Federal budget passes unopposed on mix-up

[daleo]

Even though two federal parties had promised to vote against the Conservative government's budget, it passed Tuesday without opposition because of an apparent mix-up.


Finance Minister Jim Flaherty responds to questions during question period Tuesday. (CBC)
When the May 2 budget came up for its third and final reading in the House of Commons on Tuesday morning, no one stood to speak. Because there were no apparent speakers, the budget was declared passed by unanimous consent with no recorded vote.

NDP MP Libby Davies told CBC News the mix-up happened because a Conservative MP who had been scheduled to speak first was not in the chamber.

In the ensuing confusion, Davies said the opposition legislators were waiting for the Tory MP to show up and speak before they stood up. They later learned that the budget had been dealt with, at least as far as the House of Commons was concerned.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2006/06/06/budget.html

A conservative trick, or did everyone just want to avoid any chance of an election (and not have to go on the record)?

[Spazito]

1. Geez, it certainly makes the opposition look pretty dumb, imo

Pathetic, truly pathetic. The Finance Minister wasn't even in the House when his budget came up for the vote, that is interesting, to say the least.

I don't think it was a question of avoiding any chance of an election as it was a sure thing to pass, the Bloc already said they would support it, so it seems either the Liberals and NDP were incompetent or complicit, either way it sucks, imo.

[daleo]

2. It does seem like amateur day

Mind you, if Libs/NDP didn't actually trust BQ to vote with the government (or show up in sufficient numbers), there may have been a behind the scenes agreement to pretend to make a mistake. I doubt either party want an election now, but they wouldn't want to vote with the government to avoid one either.

Any way you look at it, its pretty weird. It reminds me a bit of Joe Clark's miscue in 1980.

[HEyHEY]

3. It was on purpose

Party's pull this shit all the time, they find a loophole to exploit.

[Spazito]

4. I'm not even sure this is a legal passage of the budget...

Unanimous Consent


"At times, the House may choose to depart from the rules it has made for itself by obtaining the consent of all Members present in the House. Such a suspension of the rules or usual practices is done by what is termed “unanimous consent”.

For the most part, unanimous consent is used as a means of expediting the routine business of the House or as a means of extending the courtesies of the House. For example, unanimous consent can be used to alter the usual speaking rotation, briefly extend the length of speeches or permit a Member who has already spoken to make additional comments.

The arrangement of House business is also commonly achieved by unanimous consent. This may involve changes to the order of business, the suspension of sittings, alterations in adjournment hours or sitting days and special orders respecting procedures for individual events.

Despite the variety of uses to which it has been put, unanimous consent cannot be utilized to circumvent any and every rule or practice of the House. For example, unanimous consent may not be used to set aside provisions of the Constitution Act or any other statutory authority."

http://www.parl.gc.ca/compendium/web-content/c_g_debatevoting-e.htm#10

I don't see anyone being asked to consent to "unanimous consent" to the passage of the bill which seems is a prerequisite to it being a legal decision.

It doesn't seem, however, the opposition parties care too much which is interesting in itself.

[daleo]

5. Good reference, this seems dodgier all the time

The budget is probably the most important legislation that the house passes, next to a declaration of war. All the government's spending, and therefore its legislative agenda, is supposed to tie back to the budget. The opposition should be crying holy hell about this little trick, unless they are in on it. If so, then all four parties are treating the public shabbily.

Harper ought to be screaming himself, since he was supposed to be elected on a platform of accountability. What could be more of a slap at that, than passing the budget without even voting?

[MrPrax]

6. Incompetence or Conspiracy?

Not much of a choice...they can't admit to collusion, but I suppose being 'stupid' is something the public would fall for... :eyes:

[daleo]

7. Both the Globe and my Canwest paper played this down

A few column inches well within the paper was about all they gave it. The Globe's headline was so vague that you had to know what happened to even relate the headline to the story. Layton was interviewed, but nobody else.

His quote was (more or less), "oh well, we knew the budget would pass anyway". Nobody can actually be sure of anything during a minority parliament (recall Joe Clark in 1980), so that seems disingenuous. My conclusion is that the parties pulled this little trick on purpose to avoid a vote. Collusion or maybe a little bit of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink"?

[HuffleClaw]

8. AAAAARRRGGGGGHHHHHHH

yet one more gambit from the BushCo. playbook, this time a cute little "legislative trick". what a joke.