On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, William Robb <[email protected]> wrote:
> Frank, how many laws are there? <snip> > Do we really need more laws? <snip> > If Parliament's sole job is to pass laws, then they have long since outlived > their usefulness, as the best they can hope to do now is slice and dice the > laws that are now in place. <snip> I don't disagree, Bill. The answer to most of our Big Problems is to enforce the laws we already have, not to enact new ones that will end up being unenforceable. Right now most bills are huge omnibus bills that are so long and complicated that the average member of parliament has no idea what they mean. They're drafted by civil servants, tabled by cabinet ministers and the members of parliament vote along party lines "because they have to". When was the last time we had a "free vote"? It doesn't happen. No, I don't want parliament to sit so they pass laws. I want them to sit so they have question period. So someone can ask our prime minister difficult questions about the economy, the Afghan Detainee Scandal, find out what we're doing to help Haiti, stuff like that. When parliament's not sitting, he doesn't have to answer. But mostly I'm pissed off because this manoeuvre is just a way to cover up this latest scandal, which they're hoping will "blow over" after we're all basking in the glow of Olympic pride. (as if...) Used to be that proroguing parliament was an "extraordinary measure". With his third one, second in less than a year, it's hardly extraordinary any more... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
