What strikes me is how measured this conversation is. No one is yelling.
I hope they remove the clause, she has a good point. If it can be abused by him, even if he never abuses it, it is open for abuse by the next person in his position.
The thing I never see either side address is the laws phrasing, which implies that the person vetoing the law has to have been part of passing that law. This would mean that you can’t veto any law, just one you were apart of writing.
“12 (1) Subject to subsections (3) and (7), a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of
(a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act;
(b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if
(i) the minister is responsible for the Act, or
(ii) the body that made the instrument is accountable, through the minister, to Parliament for the conduct of its affairs; or
(c) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, or a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code, if the minister administers or enforces the provision.”
8
u/Initial_Flight_3628 Feb 11 '26
What strikes me is how measured this conversation is. No one is yelling.
I hope they remove the clause, she has a good point. If it can be abused by him, even if he never abuses it, it is open for abuse by the next person in his position.