I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea (as in C-5) that the government can simply ignore laws and regulations in order to accomplish a deemed "good" thing or result. There is a reason that we have laws and regulations and [how Pollyanna of me!] it seems to me that laws and regulations are supposed to apply to EVERYONE.
Now, the counterpoint. Over many years, but particularly over the last ten years every time there was a perceived problem [it mattered not if it was or was not a real problem] the cry was approximately, "SOMEONE [i.e. the federal/provincial/municipal government] oughta DO something." And so the feds et al did SOMETHING. They passed laws, changed laws, issued and changed regulations. It simply didn't matter if there were already valid laws and regs; new laws and regs were developed and proclaimed. "See? We DID something!"
A lot of the problems were a) not really problems; b) not at all the province [Oh, that word!] of the federal government; c) required THOUGHTFUL response, not knee jerk action; d) already covered by very comprehensive laws on the books; or e) those existing laws were deliberately NOT applied or enforced by municipalities, police forces, provinces, etc. in the name of some "social" goal.
And, so we get to C-5. The ultimate point of C-5 is that various jurisdictions, federal/provincial/municipal, passed laws and regs because the SEEMED to be a good idea at the time and appealed to a narrow group which was howling for something. The net effect was nothing could be done because everything was so screwed up so, rather than get rid of all that legal/regulatory underbrush [the honest thing to do] C-5 allows Carney et al to ignore said legal/regulatory underbrush.
An entirely a stupid way to proceed! But necessary because our political worsers (definitely not our betters) in Parliament, Provincial Legislatures and/or Municipal Councils have created this morass and have none of the honesty or courage to deal with what they have wrought.
Is this C-5 a good thing? Absolutely not! Is it necessary? Quite likely. And I don't like saying that.
On the other hand, consider if we had a DJT as PM. Said individual could use this legislation in all sorts of ways. I shudder. All readers should shudder.
As to your suggestion to put "NES, Seamus, James Moore, and Jason Kenney" in a room together? I don't trust them to realistically accept that their own sacred oxen will need to be gored. In other words, they are the ones who participated in creating this mess that we call "modern" Canada so why on earth should we trust them to fix what they have broken?
As for splitting the bill? Well, that is simply allowing more critics of YOU (metaphorically speaking) goring MY (again, metaphorically) oxen to find a way to obfuscate, prevaricate, prevent and every other thing to slow things down to "normal" in the hope and expectation that it will be abandoned. Absolutely awful!
I shared this with my Liberal MP in BC.
You sometimes piss me off, but when you are right you are right.
I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea (as in C-5) that the government can simply ignore laws and regulations in order to accomplish a deemed "good" thing or result. There is a reason that we have laws and regulations and [how Pollyanna of me!] it seems to me that laws and regulations are supposed to apply to EVERYONE.
Now, the counterpoint. Over many years, but particularly over the last ten years every time there was a perceived problem [it mattered not if it was or was not a real problem] the cry was approximately, "SOMEONE [i.e. the federal/provincial/municipal government] oughta DO something." And so the feds et al did SOMETHING. They passed laws, changed laws, issued and changed regulations. It simply didn't matter if there were already valid laws and regs; new laws and regs were developed and proclaimed. "See? We DID something!"
A lot of the problems were a) not really problems; b) not at all the province [Oh, that word!] of the federal government; c) required THOUGHTFUL response, not knee jerk action; d) already covered by very comprehensive laws on the books; or e) those existing laws were deliberately NOT applied or enforced by municipalities, police forces, provinces, etc. in the name of some "social" goal.
And, so we get to C-5. The ultimate point of C-5 is that various jurisdictions, federal/provincial/municipal, passed laws and regs because the SEEMED to be a good idea at the time and appealed to a narrow group which was howling for something. The net effect was nothing could be done because everything was so screwed up so, rather than get rid of all that legal/regulatory underbrush [the honest thing to do] C-5 allows Carney et al to ignore said legal/regulatory underbrush.
An entirely a stupid way to proceed! But necessary because our political worsers (definitely not our betters) in Parliament, Provincial Legislatures and/or Municipal Councils have created this morass and have none of the honesty or courage to deal with what they have wrought.
Is this C-5 a good thing? Absolutely not! Is it necessary? Quite likely. And I don't like saying that.
On the other hand, consider if we had a DJT as PM. Said individual could use this legislation in all sorts of ways. I shudder. All readers should shudder.
As to your suggestion to put "NES, Seamus, James Moore, and Jason Kenney" in a room together? I don't trust them to realistically accept that their own sacred oxen will need to be gored. In other words, they are the ones who participated in creating this mess that we call "modern" Canada so why on earth should we trust them to fix what they have broken?
As for splitting the bill? Well, that is simply allowing more critics of YOU (metaphorically speaking) goring MY (again, metaphorically) oxen to find a way to obfuscate, prevaricate, prevent and every other thing to slow things down to "normal" in the hope and expectation that it will be abandoned. Absolutely awful!