Regulations
Jul. 20th, 2018 10:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jsburbidgeThe beginning of July had a number of cases of Doug Ford's Tories effectively cancelling legislation which had been passed by the legislature without having to go back to the legislature.
With a few exceptions where they come into effect on assent, most statutes come into effect on a date stated directly or indirectly in the legislation. It may be set out explicitly in the legislation itself, but it has become much more common, especially where there are elements of a regulatory framework under the statute in question to be developed, for the statute simply to say that it will come into effect on a date to be determined by the Governor in Council, i.e. the Cabinet; this not only provides general flexibility but allows regulations under the statute to be developed in the interim.
Regulatory legislation is typically more extensive than statutory legislation. Some statutes basically simply set up a framework for the creation of regulation. (A classic example is the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, which is entirely dependent for effect on the Regulations published under it.) Even globally, they're more extensive: IIRC, when I was a law student the Consolidated Regulations of Canada were longer than the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, and I expect that the ratio has widened since.
In all the cases in question the dates of coming into effect had been set by the previous government's Order in Council but had not yet occurred. At their first cabinet meeting the Tories passed a set of Orders in Council suspending those dates. (They also passed a whole set of Orders in Council making appointments to, and setting salaries for, some high-level positions just below Cabinet level.)
On their own these are essentially procedural tricks. The legislation remains on the books, and if it had already come into force it could not be suspended without an act of the provincial legislature. If the situation were to extend for some time one could make noises about the role of the legislature, but it's probably pointless to get upset about this particular aspect of it this time, as the Tories will almost certainly repeal or revise the statutes in question once the Legislature sits, whether in the current session or the next one.
(This, of course, does not address the what the actual hell? aspect of those suspensions. I mean, coming out on the side of ticket scalpers? Blocking legislation regarding police which had strong support from actual police departments after extensive consultations (regardless of unpopularity with the unions)? And without providing any narrative context? Does this make any political sense? Plus: what matters is what voters remember four years from now. There is no need to shoot from the hip (followed by probable flailing, as is already happening on the education front) when what voters will remember is that far away.)
More important is the general insight that governments can get away with far more, less publicly, in regulations than they can in statutes, which come under full parliamentary scrutiny. The Federal Conservatives under Harper, for example, were able to modify / twist / gut (depending on your perspective) the entire set of SSHRCC and NRC grants for research by regulatory revision (directing the funds to "practical" rather than fundamental research).[1] (Also, it's really easy to block statutory schemes by either regulation or ministerial fiat - requiring impossible conditions for implementation, shifting funding around internally, reassigning staff, pushing dates of implementation off...) If you want to keep an eye on what Ford's Conservatives are doing, it's worth keeping an eye on the province's page where they publish Orders in Council.
[1]This despite lots of evidence that it tends to be more abstract research that really tends to pay off even by a commercial measure. The Harper Conservatives really did not like actual scientists, and held the humanities and cultural disciplines in contempt.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 11:59 am (UTC)That's the benign explanation.
The much less benign, and I think much more accurate, explanation is that Ford is a white supremacist, white supremacy is an economic system, and police unions are major white supremacy supporters. (Ticket scalpers aren't, but the idea that you can extract maximum profit sure is. Ford nigh-certainly sees anything restricting profit extraction as morally wrong.)
no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 05:23 pm (UTC)Their technique is really, really crappy, though.
We're used to competent bad guys. Harper had (still obviously has) all sorts of issues, but his tactics were competent. Ford's not.
In general, incompetent politicians don't become party leaders, let alone get to govern. They may end up being incompetent at governing, but the actual political skills are usually good. Populists tend to come to power by reflecting people's ids, though, rather than by skill. Trump and Ford both fit that pattern.
Ford wouldn't have been party leader if it hasn't been for freak circumstances - a longer leadership race would have worked against him in several ways, and even as it was he won the position on adjusted points rather than a majority of real support.
He's also aggressive on the hustings but the meeting with the premiers suggests that he's somewhat cowardly when actually dealing with other relatively powerful figures.
If the last couple of weeks have showed anything, it's that this government is low in the standard political skills of creating and then playing to a narrative to provide context for what they're actually doing. Instead, the narrative being played about them is of relative flailing about.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-21 05:53 pm (UTC)That's someone who expects measurable material results.
EVERYBODY who is looking at quantified anything and can keep their brain from going la-la-la is aware were at a historical disjunction; one way or another, we're coming off the Carbon Binge. At this point, we're coming off the Carbon Binge without agriculture. No movement, no necessary ethnogenesis, has coalesced around how to do that. But what is clear is that traditional approaches aren't going to work.
Everybody running for traditional approaches -- and Ford is so traditional that they'd fit in fine as a neolithic Big Man autocrat -- is too limited in some way to get that there's an inevitable historical disjunction happening. They're insisting willpower beats physics.
This does awful things to the field of conservative politicians; the rank-and-file haven't adjusted yet, and pick based on feels. (Ford is making policy based on feels.) As you're entirely well aware, you can't make policy on feels in an expectation of predictable results. But if they accept quantified analysis, they have to accept that they're wrong about everything, and they literally can't.
It's closely related to the general education problem that a third of the population purely can't deal with abstraction at all; they can't do it. So they vote their feels, and they're scared and they're aware they're getting old and poorer and their resulting feels are not generous hopeful ones. (General poverty is a great way to get people to support wealth concentration. It's really weird how that works.) Ford is general social panic's id.
It's a lot to ask competence out of general social panic's id.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-22 12:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-07-22 12:15 am (UTC)I am not sure there's any remaining way to trace the ~2.5 MCAD provided to fund Harper's initial leadership bid; certainly a lot of people were looking at the time.
no subject
Date: 2018-07-22 03:57 am (UTC)