And not laws. If I had to guess how the Harperites will deal with a court ruling against them on the CWB, I would say they are going to ram through their legislation in the Senate, get it royal assent and then argue that they broke no law because the law doesn't exist anymore. Who knows, now that we are ruled like a third world country, they may even get away with it.
Update: I will bow to my conservative friend Ben's contention that no parliament should be able to shackle a future one. That is the basis for our system of government. However, the means by which this government is proceeding is both arrogant and stupid and could have been avoided. If they had passed a bill first which ended the voting power of farmers, the courts would not have had anything to chew on. By doing it this way, the government left itself wide open to court action and by ignoring the court's decision opens itself up to far ranging political fallout. I expect many rural prairie MP's are afraid to open up their emails today.
Recommend this Post
Hey Greg, didn't you spend the last two years yelling about Parliamentary Supremacy?
ReplyDeleteWell, this is it in action. One Parliament can't bind the next.
You forget I have been talking parliamentary and electoral reform in concert. Besides, Parliament isn't supreme, the PMO is.
ReplyDeleteBen you give me a parliament elected by pr and then we can talk. This is a farce.
ReplyDeleteBen, can you tell me why the government first didn't pass a law stripping farmers of their right to vote on the change? Stupidity? Arrogance? Take your choice.
ReplyDeleteWell, the other way to do it is to have someone other than the Minister of Agriculture introduce the bill. Which is how I'd've done it.
ReplyDeleteAs for why not do it in a two-step? A belief that the provision in question is unconstitutional (ultra vires, which it is) and that the government lawyer wouldn't fail to raise the constitutional question (which he/she did fail to do).