Bizzaro world of Canadian Politics

[RickJay]

@Hamish

In the event of a tie, the Speaker will vote, and is almost guaranteed to support the Liberals.

I believe the Speaker is actually obligated to vote for the government in a confidence motion.

[Hamish]

@Raygun99

I thought the Tories had decided to support the budget, but were going to try and kill the second bill today, over $4.something billion promised to NDP platform causes.

True, but I’m pretty sure that counts ars part of the non-confidence vote as well. The NDP suggested the modifications, but the Liberals are supporting them, and so I’m pretty sure that the government will still fall if that portion is voted down.

[Kythereia]

Should we start a livewatch thread for the confidence motion going on right now?

[Hamish]

@Kythereia

Should we start a livewatch thread for the confidence motion going on right now?

We could just use this one – no sense of giving the mods more of a headache, and anyone looking for the budget issue in GD will probably come here first.

[RickJay]

Chuck Cadman stood with the government, so there won’t be an election.

[Hamish]

This just in – Cadman voted “yes” to both parts of the budget. Voting isn’t finished yet, but barring a major surprise that no one’s expecting, the budget will pass and there will probably be no election until at least 2006.

[AHarris]

The government has survived both votes now.

David Kilgour(Ind) voted against the ammendmant (second vote), forcing a 152-152 tie.

The speaker of the house, Peter Milliken, broke the tie by voting in favor of the ammendment (final vote: 153-152 in favor).

Source: http://news.sympatico.msn.ca/Special+Features/Articles/Nonconfidence+Vote

[Mehitabel]

Geez. Will the gummint be able to get anything done now, though, or am I sitting under a gigantic lame duck in Ottawa?

<puts up umbrella>

[BrainGlutton]

@Hamish

This just in – Cadman voted “yes” to both parts of the budget.

Who is this “Cadman”? A new (underground) comix superhero?

[Gorsnak]

@BrainGlutton

Who is this “Cadman”? A new (underground) comix superhero?

MP for Surrey North. Was a Conservative MP before the last election. He lost the Tory nomination for his riding, decided to run as an independent, and won. In this particular case, he had the swing vote.

[Sam_Stone]

I just listened to Kilgour on the radio. He said that his decision to vote against the 4.6 billion dollar amendment to the budget was based on a principled objection to the way that supplementary budget was created. It didn’t go through the commons, it didn’t go through the normal finance channels. It was essentially a back-of-the-napkin agreement between Martin and Layton. And while Martin and Layton are claiming that it’s earmarked for various things (public day care, the environment, public housing, and mass transit), a reading of the amendment shows that it’s just another huge slush fund that can be spent on whatever they please.

So, expect more fights coming up over this. However, the Liberals are poised to pick up another seat in a byelection, so they’ll probably survive.

[Treviathan]

So I’m guessing that this means we’ll be seeing the proposed same-sex marriage legislation all the way through the various readings, until it (most likely) becomes put into law?

If so, I’m quite pleased with today’s result.

[Northern_Piper]

@Mehitabel

Geez. Will the gummint be able to get anything done now, though, or am I sitting under a gigantic lame duck in Ottawa?

<puts up umbrella>

Well, odds are that the Grits will get a one member increase within a couple of weeks. There’s a bye-election on May 24 in Labrador, which the Liberals are expected to win. If so, by June 6 the election will be confirmed and the Liberals will be up one more member. Not a strong majority, but still better than relying on the Speaker.

[Northern_Piper]

@Sam Stone

It didn’t go through the commons,

Huh?

Of course it went through the Commons. That’s why it just got voted on in the Commons by the MPs. It was introduced in the Commons on May 6, 2005 and it’s just now gone through second reading in the Commons.

@Sam Stone

And while Martin and Layton are claiming that it’s earmarked for various things (public day care, the environment, public housing, and mass transit), a reading of the amendment shows that it’s just another huge slush fund that can be spent on whatever they please.

That’s odd. The bill expressly states what the money is to be spent on: the environment, post-secondary training, housing and foreign aid. The bill also allocates how much of the money is to be spend on each of those four categories

**Allocation

2.** (1) The payments made under subsections 1(1) and (2) shall be allocated as follows:

(a) for the environment, including for public transit and for an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing, an amount not exceeding $900 million;

(b) for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion;

© for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion; and

(d) for foreign aid, an amount not exceeding $500 million.

Someone should phone Mr. Kilgour and tell him he must not have been reading the right bill. :dubious:

[Northern_Piper]

@RickJay

I believe the Speaker is actually obligated to vote for the government in a confidence motion.

Not quite. It’s usually phrased that when the House is equally divided, the Speaker should vote in a way that allows debate to continue, in hopes that the House will be able to make a clear decision at a later date in the process.

The vote today was a vote on second reading. By voting for the bill, the Speaker sends it on to committee stage, allowing the House further opportunity to debate the merits of the bill, and perhaps reach a clear decision.

It just happens that by voting that way, Mr. Speaker has upheld the government.

[Northern_Piper]

@matt_mcl

As I understand it, this isn’t true; if the government falls while The Queen is in Canada, it’s up to her to dissolve Parliament. Again IIRC, the Governor General has no power while The Queen is in Canada.

With all due respect, I don’t think that’s right, matt.

Here’s the provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867:

Declaration of Executive Power in the Queen
9. The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.

Application of Provisions referring to Governor General
10. The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General extend and apply to the Governor General for the Time being of Canada, or other the Chief Executive Officer or Administrator for the Time being carrying on the Government of Canada on behalf and in the Name of the Queen, by whatever Title he is designated.

As well, the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General provide:

II. And We do hereby authorize and empower Our Governor General, with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada or of any members thereof or individually, as the case requires, to exercise all powers and authorities lawfully belonging to Us in respect of Canada, and for greater certainty but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing to do and execute, in the manner aforesaid, all things that may belong to his office and to the trust We have reposed in him according to the several powers and authorities granted or appointed him by virtue of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1940 and the powers and authorities hereinafter conferred in these Letters Patent and in such Commission as may be issued to him under Our Great Seal of Canada and under such laws as are or may hereinafter be in force in Canada.

Nothing in either of these provisions that suggest that the GovGen cannot act when the Queen is personally present in Canada. I suppose if the Prime Minister formally advised the Queen to act directly she could do so, but I don’t see why the PM would do that. Best to keep her symbolic and leave any actions to the GovGen.

[matt_mcl]

Thanks, Piper. As long as you’re here, permit me to quote something you said in the MPSIMS thread, which I think was very à propos:

@Northern Piper

As well, even if the government has lost a confidence motion in the House, that does not mean an automatic election. A defeated government has two options: to change the government to suit the House, or to try to change the House through an election to support the government. Since party discipline has been so strong in Canada over the past century, we tend to forget the first option, but that is essentially what PM Martin has done: by adding Ms. Stronach to his Cabinet, he has changed the composition of his government to bolster its support in the House. That’s perfectly legitimate. It’s what Prime Minister Macdonald did in the old Province of Canada after a defeat in the House: he cut a deal by which Galt would join his government, bringing in the necessary votes to command a majority in the House. That deal ultimately led to the Grand Coalition with Brown, which resulted in Confederation.

[bob_loblaw]

and on top of that posted by northern piper via mattmcl, if the government loses a confidence vote, and the prime minister resigns & requests dissolution of the house (and thereby an election,) the governor general can still say “no” and ask another member of parliament (for example, the leader of the opposition) who she believes can hold the confidence of the house, to form a government.

it has happened before, in 1926. mackenzie king’s liberals held a minority government, and were rocked by corruption scandal. the house voted no confidence, king asked for an election, and gg byng refused. king resigned, and byng asked arthur meighen, the conservative leader, to form a government. that conservative government lasted about a week before losing the confidence of the house, and at that time gg byng dissolved parliament and in the ensuing election, kings liberals won a majority.

[Bookkeeper]

I doubt that I am the only Canadian whose take on the scandals being uncovered by the Gomery commission is along the lines of:

The Liberals, as a political organization, are proving (in Quebec, anyway) to be sleazy crooks. Come the election, who do I vote for?

The Liberals? Sleazy crooks as a political organization, but with policies that I mainly agree with as a part of government.

The Conservatives? Not yet had a chance to demonstrate whether they are sleazy crooks as a political organization, but with policies that I mainly disagree with (in some cases strongly disagree with) as a part of government. (Also have more than their fair share of candidates that I see as bigoted wackos and/or determined to impose their personal religious beliefs on me and the rest of Canadians.)

The NDP? Not yet had a chance to demonstrate whether they are sleazy crooks as a political organization, but with policies that I mainly disagree with as a part of government.

The Bloq? Not yet had a chance to demonstrate whether they are sleazy crooks as a political organization, but with a basic raison d’être that I absolutely disagree with as a part of government. Don’t live in Quebec anyway.

Given the sleaze record of both the old Progressive Conservatives and the Liberals when in power, my past tendency has been to view politicians as a class as likely to prove to be sleazoid, lying, scum when in power and to either hold my nose and vote Liberal for the good things they do when not whoring for votes or funds, or, on occasion, to vote Rhino/Green/whatever as a “pox on both your houses” statement.

[BrainGlutton]

Lots of talk in this thread accusing the Liberals (and sometimes others) of being “sleazy.” Just out of curiosity, what does it take for a politician or party to be considered “sleazy” by Canadian standards? Acceptance of bribes? Solicitation of bribes? Failure to honor deals predicated on bribes? Embezzlement of public funds? Cheating on campaign-financing laws? Sexual peccadilloes? Or just telling lies or half-truths to the public?