there was already a regularly scheduled G20
for November 2010 in South Korea (one that took place a few months after the Toronto
fiasco)?  Why did the federal
government fail to consult the Toronto municipal leaders about where the G20
leaders should meet?  Why were they
in downtown Toronto?

fundamentally, we need to investigate the abuses of civil liberties.

Why were police told to allow vandalism, without
interference or arrest, but to charge and arrest people who were
non-violent?  The practices employed by the Toronto police, creating cordons and
“sweeping the streets,” appear very similar to those of the London police
during the 2009 G20 meetings, which resulted in false arrests and charges of
police brutality in the UK. Charges were dropped as UK juries found alleged
provocateurs were innocent bystanders caught up in the melee.  Can we
learn lessons from the over-militarized approach to security and the
possibility that such displays of militarized force increase the risk of
violent clashes?  Can we learn from the Toronto Summit and provide advice
to other governments of the best way forward to balance the needs for freedom
of expression, protection of private and public property, and security for the
leaders themselves?

Due to the serious allegations of
unacceptable erosion of civil liberties connected with the summit, the Green
Party has called for a public inquiry

Canadians deserve to know why the summit cost so much, accomplished so
little and left an impression of Toronto as war zone. 

We now know how money was wasted.  We still need to know why the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms was collateral damage.  The second question is more critical than the first.