News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

It's an opportunity to build a showpiece that genuinely reflects Canadian values:

1) strict environmental goals.
2) Local materials
3) involve local indigenous heritage and architecture
4) design for hospitality
5) engage the public by getting them to vote on designs

Take it out of the hands of the politicians. Let the NCC run a proper design competition. They can pre-qualify bidders and designers as necessary for security reasons. And they can put in a classified security annex to the bids as necessary.
 
Walmart and penny-pinchers won't like like...

Liberals pledge revamp of forced-labour bill, possible enforcement rules surprise MP

From link.

The Trudeau government is revamping its approach to modern-day slavery, promising new legislation that caught off guard the Liberal MP who has been steering a bill on forced labour through Parliament.

"There is a limited lifespan to this Parliament," Toronto MP John McKay said in an interview.

McKay has been stickhandling Bill S-211, which would update Canada's laws of forced labour and child labour in supply chains.

The bill is nearing its final phase before becoming law as soon as this month. It would require Canadian firms and government departments to scrutinize supply chains, with the aim of protecting workers.

Firms would have to check that none of their products or components are made in sweatshops employing children or people forced to work excessive hours for free or for paltry pay, and issue reports.

The bill was first tabled in the upper chamber by Sen. Julie Miville-Dechêne, whose office did not respond to an interview request.

Miville-Dechêne has previously warned that products including coffee, cocoa and sugar cane may be linked to child labour or made in factories in the Xinjiang region of China where members of the Uyghur community are forced to work.

The bill has been criticized by the NDP, Bloc Québécois and human-rights advocates for imposing only a duty to report instead of actually weeding out things like child labour.

They argue the reporting requirement falls short of the Liberals' platform commitment "to eradicate forced labour from Canadian supply chains."

McKay said that's the result of what is politically possible, and would introduce more transparency in Canada than many other countries.

"It's where you're coming from to where you're going to, and right now we're at Ground Zero, because we have no legislation," he said, arguing consumers and bankers could use the information to pressure corporations.

"Hopefully with some generation of the information we could move to more onerous pieces of legislation, where companies who don't comply expose themselves to lawsuits," said McKay, who said his government hadn't informed him of what the new bill will entail.

Labour Minister Seamus O'Regan was not available for an interview for three days during the Liberals' post-budget tour.

But his office said the intent of the new legislation is to create an impetus for firms and governments to actually act when they identify an instance of forced labour.

"We're eradicating forced labour from Canadian supply chains," O'Regan said in a supplied statement.

"My job is to make sure we draft the most effective legislation possible that not only identifies these goods, but has the teeth to act on them. It will send a clear message to the world: forced labour has no place in Canada."

McKay said he hopes O'Regan tables something fast.

"I would hope that he would introduce whatever he has in mind sooner than later," he said.

"He's clear that he wants to do something that is fairly robust, and I'm doing nothing but encouraging him to do so."

The Uyghur Rights Advocacy Project has called Bill S-221 "weak legislation" and argued that Canada already has tools and obligations under the Customs Act to prevent goods made through slavery from entering supply chains.

"As other governments are making strides in addressing goods produced by the use of Uyghur forced labour, Canada is falling behind," the group wrote in a news release on March 28.

"Responses to this topic have ranged from denial of a problem to limitations in Canadian law, to lack of access to information."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published April 8, 2023.
 
It's an opportunity to build a showpiece that genuinely reflects Canadian values:

1) strict environmental goals.
2) Local materials
3) involve local indigenous heritage and architecture
4) design for hospitality
5) engage the public by getting them to vote on designs

Take it out of the hands of the politicians. Let the NCC run a proper design competition. They can pre-qualify bidders and designers as necessary for security reasons. And they can put in a classified security annex to the bids as necessary.
It would be, but we don't do 'opportunity' particularly well.
1) Absolutely
2) Easily done. I imagine the current building was also locally sourced since that's the way things were built back then.
3) I wonder what Algonquin "architecture", being a nomadic/semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer culture, would look like. Involve or include elements, sure, but you know that every other indigenous and non-indigenous part of Canadian culture will want to be reflected and acknowledged.
4) Sure.
5) Sounds like a very big committee.

Absolutely it has to be taken out of the hands of the politicians. At the end of the day, it's a government building - admittedly a very significant one - but they should have no more input on this then they would have on a CAF, CRA or RCMP building.
 
At the end of the day, it's a government building - admittedly a very significant one - but they should have no more input on this then they would have on a CAF, CRA or RCMP building.
This is the current state of affairs. The NCC is in charge of the house, but like the CAF, CRA, or RCMP, the funding still flows from the government.
 


We%27re_All_Trying_To_Find_The_Guy_Who_Did_This_banner_1.jpg
 
This is the current state of affairs. The NCC is in charge of the house, but like the CAF, CRA, or RCMP, the funding still flows from the government.
Do you envision an alternative to the government paying for government infrastructure? I suppose some kind of P3 arrangement but there are certain public assets that private interests shouldn't have a hand in.
 
It's an opportunity to build a showpiece that genuinely reflects Canadian values:

1) strict environmental goals.
2) Local materials
3) involve local indigenous heritage and architecture
4) design for hospitality
5) engage the public by getting them to vote on designs

Take it out of the hands of the politicians. Let the NCC run a proper design competition. They can pre-qualify bidders and designers as necessary for security reasons. And they can put in a classified security annex to the bids as necessary.

Thoroughly agree - though I am sure they have the case study of the new Canadian embassy in Germany in mind. I would definitely take the public out of any official vote (because that's how you get Boaty McBoatface) - but otherwise involve the public with an open process.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I would definitely take the public out of any official vote (because that's how you get Boaty McBoatface) - but otherwise involve the public with an open process.

LOL. Fair point about trolling by the public.

I am a fan of public participation and engagement. I suspect a lot of the issues we have are partly because we don't engage and educate the public on the importance of these issues.
 
LOL. Fair point about trolling by the public.

I am a fan of public participation and engagement. I suspect a lot of the issues we have are partly because we don't engage and educate the public on the importance of these issues.

Information should definitely be available to the public to the maximum extent possible (keeping in mind security concerns) - and indeed the public should be encouraged to learn about the project, but I don't think they should be making choices in this instance. It will inevitably get bogged down - when it frankly should be a simple executive decision informed by experts.

AoD
 
Thoroughly agree - though I am sure they have the case study of the new Canadian embassy in Germany in mind. I would definitely take the public out of any official vote (because that's how you get Boaty McBoatface) - but otherwise involve the public with an open process.

AoD

As I said before, you would also get the woke element in the voting if you did that.

Not to sound insensitive but everyone and their uncle would be saying you cannot do this, or you cannot use that because it may be offensive, sacred or otherwise unwelcome.

Public votes are a nice idea but when you have 30 million opinions nothing will get done, certainly not if things become polarized.
 
Population growth of a million. Quarter million housing starts. What could go wrong?


We just punted the problem to "private sector" and left it at that. Seriously, what this country need is a genuine national housing policy (but instead we got this unending fed/prov dysfunction).

AoD
 
We just punted the problem to "private sector" and left it at that. Seriously, what this country need is a genuine national housing policy (but instead we got this unending fed/prov dysfunction).

AoD

Governments at all levels have become addicted (and I don't use this word loosely) to high home prices. Everybody focuses on the feds. But average GTA SFH development pays ~$180k in development charges. And if it's not financial, then the political aversion to declining home prices is certainly there. This is why all our discussions on housing these days focus on some amorphous concept of "affordable housing" where nobody ever actually talks about what prices are affordable and what housing would be provided for those prices. This way every politician can claim they support affordable housing without actually delivering housing stock that the average person would consider affordable and appropriate.
 
As I said before, you would also get the woke element in the voting if you did that.

Not to sound insensitive but everyone and their uncle would be saying you cannot do this, or you cannot use that because it may be offensive, sacred or otherwise unwelcome.

Public votes are a nice idea but when you have 30 million opinions nothing will get done, certainly not if things become polarized.

You keep going on about woke. What exactly does that mean in the context of building an official residence? Or letting the public simply vote on competing designs?
 

Back
Top