06-11-2012, 11:16 AM
|
#1
|
First Line Centre
|
Bill C-38, the omnibus budget bill
Quote:
Bill C-38, introduced in the House last week, calls itself, innocuously, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures.” The bill does implement certain budget provisions, it is true: for example, the controversial changes to Old Age Security. But “and other measures” rather understates matters — to understate the matter.
The bill runs to more than 420 pages. It amends some 60 different acts, repeals half a dozen, and adds three more, including a completely rewritten Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It ranges far beyond the traditional budget concerns of taxing and spending, making changes in policy across a number of fields from immigration (among other changes, it erases at a stroke the entire backlog of applications under the skilled worker program), to telecommunications (opening the door, slightly, to foreign ownership), to land codes on native reservations.
The environmental chapters are the most extraordinary. Along with the new Act, they give cabinet broader power to override decisions of the National Energy Board, shorten the list of protected species, and abolish the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act — among “other measures.” For much of this the first public notice was its inclusion in the bill.
So this is not remotely a budget bill, despite its name. It is what is known as an omnibus bill. If you want to know how far Parliament has fallen, how little real oversight it now exercises over government, this should give you a clue.
|
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/ful...ent-has-fallen
King Stephen may as well dissolve Parliament. He rules as though it doesn't exist.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:29 AM
|
#2
|
Franchise Player
|
You mean a majority government is changing existing legislation? has that ever happened before?
Also, the government is allowing more than 800 ammendments to go to a vote in the house? why bother allowing that?
/sarcasm
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Jacks For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:32 AM
|
#3
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: I'm right behind you
|
They should just start referring to the bill as the "Hypocrite act." Harper railed against the Liberals because they wanted to pass a budget of 24 pages and then he wants to pass a budget superbill that is 420 pages long.
__________________
Don't fear me. Trust me.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:38 AM
|
#4
|
Franchise Player
|
I am disappointed that Harper, after rallying against the concentration of power in the PMO just took Chretien's initiatives and kept going.
I think we need some mechinisms in the house to ensure that discussion and dialouge takes place on each piece of critical legislation. A majority should still be able to do what it wants but it needs to be done in front of the public eye.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:40 AM
|
#5
|
Franchise Player
|
The size of the bill is pretty silly but all of it would be passed anyway. The idea that Harper is acting like a dictator is pretty silly though. They are acting within the existing rules and precedent. Parliament still has the power, unfortunately for some peoples favorite party don't have as many votes as they like.
Everything is/has been open for debate and the debate is available to anyone who wants to read Hansard or who wants to visit the house.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:45 AM
|
#6
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
I'd hardly say anything is ever actually "up for debate" when the party who wants to pass the legislation has had everyone fall in line for almost every vote to date. It basically is a one-sided argument. If there was even the slightest hope the PCs wouldn't vote along party lines maybe there would be a debate. But when you have a majority, you don't really need a debate.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:51 AM
|
#7
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
It basically is a one-sided argument. If there was even the slightest hope the PCs wouldn't vote along party lines maybe there would be a debate. But when you have a majority, you don't really need a debate.
|
Yes, because the other parties won't vote along party lines right?
The gun registry vote wasn't even a confidence vote yet the NDP kicked a member out of caucus for not voting the party line.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:52 AM
|
#8
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
abolish the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act
|
Oh my god, we totally have to fight to save this, I vote that we riot.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:55 AM
|
#9
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Yes, because the other parties won't vote along party lines right?
The gun registry vote wasn't even a confidence vote yet the NDP kicked a member out of caucus for not voting the party line.
|
tu quoque
translation: irrelevant argument
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:56 AM
|
#10
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
i love partisan politics. harper is acting like a crooked liberal but its ok because the color of his campaign sign was blue.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:56 AM
|
#11
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacks
Yes, because the other parties won't vote along party lines right?
The gun registry vote wasn't even a confidence vote yet the NDP kicked a member out of caucus for not voting the party line.
|
I didn't say other parites don't vote the party line. All parties do this, which is what makes politics so annoying. And for the PCs, the advantages of a majority include being able to pass any legislation they want without any interference. Hence any "debates" are essential just pro forma to the end result which is essentially known before any debate occurs.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 11:58 AM
|
#12
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Bottom line is this. The Conservations are lumping major pieces of legislation and policy change into the Budget Implementation Act as a means to avoid actual debate and the spending of political capital. This is quasi-democratic and a total departure from their previous positions when in opposition. The scale of policy change should make any Canadian blush. This is a circumvention of the parliamentary system and should be held to account.
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Tinordi For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:00 PM
|
#13
|
First Line Centre
|
The Liberals have offered a reasonable and sensible compromise. How dare they!
Quote:
The Liberals would like to hive off four main areas Bill C-38. The first deals with the environment. Clause 52, for example, is an entire act in itself called Canada Environment Assessment Act 2012, Mr. Garneau said. “To put all of this in one clause in a budget implementation bill is totally unacceptable.”
The second area the Liberals want taken out deals with fisheries. “There are changes to the Fisheries Act that will have impact to coastal areas, to coastal economies, and this bill is important enough that the clauses dealing with fisheries should be broken out of Bill C-38,” Mr. Garneau said.
The third section they want removed deals with Old Age Security. The government intends to raise the age that Canadians can collect OAS to 67 from 65. But, according to the bill, this will not happen for 11 years. “So the argument of urgency does not apply here,” Mr. Garneau said.
And the fourth section deals with changes to Employment Insurance.
“We won’t fight other issues,” Mr. Garneau said. “We have 753 clauses here. We have left 250 in there. Those deal with budget implementation. We have no problem with that. But these four areas are particularly important.”
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4246932/
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:02 PM
|
#14
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
tu quoque
translation: irrelevant argument
|
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.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:05 PM
|
#15
|
First Line Centre
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Oh my god, we totally have to fight to save this, I vote that we riot.
|
Wow Captain. You've gotten lazy and partisan. I'm disappointed.
This is an important issue and all you can come up with is a shot at Kyoto? There's much more at stake.
I guess you're fine with the rest of the Bill and would support the legislation if the Liberals had drafted it?
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:06 PM
|
#16
|
Often Thinks About Pickles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Okotoks
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I'd hardly say anything is ever actually "up for debate" when the party who wants to pass the legislation has had everyone fall in line for almost every vote to date. It basically is a one-sided argument. If there was even the slightest hope the PCs wouldn't vote along party lines maybe there would be a debate. But when you have a majority, you don't really need a debate.
|
This is something new in Parliament? I didn't realize that the CP party is the only majority party to impliment this diabolical plan! Damn those Cons!!!
Cue the line up for the Conservative Party / Harper bashing... everybody get in line now... no pushing and shoving ok?
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:09 PM
|
#17
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland State House, Annapolis
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
This is something new in Parliament? I didn't realize that the CP party is the only majority party to impliment this diabolical plan! Damn those Cons!!!
Cue the line up for the Conservative Party / Harper bashing... everybody get in line now... no pushing and shoving ok?
|
Glad you saw my follow up post saying all political parties do this....But forgive me, facts always get in the way of a good post/argument.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:12 PM
|
#18
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
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.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:28 PM
|
#19
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
Wow Captain. You've gotten lazy and partisan. I'm disappointed.
|
lol. Said the pot to the kettle.
|
|
|
06-11-2012, 12:29 PM
|
#20
|
Often Thinks About Pickles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Okotoks
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
Glad you saw my follow up post saying all political parties do this....But forgive me, facts always get in the way of a good post/argument.
|
Didn't see your follow up post... my bad.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:43 PM.
|
|