5 ms·

>It has very little in solid critiques "The government has failed to make the case for the new powers it seeks." "The government has failed to give a single e

>It has very little in solid critiques "The government has failed to make the case for the new powers it seeks." "The government has failed to give a single example of how the amendments it seeks in Bill C-51 would be used." "The government has refused calls for more oversight of our national-security apparatus" "It would provide new powers that are frightening to many people." "We will have had only three days to debate this important bill." Good enough for me.

goalieca 12y ago
More importantly, the onus is on the government to make a case why they would need more powers. The current government has not justified why they need these. They've plainly said that "canadians are on our side, no need to debate more than 3 or 4 days". That is total BS.
engendered 12y ago
You have extraordinarily low standards, then. The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" for even remote contentious legislation is the history of every single piece of legislation ever. It is what the opposition does. A critique by a legal expert would be interesting. A standard "I'm the opposition and I oppose this" is just banal partisan rhetoric. It is worthless, beyond people going "rah rah! Down with Stephen Harper". As to the period of debate, firstly almost no one commenting on C-51 actually even knows what it entails, but the thing is that it's a surprisingly light piece of legislation. While this ridiculously claims that it's an "omnibus" bill, it's actually a very light piece of legislation. The NDP wants to debate this to essentially grandstand. And that's fine -- that's what they're there to do -- but this isn't debate in any manner of "get to the bottom of it and we'll finalize the perfect copy". http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=4 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" Have you been in a bubble the past few years? It is now my default position to expect the government to "make the case" that they require expanded powers to spy domestically. Those are my standards.

goalieca 12y ago

More importantly, the onus is on the government to make a case why they would need more powers. The current government has not justified why they need these. They've plainly said that "canadians are on our side, no need to debate more than 3 or 4 days". That is total BS.

engendered 12y ago

You have extraordinarily low standards, then. The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" for even remote contentious legislation is the history of every single piece of legislation ever. It is what the opposition does. A critique by a legal expert would be interesting. A standard "I'm the opposition and I oppose this" is just banal partisan rhetoric. It is worthless, beyond people going "rah rah! Down with Stephen Harper". As to the period of debate, firstly almost no one commenting on C-51 actually even knows what it entails, but the thing is that it's a surprisingly light piece of legislation. While this ridiculously claims that it's an "omnibus" bill, it's actually a very light piece of legislation. The NDP wants to debate this to essentially grandstand. And that's fine -- that's what they're there to do -- but this isn't debate in any manner of "get to the bottom of it and we'll finalize the perfect copy". http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=6932136&File=4 http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Lan...

hnnewguy 12y ago
>The opposition finding that the ruling party has "failed to make the case" Have you been in a bubble the past few years? It is now my default position to expect the government to "make the case" that they require expanded powers to spy domestically. Those are my standards.