BEFORE I FLEE, the latest on Bill C10, which was taken up by the Banking Committee today.
First, a news article from Canwest.
The basic impression? The Heritage Minister continues to defend the indefensible here. They insist that the wording is grammar -- and was the same as the bill proffered by the previous government. During the course of the debate, apparently the different language was read out and it was made materially clear to everybody but the minister that, in fact, the change in language to the contentious clause was not a matter of grammar, but a fundamental change to the spirit of the bill.
The Heritage Ministry is desperately caught here, trying to defend bad, sweeping, too broad language and lamely insisting that they want to consult with industry on these guidelines that aren't necessary and have not been required in the past.
Meanwhile, next week, reasonable people like the WGC find themselves on the same bill as crypto-muffin baking, right wing embarrassment organizations like REAL Women of Canada.
This thing is a disaster for the Tories. A disaster. 5000 letters so far. Why don't they just withdraw the clause and be done with it and stop acting like it's a fucking confidence motion that will bring down the government.
I've heard the guy. Nobody can possibly be that scared of a wingnut like Charles McVety.
1 comment:
After seeing McVety on The Hour - thanks to those video podcasts that Big ISP bandwidth throttling looks to make a memory of if it can - I can't quite believe it either. Strombolopoulos had him backing and filling so fast that McVety couldn't keep his own explanations straight in his own mind, much less for the Hour audience.
And the New Conservatives want to keep the "McVety Clause" in this bill anyway?!?
Post a Comment