But because the House was prorogued before the messages could be officially received, the bills were still technically before the Senate, which has no mechanism, automatic or on demand, for reinstatement of government legislation from the previous Order Paper.
As a result, those bills will have to be reintroduced in the House -- or, if the government prefers, the Senate -- at first reading, and go through the whole process again."
...which is to say that, with these bills at least, there is no way to reintroduce them at the stage they had reached when Parliament was prorogued. On the other hand, had the Tories simply appointed their five Senators and returned to a non-prorogued parliament in January:
Although at that point the Senate could, in theory, simply re-amend the bill and throw it back to the Commons, setting off what could turn into infinite legislative loop, with those five (or thirteen) additional Conservative votes in the Red Chamber, both bills would have almost certainly have survived a second attempt at sober second tweaking, and could have been given Royal Assent within days.
So the Tory government could have got several of its key-note pieces of anti-crime legislation through the entire legislative process, and passed into law. They chose not too, thus disappointing some of the stakeholders involved and, most likely, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, whose been working on some of this stuff for months with little to show for it.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Harper doesn't want to pass this legislation; he wants to campaign on it.
11 comments:
Ignatieff voted for it once. He'll probably vote for it again, if he's still there
ridenrain - are you for real? What's your opinion on this legislation issue?
Little slimy attacks like this add nothing to a discussion and I think perhaps you don't understand and/or are unable to comprehend.
ridenrain's opinion comes in a fax from Conservative HQ
It would be the only postive thing to come from prorogation. And THAT is coming from a Conservative.
The crime bill is seriously flawed and with any luck, it will not be resurrected.
You're right, Harper doesn't want to pass these. It's just an excuse to let Nicholson do his WWE manager act. It would fracture a lot of his base. There are a lot of conservative-voting farmers out there who still like to grow a bit of the reefer.
We're all looking for one single reason why Harper is creating crises right and left (and perpetual campaigning on the same issues is a pretty rational one), when I wonder if it's simply his nature to do so?
His biggest defenders are all like that. People animated by sticking it to others than anything else that comes to mind.
Or maybe there's a real, emotional issue at work here. What about the gossip about his marriage being over? Since I've always liked Laureen (it's been noted that she's had a softening, stabilising influence on him), maybe it really is over. Certainly, hell hath no fury than a petulant conservative man-boy faced with marriage breakdown.
I guess Liberal leader Ignatieff voting for C-15, contrary to the wishes of the grass roots is a bit of a sore spot with some folks here.
Until we have a vote or referendum on the whole marijuana legality issue, we should keep to the rule of law and that includes discouraging activist lawyers from making it up as they go along.
ridenrain said:
Until we have a vote or referendum on the whole marijuana legality issue, we should keep to the rule of law and that includes discouraging activist lawyers from making it up as they go along.
When your doctor says you have six months left due to cancer, chemo might give you nine, tops, suddenly the so-called "unimportant" issues like marijuana become important. And besides, the dastardly fascist Quebec Human Rights Commission said that the current laws are violating the rights of the sick and dying. No, we need to move on this issue now, and end prohibition.
Until we have a vote or referendum on the whole marijuana legality issue...
How about let's have a referendum on the prohibition of alcohol?
And with that suggestion, the entire population of Alberta blanched at the thought of having to cope with delirium tremens.
ridenrain's first post (but not his second) was correct--Ignatieff and his caucus voted for C-15 and even defended it in the media and the house. Hopefully with the delay caused by prorogation he has time to grow a spine or a brain (I'm not sure which hes lacking on this issue but I lean towards the latter).
C-15 is a big deal, And if it is not dead and comes back again in it present format or anything close, I will not support any party that supports it.
Post a Comment