A bad precedent - Macleans.ca

A bad precedent


Conservative MP Larry Miller suggests opposition complaints about the size of this year’s omnibus budget bills are not to be taken seriously because he “never heard a peep out of them” when the budget bill in 2010 was 900 pages.

It is possible that Mr. Miller didn’t hear anything, but it would not be accurate to thus presume that the omnibus nature of C-9 passed without a peep. Here, for instance, is a rudimentary search of Hansard that shows the omnibus nature of the bill was at least noted. There were two attempts to split that bill—one in the House, one in the Senate—but the Liberals were loath to initiate an election. Ultimately, the bill passed the Senate intact.

That said, Mr. Miller has something of a point: the consternation expressed about C-38 this spring (and again this fall with C-45) seemed orders of magnitude larger than the reaction that met previous bills. That probably has something to do with the fact that a majority government situation makes it easier to oppose. And had there been more attention paid to previous budget bills, the fight against omnibus legislation now might be easier. (If, for instance, you imagine that continued fights over omnibus legislation will ultimately force some kind of compromise, it’s possible that a greater fight two years ago might mean compromise that much sooner. That is, if you believe that this year’s fights over C-38 and C-45 have had, or will have, some impact.)


A bad precedent

  1. “The Bruce Grey Owen Sound Conservative MP says they are playing politics
    and claims the Tories outlined a lot of the changes during the last
    Federal Election campaign…”

    I’m pretty sure that’s a lie. Where can someone find evidence of these changes to the laws affecting the environment? No one said a peep about it around where i live.

    “…While opponents say new regulations on the environment reduce the
    number of protected lakes and rivers dramatically, Miller says that’s
    not true.

    He says only 159 lakes or rivers are named because they are the only ones affected by the changes.”

    So, is Miller actually claiming the changes to or outright appeal over 70 odd environmental laws and regs apply ONLY to those 159 lakes and rivers? That’s absurd. It is also another ridiculous lie!

    No wonder Harper only allows his backbench to read pitifully partisan CT propaganda statements, if MilLer is any indication of the general IQ level.

    • Slightly off-topic, but RE: Navigable Waters Act: If it’s about navigation, exactly WHO is navigating all those lakes in the Muskokas? Are lakers full of coal floating by Goldie Hawn’s house these days?

      • Since it wasn’t about simply navigation , what’s your point?

        • I know what it’s about, but the Tories have been saying both in the House and in media that it’s *only* about navigation. Thus the name change.

          You should probably re-read comments before you get snarky, especially when the commenter is agreeing with you. Geez.

          • Sorry…force of habit.

          • :)