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 don’t recall that giving the government more powers to bypass laws and regulations was the top issue of mind of Canadians in the recent election campaign, yet here we are. PM Carney keeps saying we are in a “crisis”. Governments that can grant themselves special powers and avoid laws and accountability during a crisis will ensure the country remains in never ending crisis.
Tariffs - crisis!
War in the Middle East - crisis!
Climate change - SUPER CRISIS
Flu season Covid 26 —EXPONENTIAL
CRISIS!!!!
Quick - let’s give the government more special powers, increased spending authorities, and suspend elections while we deal with the crisis for the next 20 years. Be careful what you wish for! 🇨🇦
Good article. I'm not convinced politicians are good 'policy' people; or that policy people have any insight into how to execute (get something done) and therefore reams of policy get piled on top of each other (on-the-books) and no one looks past the cover. A better way to establish workable Policy is to get all the players in the same room but have players take on different roles (e.g.: Developer takes on speaking for the municipal planner; the Financier speaks for the City budget officer/tax collector - etc.) Seeing the problem through someone else's eyes quickly identifies waste policy paper and stream-lines Policy process. Then, ditch the old stuff - already decades old and no longer pertinent. So much Policy - especially Municipal and Provincial - is protectionism for a 'danger' that no longer exists but instead keeps the lid on progress where no one wins.
You sometimes piss me off, but when you are right you are right.
I shared this with my Liberal MP in BC.
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!
From what I saw, elements of this rule age out in 5 years.
Perhaps then this is a stop-gap measure to make breathing room while there is a proper review of government structure and regulations?
Governments do need to set rules so that they do no depend on a single individual or governing party, but rather work to meet the country's needs.
I don’t recall that giving the government more powers to bypass laws and regulations was the top issue of mind of Canadians in the recent election campaign, yet here we are. PM Carney keeps saying we are in a “crisis”. Governments that can grant themselves special powers and avoid laws and accountability during a crisis will ensure the country remains in never ending crisis.
Tariffs - crisis!
War in the Middle East - crisis!
Climate change - SUPER CRISIS
Flu season Covid 26 —EXPONENTIAL
CRISIS!!!!
Quick - let’s give the government more special powers, increased spending authorities, and suspend elections while we deal with the crisis for the next 20 years. Be careful what you wish for! 🇨🇦
Good article. I'm not convinced politicians are good 'policy' people; or that policy people have any insight into how to execute (get something done) and therefore reams of policy get piled on top of each other (on-the-books) and no one looks past the cover. A better way to establish workable Policy is to get all the players in the same room but have players take on different roles (e.g.: Developer takes on speaking for the municipal planner; the Financier speaks for the City budget officer/tax collector - etc.) Seeing the problem through someone else's eyes quickly identifies waste policy paper and stream-lines Policy process. Then, ditch the old stuff - already decades old and no longer pertinent. So much Policy - especially Municipal and Provincial - is protectionism for a 'danger' that no longer exists but instead keeps the lid on progress where no one wins.