Canpol: Election Imminent?

[notyoueither]

Time for a new one, thread that is.

[St Leo]

1. Liberals have decided that they want to fall on the budget because the budget is popular and it would give them ammunition for re-election.

2. Tories have decided that it's possible for procedural motions to be non-confidence votes, and are hoping to bring down the government with one even before the budget. Legal experts disagree.

3. Ed Broadbent is retiring from politics again.

[notyoueither]

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2005/may/2/legislation/&c=1

The Hill Times, May 2nd, 2005
LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
By Paco Francoli
Liberal government death watch
Can Paul Martin's government avoid a spring non-confidence vote? The Conservatives say they can't
With the return of MPs to the House of Commons this week, the question on everyone's mind is when and how Prime Minister Paul Martin's government will face down a non-confidence vote, this after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said last week that he will "be asking our caucus to put this government out of its misery at the earliest possible opportunity."

But bringing down the government is not as easy as it might sound, particularly with Grit strategists--led by the savvy veteran procedural expert Jerry Yanover, who has been adviser to Liberal House leaders for decades--working double-time to keep the currently embattled governing party afloat.

Right now Tory strategists have their hopes pinned on a non-confidence motion their leader snuck by the Liberals before the break calling on the "government to resign." Despite Liberal efforts to fend it off, the Tories are confident this motion will come to a vote the week of May 16-20, probably on May 18.

According to the Standing Orders, or rules of the House of Commons, such a motion must be debated for three hours. The Tories already debated it for nearly two hours on April 22, and now the government must bring it back within 10 sitting days to finish it off.

The last hour will be debated on Friday, April 13. The vote will then be deferred to the following Tuesday or Wednesday, because votes never take place on Fridays

Conservative MP Chuck Strahl, who is deputy Speaker and one of Parliament's most knowledgeable MPs when it comes to the arcane world of House procedure, admitted that the chief government whip could delay the vote for a day or two, but no more.

"The whip can stand up before the mace and postpone the vote for a day or two. But that's the maximum," he said, confidently adding Mr. Harper's motion must come to a head within the next three weeks.

"It seems to me that it's likely that [the vote] would come within 10 or 12 [sitting] days of when we come back," he said, adding that the vote could take place on May 17 or May 18.

Debate is raging in the corridors of Parliament over whether this motion  inspired by a similar motion used by the Conservative Party in 1926 that forced Liberal prime minister Mackenzie King to quit  would be binding. Mr. Strahl certainly thinks it should be.

"If that passes I don't think the government can ignore it," he said. "If they start ignoring direct non-confidence measures it would be pretty profound. I don't see how you could claim to have confidence of the House when it has just explicitly passed non confidence."

When asked about the motion last week, the government's House leader, Tony Valeri, became cagey. He acknowledged the basic rules governing Mr. Harper's motion but said he won't tip his hand on his next move.

"I can't nor will I get into the overall strategy of my House management in response to these opposition non-confidence motions," he told The Hill Times, adding, "We've got some options. We're going to explore those options. I expect the opposition parties will do their own exploring with whatever options they see fit."

The Tories have two other non-confidence motions on the go, but these stand little chance of coming to a quick vote. That's because debate on them hasn't started yet, and the Liberals managed to line up several of their own motions that must be debated first that will eat up the next two weeks of House time.

But the procedural wrangling over these opposition motions may prove moot if the Liberal government's budget implementation bill, C-43, rears its head in the House soon. This is a definite possibility.

Mr. Valeri said on Friday that his plan is to bring it back to the House this week, once he has figured out how the legislation will reflect last week's deal reached with the NDP to add $4.6-billion in new spending for various social causes.

"I would expect the bill to be back this week," said Mr. Valeri. When asked what he'll do if the Tories and Bloc don't put up any speakers to C-43, allowing debate to collapse and trigger a vote, the minister said he expects MPs from his party and the NDP will want to speak to it.

He stressed a vote on C-43 will come sooner rather than later because he wants the legislation adopted by the time Parliament adjourns on June 23.

Where's Kilgour?

One of the three Independent MPs the Liberal government may need to survive a non-confidence motion probably won't be in the House should the vote take place the week of May 16 to May 20, as expected.

Former Liberal MP David Kilgour will be in Asia for a lengthy junket to Vietnam and Taiwan, confirmed his Hill office last week.

The jet-setting MP was on a private trip to North Africa last week. One of his Hill staffers said he is scheduled back in Canada on Sunday evening, May 1, but will leave for his Asia trip on May 15 for up to five weeks.

Meanwhile, the 99-member Conservative caucus, which has the support of the 54-member Bloc caucus, has a number motions at play in Parliament designed to put it in a position to bring down the government. The vote could come sooner than later, but many believe it will take place the week Mr. Kilgour will be away.

Mr. Kilgour's vote is key given the combined Liberal-NDP vote adds up to only 150, three short of the combined Tory-Bloc vote.

It's also not clear how Independent MP Chuck Cadman will vote. He first said he would support the government, then said he would support the Conservatives. Then late last week he said he was undecided.

As for Ontario Independent MP Carolyn Parrish, a former Liberal, she has said she would vote with her former Liberal colleagues.

Mr. Kilgour has waffled on whether he would support the Liberals in a non-confidence vote. He quit the Liberal caucus to sit as an Independent last month in the wake of damning allegations about corruption and kickbacks made about the Liberal Party at the Gomery Inquiry into the sponsorship scandal.

"It's not just Gomery," he said, "It's just about everything. There are a whole lot of issues where I am increasingly out of sync with the government," and describing his time with the Liberal Party as a "bad marriage."

The situation is very tense in Parliament and all MPs are on high alert for a snap vote. Prime Minister Paul Martin even cancelled a three-day trip to the Netherlands beginning May 7 to attend ceremonies commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Dutch and Soviet liberation during the Second World War.

Veterans Affairs Minister Albina Guarnieri said last week she still planned to make the trip but expected to take a return red eye flight at a moment's notice.

All eyes will also be on Tory MPs David Chatters and Darrel Stinson because both are ill and undergoing cancer treatment. When contacted by The Hill Times, staffers in both offices said the MPs are on notice "day-to-day" and couldn't confirm whether they would be in the House for upcoming votes.

Mr. Chatters has renal cancer and is undergoing experimental treatment right now. One of his staffers said his boss "plans to be in the House for major votes. That's the intent."

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.

Many observers believe the procedural manoeuvres Mackenzie King used nearly eight decades ago are about to be revisited onto the House of Commons as Martin's Liberals desperately use every trick in the book to stave off a spring election.

However, few if anyone, believes Mr. Martin will resign or try to dissolve Parliament, as did Mackenzie King, if his gambit fails.

Still, it's worth noting that Mackenzie King eventually prevailed over his old adversary, Arthur Meighen. After Mackenzie King resigned, Arthur Meighen formed the government but was defeated three days later on a motion of censure.

In the ensuing election, Mackenzie King's Liberals were brought back to power with a majority government.

francoli@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by St Leo
2. Tories have decided that it's possible for procedural motions to be non-confidence votes, and are hoping to bring down the government with one even before the budget. Legal experts disagree.

You mean Liberal party hacks who would trash Parliament if it meant keeping control of the PMO?

Do I smell smoke?

3. Ed Broadbent is retiring from politics again.

That is a loss. I wish he and his wife the best.

[St Leo]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050506/PROCEDURE06/TPNational/Canada

Queen's University professor C.E.S. Franks, author of The Parliament of Canada, said it is "doubtful" the motion is a matter of confidence because it is essentially procedural, and "it's clear that procedural motions cannot be motions of confidence."

He said the Governor-General would have the right to intervene only if the Prime Minister ignored an explicit no-confidence motion or was defeated on the budget.

Ms. Clarkson can meet with the opposition but only takes advice from the Prime Minister, Mr. Franks said.

At issue is a motion calling on the House to direct the Commons finance committee to amend a report from last year to include language calling on the government to resign because it failed to implement most of the committee's recommendations in the 2005 budget.

[notyoueither]

Right. The Commons passes a motion that asks the government to resign, but that's not a loss of confidence. Strange world that, and certainly not the one King lived in.

It should be pointed out that the motion in question is only necessary since the government is shielding itself by not allowing opposition days.

At any rate, Martin hanging on in the event would be even better for Harper and the Conservatives. The controversy would be enormous, I should think, and might have a very large impact in the next election.

I want a change of government, and I don't care if it would be an NDP-Bloc coalition that gave the Liberals the boot, so Mr. Martin should go for it. I hope he shreds the last vestiges of the illusion that he gives a damn about 'the democratic defecit'.

[St Leo]

http://www.andrewspicer.com/article543.html

Via Andrew Coyne, I've found a Diane Francis interview with Harper in which he lists off democratic reforms he's interested in.

Here's the list, with my comments on some in italics:

• An elected Senate -- Unless he wins a constitutional amendment (which we all know is very unlikely and would certainly be unpleasant), this will mean electing senators to fill new seats as they come up, and leaving the provincial allocations the same. Who is this going to please?


• Elimination of gerrymandering and restoration of the principle of representation by population -- I haven't seen much evidence or complaints of gerrymandering in Canada. I wonder what he's referring to? As for rep-by-pop, I'm all for that. I'm sure his supporters would also be thrilled. If the seats were allocated by population, Ontario would have 119 instead of 106. The western four provinces would have 92, instead of the... er... 92 that they already have. The change would also concentrate votes in urban areas, which are currently under-represented. I'm sure the country can be united around a more-seats-for-Toronto policy!


• A ban on non-confidence motions except on budgets or if campaign pledges are broken -- I suppose this is meant for minority governments, but it is very weird. First, it would eliminate some of the tactics that Harper is using now. More oddly, it would seem to elevate a minority government to near-majorty status. After all, the government would be able to introduce anything they had promised in the campaign and demand it be passed.


• Ratification by Parliament of Supreme Court appointments


• Elimination of the large number of discretionary patronage appointments


• Parliamentary committee approval for appointments


• Fixed terms for elections, unless there is a minority government -- It took me some time to get used to this idea, but now that we have it in Ontario, I like it.


• New procurement policies that ensure arm's length transactions


• A realignment of taxation powers so that the provinces can meet their spending responsibilities in health, education and welfare and not have to beg Ottawa for funds -- Translation: devolving tax points to the individual provinces. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this policy has winners and losers...

In the article, Harper also promises serious tax reductions and measures to "clean up the government" to prevent future scandals like the current one. He reiterates his civil unions position for same-sex relationships and says the Kyoto targets are unattainable. Oddly, he accuses Jack Layton of being a weasel who will bail out of his agreement with Paul Martin.

[St Leo]

Ian Welsh wrote:

Andrew Spicer's got up a nice article on some of the things Harper wants to do. But, and Andrew's on my "must read" list, I think Andrew misses the point of a lot of it.

Let's start with this (Andrew's comments are in italics)

A ban on non-confidence motions except on budgets or if campaign pledges are broken -- I suppose this is meant for minority governments, but it is very weird. First, it would eliminate some of the tactics that Harper is using now. More oddly, it would seem to elevate a minority government to near-majorty status. After all, the government would be able to introduce anything they had promised in the campaign and demand it be passed

It's not about minority governments. It's about breaking the power of the Prime Minister. Remember when Martin had taken control of the Liberal caucus and Chretien brought them back in line by making bills confidence motions? Harper and the Reform crowd have always wanted a weaker federal government with much stronger MP's and thus stronger regional representation. Breaking the "Prime Minister is dictator" role is absolutely necessary tot his.

Elimination of gerrymandering and restoration of the principle of representation by population -- I haven't seen much evidence or complaints of gerrymandering in Canada. I wonder what he's referring to? As for rep-by-pop, I'm all for that. I'm sure his supporters would also be thrilled. If the seats were allocated by population, Ontario would have 119 instead of 106. The western four provinces would have 92, instead of the... er... 92 that they already have. The change would also concentrate votes in urban areas, which are currently under-represented. I'm sure the country can be united around a more-seats-for-Toronto policy!

I agree this one is odd. I suspect, however, that this is his way of moving power away from the Maritimes. And population growth in Alberta and BC - the heartland of the new Conservative party, is very strong. It's strongest in places that are weakest for the Conservatives, however. It's things like these that make me say that Harper is a man of principle - he's partisan, but not a partisan hack.

Ratification by Parliament of Supreme Court appointments.
Elimination of the large number of discretionary patronage appointments.
Parliamentary committee approval for appointments.

Further weakening the Prime Minister.

Fixed terms for elections, unless there is a minority government -- It took me some time to get used to this idea, but now that we have it in Ontario, I like it.

The ability to choose when the election occurs is a big advantage to the incumbent government, but I suspect this is another case of principles.

A realignment of taxation powers so that the provinces can meet their spending responsibilities in health, education and welfare and not have to beg Ottawa for funds -- Translation: devolving tax points to the individual provinces. Love it or hate it, you have to admit this policy has winners and losers...

Again - weakening the federal government. Right now the Federal government gets the provinces to do things by offering money - "do it and we'll give you money. You like money, right?"

More than that it's a way of reducing or eliminating transfer payments. Harper knows he can't do it directly and be electable - but if the Feds don't have the money, they can't share it. And this will have a big effect - the poorest provinces have less than half the GDP per capita of the richest - thrown back mainly on their own resources, they will have a lot less money.

The effect of Harper's policies will be to radically decrease the power of the Prime Minister and of the centeral Federal government and to increase the power of the provinces, especially the richer provinces. Reduced transfer payments will induce increased internal emigration - primarily from the Maritimes to Toronto, Montreal and the West. Assuming the Ontario, Alberta and BC governments have sense, they'll use the money they have on their cities and other immigration hot spots, and try and be ready for the increased influx of people.

Harper's not an idiot. These policies may be about "democracy" but they will have far reaching economic as well as political effects which people should think on now.

Because I don't want to be here in ten years saying "I told you so." If these are the consequences you want - fine.

But please be aware that these are the consequences. The Conservative "hidden" agenda isn't that they want to deny gays marriage, that fight's one they've already lost - it's that they want an end to the strong Federal state.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Right. The Commons passes a motion that asks the government to resign, but that's not a loss of confidence.

Actually, they're trying to get the Commons to pass a motion telling the finance committee to tell the government to resign. Not quite the same thing. The only definition of a confidence vote that I could find goes as follows:

There are only three categories of confidence votes. Franks said the one scheduled by May 18 doesn't fall into any of the following:

-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://news.channels.netscape.ca/news/article.adp?id=20050506193809990006

[KrazyHorse]

I wish I could find a better source for this stuff

[Spiffor]

Do you canucks have an election every year? It seems like yesterday since the time where most of you had the avatar of their party.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Do you canucks have an election every year? It seems like yesterday since the time where most of you had the avatar of their party.

We're in minority government territory right now. It's very unstable. When we have a majority government (most of the time) we have elections every 4 years or so (the legal maximum for a government's term is 5 years, but most majority governments choose to call after 4 years, unless they feel like they're in real trouble).

[KrazyHorse]

Having said that, there are definite scenarios that could lead to an election call – and we begin with the three kinds of confidence votes:

1. The defeat of a major set piece of legislation automatically triggers a visit to the Governor General. The speech from the throne and the federal budget would be the most obvious examples, but the defeat of any major bill that reflects the government's program could meet the standard, too.

2. The government can declare beforehand that a vote on even a minor piece of legislation amounts to a vote of confidence. Normally, a minor vote on a budget amendment or a procedural motion would not be a vote of confidence, so a defeat would not necessarily trigger an election in five weeks. But if the government wants to go to the polls, it can attach a confidence designation to anything it wants.

3. The opposition can introduce an amendment to a motion (even a minor motion) that explicitly says the government does not have the confidence of the House. Opposition parties control the parliamentary agenda on opposition days in the Commons, so this is the best chance for them to bring forward something like this.

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

The key here is what language is in the amendment, nye. Does it "state explicitly" that the government does not have the confidence of the House, or does it just ask the finance committee to ask the government to resign? Those are two different things.

[Agathon]

Polls have the Liberals ahead by five points.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Do you canucks have an election every year? It seems like yesterday since the time where most of you had the avatar of their party.

Just wanted to add one more thing: the minority government situation right now is possibly the most unstable minority government Canada has ever seen. The 3 independent MPs in the House of Commons can literally make or break the government.