Toronto Globe and Mail (Tuesday): Tories, Bloc overpower Canadian Liberals

[Jack Rabbit]

Fromt the Toronto Globe and Mail
Dated Tueday May 10 6:31 pm EDT (3:31 pm PDT)

Tories, Bloc overpower Liberals
By Terry Weber

Opposition MPs managed to force a motion through the House of Commons Tuesday demanding the fragile Liberal minority government step down.

The Liberals, however, say they don't consider the move a true no-confidence motion and won't resign.

But the success of the effort deals another blow to a government desperately trying to stave off an election until the dust settles around the federal sponsorship scandal.

Tuesday's motion passed by a razor-thin margin, with 153 MPs — representing a union of Conservatives and members of the Bloc Québécois — voting in favour, while 150 voted against it.

Read more.

[lovuian]

1. Why do I get the feeling Bush is helping the Conservatives!!!

poor canada welcome to our world!!!

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. They don't need any help. The Liberals have given them plenty of rope

None of this is about policy. It is the effect of corrution committed by the ruling party.

[Maple]

34. A couple of local

greedy types is not corruption by the ruling party.

[Flucius]

45. I concur

I can't stand the hyperbole I'm seeing in this thread. Someone needs to set the record straight for those not acquainted with the situation, lest they be misled. That's where I come in.

Harper is NOT Bush-lite and people need to get that through their thick skulls. He is not even Bush-anorexic. He is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. Some people in his party are social conservatives and a smaller number are social liberals. The party as a whole is fiscally conservative and socially moderate.

Just because the party has the name Conservative does not mean it is like the GOP. They are conservative in relation to the other three parties, but Canada's political spectrum is well to the left of its US counterpart. Run down the list of its policies and you will see some things in common with the GOP and some with the Democrats. Their social policies are nowhere near the GOP's.

Harper, unlike Bush, has little or no personal baggage in his past. He does not come from a political dynasty and he does not have a folksy style. He is often called bland, even by his own supporters. He could not lie and deceive if he tried because that sort of thing does not come naturally to him. He is an economist by trade.

It would be fair to say the Liberals have been fiscally and socially liberal for most of the past 40 years, fiscally conservative (budget-wise) for the past 8-10. For better or worse, the Liberals had some core beliefs at one time. Their core belief now is Machiavellian: do whatever it takes to get and maintain power. They will drift to the left or the right on any issue if it is politically expedient. I'm not sure why anyone would consider this a party worth supporting.

Yet people will crucify a man who has never been in government while ignoring egregious abuses by those who have for an extended period. They will attack him and his party based on what they THINK he will do rather than anything he has done. (And the accusations directed at him are without foundation.) I've always thought people are innocent until proven guilty but apparently some people don't subscribe to this notion.

To shatter another myth, the scandal is NOT small potatoes. It directly involved the previous and current prime minister, several current or former senior cabinet ministers, multiple advertising firms, mid and high-ranking bureaucrats and others. It is also the latest in a series of scandals but due to its nature, it has gotten the most attention. You can rest assured there have been worse scandals in recent years in terms of scale. Most of these have not been properly exposed yet.

Moreover, the prime minister and his predecessor are guilty of many of the things of which Bush and co. stand accused. Namely: conflicts of interest; being accessory to theft and fraud; perjury; and numerous other things.

The budget amendments are largely meaningless also. The commitments only hold if there is money at the end of the fiscal year for them.

Nor is it true that everyone is happy with the budget amendments. If the revised budget was really so popular, why would the BQ not support it? The BQ is almost as fiscally liberal as the NDP, so they should be excited about provisional spending increases of $4.6 billion. They are not. They see these increases, as per my explanation above, to be nothing more than sleight of hand. They also see this as a moral and ethical issue on which selling out is not justifiable. I should point out that the NDP had less than 16 percent of the popular vote in the last election, a total which hardly makes them the voice of mainstream Canadians.

Now the BQ is accused of opportunism because they want to force an election to gain seats in Québec. But the NDP isn't considered opportunistic for whoring their 19 votes in exchange for a few morsels of conditional budget spending and the 15 minutes of power and fame that come with it. Sounds like a double standard to me. BTW, the BQ would be off the electoral map if not for the Liberals' maladroit handling of the separatist threat.

At the end of the day, some people will not acknowledge the extent of the problem due to partisan biases. Because the guilty party has an 'L' next to their name, people will tolerate their abuses. Were the roles reversed, these same people would no doubt call for the resignation of the Conservative government and the prosecution of senior ministers.

[Maple]

2. Meaningless vote

Not a confidence motion, just a procedural one.

The Opposition knows this too.

They signed a deal on the way home from Europe that will be made law by the end of the week. Without Parliament that couldn't be done.


"With all-party agreement, the leaders hope to have the legislation through the Commons and Senate before the end of this week."

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05/10/1032977-cp.html

[enigmatic]

3. Yep

Harper's scraping the bottom w/ this one.

[HEyHEY]

19. Is this an exercise in futility or stupidity?

[Spazito]

4. Pathetic, truly pathetic on the part of the new Bloc/Con party

to bloviate that this vote means anything but what else could one expect from two men working to destroy Canada.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. CBC Link

From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Dated Tuesday May 10 19:00 EDT (7:00 pm PDT)

House passes motion calling on Liberals to resign

Ottawa - The House passed a motion that opposition parties claim should topple the government – but the Liberals have dismissed it as nothing more than a procedural matter.

The motion passed by 153 votes to 150 on Tuesday night.

All 99 Conservative and 54 Bloc Québécois MPs voted for the motion calling on the public accounts committee "to recommend that the government resign."

The NDP and two Independents voted with the Liberals against the motion. Two cabinet ministers, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler and Natural Resources Minister John Efford, were not there for the vote.

Read more.

[Maple]

6. And this:

"If the Liberals don't treat the motion as a confidence vote, the Conservatives have said they'll come to work as usual and look for other opportunities to force an election.

Leader Stephen Harper seemed to signal on Monday that he expected the House of Commons to continue sitting until at least Friday. He joined an all-party pact to push through a $1-billion veterans' resettlement package before an election call could kill the legislation."


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/10/confidence-government050510.html

[Jack Rabbit]

8. I don't know much about Harper

But he sounds like a real piece of work.

Does he think this was a confidence vote or doesn't he?

The Liberals obviously didn't think so. Two of their cabinet members were out of town today and didn't vote.

I understand that the issue is that the vote merely directs a committee to urge the government to resign; it was not a direct call by Parliament for the government to step down.

Canadian DUers, since there there is dispute in the matter, who ultimately decides whether or not this was a vote of no-confidence?

[Spazito]

9. Here is some info on minority governments

from CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdngovernment/minoritygovernment.html

This snip should answer what can trigger a genuine vote of non-confidence and the what happens if the government loses the vote:

Sometimes the government decides that the price for support is too high. There are some bills (especially budgets and other money bills) that are considered non-confidence votes. If the government loses a non-confidence vote, it will fall. It's then up to the Governor General to either ask the leader of the party with the next most seats to try to form a government or dissolve Parliament and clear the way for another election.

All Parliamentarian experts agree this procedural motion today does NOT constitute a legitimate non-confidence vote that can trigger the downfall of the government.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. I understand that, Mr. Spazito

(I saw that CBC graphic presentation earlier today.)

And I understand that parliamentarians are generally saying that this was not a proper confidence vote.

However, right now, we've got Harper and McKay jumping up and down saying it is and all of the Liberals and New Democrats saying it is not. Now, what I am asking is whether or not there is an authoritative figure who will either tell Mr. Harper to sit down and shut up or tell the Prime Minister that the government has fallen and he needs to get ready for new elections.

Also, assuming that the public accounts committee follows the directions passed today and recommends in their report that the government resign, then if Parliament votes to accept the report, does that then become a confidence vote?

[Spazito]

15. The speaker of the House did just that to Mr. Harper

today when he demanded the Prime Minister resign. The Speaker of the House rules on the procedures of the House and keeps order.


"Conservative Opposition Leader Stephen Harper immediately demanded that Prime Minister Paul Martin call a formal vote of confidence.

"I would challenge the prime minister, if he believes he has the constitutional authority, to rise in his place and to call for a vote of confidence," Harper said.

The House broke down into shouting when Liberal House leader Tony Valeri said parliamentary precedent makes it clear the vote was not a motion of confidence.

The Speaker ruled Harper's demand out of order and the House returned to normal business, debating heritage lighthouses."

The above snip comes from this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/10/confidence-vote050510.html

As you can see, by Harper calling upon Martin to call for a formal vote of confidence, he is admitting that the stunt they pulled today was not so.


Edited to add: With regard to your question on the committee vote:

"Also, assuming that the public accounts committee follows the directions passed today and recommends in their report that the government resign, then if Parliament votes to accept the report, does that then become a confidence vote?"

Yes, it would qualify as a formal non-confidence vote and the Prime Minister would have to start the process that was discussed above.

Edited again to add: I am trying to search out a well-written description of the processes and procedure that cover this and will post if I find such a description.

In the meantime, I did find a good article on the Speaker of the House and his role on having to cast the tie-breaking vote as is what is very probable in the current circumstances:


Speaker could break crucial tie


OTTAWA (CP) - Peter Milliken could well be Canada's first Speaker of the House of Commons to decide a vote that threatens to bring down the government.

But it won't likely be a nail-biter.

Parliamentary precedent dictates that the Speaker votes to maintain the status quo.

In other words, should the close Commons standings force Milliken to cast a tie-breaking ballot on a non-confidence motion, he's expected to side with the Liberals.

more

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2005/05/08/1031022-cp.html

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Thank you

They don't teach parliamentary government in a US civics class.

I wish they did. From what I can tell, it's better than our presidential government. Maybe I'm just saying that because I've lived under the two most abusive presidents in US history, Nixon and Bush the Frat Boy.

[Spazito]

25. I have found this PDF report that lays out quite well

our processes and procedures. It is 41 pages in all, very well written and contains some of the answers to the questions you have posed:



http://www.parl.gc.ca/Information/library/inside/pdf/inside-canada-parliament-e.pdf


An aside, I am very pleased you are interested in our form of government and your questions have made me go back and do research on the areas I didn't know the answer to, I thank you for that!

[Jack Rabbit]

26. Thank you!!

I'm going to have some fun with this.

[Maple]

21. Confidence votes

There are only three categories of confidence votes:

-A motion that explicitly states the House of Commons has lost confidence in the government.

-Motions declared by the government to be matters of confidence.

-Key bills relating to the annual budget or the policy-setting throne speech.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/05/06/1029077-cp.html

This wasn't any of them. Nor would a committee recommendation qualify.

There are a couple of 'Opposition days' coming up shortly, when they can move a genuine non-confidence motion....and of course the budget will come up for a vote before that.

If they topple the govt on this well-liked budget...they'll pay for it

[Jack Rabbit]

24. The government wants to give the opposition three days

The government wants to give the opposition three days to discuss a no-confidence motion. That was reported earlier today.

It looks like you and Spizito have a disagreement on whether a vote to accept a committee report that contains a recommendation that the government resign is a no-confidence motion.

[Maple]

27. Well it's not

and it's already over till the budget.

The report will never show up.

[Spazito]

28. The reason we have a difference, I believe, is in this way:

One of the three categories Maple listed is this one:

-A motion that explicitly states the House of Commons has lost confidence in the government.

A report out by a committee containing a motion that the government resign, if voted on by the full House and passed, can fit under the above catagory and therefore trigger the non-confidence processes.

Edited to correct spelling error, damn, forgot to use spell check.

[Maple]

31. It would have to be

a motion of the House, and explicit...not involving other matters like a report would.

A committee report is not a motion of the House..just a committee of the House. The House can accept the report, that doesn't mean it agrees with anything in it.

They don't need to fool around with this anyway...just present a non-confidence motion and be done with it.

Smoke and mirrors....or circuses, take your choice.

[Spazito]

35. It makes much better headlines if it is attempted this way

as opposed to the methods set by precedent. Precedent is what has govern actions in this area as opposed to hard and fast rigid rules. It has been interesting listening and reading the opinions of various Parliamentarian 'experts', they are not all of one view, lol.

Edited to add: I knew I had read how this attempt through committee could become a matter of confidence and it is as follows, from the PM's office:

But the Prime Minister's Office said Tuesday's vote would only become a matter of confidence in the government if:

it is adopted by the Public Accounts committee;
the committee amends the report, pursuant to the opposition directive; and
the report is adopted by the House of Commons.

The Liberals simply sent the report back to the Public Accounts committee for them to amend it first before sending it back. It is moot, however, as this report will never make it to the floor of the House before the Opposition has their opportunity to vote on the budget, the Liberals will make very sure of that as they should.

[Maple]

36. Ahh they like to do

the King-Byng-fling-thing and pontificate....but that was in 1926. Confidence motions now have rules, whatever the BloCon party likes to say.

[Spazito]

37. I did edit my post as you were replying so will post the edit as

a response to this post as well:

I knew I had read how this attempt could become a matter of confidence and it is as follows, from the PM's office:

But the Prime Minister's Office said Tuesday's vote would only become a matter of confidence in the government if:

it is adopted by the Public Accounts committee;
the committee amends the report, pursuant to the opposition directive; and
the report is adopted by the House of Commons.

The Liberals simply sent the report back to the Public Accounts committee for them to amend it first before sending it back. It is moot, however, as this report will never make it to the floor of the House before the Opposition has their opportunity to vote on the budget, the Liberals will make very sure of that as they should.

[Maple]

38. Well the PMO

is out to lunch as well then.

Adopting a report means just that...you haven't even read it at that point, so you can't accept or reject anything in it. You just say 'thank you' and chuck it on the nearest shelf.

Of course, as you say, the budget will be along before then.

[Maple]

39. The BloCon Party

is likely to either cause trouble in Parliament tomorrow by acting like rowdy kids...or not show up at all.

Which would give us some much needed peace and quiet. :rofl:

[Spazito]

41. LOL, too true, I must say I enjoyed Harper's flounce today

in his puffed up 'outrage'. lol

[Spazito]

40. What is causing this commotion is a change in the rules...

how recent I don't know, that deals with the House vote on reports. I read that somewhere today, in doing research on something else but be damned if I can remember where it was. If I do find it, I will post the info.

[Spazito]

7. The vote count is interesting...

I believe the third independent, Chuck Cadman, was not there either, he is battling cancer back home in B.C. It is his intention to attend any REAL vote of non-confidence, if possible, and has said he is leaning toward supporting the government.

If he is able to make it there along with the two absent Cabinet Ministers, that will create a tie vote on any REAL non-confidence vote and it will be up to the speaker to cast the tie-breaking vote. The speaker is a Liberal so it is probable, albeit not absolute, he will vote to uphold the government.

[daleo]

10. Harper and the Separatists

Expect to hear that phrase a lot. It has a nice ring to it. It ain't a rock band though.

[daleo]

11. I thought the leaders were in Europe

And they promised no shenanigans during the ceremonies for VE Day, and the veterans. Don't tell me Harper broke his word.

[Spazito]

12. They all arrived back home yesterday, I believe

They were all in the House today.

[Hand]

14. No, they got back yesterday.

And the normal idiocy resumed. The only way Martin could go to the Netherlands for the VE Day commemorations was to make the other party leaders go with him so they couldn't slip something through while he was out of town.

Would Harper do a thing like that? Hell, yes. He's a cockroach.
to Harper and all what sails in him!

[leesa]

16. Please Canada, don't let the tragedy that has come to America

come to Canada. Just because your neocons cook up a scandal, doesn't mean you have to put these psychotic neocon killers in charge.

[HEyHEY]

20. Fear not - even if the COns won an election - it'd be minority

[katty]

18. bush, et al have their thumbs all over this pie

o, canada! the wolf is in your house.

[Maple]

23. We know

and the wolf brought money.

[zann725]

46. How true! (Good analogy.)

n/t

[applegrove]

22. PM had support by all parties for his budget. Harper just saw the polls

fall and reneged on that promise so the could take advantage of the worst weeks of testimony on a scandal that took place before the PM was PM and likely while he was not Finance minister for lots of it.

I wonder what will happen.

[Maple]

29. Harper is now claiming

he doesn't like the NDP additions, even though everybody else does.

So he has two choices...accept it and look like a fool after all this hoohah, or vote against a budget everyone likes, and get beaten over the head with it all through a campaign.

[Spazito]

30. Agreed, he has boxed himself in...

which is why he is desperately trying to force a non-confidence motion that can fit within the categories BEFORE the budget. He is looking more and more foolish as he pursues this and his desperation more and more obvious.

[Maple]

32. Yeah he doesn't

want to take out that budget. Or vote for the budget and then claim he has no confidence in the govt.

Wadda maroon he is!

[applegrove]

42. His bone head handlers in Washington need to bone up on Canada

& its history. I say that because Harper is acting like he has never been in Canada. Perhaps there is too much kool-aid in Alberta or something.

You fool yourself if you underestimate us. Nice is a choice, a way of being,.. not a disease of the mind. We like empathy and we hate assholes.

What fools.

I will have to skip the news (I may have already missed it). Too embarrassing. Plus he has clearly allied himself with people who want to break off Quebec. I'm not sure that worked for Mulrooney either.

[tuvor]

43. As soon as harper has to start selling himself, he's toast.

His only hope is to distract from his platform by pointing at the sponsorship "scandal". (In quotes, because I don't recall his indignity at the far-more-expensive gun registry boondoggle.)

[daleo]

44. Harper and the corporate media will spin this as a constitutional crisis

That sounds better than a regular grab for power, which is what it really is (although that is the main role of an opposition, so I don't mind that in principle). There will be plenty of harrumphing, and the separatists will see this as tailor made for their argument that the Canadian federation doesn't work.

I wonder when Mulroney will pop his head up. He has been ensconced in a Montreal hospital, last I heard. They claim he is quite sick, and I suppose I shouldn't be too cynical. It is handy for the Conservatives, though, having him out of play right now.

I heard today that the Gomery inquiry is 'privileged testimony', which means it can't be used in a defamation trial. So, it seems to me that there is really no limit on the claims that can be made. No wonder Harper would rather strike while he has the advantage of uncontested allegations to use during an election campaign.

Still, I think most Canadians will see through it all in the end.