It never ceases to amaze me how two people viewing the exact same events can have diametrically opposed perceptions of them.
Two weeks ago, Nathan Cullen, NDP house leader, accused the government of knowingly abusing the system by handing off potentially problematic crime legislation to backbenchers so the bills don't have to go through the rigourous constitutional vetting a government bill does.
"One important aspect that applies to government legislation is that the minister of justice is obligated to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms," Cullen said. "Private member's business does not have to go through a similar test.''
It is absolutely scandalous that a government would ram Criminal Code changes through the House in this underhanded way. The Conservatives should be ashamed.
They're not. On the contrary, they are actually proud of it.
"In fact, private member's bills have been used more successfully by private members in this Parliament than I think in the history of Canada," bragged Vic Toews, minister of public safety, as the government endorsed yet another backbencher crime bill on parole eligibility.
"There are certain timelines and they move much quicker than government legislation does."
This was after Cullen's accusation. Not only is Toews admitting the wrongdoing, he is actually boasting about it.
This is nothing to be proud of. If the bills have merit, if the government supports them, why are they private member's business and not government bills?
Even if it was something to be proud of, it appears it may be nullified by another potential record they don't brag about. Cullen told me he is convinced more of the current government's bills have died before becoming law than any other government in history. He is currently waiting for confirmation from the Parliamentary Library.
At best, it is an expensive exercise, but no one at this point should be surprised by Harper's unrepentant waste of taxpayers' money.
And even if they're not trying to do an end-run around parliamentary oversight, they may simply be trying to do skirt public opinion.
The Conservatives claim they are convinced-despite the evidence-that Canadians are behind their dumb on crime agenda, but passing off legislation to backbenchers may indicate Harper is trying to push the program further than he wants to admit officially.
If the bills go awry, the government can disavow them citing an MP's right to express his views.
The other thing that bothers me is some of these laws are completely unnecessary. For example, the government put its weight behind Blake Richards' bill making it illegal to wear a mask while participating in a riot.
As tempted as I am to launch an ad hominem attack on the member's intelligence, let me instead suggest that perhaps he should have read the Criminal Code where he would have discovered it is already a crime to wear a mask while committing a crime.
Unfortunately, with a majority government, there is no sign the Tories will relent meaning it will be up to future governments to untangle the mess Harper is making of the Criminal Code.
