Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The House of Rubber Stamps

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, November 14, 2011 12:45pm - 8 Comments

Peter Van Loan complains that the opposition parties continue to oppose the Harper government’s agenda and explains his general approach to House debate.

Besides, Mr. Van Loan argues that three or four hours of debate is sufficient for bills. “During an election leaders debate on all the issues … that might go two hours. I hear very few people say it wasn’t long enough – and that’s to decide the whole election.”

Tags: debate, house of commons, legislation, Parliament, Peter Van Loan, time allocation

More by Aaron Wherry

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug rogers

It is better to jaw, jaw, jaw, than to “Wah! wah! wah!”.
Anonymous

I guess Mr. Van Loan is lucky that he doesn’t have to knock on doors for a month, or more, and participate in local debates, editorial boards, etc. like so many of his colleagues.

Elections are no time to be debating serious issues, after all.
Anonymous

The small man of Canadian democracy.
Anonymous

” I hear very few people say it wasn’t long enough…”

“I listen to very few people who say it isn’t long enough…”
neuroticdog

Seems like at least two members of the CPC need to take an introduction to civics course. One (Del Maestro) apparently fails to grasp the fundamental separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial functions in a parliamentary system, and the other (Van Loan) is appallingly ignorant regarding the role of the Loyal Opposition.

Or maybe democracy is just too damned inconvenient for them. If only they recognized how short are the few steps between Harper’s oligarchy and Putin’s autocracy.

Or again, maybe we’re already there.
Anonymous

Peter Van Loan, as a former lawyer, should know that courts look to Hansards to figure out what the purpose of a law is. And he should also know that debate can iron out kinks in the legislation. There is no reason for him to oppose open debate in Parliament. He has four years to pass this legislation.