It’s the opposition’s fault that these omnibus bills exist, apparently

On CBC radio’s The House this weekend, Evan Solomon interviewed Jim Flaherty. During that interview, Solomon raised Stephen Harper’s 1994 point of order about omnibus legislation and asked Mr. Flaherty what had changed since then. Mr. Flaherty responded as follows.

Well, you know, what has changed is that it’s very, very difficult to get a piece of legislation through the House of Commons because of the obstreperous nature of the opposition and so we need to, you know, make sure in the budget—it’s like, the budget itself is 473 pages, which I delivered on March 29. So we took half of it and we did it in the first budget bill. The other half we do in the second budget bill. There are no surprises, it’s all part of jobs, growth and prosperity for the government of Canada. It’s our agenda and we’re a majority government, we’re entitled to advance our agenda. I know the opposition doesn’t like that and good luck to them in the next election.




Browse

It’s the opposition’s fault that these omnibus bills exist, apparently

  1. Maybe the opposition wouldn’t be so obstreperous if you’d stop with things like omnibus bills, Jim.

    Kudos on ‘obstreperous’, though… that’s a good one.

    • It’s a circular argument, classic in fact. Yeesh! Is there no one out there who’s good with the numbers AND thinking above the level of HS partisan?.

      • Hell, if we had a Minister of Finance who was good at either it’d be an improvement.

      • Now be fair… no HS partisan is gonna drop an ‘obstreperous’ on you…

        • Good point. He went to Harvaaard didn’t he? Some ivy league hot house anyway. Must a been a an honours student at least. Or maybe he picked it up while moonlightling in his cab?

          • Could be, maybe one of his fares was being obstreperous.

  2. Unless the over 60% of Canadian voters and all the non-voters decide they have enough of the lack of respect for their democratic rights shown by the Conservatives, we will continue to have this abuse by Harper and his gang for many more years. In my most cynical moments, I wonder why we even bother sending MPs to Ottawa but I keep hoping that we will eventually get a government that will represent most Canadians, not just 38% of them.

  3. Ah, Jim, entitled to your entitlements, are you?

    Incidentally, the MP Pension reform bill refutes your entire argument.

  4. Flaherty subtext: non Conservative voters need to elect far more non stroppy cooperative members of Parliament or lots more folks like him. Flaherty’s political slip is showing.

  5. Funny how it’s hard to get these things passed when you have a subservient caucus and a majority in the HoC, eh Jim?
    Or could it be that dividing it would force MPs to address singular issues with their constituents – and thus be less inclined to obediently follow the CPC party line. That pesky ol’ accountability getting in the way again?
    Pure pantload.

    • That’s an interesting point. Dividing up the bill might well provide almost as many problems for con mps as it would opportunities for opposition ones. Funny how democracy when it gets a chance to work almost seems like it was designed to look out for the greatest common good.

  6. “Well, you know, what has changed is that it’s very, very difficult to get a piece of legislation through the House of Commons [...]”

    Dearest Jim,

    You have a majority. This means that it doesn’t matter how unruly or boisterous the opposition gets; it’s mathematically impossible to make it any easier to get the government’s legislation through the House than it currently is.

    So just stop with the excuses.

    xoxo
    - Don

    • Flaherty hasn’t made the adjustment from minority yet; some would say he hasn’t made the any adjustment from provincial to federal politics either for that matter.

  7. They have a majority.

    Oh, and what about Mrs. Flaherty’s shares in Scotiabank?

  8. Really what Flaherty is saying here is that differing views, debate, hearings, committee review and compromise add no value to proposed legislation or government planning.He seems to believe in elections (albeit with historically tepid support for election laws) but nothing else that resembles parliamentary democracy.
    Square that with his government’s propaganda about royal this and royal that and beating back the American invasion of 1812. He is, for all intents and purposes an American republican if not an actual Republican.

    • No, no! He’s fine with all that other stuff…when he’s in opposition. Right now it’s just too darn inefficient.

  9. The Cons have a majority in both the House and the Senate, a
    compliant, subservient caucus, a fragmented opposition including a party
    currently without a leader and a party laden with rookie MPs. And yet, this
    opposition represents an “obstreperous” impediment to their
    legislative agenda.

    The little leprechaun is so full of sh!t.

    • Or perhaps just that incompetent.

  10. Yeah, good luck obstructive opposition.
    Canadians will always choose a constructive government.

    Here`s a piece of free advice opposition—Quit trying to satisfy the 2% of the population that are as a rabid as the typical Wherry fan above.

    What a terrible opposition we have.

Sign in to comment.