The dog ate the minister’s homework


The omnibus crime bill is apparently being rushed through the House too fast for the Public Safety Minister.

In a strange twist Tuesday, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews tried to change the government’s own omnibus crime legislation by introducing a number of amendments, only to have the Speaker of the House rule them as inadmissible.

Speaker Andrew Scheer said the six amendments, all related to victims of terrorism suing perpetrators and foreign states that sponsor such acts, should have been introduced at the committee level instead of during the final stages of approval.


The dog ate the minister’s homework

  1. if the liberals had ever tried what these pricks are now doing, they would be calling for a coup.

  2. But they’ve had seven year – SEVEN YEARS – the Conservative will scream incessantly, to debate these days.  That’s too much, except if you’re a Con minister and were otherwise occupied.

    • Or maybe it was five years – whatever – who cares about numbers and money and sh.t like that.  There is not point of debating bills or studying them at committee. 

    • And what, pray tell, was Vic Toews occupied with during that time? ;-)

      • Juggling his ex-wife and mistress?

    • I said it once, 
       and it was 7 years debating the Long Gun Registry and CWB,
      nothing to do with renewing the terrorism legislation.

      In the case of the terrorism amendments Minister Toews was not on top of the situation and deserves criticism.
      I am sure he will get an earfull of it.

  3. They obviously thought The Speaker was in their back pocket, but unlike the GG the guy actually showed some backbone.  

    • When would that have been W.B. The last time I saw GG he was give Steve Harper some whopping congratulatory fist-pump on his way to get his picture taken with the Con caucus. Steve’s also got him in his pocket.

      • Ooops, bad morning. I misread your comment and I’m in full agreement with you. Sorry about that — I should take a moment to digest before flying of the handle.

        • It`s understandable. You have been reading Wherry for too long. Just like him the obsessive paranoia takes over and it becomes a reflex reaction to lash out without digesting first.

          • You wish. I’ve still got my critical faculties working. Thanks for the drive-by smear.

          • I certainly did not mean it as a drive-by smear.

            My point was that whether it be Angus hurrying out to accuse Clement of forgery, or the opp. accusing Oda of changing a decision by inserting ” not “, or the constant searching of the above writer for anything that might look bad on the government, it`s stupid, it`s petty and it`s counter-productive to your cause. The people will just write you off as being petty.

          • Thanks for the clarification. Please accept my apologies.

          • Or Den del Mastro suggesting that the CBC is hiding executive expenses under journalistic exemptions? Or Peter Mackay suggesting any question about defence implies disloyalty to the Forces? Or Peter Kent calling Opposition opinions on international climate change negotiations treachery? You mean that kind of petty?

          • Sure.

      • My feeling is the Sheer is showing some distinct signs of fatigue with the government and Conservative side and their modus operandi.

  4. Parliament isn’t just about debate, it’s about improving legislation that is brought forward. When the Conservatives preclude even the idea that someone else might have a contribution to the legislation, they not only reject input by Opposition parties or Senators, they deny all Canadians, including those represented by Conservative members, any input or involvement. In other words, this behaviour isn’t just dickish, it’s anti-democratic.

  5. Can the Conservatives please use this as evidence that their approach is faulty? Is this really too much to ask? This isn’t even opposition driven — no scandal mongering, no tempest in a teapot, no ‘opposition obstructionism’ — it’s just a flat-out screw-up because you’re going about this all wrong.

  6. This actually puts a lot more pressure on the Senate study, which was already going to be rushed, because they’ll have to introduce and debate these amendments, and then send it back to the house for approval. They’ll be under that much more pressure from PMO (who don’t want to have to keep the house sitting and giving their opponents a soapbox while the Senate debates) and their caucus colleagues on the house side (who will want to go home).

    There are fourteen Conservative Senators to keep an eye on (thirteen if you don’t count Maj. Lebretton, who is certainly Harper’s girl at this point).

    These are the Mulroney Senators who were oft heard to Lament the treatment of the chamber of sober second thought as a rubber stamp for rushed legislation in the Chretien days. The ones who wept for the days when the Senate stood for ‘good policy, not good politics’.

    My bet is that they will reveal themselves to be hypocrites.This will be more shameful for some than others – and they know who they are.

    • Ahhh.. I was wondering how he’d manage to kill this bill so he could keep it on the campaign trail.  It’s going to be the obstructionist senate + prorogue routine again, is it?

      • Haha, good point. It never occurred to me that Harper has nothing to gain from actually putting forth his dogmatic legislation. His aim is to maintain power, and get more money. Although putting into place police-state laws seems frighteningly parallel to those goals.

      • The only problem with the obstructionist Senate is that there is already a (strong, stable) Conservative majority in that place.

        More likely it will serve as an excuse to immediately fill the 5 vacant seats with Harper partisans to ensure the speedy passage of government priorities.

        A perusal of today’s media shows the trial balloons are going up in preparation for this move.

        • You say that as if it matters for the sound-byte.

        • Make that 6 seats as Senator Fox announces his retirement.

Sign in to comment.