Conservatives limit budget debate


mentalfloss
#1
Conservatives limit budget debate

OTTAWA — The federal Conservative government moved Thursday to limit debate on its omnibus budget bill, sparking outrage from opposition parties.

A government motion was adopted Thursday in the House of Commons, by a vote of 145-122, to limit second reading debate on budget bill C-38 to six more days (seven in total), before it's voted on and sent to committee for further examination.

The government's Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act is more than 400 pages long and includes sweeping changes to such things as employment insurance, environmental protection, national parks, border security and approvals for natural resource projects.

"While this may be legal, it's certainly unethical and it's certainly undemocratic," NDP House leader Nathan Cullen said in an interview following the vote.

"This prime minister . . . used to rail against this exact tactic because it's unfair, it's undemocratic and doesn't allow MPs to do their job," he added.

"They put time allocation that Conservatives, in a previous life with previous convictions, would have set their hair on fire."

Opposition parties are demanding the government split up the omnibus budget bill into separate pieces of legislation so parliamentarians can properly debate the myriad changes.

"It's one of those bizarre omnibus bills in which the government has made the determination today, what I believe is a cowardly act, in terms of bringing in to this (bill) legislation that should have been standing on its own," Liberal deputy House leader Kevin Lamoureux said in the Commons, specifically targeting the government on its changes to environmental laws.

"What the government is doing through the back door and by putting in time allocations, I believe, is undemocratic."

The government, however, insisted that even with the motion passing, the budget bill will receive more debate at second reading than most fiscal blueprints over recent decades.

Shelly Glover, parliamentary secretary to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, maintained that over the past decade, there wasn't a single budget bill debated longer than the seven sitting days (28.5 hours of debate) the government is allowing at second reading.

The longest a Liberal budget was debated over the past decade was in 2005, at 21.8 hours (over seven days), she argued.

"In the last 10 years, there isn't a single — a single — other budget bill that was debated longer than the seven days we're about to do," Glover said in the House.

Conservatives limit budget debate
 
Cabbagesandking
No Party Affiliation
+1
#2  Top Rated Post
Since there has never been a Bill that contained so many non-Budget items and that so fundamentally affected the structure and Institutions of th country and its oversight of health and other affairs, why is it relevant that previous Budget Bill have not had more debate.

This Bill contains more than 50 Bills rolled into one. Each would be debated on its merits in a democratic Parliament.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post


Conservatives limit budget debate


Maybe if the opposition had anything of substance or relevance to contribute, these debates would be given a chance. Instead, all that is offered is some ridiculous chest-thumping and theatrics to placate the true believers and swindle them into believing that they voted for 'the conscious of the nation'.
 
mentalfloss
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Maybe if the opposition had anything of substance or relevance to contribute, these debates would be given a chance. Instead, all that is offered is some ridiculous chest-thumping and theatrics to placate the true believers and swindle them into believing that they voted for 'the conscious of the nation'.

You may be right, but they're actually doing a good job of it.

Debate limit 'unethical': NDP (external - login to view)
 
mentalfloss
#5
This can't be a Kelly Mcparland piece... Can't be...

Haste and secrecy top agenda in Flaherty's swollen budget bill | Full Comment | National Post
 
relic
Free Thinker
+1
#6
They don't call harpers gang the most secretive,least transparent gov't for nothing.Of course they want to limit debate on the "budget",just like all the other bull**** bills,they want as few people as possible to get too close a look at it. Geebus !!
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

You may be right, but they're actually doing a good job of it.

Debate limit 'unethical': NDP (external - login to view)


No doubt about that... And although it is all part of 'the game' which every politician is addicted to, it's kind of a shame that it really only serves to promote the House as the circus that it is today.
 
mentalfloss
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

No doubt about that... And although it is all part of 'the game' which every politician is addicted to, it's kind of a shame that it really only serves to promote the House as the circus that it is today.

I wouldn't assume that there is no decorum in the house. There are some pretty good exchanges with sticking points that the media publicizes.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I wouldn't assume that there is no decorum in the house. There are some pretty good exchanges with sticking points that the media publicizes.


My point is that it's a shame that your (above) description isn't consistently the norm.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

This can't be a Kelly Mcparland piece... Can't be...

Haste and secrecy top agenda in Flaherty's swollen budget bill | Full Comment | National Post

Explore the world my friend - Full of suprises
 
mentalfloss
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Explore the world my friend - Full of suprises

Well if Mcparland is finally waking up then there must be some serious $hit going down.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

My point is that it's a shame that your (above) description isn't consistently the norm.

It's probably the Liberals fault.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

It's probably the Liberals fault.


Nah, Layton could have been a regular on the soaps with the way he carried on.... When he wasn't patronizing the rub 'n tugs that is.
 
mentalfloss
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Nah, Layton could have been a regular on the soaps with the way he carried on.... When he wasn't patronizing the rub 'n tugs that is.

Wow, way to stretch it, lol
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Wow, way to stretch it, lol


Really?

I think back to his fire-and-brimstone rants about representing 'the working man' : shirt sleeves rolled-up and fist pumping the air when the media was present... Meanwhile, he and his lovely wife were not remiss to collect 2 living allowances whilst occupying subsidized housing in TO.

Makes me really wonder if that's how 'the working man' lives.

Just a thought
 
mentalfloss
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

I think back to his fire-and-brimstone rants about representing 'the working man' : shirt sleeves rolled-up and fist pumping the air when the media was present... Meanwhile, he and his lovely wife were not remiss to collect 2 living allowances whilst occupying subsidized housing in TO.

The housing thing was debunked over 20 years ago, roflmao
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

The housing thing was debunked over 20 years ago, roflmao


Debunked like his trips to the red light district rub 'n tugs for "therapeutic" reasons - written-off of course at tax payer expense.

Kinda like that?
 
mentalfloss
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Debunked like his trips to the red light district rub 'n tugs for "therapeutic" reasons - written-off of course at tax payer expense.

Kinda like that?

Do you have the receipt?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Do you have the receipt?


Check with his wife.
 
mentalfloss
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Check with his wife.

That's what I thought.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That's what I thought.

Do you have the receipt?
 
mentalfloss
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Do you have the receipt?

Check with your wife.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Check with your wife.


I ain't married.... Mind if I check with yours?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Do you have the receipt?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

That's what I thought.


I think that I solved the mystery surrounding the missing receipt.... It took some looking, but there is a little known clause in the law that voids any contract (implied or written) when the services at a rub 'n tug are not delivered in full.

The caveat is referred to as tugus interruptus and considering that Jacko was caught by the police 'in the act' - well, the caveat applies and as such, no receipt was issued as no payment was received.

Anyways, thought that you might want to know.
 

Similar Threads

7
What do you do to limit spam?
by CBC News | Nov 13th, 2008
0
France moves to limit smoking
by CBC News | Oct 8th, 2006
8
Time limit for non-citizen
by darsunt | Jul 17th, 2006
10
Limit to Registered Posting only
by Administration | Jun 3rd, 2004
no new posts