Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The 40th Parliament has an expiration date

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:44pm - 69 Comments

After some degree of procedural wrangling this afternoon, the way is now cleared—barring, conceivably, a last minute deal on the budget or a trip by the Prime Minister to Rideau Hall to dissolve Parliament himself—for the Liberal motion of non-confidence to fell the government on Friday.

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • Crit_Reasoning

    David Akin makes an interesting point on his blog:

    So bottom line here: This government will never be found in contempt of Parliament.

    The opposition parties are happy with this — and are putting up speakers to run out the clock to 5:30 — because of another procedural side effect of spending all day today debating the contempt report, that being, we will not get to to any votes on the budget becausethose votes cannot happen at least until the second day of debate on the budget.

    http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2011…

    • tedbetts

      Except that the Liberal non-confidence motion is in two parts and part (a) is an explicit finding of contempt.

      On the campaign trail, I expect they'll say that this government – sorry, The Stephen Harper Government (TM) – has been in contempt of Parliament three times, which is accurate, or they may say has been found in contempt one time (assuming the motion passes on Friday).

      • tedbetts

        On second and deeper thought, and being a procedural wonk, I'll revise my comment. Technically, the Liberal non-confidence vote can't be recognized as a proper formal "finding" of contempt.

        Motions of privilege/contempt need to first be ruled upon by the Speaker as being prima facie contempt and the Liberal non-confidence motion is a different contempt motion than the Scott Brison one.

        The Liberals can and likely will claim that the government – sorry, The Stephen Harper Government (TM) – has been in contempt of Parliament three times, but can't say it has been found in contempt.

        And surely if any government has shown contempt for our Parliamentary democracy, it is The Stephen Harper Government (TM).

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          And surely if any government has shown contempt for our Parliamentary democracy, it is The Stephen Harper Government (TM).

          I'm sorry, but that is such nonsense, and it's precisely why all this bizarre Liberal triumphalism will come to an abrupt end.

          • tedbetts

            Offering "financial consideration" for the vote of an MP.

            Writing a manual on how to deliberately make Parliament and committees dysfunctional and unable to carry on the business of the people.

            Unprecedented three contempt motions. (We've had lots of minority governments before, so you can blame it on the opposition.)

            Shutting down Parliament 4 times (3 prorogations).

            Breaking the fixed election date law that was passed by the House.

            Detainees.

            Ignoring Parliamentary subpoenas.

            Deliberately disrupting the proceedings of committees (like Finley trying to force himself into a committee hearing).

            etc. etc. etc.

            The claim is not bizarre. It is not triumphalism. It is disgust and sadness.

            Harper could have easily had a majority government a long time ago. If he had decided to govern instead of wage war on Parliamentary democracy.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Yes, it's all a horror show. You run with that. lol

            Amazing what people convince themselves of in the pursuit of ideology and politics.

            Oddly enough, I think all Parliamentarians would behave better if Harper had a majority. The opposition would no longer engage in these endless witch hunts that most people don't understand.

          • AT1

            Ted, breathe deeply!
            Your list is rather amusing, like a rant that you were unable to articulate. Beyond a grab bag of your complaints against the government, it's unclear what the rest us should care about.

        • lgarvin

          The vote is on whether or not the House agrees with the committe in it's finding of contempt. The government has been found in contempt by the committee but that finding must be confirmed by the House. This motion – if passed – confirms the contempt. That's my interpretation… but I'm no Kady O'Malley.

          • Stewart_Smith

            Agree on both points. 1) While not identical to Brison's motion it does explicitly mention it. I think it has exactly the same effect as a concurrence vote simply because that is the explicit intent of the vote. So I am happy to recognize this as the Harper's government legacy achievement. 2) You sure ain't.

    • lgarvin

      I think he's just wrong about that.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Ohhh the irony of this.

  • psiclone

    YEAH TEAM !!!! I love going to the polls especially this election – then again I am a Conservative and can't wait to read these forums after this election as I have a very strange feeling that there are going to be a lot of very frustrated left wign nuts out there who are going to be lining up to re-up their meds before heads explode everywhere – can't wait

    • SanDiegoDave

      I love political partisans- Party first, country second.

      Nice.

    • Jan

      I love the false bravado of the Conbots.

    • D.D.S

      You are aware that this isn't a hockey game….right?

  • tedbetts

    Kady O'Malley liveblogging/tweeting:

    "So by my count, the PM lost control of two things today: a press conference, and the timing of the vote that brings down his government."

    Interesting start to an election.

    • Arturolexo

      By my count, the PM won control of two things today: The election, and the election.

      • D.D.S

        Really??….because he is telling everyone that the decision for an election rests on the opposition and it is out of his control.

  • exccanuck

    Certainly makes the PM look like the only statesman of this parliament. But then, perhaps that is easy given the pathetic, opportunistic, venal, immature, unworthy opposition(s). Does parliament drive them all mad? ir us it just routine Harper Hatred colouring their judgement?

  • bergkamp

    " ….. Liberal motion of non-confidence to fell the government on Friday."

    Not necessarily. PM Martin ignored confidence motion in 2005, so in theory, since our system works on precedents/conventions, PM Harper can ignore confidence motion for a couple of weeks while he tries to bribe oppo MPs with cabinet jobs and other perks.

    I remember reaction of msm when PM Martin ignored confidence motion, crickets chirping was what I remember hearing, but I bet msm reaction would be different if PM Harper pulled a stunt like Martin. It is too bad msm and shrill partisans only worry about Parliament/democracy when Cons are in power because Libs abused Parliament without censure for years and now public no longer take pois seriously.

    • tedbetts

      It's not enough to deny facts and reality. You guys have to completely invent and fabricate your own reality?

      A report from a committee was brought to the House. The report contained, among other things, a motion of non-confidence. The House passed a concurrence motion accepting the report.

      There was no explicit non-confidence motion.

      Convention is pretty clear here: the government falls if it loses on a budget/supply bill, or an express non-confidence motion is passed by the House. Back then that did not happen. This was a concurrence motion which is considered procedural and no government in any Parliamentary jurisdiction has fallen on a procedural motion.

      However, let me add, that that was a dark moment in Canadian politics. Like prorogation, the government was technically correct but morally bankrupt and anti-democratic. And it drove Liberals away. And the media did howl, just like and just as much as they did over Harper's third prorogation.

      • frobisher

        Thank you for the clarification.

  • Jim

    I tuned into AM770 Calgary today and the guest was very good. Great at explaining things, balanced, and thoughtful.

    It took awhile for the host to name the guest but it was Aaron Wherry!

    So I will give credit where I feel it is due.

    I've never heard you speak before, just the writing.

    But I'm also very sorry to say Aaron, but I genuinely feel that your Blog needs to be more of the Wherry I heard today, and less of the Wherry I read on your Blog.

    .

  • frobisher

    Well, there was something procedural (as opposed to fiduciary) was there not? In Spring ought 5.

    • OriginalEmily1

      You might mean this:

      'Earlier this week, the House of Commons passed an NDP motion calling for an election to be held on Feb. 13, thereby avoiding a Christmas campaign. But the Liberals said they'd ignore the motion because it was not a confidence matter.'

      • frobisher

        No, That's not likely it. The big NC motion was end of November (27, 28?) '05. The thing you referenced sounds supplemental to that. Can't recall.

        The thing Bergkamp was referring to was an explicit motion of non-confidence moved towards 'Team Martin' in early '05, which he promptly ignored because it was, as above, 'procedural' as opposed to a 'money bill'. Can't readily find it. Sorry. Smoked by insignifigance, one supposes. Even the press shrugged it off?

        'Cuz, after all, they're biased, lib-left buffet-grazing, MSM jackals, right?

    • Mike T.

      Nope. They tried to re-write a committee report to force a confidence vote, but the speaker ruled it couldn't be a confidence vote. The House lasted another two or so weeks.

      Bergkamp is mistaken or lying.

      • Thwim

        Oh he knows well enough what he's talking about.

      • frobisher

        Pretty sure there was an NC motion in the heat of that Spring. Bergkamp is likely correct in that regard. But, whatever it was, it's poorly documented. Harboured in the hearts of stout and stalwart CPC supporters, nonetheless. Apparently.

    • bergkamp

      "During this Parliament, the Liberal minority government under PM Martin was defeated many times on motions that might well have been considered confidence votes, and three times on motions that appeared to be unequivocal voted of non-confidence (albeit one more explicitly worded than the others). Significantly, these three non-confidence motions were moved by the opposition. Martin's government more or less ignored the first two votes." Confidence Convention Under Canadian Parliamentary System – Canadian Study Of Parliament Group – Dr D. Desserud, U of New Brunswick
      ————-
      May 9 2005 – The Speaker of the House of Commons rules that a motion tabled by the Conservatives, which called for the government to resign, was in order. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois said it would be a confidence vote – and that if the government lost the vote, it would have to resign.

      May 17 2005 – Belinda Stronach, who helped merge the Progressive Conservative and Canadian Alliance parties, crosses the floor to join the Liberals.

      May 19 2005 – There are two motions in the late afternoon of May 19 that could bring down the government. The first – on the budget that was tabled in February – passes …. Paul Martin's government survives its closest brush with death. CBC News InDepth Jan 2006

      ———-

      Liberals are cheats and crooks, abused Parliament for years and now are surprised when minor Con scandals don't gain traction with public. I truly hope Libs run campaign on ethics issues, they will be slaughtered at polls but only after everyone is finished snickering at Libs and their claims of piety, of course.

      • frobisher

        Sure. Whatever you say. Assuming the PM doesn't implode in fit of egoistic pique.

        There's a film tech guy who relates the story of working on a CPC commercial the day Stronach crossed (May, 2005). Everyone was there on set. Prentice. Ambrose.Verneer. Finlay. Jaffer, Guergis (rising then. Ah, those were the days!)

        Oh, SH too.

        The air visibly thickened when the Stronach news hit. The future PM was not available for shooting for a while, so the tale goes (no word about the safety of chairs in the vicinity). The crew did whatever, backgammon maybe, ate jelly-tots and hummous. Ray Novak, meanwhile, was running around trying to look calm and smooth things over. Hilarious it was, according to the lore.

        Ashen faces all around when the big man was, finally, becalmed, smoothed over, and administered his cola and candy. The make-up was re-applied. And the whole ridiculous venture ground up again. Everyone on set got a two-day rate. So they were happy. The ads were crappy, tho.

        Point being, hubris can override everything. One pities Ray Novak.

  • prescott

    A coalition of the Oppostion parties is beginning to sound really appealing. They wouldn't even have to formulate a letter, just change the date and the name of the GG on Harper's 2004 coalition letter (see Maclean's article below)
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/a-trip-down-mi…

    • Thwim

      Heh. It'd be even funnier if the changes were handwritten.

      • Charles

        hahaha

    • Charles

      To be fair, this letter just says that the opposition parties should be consulted before a new election is called. But I think there was a more overt letter drafted (but never sent) in 2000 or maybe 1997, when Alliance and PC thought the Libs would get a minority; it wasn't sent because the Libs got the majority.

  • Stewart_Smith

    Hmmm, is it possible that the Queen herself asked Ignatieff to cause this keeping that drone Harper from darkening William's big day. Hopefully, Laureen can still go with an upgrade.

    • john g

      Maybe she could take Obama as her date. I know the USA is not under the monarchy and the wedding is not considered a "state" occasion, but I was truly shocked to learn that the Obamas were snubbed.

      • Crit_Reasoning

        That's a groovy new avatar.

        • Stewart_Smith

          the (muppet) bar has been raised

    • wellwell

      This is why I'm a monarchist.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      I think John Baird will be busy too.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Nothing wrong with coalitions….Harper tried it.

    • tedbetts

      England and Australia and Ireland and Israel, among many others, all have one right now.

    • Loraine Lamontagne

      Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe remind readers in today's Le Devoir, that Harper is the person who approached them and set the bases for a possible coalition in 2004 after the election of incumbent Paul Martin's minority government.

      As Mr. Harper is now the incumbent, he is the one who is most likely to form a coalition should no party gain a majority, even if Harper's party came in second. As an incumbent, he has the first shot at trying to form a government.

  • chet

    So a petty partisan motion titilating to partisan insiders from the opposition, but wholly unimportant to average everyday Canadians,

    trumps the most important government action, which deals with every government program which directly affects every man, woman and child in our great land (the budget).

    I's say the way the Liberals are going about this is in perfect form for Iggy's Liberals.

    "Foget about that petty budget, the tax credits to help the elderly, the programs for home renos, the levels of taxations for us all, etc, etc, etc, we the Liberals are declaring our political enemies in contempt and THAT fellow Canadians is what's important to you".

    This election won't even be close.

    Not even close.

    • frobisher

      (snap. snap in a beatnik style)

      Whatever they say about you, Chet, your free verse rocks. If only there was a way to put bongos into the comments…

      • Mostlycivil

        That's hep, Daddy-O.

  • bergkamp

    "It is a firm constitutional convention that prime ministers must either resign or call an election if they lose a vote of confidence in the House. The May 10, 2005 vote on the public accounts committee report is essentially a vote on whether the government should resign, and as such it should be considered a clear vote of confidence.

    The wording of the motion passed on May 10, 2005 indicates that it should be considered a clear vote of confidence. What is important in this motion is that the House had to collectively express its view on whether the government should resign. One could not vote for the motion without agreeing that the government should resign, which is the essence of a non-confidence vote. While the wording of the motion is convoluted, the essential content is a clear expression of non-confidence." Dr A Heard, SFU, May 2005
    http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/conventions.html

    • wellwell

      Heard was expressing his opinion at the time, but it turns out he was wrong, and so are you. You can't bury non-confidence language in a committee report, and then use mere Commons approval of that report to bring down the government. Such a "convoluted" outcome would not be "a clear expression of non-confidence."

      • s_c_f

        Andrew Coyne was also expressing the same opinion. Many people were. Martin ended up offering a delayed time period til the election that gave himself enough time to hand out a gazillion perks and lots of pork prior to the election.

  • Loraine Lamontagne

    Who are you to tell what Canadians find unimportant? I remind you that Mr. Harper used to mandate his MPs to discuss the Dion family dog in the House of Commons because he felt that this was what mattered most to Canadians (?!?)

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Looks like Harper is willing to let this Parliament die on a Liberal motion. Because, in the end, it's always about Michael! Ha!

    In all seriousness, I think that will be a basic message – this is nothing more than a Liberal power grab led by the Iggster himself.

  • john g

    Just as well. Whether you want to call it an expiration date or not, it's certainly past it's "Best Before" date, which was likely sometime in early November 2008.

    I'm truly torn. Part of me wants a CPC majority to just have done with this nonsense for a few years, and part of me wants a CPC minority, with more seats than Lib+NDP, but weaker than today, with enough of a setback to bring the knives out for Harper. For the first time since I've been old enough to vote I'm seriously considering just sitting this one out.

    Even my usually cheerful avatar has begun to despair.

  • Stewart_Smith

    lol, so now Harper is pulling the strings leading up to this unnecessary election. Goalpost moving indeed!

  • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

    I like it when you make fair observations. I point this out so that you'll reconsider some of your other posting styles. Right now it's still kind of like pouring a glass of clean water into a well that's poisoned with non-sequitur arguments and "lol next"s, but please keep up this new direction — I look forward to being able to take you more seriously.

  • Stewart_Smith

    Tell your avatar to cheer up. The PMO is sending out commemorative noseplugs for all true conservatives to wear on May 2nd.

  • tedbetts

    I respect your frankness.

    I don't think you'd find a huge number of Liberals who would be completely thrilled with their party and leader and their conduct, it's why none of them are popular and the undecided vote is very high, about one quarter right now.

    One thing I hear over and over from Liberals – and I think of this as an advantage to them which says a lot about the state of politics and the Liberal party – is that they feel they have stayed away and its time to put the country ahead of themeselves. Harper has been a bigger motivator for Liberals than Ignatieff.

    On the other side, I hear a lot of Conservatives like you which is what I heard from Liberals in 2004 and 2006: 'You can maybe/probably count on me to hold my nose show up to vote 'cause I really don't like the other guy, but until E-day leave me alone. I'm kinda sick of my own party right now and if you push it/me, you'll only get me more pissed off.'

  • Thwim

    The former is unlikely to happen, as Mr. Ignatieff would have to run a spectacularly bad campaign to get the low levels of turn-out suffered by Dion. Add to that the actions of this government turning off voters such as yourself and I really don't see any way that this election can result in a CPC majority.

    That said, the performance of the Liberal party has been so lackluster, and the well-being of most everyday Canadians relatively stagnant.. not much better, but not much worse either, I don't see a lot of room for them to grow either.

    My current expectations are very modest growth of the Liberals, stronger growth of the NDP, significant weakening of the Bloc, and slight weakening of the CPC (as they take some Bloc seats). Oh, and the Greens might.. might.. be able to elect May, because it sounds like they're finally figuring out how to focus resources where they might have some effect.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Well, you almost stuck to the substance of my post. If people do that, we're all good. If they don't, and try garbage against me, I let them have it.

    Of course, you're more than welcome to point out even one "non-sequitur" argument that I've made. Again, I actually do prefer the substance. Indeed, I think it's the substance and logic of my posts that scare so many.

  • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

    But form is also content, Dennis.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Whatever the heck that means. If you spent less time attacking me, and more time addressing my points, then maybe you'll be happier with my "form." Why is that so hard for some of you? If you don't want people to talk back, go to a left-wing Web site or something. I dunno.

  • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

    No, no, no, no, no. You were doing fine. You had been courteous and receptive to courtesy. You had established trust with the embarrassing truth about Harper's campaign strategy, and now this ham-handed segue into predictable left-bashing.

    It won't do.

    Do you think you can dissect me with that blunt little tool?

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Who the heck are you to tell me how I can and can't post on here? This is Canada, buddy, not China.

  • Acs

    "Mr. Ignatieff would have to run a spectacularly bad campaign?" Ummm…he's polling even worse than Dion did, so…that argument doesn't make sense. The fact that even Liberals dislike Iggy so much may make them less apt to bother going out to vote. The Libs. are going to lose quite a few seats….that's my guess…and those seat numbers will probably mostly go the the conservatives.

  • Thwim

    I put no faith in political polls whatsoever anymore. Why? Partially because the pollsters tell me not to. Partially because they got it so spectacularly wrong in Calgary. But mostly because I look at the financial reports of the telcos. Landlines are an increasingly diminishing aspect of their business, and those are the numbers that pollsters call. Pollsters are increasingly becoming subject to a demographic bias which they simply cannot correct for as the number of cell-phone only users is not well known.

    As this demographic reaches the voting age and the landline demographic dies off, I'm predicting we'll see increasing divergence between poll results and actual results.

    However, assuming the polls yet retain some validity, I put forward that the only way Canadians have seen Mr. Ignatieff defined so far is in CPC attack advertisements and 10%ers. I tend to agree with the Liberal war room that putting a more specific spotlight on Mr. Ignatieff will not hurt him one bit.

    Or in short, he's down so far, it's unlikely he'll get worse, and quite likely he'll get better.

    On the flip side, the CPC government has a lot of baggage going into this election that they didn't have last time. That's not only going to make things more difficult for them, but I tend to believe it will fire up Liberals to get out and vote even if they don't think Ignatieff is that great. A "choose the lesser of two evils" strategy.

    john g is, in fact, anecdotal evidence of my claims. In 2008, he never would have suggested he might not be voting for the CPC. He's not their strongest supporter around here, but he's not their weakest either, which leads me to believe there's a raft of former CPC voters out there who will need significant prompting to get out to the polls.

Previous

Next

From Macleans