Liberale akzeptieren Haushaltsänderungen der Konservativen aufgrund umfassender Machtvorschläge im Kabinett – National
Liberals accept Tory budget changes on sweeping cabinet power proposals
Liberale akzeptieren Haushaltsänderungen der Konservativen aufgrund umfassender Machtvorschläge im Kabinett – National
Liberals accept Tory budget changes on sweeping cabinet power proposals
7 Kommentare
A good example of how bipartisanship can work in governance.
Both sides dont want an election so working together on this is a good thing to do.
Surely what’s going on south of the border should be ample evidence of why it’s a bad idea to let the government override the law at will.
This is why we need more minority governments.
This is why everyone should be extremely concerned about these Liberals gaining a majority through floor crossings or snap-election.
With a majority, Mr. Banker’s Government tells the House to eat shit and rams this through, guaranteed.
The only thing that’s stopped this government from (by my count) 3 different attempts at power-grabbing scumbaggery in its first year has been a Minority allowing the people’s outrage to have effect in the House.
These look like good changes
For the curious
– The Liberals had proposed that federal ministers be able to exempt private entities from Acts of Parliament (except the Criminal Code) that the Minister is responsible for (where Acts are jointly responsible, the ministers must agree). The exception must allow the faster delivery of a product or service to market by reducing regulatory oversight.
– The Conservative changes that were approved added a required public consultation and report to Parliament, as well as signoff by the President of the Treasury Board (who is also a cabinet minister – I hope they planned that the TB President can’t just self-approve things)
– They also added some non-criminal Acts you can’t modify including the Conflict of Information and Access to Information Acts.
Im not sure I agree with the core concept (I’d like to think the regulation serves a purpose or it should be removed entirely). If there are good cases for exceptions, add them as you find them. As an interim solution to that, it’s useful. And there may always be cases where the law is silly and shouldn’t apply to the case.
But I worry it’ll be used to get around environmental laws or other laws/regulations that are actually in the best interest of the public. Like the Minister of Transport could authorize a violation of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a violation of the Oceans Act, or the Minister of Labour the Canada Labour Code (which only applies to federally regulated workers and not the public service or other employers).
We’ll need to at least keep a close eye on how this gets used, because it’s got a lot of power like the not withstanding clause. It might be useful in some cases but this loophole is prone to abuse.
Aside the actual agreement, I think this shows that we’re likely not going to see an election this year; a key message would have to be around the dysfunction in parliament and with this, and other recent instances of bipartisanship, I can’t see how the Liberals would effectively make that story.
If the NDP was doing it, many people here would be blasting it and saying it’s no different from the liberals/abandoned workers/orange liberals/Heather must not win. But I guess when it’s the blue party doing this, it’s cool!
I find this approach very sketchy.
It allows the government to enact „for my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.“
Effectively it allows the government to choose winners, and give specific companies overwhelming competitive advantage over competitors and the market more broadly when competing for capital, etc.