Back-Seat Governing?

Here's a scary thought.... What if the Liberals decide to implement their entire 2006 platform through a series of private member's bills? If C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Bill) worked, what's to stop them from moving forward with the rest of their programme? John Ivison's column suggests that Paul Martin is preparing to move a 'Kelowna Implementation Bill', requiring the government to come up with a plan to implement a Liberal pact with Aboriginal groups. (The bill was to be debated last night, but the government managed to delay it's introduction.) What next? A Liberal childcare plan? As long as the Bloc and NDP are on-side, and as long as the bill "asks the House to approve certain objectives" (i.e., make a plan) as opposed to "asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives" (i.e., spend money), the Speaker is prepared to allow its passage. It's a fuzzy distinction, though. Back-seat governing is an interesting tactic, but questionably constitutional. At some point, the government will have to come up with a counter-strategy.