Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
If you say so.
Is the use of an omnibus bill hypocritical? yes.
Is it a subversion of democracy? hardly.
Does it deprive the opposition the opportunity to grandstand? yes.
|
I know so. Tu quoque logical fallacy. Look it up.
Otherwise, it's a clear subversion of our parliamentary system, especially parliamentary committees. I think only the most partisan and mindless of supporters see no problem with lumping in major policy planks to a function that has been reserved for apportioning monies.
Coyne, as usual, says it best:
Quote:
My point is not that any of the bill’s provisions are good or bad in themselves (that’s the kind of thing committee hearings and debate often help to clarify). Nor is there anything unlawful in any of this, so far as I’m aware. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “it appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms” for a bill to amend more than one act; Speakers have generally refused appeals to divide them.
But there’s a limit. What is lawful may nevertheless be illegitimate, especially where fundamental issues of Parliamentary government are in play. For, in combination with so many recent abuses, from prorogation to the F-35s, that is what is at stake here.
That Parliament has lost control of the public purse is now a commonplace. Governments routinely spend billions more than they were budgeted. Estimates are voted through without serious scrutiny. Funds that were approved for the construction of, say, border infrastructure end up being spent on, say, gazebos hundreds of miles away.
But the increasing use of these omnibills extends Parliament’s powerlessness in all directions: it has become, if you will, omnimpotent — a ceremonial body, little more. What is worse, it cannot even seem to rouse itself to its own defence.
|
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...nt-has-fallen/
And Coyne is about as small 'c' conservative as they come.