Inside Politics

UnluckyNumberWatch: The Ghosts of C-10s Past

by Kady O'Malley Posted: September 21, 2011 12:10 PM Last Updated: September 21, 2011 1:02 PM
Longtime legislative watchers might be forgiven for experiencing a sudden jolt of deja vu yesterday afternoon when the promised omnicrime megabill was tabled under the numeric designation of C-10.
 
Back in 2007, that very same bill number was applied to what seemed, at least on the surface, to be a largely unremarkable omnibus tax bill that unexpectedly wound up a celebrity cause celebre when the then-Liberal-dominated Senate banking committee -- whose members, unlike their Commons counterparts, actually bothered to read the legislation put before them -- uncovered a previously unnoticed clause that would yank the film tax credit from productions deemed "contrary to public policy."

The resulting furore, which saw such Canadian icons as David Cronenberg and Paul Gross called to committee to testify on the crippling effect that the move would have on the Canadian film industry, eventually resulted in a parliamentary standoff between the governing Conservatives and the Chamber of Sober Second Thought, with the bill's sponsor, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, vowing to treat any attempt to amend the bill as a de facto vote of non-confidence in the government, and the Senate all but daring him to bring it on. 

 Eventually, the PM got fed up with the obstructionist Other Place and stalked off to Rideau Hall to ask the Governor General to pull the plug on the 39th Parliament; the provision that had sparked the opening skirmish, meanwhile, did not reappear in subsequent legisltive initiatives, and according to a  2010 press release from the finance minister, it never will. 

The next iteration of C-10 -- the 2009 budget implementation bill -- proved to be distinctly less troublesome than its numeric predecessor, but a deeper dredge of the the legisinfo archives reveals that this wasn't the first time a government found itself facing a political conflagration sparked by a bill with the C-10 moniker. 

A Chretien-era iteration of C-10 would have effectively decriminalized pot use by imposing fines, rather than jail time, for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Although opposed not only by the then-Official Opposition Conservatives but more than 20 Liberal MPs as well, the bill eventually made through the House, only to die at second reading in the Senate in 2004 when Paul Martin chose to roll the electoral dice.

Finally, back in 2002, the legislative numbering formula applied C-10 to a bill that, among other, less contentious provisions, would have expanded the definition and increased the penalties for animal cruelty, a move that prompted a furious response from hunters, fishers and farmers. 

 Eventually, the government agreed to hive off an unrelated section of the bill -- which dealt with firearms licencing and administration, if that gives you some idea of how controversial the cruelty provisions had turned out to be -- to ensure it wouldn't be defeated simply by misfortune of having been brought forward in bad legislative company. 

One thing that all of the above instances of C-10 have in common, however, is that they ultimately failed to make it past the finish line to garner Royal Assent, despite the fact that two were introduced by a majority government. 

Will the C-10 law-and-order combo platter meet the same fate, or will it break the curse? We'll find out over the course of the next 100 sitting days, so stay tuned. 

Tags: blackberry jungle, c-10, parliamentary numerology