Election time? - Go now or wait for Gomery?

[Prariedawg]

Liberal Tony Valari has announced that on May18th that if the Lie-brals recieve a vote of non-confidence they will ignore it and carry-on,well folks you have just heard an MP plan the first Canadian dictatorship in history,did I wake up in communist China this morning?

 

[Infanteer]

That is where the Governor General could step in - by law she could dissolve Parliament.  Boy, would that make an interesting political situation.

If I'm not mistaken, the non-confidence vote is convention; there is nothing that says that the government has to call an election.

 

[Reccesoldier]

This is what the CPC is basing it's position of confidence on.

King-Byng redux

Parts of one of Canadian history's most dramatic political moments is about to replay itself as this 38th Parliament inches closer to dissolution.

That's because Tory strategists, in their bid to trigger a snap election, have taken a page out of the play book of their 1920s Conservative colleagues who, led by leader Arthur Meighen, forced Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King to resign in 1926 using a motion that amounted to a censure of government.

A very similar motion turned up in Parliament last month on April 22 when Conservative Leader Stephen Harper moved a motion to amend a committee report on the budget that had been reported back to the Commons from the House Finance Committee. That motion calls on the "government resign over refusing to accept some of the committee's key recommendations and to implement the budgetary changes that Canadians need."

It is expected to come to a vote on May 17 or May 18.

Such a tactic, of trying to bring down the government by amending a committee report with a censure motion, was used by Meighen's Conservatives 79 years ago this spring.

At the time, Mackenzie King's Liberals were in a minority situation and facing a government scandal, much like Paul Martin's Liberals of today. Mackenzie King's problems were linked to corruption in the customs department, however, not public works.

On June 22, 1926, Conservative MP Henry Stevens moved an amendment to a committee report on the alleged scandal. It described "the conduct of the government and the Prime Minister" as "wholly indefensible" and "the conduct of the minister of customs" as "utterly unjustifiable."

The motion, however, never came to a vote. Knowing his defeat was at hand, the wily Mackenzie King asked for a dissolution of Parliament from Lord Byng, the governor general of the day. Lord Byng, in what triggered a crisis that has since become known as King-Byng affair, refused, arguing Mackenzie King was trying to stifle Parliament. Mackenzie King resigned in a huff, but not before launching a series of procedural actions in a desperate attempt to kill the motion of censure. All of them failed.

 

[Blue Max]

The Liberals will be able to ignore the vote tomorrow tabled by the Tories, because it is not a budgetary vote of confidence.

 

[Infanteer]

Well, this is what happens when you don't have codified constitutional procedures:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/09/confidence-government050509.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/election2005/minoritygovt.html

 

[Prariedawg]

You know what,my bad guys.I heard the news this morning driving to the base and it didnt mention anything about it just being a motion Just heard the evening news after I got home from school and got the full story.

 

[Reccesoldier]

What I understand is that the committee is going to declare that it has lost confidence in the government and bring that motion into the House of Confidence to be voted on by the MP's.

So the CPC's position is that if a majority of the HoC agrees with the committees statement then they are in effect expressing non- confidence in the government. Sounds simple enough to me.

If a small group of shreholders in a company expressed misgivings about the leadership of a company and then raised those fears in a shareholders meeting and the majority of the rest of the shareholders agreed would the CEO still be employed at the end of the day?

I think the liberals will be on shakey ground should they just ignore this motion, and honestly I think this government is already crippled and we will get no real work out of it until we have an election (other than a continuation  of Christmas in May in order to buy votes).

Time for the GG to earn her pay. She has the power to end this farce.

A non-confidence vote does not have to be about the budget although normaly it does deal with some major piece of the governments platform.

 

[Reccesoldier]

The lying cheating bastards!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050510/BUDGET10/Front/Idx

OTTAWA -- MPs will vote today on a Conservative motion calling on the government to resign, after another wild day of procedural tactics.

Although the Liberals insist the motion is not one of confidence, two experts said the government would be expected to schedule a clear confidence vote in coming days if it loses today's vote.

"If that motion passes, I think they are -- to use the vernacular -- in deep doodoo," said parliamentary expert Charles Franks.

The Conservatives secured the vote yesterday through a surprise move that they had quietly planned days in advance with the Bloc Québécois.

Two Tory MPs who have cancer are being flown in for the vote, and all 54 Bloc MPs are in Ottawa today. B.C. Independent MP Chuck Cadman, who had chemotherapy treatment yesterday, will not be there to support the Liberals, so the Tories should have the votes to win.

Mr. Franks, of Queen's University, said today's vote would not be a no-confidence matter in the proper sense because it is a roundabout procedural instruction to a committee, not an explicit declaration of a loss of confidence expressed in a substantive motion.

But it would be a "body blow" to the government's legitimacy that would have to be settled quickly, Mr. Franks said. "If they don't, they're in perilous waters."

The government could bring forward its own explicit no-confidence motion, on which it would stand or fall. Or, it could rush in a vote on an automatic no-confidence matter, like its budget bill.

There is no hard and fast rule about how long that can wait, but Mr. Franks said it should not be delayed until June, for example. "I imagine that should be sooner rather than later."

Patrick Monahan, the dean of Osgoode Hall Law School and author of an authoritative text on constitutional law in Canada, agreed that today's motion is not a no-confidence matter in the strict sense, but could raise a question about confidence that must be resolved soon.

Liberal Whip Karen Redman said two Liberal MPs could be absent today, for personal and medical reasons. But she insisted this is not a no-confidence vote.

Both Bloc Québécois House Leader Michel Gauthier and Tory House Leader Jay Hill confirmed yesterday that the two parties had met to plan for yesterday's surprise motion. The Speaker of the House ruled the motion in order, setting the stage for today's confrontation.

The Conservative motion calls on the public accounts committee to rewrite a report so that it calls on the government to resign. The amendment is virtually identical to one made to another committee report that is expected to be voted on on May 18. The Liberals have also dismissed that one.

The Liberals attempted a surprise of their own and asked for the vote to be held last night. But the opposition successfully argued that a deal was made not to hold any votes while the party leaders were in the Netherlands at V-E Day ceremonies.


In Apeldoorn, the Netherlands, before boarding a plane to Ottawa with the Prime Minister and two other opposition leaders, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said such motions are clearly matters of no-confidence.

"I think this is outrageous. The government cannot decide whether it has or doesn't have the confidence of the House. . . .

"This is to me another example of undemocratic behaviour in the face of the government's own difficulties in controlling the parliamentary agenda," he said.

Mr. Gauthier said he is confident the motion will pass and called for an immediate election.

New Democrat House Leader Libby Davies said that her party views today's vote as a matter of no-confidence and will vote against it as part of a deal to pass the budget.

Government House Leader Tony Valeri said the Conservatives and Bloc are misrepresenting the vote.

"Procedural motions are not confidence motions," he said. ". . . The opposition parties are not reflecting what Canadians are saying. Canadians are saying, 'Don't have an election, make this Parliament work, deal with the budget issue itself.' "

 

[Joe Blow]

Martin has promised to hold an election one month after Gomery publishes his report.

Personally I'd rather not let the Libs run a campaign with government money until November  ...and the house isn't functioning very well.  I say it's time, but maybe there's more to it than what I see.

Your thoughts?

 

[LCIS227]

I think that our system is totally broken. If our government cannot work in a minorty evironment then it's a clear indication that Canadians/MP cannot comprimise.

We need to make a minority government work, because most likely, next election will only bring in another minority parliement and so on ... I'm not saying the Liberals should stay in power, but I'm not saying the NDP and Conservatives should be in power as well.

I don't feel like wasting millions of dollars in another election that'll bring "nothing" in return and I'm sure many Canadians think the same way.

All I know is that the Liberals gave the CF 12billion dollars and unless they stay in power for those 5 years, what is there that garantees that money will stay where it belongs?

Cheers

 

[SHELLDRAKE!!]

If an election is called, and the conservatives replace the liberals, we are still getting nowhere.Dont get me wrong I'm the conservatives biggest supporter but unless the governmental process is not changed we will never get anywhere.

  I think if a budget promise is made, the party should put itself on the line if its not commited to.Its one thing to promise the world just to get into power, but a real government would stick to its promises.

  There are those in the CF that worry that if the liberals fall, we would lose the money promised to the CF. Who really believes they were going to really commit to the plan when the bulk of the money promised wouldnt be seen for years to come.

I think all politicians should have to account for every tax dollar taken in and if they are found to have "misspent" our money, they should face a minimum jail sentence plus have to repay the money.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If an election is called, and the conservatives replace the liberals, we are still getting nowhere.Dont get me wrong I'm the conservatives biggest supporter but unless the governmental process is not changed we will never get anywhere.

  I think if a budget promise is made, the party should put itself on the line if its not commited to.Its one thing to promise the world just to get into power, but a real government would stick to its promises.

  There are those in the CF that worry that if the liberals fall, we would lose the money promised to the CF. Who really believes they were going to really commit to the plan when the bulk of the money promised wouldnt be seen for years to come.

I think all politicians should have to account for every tax dollar taken in and if they are found to have "misspent" our money, they should face a minimum jail sentence plus have to repay the money.

That's what the Conservatives are missing.  If they run on an expanded Auditor General Role, and increased criminal penalties for government corruption, they win in a landslide.  The problem is they haven't said a word about how they're going to clean things up....just that they're going to do.  Making claims without a plan will get you nowhere.

I hope they get their shiiiiiit together soon.



M. 

 

[Joe Blow]

All I know is that the Liberals gave the CF 12billion dollars and unless they stay in power for those 5 years, what is there that garantees that money will stay where it belongs?

Isn't that just client politics at work?  Make people dependant on your government and they're sure to vote for you.  Before an election they run about saying they will give everyone everything, but if they're replaced ...well there's a chance no gets anything. 

An intersting aside is that left leaning dictatorships keep huge civil services in part for that reason.  Who would challenge the state when the state employs your whole family?  So what if the #$%# disturber down the street (or ethnic group X) can't publish his (their) antigov. news paper? - Not that Canada is a dictatorship or that the Liberals are the Bath party. 

The analogy only extends so far. All I'm saying is that the general strategy of maintaining power (in this case securing votes of CF members) by making the citizenry dependant on your continued stewardship of government is a well known one.

Don't look for gravy.  Look for integrity in leadership.

(EDIT: The above line is accusatory and was not meant to be.  I should have said "We should not be looking for gravy.  We should be looking for...")

Anyway, there is no great guarantee that the money promised in that budget will ever be delivered in any case.  The majority of it is slated for years 4 and 5 of the five year plan.  With the way they have been tossing money about in the run up to this election (I will look for numbers tonight)  I'd be surprised if they could meet all their commitments ...and what is always the first thing to go under a Liberal government when budgets get tight?

 

[Brad Sallows]

An election now would be cheaper than the cost of buying continued life support for this government.

A different minority government might actually govern.  Even if essentially the same government is returned, it sends a message that all parties involved can stop dreaming abou the next election result and get on with what they have.

 

[Infanteer]

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

Well, there you have it folks - despite the fact that 153 Members of Parliament voted for the Liberals to give it up and go to an election and only 150 voted against it, the Liberals have said that they will continue to govern.  This is where we could seriously use an elected Governor-General with some political teeth.

 

[Infanteer]

I don't see how the Communism thing relates to the issue - that is no better then left-of-center people pointing the Conservative Party and saying "redneck boogyman".

Stick the issue.

 

[civvy3840]

I hope the GG calls for an election. The Liberals have messed things up bad enough I think it's time the Conservatives get in and do their stuff. I only hope that if the Conservatives do take over that they will still give the 12 million to the CF or more.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[Reccesoldier]

That's what the Conservatives are missing.  If they run on an expanded Auditor General Role, and increased criminal penalties for government corruption, they win in a landslide.  The problem is they haven't said a word about how they're going to clean things up....just that they're going to do.  Making claims without a plan will get you nowhere.

I hope they get their shiiiiiit together soon.



M. 

CB, it's all in here http://www.conservative.ca/documents/20050319-POLICY DECLARATION.pdf

 

[Joe Blow]

Anyway, there is no great guarantee that the money promised in that budget will ever be delivered in any case.  The majority of it is slated for years 4 and 5 of the five year plan.  With the way they have been tossing money about in the run up to this election (I will look for numbers tonight)  I'd be surprised if they could meet all their commitments ...and what is always the first thing to go under a Liberal government when budgets get tight?

Well, this is the best I could find:

Even the New Democrats were squawking the Commons yesterday, wondering how the government could possibly cover all it's promises, including its side deal to support the budget.

Add the combined $7.8 billion Ontario and Newfoundland payoffs to the 4.6 billion 2 year deal to buy the New Democrat's support, the $5 billion hole in the Kyoto plan and the planned $4 billion debt repayment, not mention the liability of aboriginal residential school settlements , and the IOUs dwarf the projected surplus of $9.1 billion.

Don Martin - National Post
Tuesday, May 10th, '05

Clearly I have not done the tally of promises myself and it is worthy of mention that Mr. Martin's column was clearly labeled 'comment', so I only offer it for what it's worth.  However given those things (he is a respected journalist after all), and even assuming the Liberals have purposely low balled the surplus projection - as seems to be their practice - it's looking like a tight squeeze. 

I'll restate the question for effect: 'what is always the first thing to go under a Liberal government when budgets get tight?'.  Don't count on that 12 billion.  There's a reason most of it is slated for years 4 and 5.

Joe

 

[Long in the tooth]

Although I don't see a valid alternative in waiting (a conservative MAJORITY), the current government should be put out of its misery.  The PM doesn't have the integrity to run the country without handing out bread and conducting circuses.  He's buying us off with our own future taxes!

We have taxation without representation, whole countries have been lost over this.