- I'd planned to post on the sheer arbitrariness of the Cons' insistence on eliminating a regulation for any new one they implement. But Erin gets there first:
At best, this rule is a gimmick. At worst, it will delay or prevent the implementation of needed public-interest regulation.- Frances Russell somewhat underestimates the exact number of citizenship types being created by the Cons by not taking into account the non-voting and employment-privileged/above-the-law versions. But she's absolutely right to be concerned about the fragmentation of Canada.
The issue is not, of course, the sheer number of regulations. It obviously makes sense to review existing and proposed regulations. But an honest review should be open to the possibility that more regulations are warranted, if that is what the evidence indicates.
The One-for-One Rule will create perverse incentives for federal regulators. They will maintain and husband unnecessary regulations so that they have something to remove when they need to introduce new regulations.
- So who had "quick flip to a media conglomerate" in the pool of possible outcomes after SCN was sold off for a fraction of its value?
- Finally, Murray Dobbin asks us to visualize the first giant oil spill of the coast of northern B.C. - and rightly questions how any government interested in the good of anybody other than oil barons could be as determined to see that day come as the Harper Cons have been.
No comments:
Post a Comment